Kat’s Film and Book Reviews

Image courtesy of GraceUnderFire.com

What Happened to Lani Garver

By Carol Plum-Ucci

2002

Claire is recovering from leukemia and has missed 7^th and 8^th grades. It’s understandable that she’d find herself where she is, among people who like her but extract a high price for social acceptance. She doesn’t see it that way, of course; her anorexia and suicidal lyrics are secrets she keeps from everyone. But what can she do? She missed those vital years after elementary school but before high school when interests were peeking out and social groups were solidifying. Desperate for acceptance, she clings to the mixed-blessing of friendship with the popular crowd.

Carol Plum-Ucci has created a complex world of adolescent terror, tearing social fabric, sexual inquisitivenss, thoughtless violence, and all manner of complex and potentially destructive relationships. She captures the centrality of a teenager’s friends, the givenness of alcohol and drugs for most teens, and the resonating effects of a critical illness years after it was supposed to be over and done with. But her novel, centered on sixteen year old Claire, is filled with hope, and light filters through the darkness. Claire’s name seems to be deliberately chosen.

The catalyst for the events of the novel is the presence of a new kid in the high school. The most obvious factor about the new student is his sexual ambiguity—is he a boy or a girl? He is tall with broad shoulders, but slender with a “swishy” walk. He has no chest to speak of, but his hair is long and frames his delicate features. And, to make it worse, his name is Lani. “It’s L-A-N-I, but he said you pronounce it Lonny.”

Claire eventually decides he is a boy, though Lani never confirms or denies. Lani seems so clueless and so asking-for-a-beating that all of Claire’s compassionate instincts are aroused and she takes it upon herself to stand by him, hoping that her popularity will buy Lani some safety. But Claire soon finds that every encounter and every conversation with Lani challenges her and calls into serious question both the assumptions and the choices she’s made.

Lani’s role in Claire’s life begins to become clearer when he takes her to an inner city clinic because she is afraid her leukemia is relapsing and she cannot confide in he parents. There she encounters people with AIDS, street people, and city people…actors and musicians and nurses and doctors. She starts to make connections that were impossible in her small town, and which teach her more about herself than she ever understood. And one clinic nurse tells her, “You need to go out there in the waiting room and find yourself a floating angel.”

Claire, of course, thinks he’s speaking figuratively, but he’s not.

“They come with you on visits like these. They hold your hand and they tell you good stuff and make sense of this world so you realize it’s not so bad—”

“Oh, I came with a friend. He’s out there.” I jerked my thumb toward the waiting room. “Thinks he’s at a family reunion. Not much help.”

“That’s cuz he’s a friend. Floating angels aren’t friends; they’re real angels. They’re real. Didn’t you see any of ‘em out there?”

“Uh, no. What do they look like?”

“Like faggots.”

My eyebrows shot up. I waited for him to laugh, but he was slick. He kept banging stuff around on his cart and whistling until I cracked up, and then he looked all surprised.

“What are you laughing at? There’s nothing funny about that. Not if you got your common sense working. Angels don’t have a gender. Remember that from church school?”

“I’m Protestant,” I responded. “We’ve got no-frills religion. No angels, no art, no saints, no Mary—”

“That’s not Protestant. That’s just white-people trash,” he informed me. “Angels don’t have a gender, so what they gonna look like?”

That’s the question, and Claire goes back and forth on it. Is asexual Lani—both strong and sensitive, both fearless and gentle—is he a floating angel, sent into Claire’s life to guide her? She certainly could use some guidance, considering that the people who should be watching out for her have completely let her down. Or is he just a kind-hearted but stupid gay kid unlucky enough to land in a town full of rednecks and closet-gays who will assault him to protect their secrets?

While Claire is working that out, all sorts of questions about cultural attitudes toward masculinity and femininity get played out. Claire develops anorexia because she considers herself too tall to be feminine—she literally tries to reduce herself. And Lani attracts the violence of the athletic boys simply because his masculinity includes enjoying lovely things and moving with grace.

This is an excellent book for high-schoolers, especially as it handles themes concerning religion, sexuality, and justice. I would not recommend it for middle-schoolers, who may be unfamiliar with many of the more esoteric elements of gay culture teased out in this book (gay porn, for example), and might find the violence confusing or disturbing. But older teens will find it challenging and disquieting, in a good way.

In the end, we don’t know much more about Lani than we did at the beginning. We don’t know for sure if he was gay, or even if he was really a boy. And we don’t know if he’s an angel. But we do know that he touched Claire’s life, wrestled with her like the angel wrestled with Jacob at the river. And like Jacob’s angel, he left her a little bit wounded, but infinitely blessed.

So far we have Harvey and The Diary of Anne Frank, but believe me, there are more to come.  For example, here’s a weird one…

Variety is reporting that Disney is planning to remake the 1968 Beatles psychedelic animated movie Yellow Submarine.  It will be directed by Robert Zemeckis. 

They say that they do plan to keep the Beatles songs in it.  Okay…but why?  Who in the world thought this would be a good idea?  This film isn’t conducive to remaking–there are no universal themes or timeless ideals.  It’s just 60’s songs and weird animation that nobody can bear to watch anymore. 

I honest to God do not know what goes on in Hollywood.  Aren’t there people who get paid to think of things?  They should be fired.

Variety reported yesterday that Disney Co has acquired the rights to the Diary of Anne Frank, and intends to remake it.

Okay…I can live with that.  It’s a story that needs to be told.  There are a lot of scary things going on in the world, and we need to be reminded what regular people like the Franks went through, and still go through.  I’m not sure I entirely trust Disney with it,  but they’re more than Hannah Montana, so it might be okay.

But…they’ve given the project to David Mamet.

I know, right?  Him?

I mean, he’s all about 20th century male angst, right?

What’s he going to bring to a story of a young girl’s transition into womanhood under impossible circumstances?  How is he going to teach us the lessons her life has to offer?

Maybe he can do it.  I hope so.  For Anne’s sake.

This is one of the top 100 movie quotes of all time.  Do you know where it’s from?

This is the people’s war!  It is our war!  We are the fighters!  Fight it, then!  Fight it with all that is in us, and may God defend the right.

Imag courtesy of FilmDope.com

This is creating a lot of buzz…and a lot of it isn’t supportive.  Steven Spielberg plans to remake the classic 1950 movie, Harvey, which starred Jimmy Stewart and Josephine Hull.

The questions buzzing out there are, “Who could possibly hope to replace Jimmy Stewart in this role”  and “Who would even dare to try?”

Film lovers are understandably nervous.  It IS somewhat reassuring that the project’s going to be in the hands of Spielberg, who is one of the best filmmakers of this generation, and has a proven track record.  I’d feel even better if it were in Peter Jackson’s or Tim Burton’s hands, but I would settle for Spielberg without too many reservations. 

Besides the obvious casting questions (and Hull’s not going to be easy to recast, either–her role is almost as iconic as Stewart’s), the anxiety also seems to center around questions of updating.  Can you update Harvey and still have it be Harvey?  Will there be sex, CGI, or action sequences?  (I am squeezing my eyes shut, crossing my fingers, and whispering, “please, please please, don’t let Spielberg put those things in.”)

For those of you who don’t know the story (because you apparently grew up at sea with no satellite), it centers on a middle-aged man named Elwood P. Dowd (“here’s my card…”).  Elwood is charming and social, drinks constantly, and has a true love of his fellow human beings.  He’s liked wherever he goes.  His sister, Vera, however, is embarassed by him, because Elwood’s constant companion is a 6 foot tall invisible white rabbit named Harvey.  The play centers around the “sane” people’s dilemma of what to do about Elwood and his “delusions.”  Elwood’s character is innocent and open, and the whole film rests on the fact that he sure doesn’t seem delusional. 

In the film community, the consensus seems to be, “Just leave it the heck alone, but if you can’t, you’d better do it right!”

I completely agree with that, leaning more toward “leave it the heck alone.”  Can’t some things just stand as they are?  Does everything have to be “fixed,” “improved,” “remade?”  Do we even have the capability of doing justice to Elwood P. Dowd anymore?

Image Courtesy of 353 Reviews

But, okay, say that Spielberg loves this story and these characters as much as the rest of us do.  It’s possible.  So, he has to start casting it.

The pivotal question is, who could play Elwood P. Dowd?  Other roles matter, too, such as his sister, Vera and his niece, Myrtle Mae.  But I want to know what you think about Elwood most of all.

I can only think of one actor at the moment who could oull it off. Well, actually, two.. but hear me out before you freak out, okay? 

One is Steve Carell.  He’s funny, but he’s a GREAT actor when he’s allowed to play it straight.  Think of Dan in Real Life.  He was funny but not slapstick, poignant, desperate, deep, hopeful, and slightly pathetic.  He even brings a lot of that pathos to his role as Michael Scott in The Office, who anyone else would make us hate, but in Carell’s hands, we actually kind of like him even as we pity him.  Carrell could do it. 

The other one (we’re not freaking out, remember?) that I think could do it is Jim Carrey.  Again, when he’s not constrained by this stupid box Hollywood has put him in, he’s a very good actor.  Think of The Man in the Moon. Let him play it straight, and he’s got depth and charm there.

I can’t think of any other possibilities that are the right age.  It has to be someone who can do both comedy and depth–those actors are a rare breed.  I can think of a few older men who can do it–like Anthony Hopkins or Chris Cooper–but they’re too old.  John Travolta was in talks for it a while back, but that expired, and he’s not going to get it…thank GOD!  WIlliam H. Macy would be okay, but he’s too old.  Not that that will stop Hollywood.

So, who do you think?  Give me some ideas!

Do You Know the Monkey Man?

By Dori Hillestad Butler

Peachtree Press

2005

Image courtesy of Scholastic

Girls need their dads. I’ve said it for a long time, and every bit of research I’ve ever conducted backs it up. Girls need their dads, and some other “father figure,” while he can be supportive, isn’t the same. I’ve seen so much damage wrought in the lives of girls and young women because of the absence, neglect, or bad behavior of fathers.

This is the situation that thirteen-year-old Samantha finds herself in. Her family’s defining event is the death of her twin sister when they were both three, which resulted in her parents’ divorce. Her father left and only contacted her once in the decade since. Now Sam’s mom is getting married again.

Her mom, Suzanne, wants Sam to accept her fiancé, Bob, as her new father. The adults have even talked about Bob adopting Sam, but Sam resists that idea. She has a father, though her mother will never talk about him. Her mother never talks about the other sister, Sarah, either, though Sam is full of questions about the life they used to all have together.

Suzanne’s actions are understandable; she is still reeling ten years later, from the death of one child, and she clings to the other one as closely as possible. She still blames her ex-husband for Sarah’s death, so she is glad to have him out of their lives. She wants Sam to love the man she herself loves, so she pushes more than she should. But she never answers questions, and unanswered questions don’t go away. They just sneak around behind your back.

Which is what Sam does, because girls needs their dads, and Sam is determined to find hers. As a desperate last resort, she visits a psychic, who gives her alarming news, but not about her father. She tells her that her sister is still alive.

The rest of the novel unfolds as Sam becomes obsessed with the impossible idea that her twin sister could be alive. Her mother sees it as a form of painful acting out, and tensions between the two run high. Sam is finally able to find her father, and we learn the mystery of what really happened in those days surrounding her sister’s death ten years ago.

The mystery is satisfying, in that it’s always better to know the truth than not know it. Middle school readers will love the gradual revelations, and they will certainly relate to the feelings of frustration Sam feels at being treated like a child too young to know difficult truths. As a parent, I found the key to it all…appalling would not be too strong a word. Butler captures the feelings of both adults and children very well in her writing, and both are sympathetic, but only an adult can possibly understand the complications that would result from the book’s resolution.