Katharine Yee's Open Salon Blog

Kindling: Napoleon for Dummies

Sat, 4 Feb 2012 21:02:07 -0500

As a continuation of my last post “Book Me: Reading, Buying, & Saving Books”, I’ve decided to add this new series of what I’m reading and where I’ve acquired the book.

So what’s currently fired up on my Kindle? It’s “Napoleon for Dummies” by J. David Markham. As with all books in the Dummies series, it comes in that unaesthetic yellow cover and the writing style is sprinkled with verbal informalities like: “Okay, so Napoleon is a pretty big deal” or “[Napoleon’s mistress] Pauline Foures was a very attractive 29-year-old leggy blond…” Egads!, come to think of it, it's written in a very "bloggy" style.

Why this book and why Kindle it? Like most Americans, I have an imperfect knowledge of world history. What I knew about Napoleon, you could fit in a peanut shell. This was an embarrassing fact I had to remedy, particularly if I was going to really enjoy the upcoming screening of Abel Gance’s silent film epic of Napoleon this spring (March 24, 25, 31, April 1 only) at the Oakland Paramount Theatre. (Don’t miss it by the way! It’s the restored five-plus-hours version by Kevin Brownlow -- not on DVD and not showing anywhere else. Carl Davis will be conducting a live orchestra.)

Fearing that a serious biography of Napoleon would go way over my head, I opted for the Dummies version. It’s informative and I already relish what I’ve read. For instance:

• Napoleon wasn’t that short – probably 5’ 6” which is in the James Cagney and Alan Ladd range. You don’t have to be Abe Lincoln to change the world.

• Napoleon was crazy about his wife Josephine, but she wasn’t so devoted to him. While he was away at war, she took up with other lovers.

• Napoleon wasn’t born in France. He was Corsican (Corsica is that island west of Italy) and had to learn French in school where he was ridiculed for his thick Corsican accent.

There’s definitely more to this complex man and I’m only a third of the way through the book so far. It can be quite a page-turner and, literally, I find myself reaching up to the top of the page to flip (!) to the next. But of course, I’m reading it on a Kindle screen and have to tap my way forward instead.

I don’t mind that it’s not a physical book. If you’re a book lover, it means that your house is already full of them. “Napoleon for Dummies” was not one that would beautify my shelves with its highlighter yellow cover so I opted for the digital format. The book includes some illustrations and color photographs that come through just fine on the Kindle screen and I don’t feel as if I’ve missed out at all. More importantly, I’ve saved some space in my house for some other beloved book that I will acquire in the future.

BOOK ME: Reading, Buying, & Saving Books

Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:02:09 -0500

When I look back on my life, some of the happiest parts have been spent browsing bookshelves in libraries and stores and the subsequent hours of reading. But I must confess that I’m not a purist. I own a Kindle – in fact, with the recent release of the Kindle Fire, I now own two. Do I feel guilty about it? Well, how could I? Anything that allows me access to literature that I can tailor to my interests and invigorate my mind is a good thing.

Nevertheless, I haven’t abandoned the wondrous and irreplaceable presence of physical books in my life. Even though once mighty chain stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble have disappeared from the San Francisco scene, my pockets are continually rifled for what dollars I can spare and greedily afford at Green Apple Books, Books Inc., or City Lights. I refuse to resign myself to the very real fact that Walgreens is the only mainstream source for books at any given moment, in any given neighborhood.

And yet, while I know what squeezed book chains out of the city and what threatens independent sellers still, I am also a regular patron of Amazon.com. Not only for Kindle purchases, but for the increasingly quaint formats of hardbacks and paperbound copies. Do I feel bad about that either? Well, no, not exactly. Because when you’ve trawled Amazon from your computer in the wee hours of the morning in your pajamas and you find exactly the right book for someone through Amazon.co.uk and have it directly dispatched to your friend in London – well, that’s a very handsome service, n’est-ce pas? It feels very civilized in fact – almost 84 Charing Cross Road civilized.

It must be said that Amazon has also disappointed greatly in the past. Often, I’ve thought that Amazon even hates books – physical books, I mean. I’ve ordered expensive coffee-table-quality volumes that are so carelessly packaged that their corners are dinged in transit and arrive resembling squishy elephant folds – just heartbreaking. I have pained thoughts about how wasteful it was to ruin the once glorious book, now rendered grotesque. Damaged books have to be sent back and replaced, but you’re praying that the new copy doesn’t arrive as the first did.

The worst Amazon offense occurred when I ordered Amy Lawrence’s biography of Montgomery Clift and film historian Kevin Brownlow’s book “The Search for Charlie Chaplin”. On their arrival, I opened the box and pulled out the contents, and the books smelled distinctly and unmistakably of strawberry jam. I kid you not! The books had literally become the slices of bread, sandwiched together with sticky jam. I’m guessing that the Amazon packager was snacking while fulfilling my order (p.b. and j? jelly doughnut? I leave you to guess). But it wasn’t just handling the books with grubby digits – the packager had also gone through the added trouble of placing the books on a sheet of cardboard and shrink-wrapping the whole bundle in plastic. So ironically, the books did not shift in transit and there were no dinged corners.

I cannot forget, however, that Amazon was my source for the Harry Potter books when I would wait for the latest installment to reach my Smeagol-like possession (yes, I’m mixing fantasy franchise allusions here). The books would come in their own packaging adorned with illustrations by Mary GrandPré, and they arrived on Saturdays (their designated release days). The Fed Ex trucks would be delivering up and down the neighborhood blocks all day to other Harry Potter fanatics. Those are days I doubt I shall ever see again for many reasons – because of the nature of the publishing world, shipping costs, and the oncoming imperative of digital books, just to name a few.

While I depend on bookstores and Amazon for new releases, out-of-print and obscure titles are usually covered by eBay, Alibris.com, and memberships with the public library and the Mechanics’ Institute here in San Francisco. The public library is free, but the other sources are not. How a girl can financially keep up the publishing, librarying, and book mongering worlds AND have enough to eat by and maybe get a stick of lip gloss, I don’t know. But it happens.

Ultimately, it’s about words – their beauty, timelessness, nostalgia, presence, and power. It’s about the ravenous need to consume them, fire imaginations, spawn pale imitations, inspire greater works, and propel the human race onwards.

I don’t believe books will go the way of the horse and carriage, typesetting, and 35mm film cameras – at least not truly. And if I’m wrong, I will try to stave off the siege, for as long as possible.

TCM ALERT: “The Constant Nymph”

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:09:03 -0400

Watch It: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 (5pm, PT or 8pm, ET)

Joan Fontaine’s best roles are as heroines with unreliable lovers. In REBECCA (1940), she marries Laurence Olivier before finding out that he’s covering up his part in the death of his first wife. In SUSPICION (1941), husband Cary Grant may very well be trying to kill her. In JANE EYRE (1943), her sardonic employer and true love Orson Welles is secreting his insane wife upstairs. And in LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN (1948), she’s in love with playboy Louis Jourdan who doesn’t remember her nor does he realize that he’s fathered a child with her. Though the love stories are twisted, Fontaine usually emerges as a bright-eyed lass of fervent yearning and pure-hearted devotion.

On September 28, TCM will be showing Fontaine’s rarely-screened film, THE CONSTANT NYMPH (1943). It’s one of those movies that has copyright and legal issues behind the scenes, making it a huge disappointment for fans clamoring to see Fontaine in her third Oscar-nominated performance. NYMPH is based on the novel by Margaret Kennedy and was previously adapted to the big screen in 1928 and 1933. It’s about a 14-year-old girl named Tessa who falls for a composer. The composer in the 1943 version is played by Charles Boyer who made a successful career as unreliable lovers in classics like ALGIERS (1938) and GASLIGHT (1944). Boyer treats Tessa (Fontaine) as a favorite mascot or kid sister, as he should, considering Tessa’s age. But he is the romantic figure of Tessa’s heart and will thwart her love, unknowingly, by marrying someone else.

THE CONSTANT NYMPH shares a good bit with Fontaine’s other seldom-screened film (at least in the U.S.), LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN. She plays girls in both films, dressed in braids and form-obscuring dresses. The characterization might easily seem embarrassingly comedic as it purposely is for Ginger Rogers in THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR (1942). In that film, Rogers masquerades as a 12-year-old, with a pouty voice and balloon in hand, to qualify for a reduced train ticket. It’s not at all about representing the girl at heart.

Joan Fontaine’s winsome portrayals, however, are more akin to those of Mary Pickford who famously played spirited youngsters in such films as THE POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL (1917), STELLA MARIS (1918), DADDY-LONG-LEGS (1919), and even LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY (1921). In seeing Fontaine and Pickford as children, we are inclined to side with them because they are unaffected and free of all the artifices of womanhood with its makeup, seductive wardrobes, and overt sexuality. A love that is born in a girl’s heart and maintained over the test of time and hardship is valued as premium emotion over the racy passions of a society woman. In NYMPH, Alexis Smith plays the fashionable femme who captures Boyer’s heart, thus leaving Fontaine to love in secret.

Fontaine’s chemistry with her leading men doesn’t drive the success of her performances. Her talent is in making you believe how love infuses her existence. It throbs in her veins and compels her to stand in the line of fire, even as her lovers disappoint her.

In LETTER and NYMPH, love is crippled by health issues. Fontaine only reveals the truth to her lover in LETTER, when she is stricken with typhus. And in NYMPH, Tessa suffers from a heart condition, the seriousness of which she attempts to conceal, along with her feelings for Boyer. By the end of the film, even I had heart palpitations!

Romantic melodrama doesn’t have to be as epic in history or as visually sweeping as GONE WITH THE WIND. THE CONSTANT NYMPH quickens the heart and stirs the soul by earnestly appealing to that memory or that yearning for someone unspoiled and unconditionally luminous, guiding us to the best versions of ourselves. Of course, the dramatic hitch is timing, and, here, it gets a killer treatment, memorably and deftly orchestrated to leave Fontaine, Boyer, and the audience all aflutter.

###

Related Blog Postings:

• “Star Quality: Joan Fontaine”, October 24, 2008

http://open.salon.com/blog/katharine_yee/2008/10/23/star_quality_joan_fontaine

• “Letter From An Unknown Woman”, March 25, 2010

http://open.salon.com/blog/katharine_yee/2010/03/25/tcm_allert_letter_from_an_unknown_woman

Harry Potter’s Legacy in Film

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:07:19 -0400

Though J.K. Rowling has announced Pottermore.com and the Harry Potter theme park has opened in Orlando, something very important will be coming to a close when the final installment of the film adaptations, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 2, is released this Friday, July 15. As with the publication of the last book, fans are saying goodbye to the beloved characters after watching the boy wizard and his loyal friends grow from pre-teens to adulthood. We know that they’ve come to the defining graduation of their young lives -- not from Hogwarts Academy but in confronting ubervillain Voldemort in his full powers and without Dumbledore. It prompts us to be nostalgic. We want to go back to a time when fallen heroes were with us still and the fate of the world didn’t have to be so conclusive. And unlike popular cinema heroes like James Bond, Harry Potter will not return. THE DEATHLY HALLOWS is where J.K. Rowling intended us to leave him and leave him we must.

The films have achieved a rare feat of continuity with its casting. Every pivotal actor has stayed with the series except for Richard Harris who appeared as Dumbledore for the first two films before dying unexpectedly. The role was recast with Michael Gambon who has the distinction of being Hogwarts’ Headmaster for the majority of the series. The appearance of Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Rupert Grint as Ron, and Emma Watson as Hermione is a particular achievement. Not all child actors can hold on in the business for such a length of time and with appropriate levels of skill. The first film, HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE came out in 2001. The last comes ten years later. The kids performed in scenes with the likes of Gambon, Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Kenneth Branagh, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes, and Helena Bonham Carter, and they did it without seeming to be insufferable “gits”, onscreen or off. To put it another way, they didn’t become junior Posh Spice and David Beckhams.

Keeping the cast plush with some of Britain’s best actors and filming in the UK also make the films worth their weight in Gringotts gold. Overwhelming the productions with American touches wouldn’t have been true to the original books. Americans have an unfortunate tendency to be heavy-handed with cuteness, slapstick humor, and flamboyant action. The HP films were allowed an earnestness, wit, and an economy of sentimentality in the long tradition of British drama. And what a relief not to see anyone badly affecting an accent!

As a film series, the Harry Potters boast more titles than Indy Jones, Star Wars, or the Lord of the Rings. As films representing a literary legacy, it’s more popular than Narnia and less lugubrious and labored than LOTR. The HP series appeals to a vast demographic of children and adults and easily straddles the modern Muggle or human world with the magical.

Fans have ravenously lined up, millions have been made, and each installment faithfully follows J.K. Rowling’s vision as laid out in her books. But a simple question remains: “Are the films any good as films?”

Though Oscar nominated for its musical score by John Williams, its Art Direction by Stuart Craig, and its cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel (HALF-BLOOD PRINCE) among other technical nominations, the series has never been nominated for Best Director or Best Picture, unlike the LOTR films. Still, I would venture to guess that the Harry Potters will get many more multiple screenings per fan than LOTR ever will. The nature of the HPs’ dramatic presentation is much more pleasurable. They have more humor, more variance of talent behind the camera, and a breathable, more coherent story layout.

The HPs don’t have the upstart, inventive kick of STAR WARS: EPISODE FOUR, the quotable iconicism of THE GODFATHER, or the real-life weightiness of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. But they are nobly-rendered and sturdy dramas with a lovely touch of wonder. They are also full of the emotions of youth as experienced through Dickensian-like deprivation to scholastic discipline to teenage hormonal angst and, finally, facing the evil produced by adults who ought to know better. That has a depth and range you’re not going to find in the TWILIGHT series, certainly.

The quality of the films has something to do with J.K. Rowling, not only as the original author of the source material, but also as the living visionary of the phenomenon. Charles Dickens and Jane Austen never lived to see the popularity of their works in film. And cinema-age authors like Stephen King and Ernest Hemingway never had the kind of input and quality control that Rowling wields (at least in feature films). Rowling is, in fact, listed as a producer for THE DEATHLY HALLOWS.

Are the films any good? Yes. Like the Mirror of Erised from the first Harry Potter film (THE SORCERER’S STONE), they provide a window on our deepest desires and the things we’d like to have happen in our lives -- the friendships, the magic, the courage, and the destiny for great things. Are the films revelatory? Not so much. But in years to come, when the Transformers devolve into a grinding hot mess in your memory or the tarty pull of skin-tight costumes on Ben Affleck, Tobey Maguire, and Ryan Reynolds loses its allure, the story of the Boy Who Lived will endure.

********

Here’s a quick look at each in the series:

SORCERER’S STONE

For me, the film is about reclaiming memories of his parents that the orphaned Harry never had before. He’s starved to feel their presence in his life, though he’s told repeatedly that he resembles his father except for his eyes which are like his mother’s. Harry stares at the Mirror of Erised so that he can see his parents standing with him. And it never fails to make me cry when Hagrid gives him the album with photos of his parents.

CHAMBER OF SECRETS

The evil that is afoot gets very dark indeed. Voldemort primarily menaced Harry in the first film. But here, young Voldemort works his cruel magic on Ginny Weasley, cleaving her spiritually to his sinister journal. Other students, including Hermione, are petrified in a death-like paralysis. The increasing danger in the fight against is palpable and highly unsettling. So is the introduction of the idea of “purebloods” in wizardry and the ugly prejudice against “Mudbloods”.

PRISONER OF AZKABAN

The first film not to be directed by Chris Columbus. Alfonso Cuaron’s direction gives a visually poetic lilt to the series. Columbus’ style had been more traditional, more Spielberg-esque. This is also the first film in which Michael Gambon plays Dumbledore. Gambon is not as twinkly-eyed as Richard Harris who is my favorite headmaster. But as the series goes on, Gambon is more suited to the increasingly dangerous, inscrutable characterization that Rowling gives Dumbledore. Also, unlike the first two installments, there’s no showdown with Voldemort in the end. Instead, Harry gains a beloved parental figure in Sirius Black (his legal guardian) who is saved from returning to Azkaban prison but becomes a fugitive in hiding.

GOBLET OF FIRE

The magical world opens up beyond Hogwarts. We see this at the Quidditch World Cup and in the arrival of international students for the Tri-Wizard Tournament. The film’s look is drained of more color, making it similar to the stormy grays and blues of THE PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, and pushing the characters further out of innocence and into a darker coming-of-age. Even Hogwarts isn’t safe anymore and Cedric Diggory (TWILIGHT’S Robert Pattinson) is the first young fatality that Harry and the audience witness since being introduced to the wizarding world. The sobering event of a student death vacuums the happiness out of being at Hogwarts. The original book was one of the best in the series, but you wouldn’t guess it from this film adaptation. (Was director Mike Newell to blame? I’m inclined to lay a good portion of my dissatisfaction at his door.)

ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

The series gets its final director in David Yates. Yates directs the final four in the eight-part series. Although Harry struggles to deal with the memory of Cedric Diggory’s death and being Voldemort’s favorite target, he realizes he can’t be the only one to fight Voldemort. He shows leadership in training his friends and peers to defend themselves against the Dark Arts, despite the imperious interference of the Ministry of Magic. There’s an Obi-Wan-versus-Vader-like showdown between Dumbledore and Voldemort, but the real damage is Helena Bonham Carter’s Bellatrix who kills Harry’s guardian, Sirius Black (Gary Oldman).

HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

Dumbledore asks Harry to let Professor Slughorn, the Potions Teacher, “collect him” so that Harry can spy on Slughorn and report back to Dumbledore. It’s one of the creepiest things ever asked of a minor. Not since the Wizard of Oz sent Dorothy to assassinate the Wicked Witch has a heroic effort been so sinister. Still, Yates takes the time to integrate more wit and humor (thanks to Luna Lovegood – you gotta love that lion’s headgear at the Quidditch match!). There’s also a fair amount of romantic awkwardness going on. These things make Harry’s struggles much more human and relatable. But in the end, Snape betrays Dumbledore and goes over to the Dark Lord (or so it seems). Dumbledore is apparently more expendable than Harry since the headmaster makes a point of putting himself in harm’s way before Harry. This is a startling thought considering that Dumbledore is one of the greatest wizards ever.

DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART ONE

The book is a hard one to because it’s long and Harry doesn’t have a lot of direction in it. He fumbles his way around and gets mad at the people who love him. There are unproductive arguments and evil is everywhere. Nevertheless, this film was one of my favorites. There is little music, no Hogwarts, and stark, unwizarding landscapes -- it feels very real.

Rowling’s last Harry Potter book can be easily misunderstood as a badly edited indulgence. But read it again and you realize that Rowling is preparing herself and the fans to say goodbye to this very beloved, thoroughly detailed world. Fans are getting a taste of how fully packed it’s been in Rowling’s mind – just like Hermione’s small beaded bag that has the capacity of bags ten times, even hundreds of times, larger. You can’t say goodbye to the years in a quick dash. And again, Harry is fighting the fight without Dumbledore and largely (for this part of the book anyway) without the help of Hogwarts.

Neither Voldemort nor Harry can live while the other is still alive. A final showdown is inevitable. But is it right that Harry must come of age only by becoming a killer? Again, it’s like Dorothy and the Wicked Witch. There’s no way for Harry to get home without taking down evil.

###

A Petty Pedi Controversy

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:04:54 -0400

There’s a fuss over a J. Crew ad — not because the female models are perpetually styled like they’re playing dress-up in the attic or that they have Miss Havisham’s taste for accessorizing — but because of Creative Director Jenna Lyons’ 5-year-old son who’s photographed with painted pink toe nails. Lyons boasts in the ad, “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

Some conservatives are taking the opportunity to use this as a way to demonstrate liberal propaganda about transgenderism. But you know, they’re 67 years too late.

One of the all-time classic family films, 1944’s NATIONAL VELVET, features a small boy who gets his toes painted bright red by his oldest sister, Edwina, played by Angela Lansbury (Jessica Fletcher no less!). Their father (Donald Crisp) stumbles upon the scene and queries them out of curiosity.

FATHER: What kind of savagery is this?

SON: Paint.

DAUGHTER: Only in fun, Father. We thought it would look pretty.

SON: I don’t like it. I want my insect bottle! Edwina hid it.

FATHER: (to the daughter) The child doesn’t like it. Wipe it off.

SON: I don’t mind it.

FATHER: (appealing to his wife) What does the child mean? First he says he doesn’t like it, then he says he doesn’t mind it!

The father is upset by his son’s capriciousness and not by any affront to gender appropriate behavior. The boy later has a diva-worthy meltdown before bedtime, but it’s no cause for permanent alarm. He’s carried off to bed, as any normal over-tired child must be.

Did NATIONAL VELVET confuse anyone’s gender identity or sexuality with toenail polish? If so, it had nearly seven decades to work on the human population. But in truth, the years have only shown that a select, but insidious number of people is ultra-high strung and prone to investing their outrage on the wrong things.

###