Galleys . . . and cats

Seb is back.

He and Neely have been keeping me company this week. I've been reading the galleys and looking for typos and things that absolutely had to be changed.

And it occurs to me that if I were given the chance to revise this book now, I can see a lot of things that I could do to make it better.

Can I do them in galleys? Probably not. Not most of them anyway. Sad, but true. A fact of life.

So while I am, of course, still glad of that "no revisions" time I had to myself in May, time I desperately needed for other things as a matter of fact, I do have twinges of regret now that I didn't have one more chance to attack the book, to tweak it (as editors are fond of saying), to streamline it a bit, to sharpen things up.

I'm doing a tiny bit of sharpening now. I'm hoping it helps.

And I'm getting back into Christo's book. Finally.

I re-watched Father Goose the other night to see how it worked as a "Save the Cat" movie. It was a two hour film. At exactly one hour in, Cary Grant made the first move toward getting involved with the kids in the film without anyone coercing him into doing it.

It was the turning point at exactly where Blake Snyder said it would be. Other bits fit, too.

The opening was a masterpiece of a set up. Right there in the first image you saw the single unsteered boat blithely trailing the dinghy toward the dock as the radio blared news of the war. And then Cary Grant emerged, flipped the station to the upbeat song "Pass Me By."

It is a great fun movie. Almost too much fun to watch because I did more of that than analyzing it. But I guess that means I'll just have to watch it again.

One thing, though . . .

If you have a movie with Cary Grant in it, he doesn't have to save any cats.

He just has to be Cary Grant. It's enough. You're already cheering for him.

Books and Miss Pettigrew

I said on Tuesday that I couldn't get to my bag of books to give you titles for the give-away. Well, I still can't, so I'm going to have to just tell you what the top two books in the bag are, and they can be the next two books, though I can't give you much of a rundown on them because it's been a while since I've read either one of them.

Suffice to say, they're good books or I wouldn't have bothered to hang onto them.

First, Nora Roberts's Midnight Bayou which I've had for a long time, but I'm weeding out hardcovers and it's a hardcover. It's set in New Orleans. There's some spooky stuff going on, I do remember that much. And it's one of those Nora books that I often went back and dipped in when I was wanting a little deep south atmosphere without having to get on a plane and go there.

The other I do that with is Tami Hoag's Lucky's Lady, but I can't give you that because I've lent it to someone. Maybe later.

And the second give-away today is one of two Anna Campbell's RITA finalist books, Untouched. It's the story of Grace Paget, who is kidnapped and taken to a remote country manor surrounded by a high unscalable wall, and told she must give herself to a madman -- satisfy his every desire -- or lose her life.

Talk about high stakes. The story of Grace and her 'madman' is intense indeed. Read it and you'll see why Australian Anna Campbell has taken the world of historical romance by storm.

# # # #

Seb and Neely and I have been having long days and nights and I'm happy to report that we're getting somewhere. Can't exactly tell you where without giving away the book, but rest assured it's moving. And keep your fingers crossed that we don't hit any doldrums between now and the end of the month.

# # # #

I went to a movie today -- because Seb and Neely had cooperated so well I thought I'd do them a favor and leave them to their own devices for a while (no, it's not that time of the book yet, but they had a good time anyway).

So I went to see Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day -- and loved it. I went because of Lee Pace, who I first discovered in Wonderfalls and have now seen in a lot of stuff. And I make it a point to watch what he does because he makes interesting choices in the roles he picks, and he's grown up to be quite a hunk. And even if he is a month or so younger than my youngest son (argh!), he's very appealing!

And then I discovered Ciaran Hinds was in it, too. And if I've got to get old, the fact that Ciaran Hinds is around for 'older women' certainly takes the sting out of it!

Not only that, there were Frances McDormand and Amy Adams and Shirley Henderson to delight in, and a wonderful late 1930s period piece that was beautifully shot and brought to life.

It was a pure delight all the way around. Couldn't have found a better way to spend the afternoon. Thank you to everyone involved in Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day. It would be worth paying evening prices for. And I don't say that often.

Friendship and Johnny Depp

What are friends for?

Well, to take you to the airport, for one thing.

So that's what I did today, took my friend Nancy to the airport. This is Nancy-the-cat-slayer from the Ireland trip that we are talking about.

If you don't remember Nancy, herewith the incriminating photo of her with Archie the cat from Flynn's castle (aka Ballyvolane House) and the very nasty looking instrument that could have spelled Archie's demise -- if Nancy were the bloodthirsty type.

She's not.

She's a good friend. One of the best. Has been for years. She has taken care of Gunnar the Proust-reading dog and his mates, Micah and Mitch, many times. She took care of earlier dogs and cats in the McAllister household. She's knitted baby blankets for McAllister grandchildren, fed lots of McAllisters lots of meals, and has always been here in times of stress and distress to do the right thing.


So naturally when she needed to go to the airport, I took her to the airport.

And didn't go see Johnny Depp.

Imagine that.

Johnny and -- more interesting to me, but apparently not to everyone else -- Christian Bale are currently making a film called Public Enemies.

It's the story of John Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson and the feds who are tracking them down.

And part of it is being filmed in a small town a little more than spitting distance (across the Mississippi) from where we live at this time of year.

There is a void in the Badger state now that Brett Favre has retired. Apparently Johnny is Wisconsin's attempt to fill his shoes.

Anyway, today Johnny is there.

Maybe Christian is, too.

The Hand-of-Depp was recently seen waving out a car window. Shrieks of joy were apparently heard.

I wouldn't know. I was at the airport.

Is he going to be there tomorrow? Is Christian? Was Christian there at all?

Maybe the local newspaper will shed light on this in subsequent editions. Unless I think to look online, I won't know because I don't get the local paper.

Tomorrow I might have to, just to find out what I missed while I was at the airport.

The Big Thaw

This has been a long hard winter. The snow has been up to our eyeballs, literally, for months.

But this past three or four days we have seen temps above freezing -- and this means we have been outside chipping away at the alps of ice that have been accumulating in front of our house. We have, in fact, been chipping for most of the winter. But we haven't had much success until this week.

I am considering my success on the ice front to make up for the fact that Sebastian has been lying on his back thinking of a thousand sundry things, none of them conducive to getting me past where I've been for way too long.

Tomorrow, I told him, you move. You roll over. You do something! Anything! You've just got to get out of bed. It's not as if Neely is even anywhere in the vicinity. She's out sailing with Max.

Who's Max? you ask.

Well, Seb knows exactly who Max is -- and he's not happy about it.

That's one of the things that's keeping him awake. But ten days of indecision while he -- and I -- decide where to start this scene when we know exactly what it has to contain -- is tooooooo much.

So, tomorrow, Seb -- up and at 'em. If not, I'll be back with the ice shovel and shift you.

As for Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle -- it's everything I imagined it would be. Gross, funny, very much the sort of film that my teenage sons adored. It's deja vu all over again! I wonder if any of them have seen it. I'll have have to ask.

We didn't manage to see it all because the film was defective and scratched and so it's going back to be replaced by another one. Sigh. You'd think we would have seen enough of it to just call it quits. But when you're engrossed (and I use the term advisedly) in young men's angst, you have to see it through to the end. Leaving them where they were when they irrevocably locked up is, um, disconcerting . . .

Class Participation

So, where are you guys?

I ask you for comments -- want to know what you think of Mr and Mrs Smith -- and I get dead silence.

Is this 'no opinion?' Or 'I haven't seen the movie?'

Or, 'Brad who?' and 'Angelina who?'

Somehow, I doubt it. Surely you can't all have avoided it. Well, I don't know . . . maybe you did. Maybe you were, like my flatcoat Gunnar, all too busy reading Proust.

Anyway, you're not being graded on participation here. But I would like to feel like I'm not talking to myself.

Then again, maybe I am.

Anyone seen Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle? That's coming next.

Mr and Mrs Smith

I watched Mr and Mrs Smith tonight. You know, the movie that brought us Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as a couple.

Or was there an earlier movie that did that, and I am behind the eight ball?

Dunno. Doesn't matter.

What matters, if anything does, is I want to know what you think of this movie.

I'm still trying to decide what I think of it. I mean, two hours of gratuitous violence and B&A slapping each other around and shooting at each other and creating serious mayhem for each other (not even mentioning the mayhem involving other people) has pretty much left me feeling . . . confused.

I know it's not supposed to be a cinematographic masterpiece, a deep literary work brought to the silver screen, etc etc etc.

But . . .would you call it a "relationship movie?"

In fact that's what seems to be the topic for discussion here. Amid the shooting and arguing and killing and whatnot -- there is a lot of coming to terms with what they expect out of marriage and what they've put into it -- which for "five or six years" (to quote Brad's John Smith character) is, frankly, not much.

And yes, I know it's not supposed to be "reality" based. I know it's action-adventure, tongue-in-cheek and all that.

But it purports, beneath the mayhem, to propose some thought-provoking questions about marriage and relationships -- questions we who deal with writing romance also tackle. Questions worth pondering and indeed writing books and making movies about.

And yet . . .

Besides those thought provoking questions there are all those kicks and punches and slaps and gunshots and bombs and such directed at each other as much as anyone else.

And where does all this on screen violence between this maried couple lead?

To sex.

Of course.

And that's one of the places in the film where I find myself wondering what the heck message they are sending here.

On the one hand they are making a very intriguing sort of 'let's discuss our relationship and telling each other the truth and finding the heart of our connection" here film set against a backdrop of over-the-top fantasy violence. Fair enough. The juxtaposition makes for interesting scenes and fun film-making.

And yet, at the same time, I couldn't get away from the notion that they were at the same time selling this violence as foreplay for sexual gratification.

And while the murder and mayhem that was over the top didn't bother me, the kicks and punches did.

That's why the jury is still out at our house.

Maybe I should just stop trying to understand what any film is 'trying to say' and just appreciate it for what it does provide. In this case, Brad Pitt.

What do you think?

Seeing the world through Jane-colored glasses

This weekend we watched The Jane Austen Book Club. I'd heard of it, but though I have enjoyed all of Jane Austen's books (some more than others), I missed this when it was in the theater, and I hadn't rushed right out to get the DVD either.

I should have.

It was delightful. The characters were quirky, but not unbelievable. They were engaging, even as they had foibles and eccentricities that made them human and, thus, vulnerable.

They brought back memories of reading Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion (my faves) as well as some of my less faves.

And, of course, they had the added benefit of allowing me to spend a couple of hours with Jimmy Smits, Hugh Dancy and Marc Blucas. Yes, very enjoyable indeed.

The story revolves around five women and one charming, slightly innocent, often misunderstood, occasionally clueless man who read and discuss Jane Austen's six novels at the rate of one a month. Some of these people know each other well. Some are complete newcomers.

Each, of course, brings a backstory -- Sylvie has given her all for her family for twenty-odd years; Jocelyn loves to organize everyone but can't seem to commit to anyone; Bernadette reinvents herself -- and her love life -- every few years; Prudie can't seem to define herself except in contrast to her mother; Allegra falls in love with whoever rescues her; and Grigg, well, he's often far too nice for his own good.

The novels are their refuge from their day-t0-day lives -- and also the lens through which they see their own dilemmas. The parallels aren't like cudgels the director beats you over the head with. They are simply there -- perspectives you might not discover unless you'd read Persuasion or Mansfield Park or Sense and Sensibility that week.

And seeing a film of a book club reading books that make them reflect on their own issues may seem a little too far removed to be interesting. It's not. It's charming, well-written, and very well acted.

If you haven't watched it, and you enjoy ensemble stories and Jane Austen, you are missing a treat.

As we're on a Jane Austen kick, Becoming Jane is next. And since PBS has re-run P&P, I think we might have to break out the DVD version and do the same.

What have you seen lately? Got any good recommendations? I'd love to hear them.

Those Ocean Movies

I was a kid when the first -- aka 'real' -- Ocean's Eleven came out.

It wasn't in my top ten films of all time. It might not have even made the top twenty or top fifty. But it was a fun film. I like caper movies and I like movies with a twist at the end -- and this one was good for that.

I saw the 'new' Ocean's Eleven hoping for the same reaction.

I didn't get it. I actually got confused by it. And I left the theater feeling disgruntled and irritated and I wondered why I'd bothered.

Well, perhaps George was why I bothered, but he didn't save the film for me.

So I wasn't desperate to go see Ocean's Twelve when it came out. In fact I didn't go see it. And for a long time I didn't even rent it. But finally it rolled to the top of our Netflix rental list and appeared on our doorstep and, well, what can I say?

I watched it.

I found that I liked it better than Eleven. There was a bit of warmth to it. Not just cutesy capery stuff. Well, there was plenty of that. But there was Brad getting Catherine Zeta-Jones together with her dad at the end . . . (oops, was that a spoiler? Sorry. I thought it was a point in its favor.)

I liked that. What can I say? I'm a sap for a happy ending.

So I rented Ocean's Thirteen. And tonight we watched it.

And I like it best of all. It had all the same capery elements of the earlier ones, but it had something that I didn't really see in the first one and only caught a brief glimpses of in the second one, but which finally came into its own in Thirteen.

It had heart.

It was based on heart - on friendship. On what a group of men will do for each other when one of them is down and out. You could call it a revenge movie. But it's not a bloody revenge movie. It's a funny revenge movie. It's a movie of sharp wits vs sneaky wits. Of cleverness vs power. Of cunning vs ruthlessness.

And, of course, the good guys win.

They break the rules. But they outwit the Bad Guy -- and the pretty bad guy. At the same time they get teary-eyed at Oprah, make sure that the 'little people' succeed, and end up making the pretty bad guy look good against his own inclination.

It gives us heroes to root for who are not in the slightest conventional. They do everything illegal they can possibly do. And we are on their side the whole time. Not just because they are George Clooney and Brad Pitt and Matt Damon -- though admittedly that helped. We are on their side because we appreciate what they are trying to do.

We'd go to bat for our friends, too. We identify with them. We care about they people they care about. The movie works because the heroes in it have heart.

They make us care.

The best heroes do.

Of course, it doesn't hurt if they look like George and Brad and Matt, too.

Where Have I Been?

I wonder that, too. Mostly I've been under a deadline.

And the deadline is still looming, and the book is getting closer and closer, but it's not there yet. It is going to need another week or two. Hoping for the shorter, fearing for the latter. But considering when these characters deigned to appear in my mind, this is actually a pretty fast ride.

I've watched Blue Crush and enjoyed it. My memories of bodysurfing, which are only remotely applicable to what I witnessed in the film, are not of swirling and whirling in blue sea being crushed, but of swirling and whirling in complete blackness because why the heck would anyone open their eyes under the circumstances?

Grit? Sand? Salt water? No, thanks.

But I suppose, with cinematographic license, you have to show the blue swirly bits because when you only have visuals to work with, black doesn't get the point across. Now, if they could make the very air around us shake us and slam us while the water rushes in our ears, yeah, black might do it.

Good film. I enjoyed it. It's an interesting counterpoint to Gidget. Anyone remember that movie? The book was lots better. But James Darren is definitely worth a Male on Monday slot on the Pink Heart. Maybe I'll have to suggest writing about him.

Anyway, I've got to get back to chapter seven or nine or whichever one seems most likely to cooperate. You guys talk among yourselves. Feel free to comment. In fact I'd love it if you'd comment.

Remind me, when I have a couple of free brain cells to rub together that I want to talk about books and movies and the fickleness of memory. But not now. Now the book awaits.

You call that research?

I've spent a good part of the day getting the Hawaiian back story nailed down.

The story itself has existed in my brain for quite a long time. The actual tying it to specific places and getting the details is what I've been working on now.

It's so much easier to do with the internet.

Google Earth has given me bird's eye views of not only where PJ lives in New York City now, but is sharpening my Hawaiian geographical skills enormously.

Blogs have introduced me to people and places and details I would never have known of otherwise. And trawling through Amazon has netted me several films and books that will add to my knowledge.

Research is so much fun I wish I could just spend weeks on it. But time is of the essence here, so I'm trying to hold it to the bare minimum and not allow myself to get sucked into comparing every property on Oahu, trying to find the "perfect" studio apartment for Peter to have lived in as a surf bum/student.

I have enough details from my own university days. Surely I can create an apartment from my memories of that!

I'm planning on watching Blue Crush on Friday. I've got it on order. I've seen Endless Summer enough times that it has its own indelible spot in my brain. If anyone has any other good Hawaiian surf films to recommend, please do so.

Contribute your expertise to the cause. Every detail helps.

Very big thanks to Abby (and Eamon, I'm sure) and to Mads who have sent me details and suggestions. You guys are great.

The Lives of Others

A while back I suggested to Anne Gracie that she might like the Danish film, After the Wedding -- and not just because Mads Mikkelsen starred in it.

It was a wonderful film -- moving, engrossing, well acted. And she liked it, too, and has been telling people about it as well.

And last week she told me I should see The Lives of Others or Das Leben der Anderen which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film. So I put it in my queue and it came late last week.

I had no expectations, no idea at all what it was about. So I just watched. And am I glad I did. It was a beautiful film, full of subtle nuance that existed alongside recurring leit motifs and wonderful believable characters.

I won't say it didn't have a plot, because that's not true. But the plot was so inextricably connected to who the characters were that the entire experience was seamless. The writing was tight and coherent and everything that was in the film needed to be there. Nothing was wasted, everything served more than one purpose.

It was set in 1984 in the German Democratic Republic -- not exactly the sort of venue you expect to look to for a film about humanity and hope.

And yet this film was about exactly that. It is about what happens to a man with Principles which have come at the expense of his humanity when he is forced by those very Principles to face the life and art of others living in a very different way from himself.

The character, Wiesler, a member of the East German stasi, is brought to life by the late Ulrich Muhe. (There is an umlaut over the U, but blogger -- at least mine -- objects to the umlaut and turns it into a A with 1/4 after it. So we're going without the umlaut until someone with more smarts than I have tells me how to do it right).

Assigned to oversee the spying on suspected subversive intellectuals, the detached Wiesler finds himself challenged and changed as he has to chronicle the lives of those he has under surveillance.

Muhe uses the smallest details and expressions to reveal Wiesler's growth and the gradual yet profound shift in his moral compass and to bring him from detachment to involvement without ever losing his personality along the way.

The Lives of Others offers food for thought, characters to explore and interpretations to discuss. It was the first full length feature film by German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, and I certainly hope it won't be his last.

He says it took him something like five years to write it, cast it, direct it, and get it to the screen. His meticulous attention to all those details shows in the film.

I hope getting the Oscar makes it easier to get distribution for whatever he tackles next. I'll definitely be watching.