Getting out

Can this be? I just added the first movie to my viewing list since we came back from France in July. There have been movies I wanted to see, certainly--and I have gotten out of the house every now and then--but the movies somehow just aren't happening.

Oh, I lied. Or, more likely, repressed. We did take a bunch of kids to see Star Wars: the Clone Wars for Nick's birthday, which I somehow forgot to list. (And, well, I slept through the middle of it, so maybe it doesn't count?) OK, so one movie since the third week of July. What have I been doing instead?

The reading list isn't much better. I did get a bunch of ARCs and read some of them at the end of the summer, but since school started in August it's been all re-reading, all the time. This weekend it's the Twilight series, since I have an idea for a talk--and an abstract due on Tuesday. But otherwise I'm re-reading for classes. And that's all fine--I don't teach things I don't like--but it still cuts into the time available for new books.

So, to recap: I don't get out much, and from August to May I don't take in much that's new, either. But it was fun to go out last night and laugh at the silliness of Get Smart.

Oh, too bad!

I'd been looking forward to the film adaptation of Ballet Shoes, a favorite novel from my childhood. (Unlike Jenny, though, my favorite Streatfeild novel was The Painted Garden, otherwise known as Movie Shoes, not this one.) Unfortunately the NYT reviewer doesn't think it's so great.

More brief reviews

It's been a great summer so far for catching up on reading and movie-viewing. I can't remember the last time I've seen so many movies in a week (three!)--probably last summer. I've also been making my way through a pile of ARCs and other books that have turned up in my mailbox, one way and another, and it's been a pleasure to do so. Here are two books to look for:

• The Proof that Ghosts Exist, by Carol Matas and Perry Nodelman. I know Perry Nodelman as a very fine scholar of children's literature. I use his co-authored (with Mavis Reimer) book, The Pleasures of Children's Literature, to teach my introduction to children's literature course, and it is that rare thing in a textbook, a pleasure to read. So when I read that he had a new novel coming out (he's already published several others), I jumped at the chance to get an ARC. And I'm glad I did. The Proof that Ghosts Exist introduces us to a pair of siblings, Molly and Adam, who are as different as two siblings can be. She's orderly, reasonable, and rational; he's imaginative and a bit off-kilter. (Hmm, Dorothy and William Wordsworth?) The novel begins as they head off to a summer house with their father, whose own father and grandfather both dropped dead the day before their 35th birthdays. And, yes, it is the day before their father's 35th birthday, so they're a little concerned. This is a funny, imaginative excursion into the world of ghost-hunting--highly recommended for middle-grade readers. (Received from the publisher; the book is out in Canada but not yet available in the US, according to Amazon.)
  
• The Seems: The Split Second, by John Hulme and Michael Wexler. This is the second "Seems" book--the first, The Glitch in Sleep, came out last year, but somehow I missed it. The Seems is a world behind our world, where The Powers that Be arrange things so that our world...works, sort of. Only sometimes it doesn't, so there are Fixers to try to get things back on track, and Becker Drane, at age 13, is the youngest Fixer. And right now, someone's split a second, time is out of time, and Becker needs to get to work. The novel reminded me a lot of Jasper Fforde's books, with the clever wordplay and antic movement between different levels of reality, but without the reliance on classic literature that might slow down a middle-grade reader. This book isn't due out until the fall, but you can start with the first one--I plan to go back and read it myself. (Received in ARC from the publisher along with How to Ditch Your Fairy and two graphic novels I haven't gotten to yet.)
  

OK, this one's not a book, and you can read about it anywhere, really, but I just have to put in a plug for Wall-E as well. As you probably already know, one of the triumphs of the movie is how well it conveys emotion with very few (and, for the first few minutes, no) words. In its emphasis on the visual it reminded me a bit of The Arrival, and I was delighted to learn from the smart people on the child_lit listserv that Shaun Tan did some work on it. It's also the bitingest satire I've seen in a while: the movie really doesn't pull its punches in depicting environmental degradation, and the huge corporation (Buy-N-Large) that controls, seemingly, everything, has clear connections to Wal-Mart. The irony of the movie is that it takes two robots to restore people's humanity--and Pixar manages to convey this in a completely believable, almost inevitable, way. You'll walk out of the movie saying "Wall-E" in the robot's creaky little voice, just as you walked out of E.T. saying "phone home." I promise. (You may also find yourself adding Hello, Dolly! to your netflix queue...)

Movie Minutes

I've seen three movies in theaters in the last two weeks--this must be some kind of record! (And, hmm, yes, I was pushing to meet a deadline, why do you ask?)

• The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Having been pleasantly surprised by the first installment in this series, I was really looking forward to the second. Yes, I'd been warned, but I was still hopeful. Alas, I should have heeded the warning. I didn't find the racism as bad as it was in the book--but that's small praise, really, as it is in this one, The Horse and His Boy, and to some extent The Last Battle, that Lewis's pro-Northern biases really come through. And I didn't find it as sickeningly violent as Kelly did, either, though that may reflect more on me (and my tolerance of violence in movies) than on the movie. Certainly there was a higher ratio of battle scene to character development than I would have liked, though. Reepicheep, Trumpkin, and Nikabrik are all barely developed; even the kids are far less developed than they are in the first movie. Caspian is, of course, movie-star handsome--but did we need a hinted-at romance between him and Susan? Why, no, we did not.
  
• Baby Mama: No, it's not a kids' movie. It's not even really about kids--it's about the desire for kids. That aside, it's a fun, smart, silly update of Working Girl. (I love the Sigourney Weaver role in Baby Mama, which is just completely ridiculous.) I could talk about the cultural construction of motherhood and the ways in which the film deploys its stereotypes of the working class without really deconstructing them--but, to be honest, I laughed too hard to make that any fun.
  
• The Visitor. Again, not a kids' movie. But the best movie I've seen in a long time. Probably the most honest depiction of professorial burnout I've ever seen (sigh), as well as an extended meditation on what it means to be "home" or "away" (two central concepts in children's literature, after all). This is a slow-moving, meditative movie, not "entertaining" in the Hollywood sense, but beautifully done. See it if you can.
  

Persepolis

Do you sometimes worry that a movie can't live up to a book you love? How many times have you been disappointed? My first time was with, of all things, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I'd loved the book (by Ian Fleming, of James Bond fame). It was funny and smart and rude (the car had buttons that lit up and said, "Push Me, Stupid!"). The family wasn't gorgeous. There was no "Truly Scrumptious" (though that is a Bond-ish name, isn't it?). The whole thing wasn't just a dream. The movie was an utter disappointment, so great that I have actually never seen it again.

And yet I keep going to see movies made from books. Some work, some don't; some improve on the book, some are just interesting interpretations. Sometimes I can forgive major departures from the novel; sometimes I can't. Sometimes the casting is so right, or so wrong, that it colors your reading of the novel forever. (A tween girl I know is already worried about the casting for the upcoming Twilight movie...)

Persepolis works. And now you can read Caroline's great column about it, too.

Too old? Too young? Just right?

I've been involved in an interesting conversation about reluctant readers, started in the comments on Jen Robinson's PBS Parents Post, and continued on her blog. One thing all the commentators seemed to agree on was that kids need to find their own level, read the books that speak to them rather than what seems to be popular. And, of course, I agree.

But. I also think reading above one's level is actually a fine thing--if one is the kind of kid who stretches rather than shrinks when confronted with new things. I was that kind of kid, and I read War and Peace when I was twelve, after seeing the Masterpiece Theatre production. I can't say I understood it, but it gave me great pleasure, nonetheless, to cart it around and do my best.

Now A.O. Scott chimes in with a similar, but perhaps even more revolutionary, suggestion--that you let your kids watch movies "above their level." Again, speaking from personal experience, I'm with him: I know I watched things that I wasn't "ready" for, emotionally or intellectually, but that I nonetheless stretched and grew as a result. Of course this all has to do with knowing your own children--Nick found both Harry Potter and The Princess Bride "too scary" the first time he tried to watch them, so we let him stop and he came to them on his own time. But Mariah started watching PG and PG-13 movies long before she was 13, if we thought they were right for her, and Nick has certainly seen his share as well. Perhaps of R movies, too, though it's hard to remember.

Books don't come with ratings or warning labels (usually), of course, but I think the issue is analogous. Share what you like, know your child, and enjoy.