Top 10 revelations from the PEANUTS movie

Top 10 revelations from the PEANUTS movie

Revelations may be a little strong.  Surprising facts, clarifications or changes made to the Peanuts gang may be a little more accurate.

10.  Peanuts invented “mean girls”.  Violet was the leader.  Frieda was the narcissistic one.  Patty was a little more neutral, perhaps that is why in the Peanuts movie she gets a little character arc being attracted to Pig Pen (or maybe she likes bad boys).  Lucy was kind of a little too crabby to be a full part of the clique, but she did hang with them.  She could get her own blog with how mean she has been to Charlie Brown over the years (particularly in IT’S YOUR FIRST KISS, CHARLIE BROWN - that was just wrong on multiple levels.) 

9.  The movie is a long form remake of YOU’RE IN LOVE CHARLIE BROWN (although with a major twist see number 1).  There seems to have been some sort of moratoria m on anyone writing new Peanuts material (or creating new characters) since the end of the comic strip.  Most of the animated specials in recent years bear this out, as they have all been loosely tying together runs of the strip, rather than creating a plot that had a full half hour long story to them.  I’m not sure if this is a hard and fast rule, but there has been some restrictions.  A few years ago, Boom comics created a new graphic  novel that sent the Peanuts gang to Tokyo, Japan.  Comic Book Resources ran a very insightful interview with the creators, where they mention that even though its placed in a  very new (and foreign) place but  “as promised, will ‘absolutely not’ contain any new characters.”  You can find the article here…http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=40837

8.  The Peanuts characters look surprisingly good in 3D CGi.  To be honest, I was not as freaked out by seeing Charlie Brown and the gang in 3-D as everyone else seemed to be.  The movie handles it very tactfully including india ink thought balloons, and animation that is careful to flip the characters from straight ahead to side view in keeping with the limits the comic strip imposed on the characters through most of it’s run.  I attribute my ability to accept the look to the fact that the first time I ever saw Charlie Brown was in a view-master reel featuring miniatures!  The characters always naturally leant themselves to this look for me.  So much so, that I was a little jarred when I first saw them as black and white drawings.

7.  Linus IS the Red Baron.   During the film I wondered why Linus was the one to introduce the model airplane of the Red Baron into the story.  While he usually the noted historian, the Red Baron seemed an odd (negative) choice of subjects for him.  I actually thought the role of model builder might be a better character bit to come from Shermy, who is pretty quiet and non descriptor usually (see point 7).  However, as it turns out, the writers really know their history.  The first appearance of Snoopy as the World War I flying ace battling the Red Baron appears in a strip and it is LINUS who shoots him down (sneaking up behind him while Snoopy is in full goggles and scarf Flying Ace mode) and shouting “RAT A TAT TAT TAT TAT TAT TAT!”.  Perhaps it was a bit of payback for Snoopy’s incessant grabbing of Linus’ blanket (not to mention the swirling and hurling especially on ice) but it was the middle Van Pelt who caused that first Sopwith Camel / doghouse to burst into flames and go down in a hail of bullets.  Linus had shown model building acumen as a baby, this is referenced in one of the aforementioned view master reels where he quickly out builds Charlie Brown in a house of cards.  Charlie is very frustrated by how easily his simple structures fall, a gag emulated in the film by Sally when Charlie cranks up the music to learn how to dance.

6.  Shermy was ironically made to be a mime at the talent show.  I’m not sure this was intentional, since he was the first character to speak in the entire Peanuts comic strip.  He also encapsulated the rather bitter tone that the kids took in the early years.  ( Here comes Charlie Brown.  Yup, good old Charlie Brown.  How I hate him!”)  Shermy also served as the foil for Charlie Brown…i.e. better at most sports like Charlie Brown wanted to be.  This aspect of him seems to be completely missing in the new Peanuts movie (then again he, Patty and Violet have been completely missing since the 80’s) 

5.  Peppermint Patty and Marcie’s school district was re-zoned!  Typically they play on a different baseball time at a nearby school (this is very apparent in HE’S YOUR DOG, CHARLIE BROWN and A CHARLIE BROWN THANKSGIVING).  This time (for simplicity’s sake?) they appear in the class and school as Charlie Brown, and the rest of the kids.

4.  Charlie Brown and Snoopy get girlfriends!  (kind of)  The Little Red-Haired Girl was finally given a canonical name (for real), Heather Wold.   She was named“Heather” for IT’S YOUR FIRST KISS, CHARLIE BROWN where Lucy continually yanked the football away from Charlie Brown in the middle of a big homecoming game, causing their team (and school) to lose the game.  Incidentally, this is one of the rules of Peanuts, Charlie Brown can never kick the football.  The new Peanuts movie not only abides by this rule, but actually uses it in the epilog,much like A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN DID (It seems to be a deliberate homage).  Then, she ridicules him for showing up at the homecoming dance and teasing him (like she and Violet did in YOU’RE IN LOVE, CHARLIE BROWN) about what nerve he had showing up and no one would want to dance with him.  Lucy even managed to get Peppermint Patty to turn against “Chuck” in this one.  That was just all kinds of wrong (fortunately dancing saved the day!).  But I digress…  In all honesty the only time she got a name (and outside of two other smaller appearances a face) was for that one special.  Apparently Charles Schultz did not consider those tv appearances canonical (despite the fact that he wrote them).  She was never named or seen in the comics, and in other specials she looked different.  The PEANUTS movie is her official unveiling, though her name and appearance seem consistent with IT’S YOUR FIRST KISS, CHARLIE BROWN.  Snoopy (in fantasy sequences) also gets to pursue a dashing young female World War I pilot, named Fifi.  While she looks suspiciously like Snoopy’s sister, Belle, she appears named after the french poodle Snoopy ran away and joined the circus for in LIFE’S A CIRCUS, CHARLIE BROWN.

3.  There has been a bit of hullabaloo made of the songs in THE PEANUTS MOVIE.  Mostly about how “pop music” deviates from the classic jazz tunes.  This is not the first time that a Peanuts movie changed up the formula to try to appeal to a broader (i.e. kid friendly) audience.  SNOOPY COME HOME featured songs by none other than the Sherman Brothers!  (you may remember them from such hits as MARY POPPINS and THE JUNGLE BOOK).  SNOOPY COME HOME was the first movie I saw (that I can remember) in the theater EVER!  It was the first movie soundtrack album I ever bought.  I choreographed my first dance number for a talent show to Woodstock’s Samba (it was such a happy tune, and my five year old self though my dance routines were so inspired… it’s probably a good thing my grandmother didn’t have cell phone camera back then…poor kids today get to be instantly immortalized forever on the interwebs).  I wholeheartedly agree with Charles Schultz’s comments from the liner notes on the album…which had him commenting on how he would never forget listening to “It Changes” for the first time.  It’s such a sad song, but very real for many people, especially a boy about to lose his dog and best friend.  I could say more, but seriously, watch the film and listen to those lyrics in context - just when you’re sure, and you’re safe, and secure.that’s when it happens to you…it changes…  You may be a little more forgiving of a Peanuts movie diverting from jazz…

2.  Snoopy might actually remember that round headed kid’s name (you know, the one that feeds him).  As mentioned earlier, most of the Peanuts crew were kind of dysfunctional (depressed, crabby, tunnel visioned or wishy-washy).   Before the strip morphed into focussing mostly on the adventures of Snoopy and Woodstock (and Snoopy’s extended family where Spike kind of took over the sad-sack role from Charlie Brown) Snoopy himself was very self serving.  Snoopy, like the kids, was also imperfect His constant flights of fancy were probably due to him being so bored by his life.  More importantly, his self serving nature actually got him into trouble.  Most of the kids found him really annoying (before half of America found him lovable and endearing).  This theme was so strong it formed the basis for the fourth animated special HE’S YOUR DOG, CHARLIE BROWN and was greatly expanded upon for the second theatrical film SNOOPY, COME HOME.  What do you mean you still haven’t seen it??  Go track it down, it’s still readily available as a double feature with A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN.  Go ahead, I’ll wait.

1.  You are a good man after all, Charlie Brown.  As a child, I didn’t understand the paradox of Charlie Brown.  Shermy sums it up quite well in the first Peanuts (featuring good ol Charlie Brown) comic strip ever (see point 6).  It was the Broadway musical that really got me confused, however.  The entire gang starts off with a rollicking number about what good man he is “You’re a prince and a prince could be king!  You have humility, nobility and sense of honor that are very rare indeed!”   After the Kite-Eating tree eats his kite (a rule that gets broken in the new film) he finds himself at Lucy’s psychiatrist booth (still only 5 cents in the new film!) wondering why in the whole neighborhood, only Snoopy likes him.  Lucy says that doesn’t count, Snoopy only pretends to like him because he feeds him.  She names all of his flaws.  They are numerous…wishy washy etc…etc…In the comics she sat him down to present him of a slide show of faults she photographed him displaying.  Each of the slide carousels was categorized by fault type (inherited.etc…)  

Charlie Brown’s ray of hope in the play, (as it is in the new film) is his infatuation with the little red hair’ed girl.  In the play it ends with him finding her pencil with teeth marks on it.  “She’s HUMAN!” he exclaims in the climactic moments of the play.  This is straight from the comic strip.  That pencil made it’s way again into the new Peanuts movie.  It almost seemed to be the the MacGuffin   (All you Hitchcock fans and film studies majors will get that reference).  It was this sign of a nervous habit that made Charlie Brown realize that she might have flaws as well (and then they had something in common).  The Peanut’s Movie finally tells us (on no uncertain terms) through the Little Red Haired Girl, why Charlie Brown is indeed, a good man.

Now if the powers that be would loosen the restrictions a little bit, and allow a slightly more broader canvas for Chuck and the gang.  River rafting, Paris, France (even Tokyo in the Boom comics).  There has been a reluctance to move the characters too far away from their roots.  However, as shows like This is America, Charlie Brown has shown…the kids can work in a variety of settings, time periods, even interacting with grown ups who’s vocabulary transcends “waa waa waa”.  This may be because the Peanuts characters are archetypes of children that for over 65 years have been timeless.

The Peanuts Movie is now available on digital HD for viewing on your iPhone, iPad, Apple TV (and probably some other devices too…)

Pretty in Pink vs Some Kind of Wonderful part 2

O.K., I’m sure everyone out there has been wondering where the heck this follow up has been hiding and why it’s taken me so long to get to.  Let’s see, what have I been doing since round 1...

Completed all my course work for my Masters degree (so it’s not like I haven’t been writing)

Did all the lettering on what used to be my first comic book and is now my first graphic novel...in software development we call that “scope creep”

Oh, met a girl, we clicked, she ran away, I ran away, we both travelled to far and distant lands to do some soul searching, and we both came back, got engaged and got my own wedding! (but there’s a WHOLE nother web site devoted to that...you can find it HERE)

Hopefully I’ve said enough to engender some sympathy on the part of you, my loyal and patient audience.  It seems somewhat appropriate coming on the heels of that great tribute to Hughes at the Academy Awards.  May I say, that I always admired and respected John Hughes for moving back to Chicago to have a normal life, and it’s amazing how he really did manage to keep his private life private and out of the magazines and craziness of the Hollywood scene.  On a side note, of the actors participating in the tribute to Hughes, I’ve actually met three of them personally.  One I haven’t met, Ally Sheedy, paraphrased her character’s line in the BREAKFAST CLUB who’s says that when you grow old your heart dies.  I think even Hughes himself would go on to try to refute his own words just a couple of years later with PLANES, TRAINS and AUTOMOBILES - which I think very much makes a stand that the heart never really dies, but it can go into a coma on life support and people NEED other people to bring it back to life.

SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL would be Hughes’ unofficial farewell to setting his stories among teen agers (note I didn’t say teen genre, because as Hughes himself mentioned, they aren’t teens, they are human beings who happen to be just discovering themselves, their feelings, their place in the world - which may actually make their stories inherently interesting ).  I say unofficial because he did not direct this one (though he wrote and produced it).  Hughes was already directing what many would consider to be his film about leaving high school behind, FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF, so he didn’t have time to take the reigns of this one.  Contrary to popular belief, John Hughes did not actually write this to be PRETTY IN PINK in reverse, which is unfortunately what many people thought this movie would be and criminally overlooked it.  Hughes wrote both scripts at the same time, and after the success of PIP offered the “rich pretty girl” role to Molly Ringwald, and Ringwald turned it down, which would pretty much end their working relationship (as Ringwald has alluded to as much in recent interviews).  So Lea Thompson was added to the cast, and throws a heart shaped monkey wrench into the proceedings to boot...

Thompson would meet her future husband (NOT Crispin Glover) on the set of SKOW....that would be the director, Howard Deutch.  Howard and Lea must have really hit it off, because they are still married to this day (again, a rarity in Hollywood).  You can see the heart that Lea brings to her role in the story.  Though she is initially a female Blaine,  a character you want to think is just a pretty superficial fluff girl, and she may in fact be that at the beginning, Lea really sells  you on the changes she makes as the story arcs.  Though not quite as drastic as when Fry stole Ferris’ own movie from him, she still manages something that is almost as impossible.

Although impossible would probably apply to being the “outsider” in this three way cast.  Eric Stoltz had been nominated for a Golden Globe just the previous year for MASK....Lea was just coming off BACK TO THE FUTURE and HOWARD THE DUCK (stop laughing, it wasn’t that bad!  And talk about ironic, Eric Stoltz actually was the original pick for Marty McFly and actually shot with him for two weeks before they decided he just was too reserved for the role and not funny enough...a tough break, but hey who got the Golden Globe nom?)  For the lucky lady number two in our reverse triangle...Mary Stuart Masterson!  “Who???” went the collective late 80’s minds in the theater lobbies.

Surely you remember her from those hands playing drums in the trailer for SKOW that was shown before Ferris Bueller’s Day Off?  No?  Oh wait, that wasn’t Masterson, that was (and I think to this date still stands) as the first ever long before teaser trailer for a film that dealt with teen agers minus the giant robots. It would almost ten full months before SKOW would actually get to theaters after FBDO.  Still, it was an enigmatic teaser and a direct lead into the opening sequence of the film.

And what an opening, completely different than anything that John Hughes had done before, and certainly a different “vibe” right off the bat from PIP.  That, I believe, is in large part to Howard Deutch feeling like he knew his way around the camera and actors this time.  PIP was a big success, but it was Deutch’s first film, and even if Hughes wasn’t hanging around set all the time, Deutch was probably feeling pressure to follow in his footsteps and make the film as “Hughesian” as possible.  Obviously, this kind of worked as the movie does feel like it was co-directed by Hughes, but has an edgier tone to it and is a little uneven in places.  Not so with SKOW.  Deutch really took command and made this his film from the get go (he alludes to as much in the director commentary).

While the alternative cool music in the opening is not new to Hughes (he even went so far as to establishing his own label after he’d had so much success launching “fringe” acts and then had so much trouble trying to get the studio to negotiate rights to them that there was never a soundtrack issued for FFBDO - inconceivable!)  Anyway, the opener is a driving force that seems to launch the audience into the three way collision these people are on.  And note, we get introduced to all three leads (and the villain) right off the bat...again not something that was done in PIP.

The opening is also, ironically, the only time we see Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson’s character) actually drumming (and figure out it was her that the teaser almost a year previous was highlighting).  Though she carries the drumsticks with her everywhere...and oh does she know how to use them.

Watts, like Duckie, has the main responsibility for carrying the comedy in much of the film, but she does share it with Keith’s sister, Laura, and the high school “skinhead” Duncan.

I just want to point out, that though PIP also had some top notch talent in their supporting cast (James Spader, Harry Dean Stanton, Annie Potts) and not to detract anything from their performances, the actual impact they had on the main story was a little more tangental than what goes in play with SKOW.  Every person, though they are all part of the Hughes cast of high school family and friend characters, actually plays a fairly significant part in moving the story forward, and each becomes a plot point.  What’s interesting, is that they never SEEM like plot devices.  This is difficult to do and speaks well I think to Hughes ability to actually juggle a LOT of characters and make them all seem like real people you can get to know and make them all important to the story (think of SIXTEEN CANDLES or CHRISTMAS VACATION).  However, Deutch goes for more understated than wacky (with once exception being kid sister’s Laura’s scream scene which definitely foreshadows what would make millions in HOME ALONE).

Though again a little off topic, it’s something that I found quite touching.  The girl who plays the annoying kid sister (and yes even she who picks on her older brother the whole film, ultimately becomes key in warning him of the fact that the whole date with Amanda is a joke and she doesn’t want to see him hurt) is Maddie Corman.  She was about 15 or 16 at the time and had seen that teaser trailer with her parents at Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (yes they shot the teaser before they had finished casting the film) and she got an audition for the movie!  Then her mother was diagnosed with cancer...and the production people wanted her for a call back.  When she returned to the hospital to see her mother, who was fading, her mom asked if she got the role, and Maddie actually lied to her saying she had gotten it to make her mother happy.  She did pass away quickly after that, but Maddie did get the part, and I think she did an amazing job considering what she must of being going through at the time.

John Ashton as Cliff, the dad also plays a big role in the film.  While he part seems a little cliche (working class dad wants his kid to get into business college and not art) it is his big argument with Keith at the end of the film over what he did with his college money.  It’s important because before that challenge I’m not sure even Keith new what he really was going after with this big date and it became clear to him as he had a chance to explain and defend his actions.  It also is the one moment in the film where we get to see Eric Stoltz really get emotional on top (rather than the quieter understated performance he had been delivering - which don’t get me wrong I think was just right for his character) but wow when those two let loose on each other I really felt the frustration, anger AND the love they felt as father and son.  Don’t underestimate this small moment as those types of scenes are really tough for a parent to play the “adult” and a human being that maybe the teens could actually communicate with.  Again, it’s a counterpoint to Andie’s heartfelt breakdown asking her father to let her mother go...a great scene that explains backstory but I don’t know that it was really moving PIP forward, and it places Andie in the parent role, in SKOW Cliff never stops being the Dad, but he also sees why this means so much to his son.

That leads me to another thought.  When the BREAKFAST CLUB came out, one critic treated it very derisively, actually referring to it as a bunch of winy angst ridden teen agers who don’t know what REAL problems are.  This critic completely missed the point of the film.  These peer fueled pressure situations / parental relationship issues ARE huge problems in their lives.  And, like BACK TO THE FUTURE pointed out, how you navigate in this critical era, may well define you for the rest of it.  For Keith, if he doesn’t face down the rich, arrogant, controlling, manipulating jerks now, then WHEN will he?  He can put the money back...and that is a good point.  I’m not going to advocate being financially irresponsible, however as a good friend of mine commented....”time is NOT money, time is MORE important than money.  You can always re get more money, but you can’t BUY time.” 

I don’t know what YOUR cause is (yes each of you reading this), but when, like Keith, you know in your heart what it is you are supposed to do, the mountain you have to climb, the purpose you are where you are in when you are - when you know that ONE thing (What is it?  That’s what you gotta figure out...*).  If you don’t take that leap, or that step, or grab onto that ladder and hang on tight with both hands**, you risk losing it forever.   Don’t risk losing forever. 

O.K., now you may all be getting a sense of why SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL is such a good film to me.  Perhaps it’s because it’s guy centric (I mean, Andie’s decision to go to prom alone was also a similar moment) but for some reason the blow up between Keith and Cliff just brought it home so much stronger for me.  You also probably have figured out that I’ve barely touched on the original purpose of this blog, and that was to compare the main characters and actors and their roles as well as the endings to the films.  I actually think they BOTH work pretty well, but one evolved more naturally as the other.  PIP - was forced into a semi awkward switch at the last moment that, while a better crowd pleaser than the original ending, is still a bit jarring.

SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL also had a last minute surprise switch at the ending!  But I’ll bet you never noticed it....  I’ll get to that next time (which I promise will be before Mother’s Day, 2010) because for right now, I think I need to cut this particular entry to it’s own unexpected...to be continued....

(now aren’t you all happy I only bust these BLOGs out 3 or 4 times a year?)

Oh yeah, movie references for the eagle eyed
*City Slickers
**The Last Starfighter

Mele Kalikimaka, for reals.

Mele Kalikimaka is a greeting I found myself saying more and more this year. I had noticed that I had been pretty deliberately ducking the regular greeting last year by throwing it off as something PC and funny / cute like Feliz Hanakwansmas.

I’m afraid I don’t have exact copy of the article I read off of the AP newswire, but a bill was proposed in the Senate in order to protect schools and public institutions from lawsuits if they chose to sing Christmas carols or have “Christmas” parties. Christmas actually is a National holiday recognized by our country’s government. However, it is a holiday that has a root in Christianity and a backlash against religious favoritism has emerged as a result of this.

The front lines of that battle took place in Sonoma county, California this year. A ban against angels and stars adorning the tops of Christmas trees in government buildings was enacted. The public backlash against it was so great that it was quickly rescinded (yes the people do have a voice). By the way, one of the offending stars in question is photographed above in the Information Sciences office of Sonoma county (courtesy of Newscom)

I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure that star shouts religious ideology in any way shape or form (when I first heard of this the only star I could think of that would be religiously propagandizing might have been the star of David, which is very much a Jewish symbol and would certainly make for a conversation inducing piece atop a Christmas tree). That star pictured has only five points (which is often used in reference to another deity entirely), and I’m not entirely sure that neon pink is a color of association with the people of Israel. Obviously the strike is against the star that lead the wise men to baby Jesus in the manger, but still a star is a rather generic and non-exclusive symbol to be branded as illegal or offensive.

And speaking of generic and non-exclusive, I would personally lump angels in the same category. The varied interpretation of those beings across the globe could hardly be called exclusive only to Christians. In fact, most theologically researched Christians would view the traditional treetop angel as being quite “off the mark” from the picture the Bible paints of them. At the very least, the little cherub with wings is representative of only one “aspect” of the Biblical portrayal of angels.

Speaking of which, in the interest of lightening things up a bit, a short interlude of how that tradition started...(skip over if you wish, but I think you’ll enjoy)

Angel on top of a christmas tree

One particular Christmas season a long time ago, Santa was getting ready for his annual trip... but there were problems everywhere.

Four of his elves got sick, and the trainee elves did not produce the toys as fast as the regular ones so Santa was beginning to feel the pressure of being behind schedule.

Then Mrs. Claus told Santa that her Mom was coming to visit.

This stressed Santa even more. When he went to harness the reindeer, he found that three of them were about to give birth and two had jumped the fence and were out, heaven knows where.

More stress. Then when he began to load the sleigh one of the boards cracked and the toy bag fell to the ground and scattered the toys.

So, frustrated, Santa went into the house for a cup of coffee and a shot of whiskey. When he went to the cupboard, he discovered that the elves had hid the liquor and there was nothing to drink.

In his frustration, he accidentally dropped the coffee pot and it broke into hundreds of little pieces all over the kitchen floor. He went to get the broom and found that mice had eaten the straw it was made from.

Just then the doorbell rang and Santa cussed on his way to the door. He opened the door and there was a little angel with a great big Christmas tree.

The angel said, very cheerfully, "Merry Christmas Santa. Isn't it just a lovely day? I have a beautiful tree for you. Isn't it just a lovely tree?
Where would you like me to stick it?"

And thus began the tradition of sticking the little angel on top of the Christmas tree.

What makes this whole thing even more ironic, is that Santa Rosa is in Sonoma county. Santa Rosa being the city that is home to Charles Schulz (and the cartooning museum that bears his name, as well as the ice skating rink where he did many of the Peanuts cartoons). The city also has statues of Charlie Brown and Snoopy on display in many places (they are the same two casts but each one customized by the person who commissioned them....you would have to see it to understand, and I’m sure I’ll do a whole blog on that at some point). Well, the fact that A Charlie Brown Christmas remains about the only perennial nationally broadcasted scripture reading in modern history should certainly be reason enough to site those very statues as at least implicit congruency with Biblical Christianity.

Which made me think of my childhood, and how much I loved Christmas. Tidings of great joy, peace on Earth and good will towards men (mankind...yet another unnecessary political correction in verbiage that even at the age of 6, I completely understood the intent....). A Charlie Brown Christmas was very much a part of my childhood (it’s first airing was a mere 5 weeks after my birth). However, I didn’t go to church growing up. In fact, after having much infatuation with Scooby-Doo, and the scary things the Scooby gang fought, I came to the conclusion that there were no real ghosts, goblins, spooks, ghouls, spirits, vampires (sorry TWILIGHT fans) or otherwise. Otherwise included churches, which I considered to be repositories of people who believed in these things. Yes, I was all of about 11 or 12 at this point. A functional atheist, though I was open to ideas*.

New ideas popped open for me in high school. I’m not going to go into it in much detail now. I will say that became involved in a church youth group. I did so only with the condition that I would not be forced to disparage any other person for having a belief system different than that of the church I was attending. That I would be allowed to respect people of other religious beliefs. Even at the time, I knew that many other people simply had been trained by the culture they grew up in to believe in certain tenants of faith that may or may not actually be the basis for all of existence. I mention this, that everyone might understand my mindset about religion.

My point here being, that I still loved Christmas. I loved Linus’ little speech, even though I didn’t quite understand the context I completely got the message. You don’t have to agree with the belief’s of Saint Nicholas** in order to be inspired by his actions and the heart behind them. By continuing to take those actions and “pay it forward” for hundreds of years, Santa Claus has remained an incredible force for good across the world (darned if radar tracking can ever actually catch up to him).

Christmas is a time brimming with good cheer and expressions of gifts, especially to those who need them most (like people staying in mangers). While it’s roots do stem into a faith system, it’s not owned by just Christians anymore. It is owned by the world and people who celebrate it and who, for if only one day a year, choose to make the notions of peace on Earth and good will towards everyone the focus of their lives.

Regardless of religion, that’s how Christmas can affect the world, Charlie Brown.

• (this raises another important point, but I’ll blog on the topic of forming theological doctrine upon the teachings of Saturday morning cartoons another time)

**"Saint Nicholas." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Dec 2009, 12:30 UTC. 25 Dec 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Nicholas&oldid=333956756>.

Pretty in Pink vs Some Kind of Wonderful (round 1)

There are a lot of time honored debates in the universe.

Is Hobbes really alive or just a stuffed tiger? (alive)

Who’s a better captain, Kirk or Picard? (Picard - more entertaining might be another story...)

Should Molly Ringwald have dumped that spoiled rich kid and given Duckie a try in PRETTY IN PINK?

Well, the answer to that question was answered in the almost unheard of final teen¹ movie to come from John Hughes. A little film called SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL. (if you haven’t seen, stop now, GO, watch it, call me if you can’t find it and you can borrow my copy, go ahead, I’ll wait...)

So I would like to turn all of you (my faithful readership) onto this film, but first I would like to turn back the clock and look at why Pretty in Pink is by far the more popular film. It still is today, even by those who weren’t even born when it was released...

First off, inexplicably, Molly Ringwald and Andrew McCarthy were much bigger box office draws than Eric Stoltz and Lea Thompson (granted this was right after Howard the Duck!) The soundtrack absolutely rocked and OMD’s “If you Leave” got almost as much airplay as Lady Gaga does now (ALL of her songs combined!). It was more of a comedy (despite the fact that advertising billed it as “the laughter the lovers the friends the fights the talk the hurt the jalousy the passion the pressure the real world) , and that humor was what John Hughes had made the most of the eighties out of. That, and Molly was pretty much a John Hughes staple.

I would like to point out that Hughes did not direct either of these films, Howard Deutch did, but I’ll get to that later.

Ultimately though, it was the fact that Pretty in Pink is much more of a fairy tale (ala Cinderella) than it’s sibling film.

Let’s consider the original ending to PRETTY WOMAN. I worked for the producer of that film as a script-reader. His assistant producer was a beautiful and smart woman. When she told me she preferred the original ending to Pretty Woman to what was on the screen, I give her credibility.

The original ending to Pretty Woman went something along the lines of Richard Gere dumping Julia Roberts back off at her apartment complex in Hollywood, and throwing her money on top of her. She angrily grabs the dollars fluttering around her throwing it after him as he is driving off and screaming “you wouldn’t know what real love is if it bit you in the @$$!!” (which was true, his character really was pretty much incapable of trust or genuine feelings by this point in his spoiled rich life). She grabs up the bills, storms into her apartment, grabs her messed up roommate, throws her in the VW bug and the two of them leave hooking behind to start life anew (with their new found windfall to set them up) in Bakersfield.

The rest of Pretty Woman actually is leading towards this ending. The tacked on “climbing up the ladder despite my fear of heights” proof of his courage never rung true for me (perhaps because of the private jet he didn’t seem to have any problem looking out the window on). In any case, it’s a character plot point that was given lip service once (or twice) and then serves as the crux of the climax.

Thrillsville...

However the movie was a huge hit, and that was obviously the ending audiences wanted to see. Ironically, Julia Roberts would actually correct this when she starred in MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING, but then we did get to see the guy she lost hook up with CAMERON DIAZ, hardly a sad way to end the flick...

Pretty in Pink arrived at it’s happy ending much more satisfyingly, however it was an even more last minute decision than Pretty Woman was. The original ending to Pretty Woman was never shot. Pretty in Pink got all the way to test screenings, and it fell flat. Originally, Duckie and Andie to to the prom despite Blaine’s dumping of her and have a charming evening in front of their antagonists despite all the crud every one else in that school had dumped on them (note, she didn’t fall for Duckie, but recognized better a true friend than a two-faced boyfriend)

A few things contributed to the original ending falling flat:

1. Molly Ringwald didn’t have any chemistry for Jon Cryer. She had originally heard that Robert Downey Jr. was cast in the role and that’s why she took it (she would later rectify this with the PICK UP ARTIST...what movie is that do you ask? Good question, I don’t know either, I saw it and forgot it before I left the theater...)
2. The test audiences wanted to see Andie get with the “cute guy”, or, as I prefer to think of it, they wanted her to have the guy she really liked the whole movie and wanted something to go right for her. The fact that there is obviously a contingent that wasn’t as satisfied with this outcome is undeniable considering Cryer still has people stop him on the street telling him he got robbed! And it’s not just nerdy guys, at the People’s Choice Awards a couple of years ago when he and Charlie took awards for TWO and HALF MEN, a whole plethora of women in the front of the audience screamed at him “WE LOVE YOU DUCKIE!!!!”
3. John Hughes came up with a brilliant last minute save. He let Duckie be the one to encourage Andie to give Blaine another chance. Blaine was never overtly self-centered throughout the film, he was however, like his name suggests, rather BLAND (like an appliance). He had no real internal strength, it was that strength that attracted him to Andie in the first place. Standing up to James Spader’s character, and apologizing, AND being alone at the prom were actually as sincere a gesture as Blaine was capable of making, given what we knew of him, which wasn’t much, which is my big annoyance with the film, we just don’t anything about Blaine except he’s rich, cute and not as bad a jerk as James Spader, which is like saying a black widow isn’t as dangerous as a rattlesnake...as an audience member, I’m not sure he’s good enough for Andie based on those virtues, however it’s not about HIM it’s about ANDIE’s dream come true. By the way, James Spader was fabulously vile and supercilious in this film, a stellar debut to the big film leagues (not counting the New Kids).

It was enough, the audience bought it, and the isolated dark lighting in the mist (which was to conceal the hastily set up sound stage and Andrew McCarthy’s wig) were poignant enough to leave us awash in Andie’s little wrong side of the tracks world being just a little bit magical for a moment locked in time.

And Duckie got to dance off with KRISTY SWANSON (BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER the movie) The better end of the deal anyway IMHO. Duckie had to get something, because, let’s face it, 20+ years later we still love him. He had a tremendous amount of screen time in the film (far more than Blaine, who was merely an object of desire) and Duckie was pretty much the source of all the comedy in the movie, which is what people went to go see in a John Hughes film in the first place. I don’t know if the Duckie character was supposed to occupy so much of the film originally, but I think Jon Cryer’s performance is such a stand out in the movie (the record store dancing is a show stopper, you know you’re good when Jack Black apes on your schtick).

I think this off balance of traditional roles in a teen angst romance ultimately contributes to it’s memorableness. It’s a little off kilter, but not in a bad way. It’s that offbeat energy that saves it from being a by the numbers Cinderella-ish story.

Because if Blaine is bland, Andie is too rock solid (like the Andies mountains? I’m stretching here...I guess she could be sweet like the candy too) There is not a flaw in this girl. She is totally defined by the challenges she has in her very flawed life (mother left, dad’s a drunken depressed mess, her best friend / boss Annie Potts is 30 going on 13 and boy crazy and rather charmingly nutty at that, and she withstands the constant berating of the “richies”, the constant love him / hate him friendship with Duckie and gets good grades AND makes her own fashion style with handmade clothes from thrift stores

YAARRRGH! Could even kryptonite stop this kid? You get my point. Andie is perfect. She helps her dad to let go of her mom, and suffers so much through it by having to relive the hurt herself in the process. She ultimately let's Blaine (deservedly) have it, and it's Molly Ringwald's best moment in the film) By then you’re really cheering her on for that anger and sadness release. You pretty much think that what little she vents off is not nearly enough compared to her suffering. She’s way too forgiving, kind, patient....well you get my drift.

It’s a little difficult to connect with someone like that. We admire and feel sympathy for her, but I don’t know if I felt like I really could invest in her story as much as I wanted to. Maybe it has to do with being a guy, maybe it has to do with the fact that I still wonder WHAT did Andie see in Blaine? Apparently the same thing Molly saw in Andrew and the audience saw too...they were "cute".

Kind of reminds of the Little Mermaid

ARIEL: "Daddy, I love him!"

TRITON: "No it's too dangerous, they EAT us."

ARIEL: "Fine them I've going to sell my soul to the wicked witch of the sea, because he's cute! That's what upstanding bright young Princesses do!"2

I'm not saying Blaine is a bad guy, but after re-watching this AGAIN last night with my wife, I actually didn't see the two character's connecting. Mostly we see Blaine covering and apologizing for his family and friends. I certainly didn't see anything in Blaine that I thought would truly make him worthy or attractive to Andy by the end.

In fact most of the movie is a little two-dimensional, especially when stacked up against SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL...

...to be continued

¹A note, John Hughes hated, and rightfully so, the use of the word “teen” as if it were a genre. Why is a teen romance different than a romance? Aren’t teen-agers just people who happen to be aged in early double digits? (yes I realize this discussion is up for some debate but just go with it).

²Go read the actual Hans Christian Anderson story for a very very different girl, with much deeper motivations. A a VERY different ending, involving the Little Mermaid realizing she screwed up because the Prince was already engaged and the sea witch giving her a chance to get her mermaid form back by having to plunge a SILVER DAGGER INTO his chest while he's asleep in his wedding bed beside his bride. Ouch!

My Wedding Day...(cont from previous)

...Not just any parrot...but a wounded parrot. One I found lying on the sidewalk outside my home when I lived in Silicon Valley and was about to enter into the black hole of adolescence known as junior high school.

The poor thing couldn’t fly. I was doing some yard work for our elderly neighbors, and the lady called her granddaughter to see if she would come over (since she apparently was good with birds). Turns out she was also good with unicycles, which I saw as she rounded the corner on the sidewalk and I said hello to my first big case of puppy-love.

She was the lovable tom-boy type. Popular, strong, independent, cute. I was the nerdy, orbiter type (those of you who have read “the game” KNOW who I was). The “friend” who was always there through the next 6 or 7 years of my teen existence. I wasn’t quite as ridiculous or consistent as Ducky, but in the back of my mind she was usually there.

Our senior year I finally got the nerve to ask her out to the senior ball. One day too late as it turns out (and boy that night turn out to be a disaster for her). But a day before graduation, I got to hang out and we said those cool bittersweet things you say to good friends, including that she indeed WOULD have said yes to me to go the ball, and it would have been a much better time. I got a kiss on the cheek and floated all the way home.

Flash forward to summer between my sophomore and junior year of college. I’m home working and said crush’s grandmother sees me and calls her granddaughter to kind of get us back together. We see each other off and on for a few months...and by which I mean we have one great date and good time one week, and she totally stands me up the next week. A few days later she would show up at my work with an expensive gift and tears in her eyes apologizing.

Being the naive doofus I am (and not wanting to wake up from my dream come true after 8 years of longing) it took me a while to figure out she was seeing someone else. What I didn’t quite know (but suspected) was she was seeing another girl.

When she told me I was the only man that could possibly be for her, I didn’t realize quite how literal she was being. Oh the irony.

Now I was pretty crushed and confused. This challenged all the beliefs I had been taught at my Christian youth group. As if that wasn’t stunning enough for a college junior (who’s relationship experience still amounted to not much more than pining over the Go-Go’s) I had this bomb dropped on me.

She was going to get married to her girlfriend. Her family had completely turned her back on her. I was her longest friend. She wanted me to give her away at the wedding.

Gulp!

Keep in mind, this was 198errrr something or other. This was not legal, completely underground. It was a bonding ceremony, but it meant the world to her and was pretty much the same as a wedding to her. (aha there is that connection).

I wrestled greatly. No easy answers here. Most of Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship friends were dealing with things like needing a good grade to keep up a scholarship. Sheesh, not a lot of help to found there.

It wasn’t much of a battle really. I (with great trepidation) very strongly said I loved and would support my friend and be there for her when all others fled. I walked her down the aisle (again makes for great conversation with the guys during that first big wave of weddings that happens right after college...)

“I got to be a groomsman for a wedding.”

“Well huh, I’ve been a best man.”

“I’ve only ushered, how about you, Kent?”

“Uhhhh...uhhhh....how’s the surf today guys?”

At the ceremony she had a brief shining moment of happiness and a new start on life (the life in union itself would be whole story unto itself, but that is not to be told now, if ever).

After the ceremony I had a rain cloud over my head and some very empty, lonely, frustrated nights ahead of me. I started working out like a fiend. I would be so riled up I would take off up the coast on my bicycle at 11:00 o’clock at night just to clear the cobwebs. No amount of praying or talking with friends or counseling could do anything for my anger and frustration and confusion.

On Easter (a couple of months later) I took a bike ride crosstown from UCSB to Westmont College. A campus my high school youth group used to go to as a summer camp and home to many happy memories. It was there that I first finally fell across the little chapel that you see at the top of this blog entry.

I bet you were wondering what that had to do with anything, after sitting through two full essay sized web blogs...congratulations! You’re rewarded, it all really does mean something... It was almost burned down last fall in the Tea fire, hence the scorched earth around it...also symbolizes the firestorm of controversy that I was referring to. (Really! Go back and read the first sentence of the first part of this blog to see if I’m bluffing.) Anyway, back to the tale...

It was there that I entered alone and went to the front pew of an empty chapel and sat, bowed my head, and cried and vented and silently yelled at God. I don’t know how she got in without me hearing her, but when I lifted my eyes a lady was right next to me in a wheelchair. She only said...

“Isn’t Easter wonderful. It reminds us of how much God did for us.”

I felt so small in that moment that I could have crawled under a caterpillar with fallen arches.

That was it. My angst was over. Totally. My head got screwed on correctly and outside of a semi annual Easter pilgrimage back to that place (for meditation, rest and soul searching) that chapter in my life was completely healed and put away.

Fast forward a couple of decades (give or take a year). I take Joy (my lovely bride to be) to said same chapel on Easter Sunday...where for the first time in my life I invited someone else to pray with me in my sanctum sanctorium, my private of privates. A pretty big deal this is.

We both bow our heads and after a time we both look at each other. The air was totally still and silent. There was a presence there, not unlike the one I encountered so long ago. Tears were rolling down Joy’s face. I can’t quite describe it...but we both were told the same thing, the same words written on our hearts. Even my Christian friends kind of look at me strangely when I describe this one to them. They don’t understand.

But we (Joy and I) do. It’s a big plus towards the equation that has lead us to answer in the vows we’ll be reciting this Saturday. It’s spiritual, it’s emotional, it’s commitment, it’s communal, it’s sensual, it’s partnership, it’s challenges, it’s holy...

...and it’s what marriage means to us.

Define Marriage (alt title: Can 'O Worms)

(reprinted from my website May, 25, 2009)

Does it seem like a firestorm of controversy is surrounding the institution of marriage?

Tomorrow (Tuesday) the State Supreme Court of California (yes the close to bankrupt, snail paced, 2/3rd majority to approve a budget bureaucracy State) will pass a judgement that will uphold or overturn Prop 8 (California's 2nd voter mandated will to define marriage as being between a man and a woman the first was overturned by 4 judges as being unconstitutional) as being illegal and unconstitutional (to change the California Constitution). Dizzy yet?

Saturday...I will be walking down a sandy aisle myself, and the very nature of the institution I am buying into (and by the amount of fees and insurances this very same broke State is charging me I mean BUY) may be radically reconfigured one way or another when I get there.

Although, I can make one point I think everyone can agree on up front. I think marriage ought to be to “love, honor and cherish one another, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, for better or worse til death do you part...” It’s amazing how many problems we seem to have just getting that part right... All the other stuff seems rather secondary don’t you think? And I’m not sure the legislature of the State of California (or any State or Nation on the planet) has ANYTHING to do with that definition...

The government is here to say what legal ramifications entering into the CONTRACT of marriage entails. That’s it. When you get down to it, our government doesn’t really have a say in the above definition of marriage. Do they care if two people are in love? There is some lip-service to it...but how the blazes do you enforce that? If California could find a way to ticket “apathetic” couples I’m sure they would. NO, our government simply handles the court cases and money connections associated with the customs...that’s pretty much it.

There is SO much more to marriage than that. Marriage carries a NUMBER of separate but intertwined meanings and definitions.

• Cultural - (ever go to India and see what their marriage traditions are like? If you want to take one in, better book a month and half off from work...) and cultures have traditions that mean things to people...even if they are outdated (ever see Fiddler on the Roof?) or nonsensical (why do we have a Groundhog Day???) but there are strong ties to a sense of identity and security and comfort in traditions. Groundhog Day doesn’t seem to harm anyone (unlike Weasel Stomping Day...) so we keep it going cause it’s fun and Bill Murray immortalized it...
• Religious - (yes there is a faith based component that has existed a LOT longer than the U.S. government),
• Legal - Your tax return status changes among other things (visiting rights, next of kin, extended family, etc...etc..)
• Emotional - Huh? Of course there is a LOT of emotion tied up with marriage. I’m not just talking about the aforementioned love, honor and cherish between two people who want to make a public declaration of their newfound identity as a twosome. There is a lot of emotion over the issue involved right now in simply stating that marriage validates people in the eyes of society. They are capable of love, of being loved, and in this particular time issue, of being equal members of society.

The problem is, an inherit need to be recognized and validated on an emotional level by those around you ISN’T a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. It’s a HUMAN issue. All humanity wants to be accepted and respected. No one (that I know) wants to be seen as inferior or second class.

But does the government law actually GIVE people respect and acceptance? It can make acts of discrimination illegal, but just as a piece of paper doesn’t mean two people will actually love and honor and cherish one another, nor will that same piece of paper validate the and equalize the oppressed minority.

Cultural attitudes will ultimately be the battlefield that is truely wanting to be won here. It’s why I think the popular vote IS the best way to decide the issue. The changing attitude of the population is what really needs to happen.

Back to the whole marriage issue, there is again a bunch of conflicting ideas of what marriage is. And it is true that there are some legal ramifications that amount to unequal treatment of a sub-set of the population at the current time.

However many, many, many people have other ideas of marriage outside of a civil rights issue* that their own good conscience and beliefs cannot allow sway on. however, I will speak primarily of religious and Judeo Christian in particular. I can’t really change the words of the Bible, and I don’t believe the government has the right to tell the church what the word marriage is going to mean.

HOWEVER, I don’t think the government has the right to determine the definition of marriage PERIOD!

The word marry and husband and wife should be stricken from every legal document across the land from sea to shining sea.

Instead, the government DOES have the authority to enact the legal ramifications of two people being joined in a CIVIL UNION and all the benefits / drawbacks that comes therewith.

All this wind and I may now sound like this is just a matter of semantics to me...but it’s not. Marriage means something...a LOT of things...to a LOT of people, and to the best of our country’s ability we should try to respect and abide by all, by getting out of the way entirely.*

A number of you may be wondering (or have already dismissed out of hand) the opinion of a never married, WASPy hetero, conservative(ish) person like myself as not having the life experience or perspective to speak on such an issue.

Believe me when I say I do have some personal experience with gay marriage...(no not what you think)...but I’m going to start a new blog entry to get into that....

I will say, it all began with a parrot...

* for the sake of brevity I will leave the issue of polygamy out of the arena.