Treat or Tripe? | Beauty and the Beast (2017)

*WARNING: Long post!*

Tale as old as time,

Tune as old as song.

Bitter-sweet and strange,

Finding you can change,

Learning you were wrong….

(Admit it, you were singing it in your head. 😊)

I didn’t want to see this movie.

Well, actually, right at first…OK, I was a little skeptical (par for the course with any new movie, even when it interests me). Remakes are always ticklish, and admittedly, a basically straight-up remake of Disney’s classic animated movie…well, it sounded a bit “milk-the-old-cash-cow”ish. But hey, nostalgia. I grew up with this story—and I’ve often wondered how it would do as a live-action—so like the rest of the Disney fandom, I eagerly awaited the release…not to see it in theaters…but to read the Christian reviews.

Oh my GOSH.

They did WHAT?!

They did THAT? In THIS movie?

BAM! Childhood ruined.

Thanks a heap, Disney. I am NEVER seeing this flick.

I am speaking, of course, of Disney’s decision to push the LGTBQ (RST…XYZ…MC-squared…“Alphabet Soup” :-P) agenda and make Lefou their token “gay” character (I still can’t quite can’t believe I’m writing this about Beauty and the Beast…). I was shocked, angry, heartsick, disgusted—dazed, even. And although the initial knee-jerk reaction has worn off into a sort of cynical acceptance, it still sickens me, not only that Disney caved in to the current societal pressure, but that they chose to do it with one of their classic works. I can accept that this sort of thing is coming—that sin is becoming more and more accepted in society at large, and that it will eventually creep into more and more movies. But if it must happen, I do wish Disney had waited to push that garbage in some other story and left this one—which so many of us have grown up with and loved since childhood—alone.

So why did I break my initial “vow” never to touch the new B&B with a ten-foot pole, and see it anyhow? Because there was (to use a legal term) reasonable doubt. Some of the commenters on Christian Spotlight declared the “gay” content didn’t detract from the main story. That it wasn’t as bad as people made it out to be, and that the rest of the movie was good.

And then my mother saw the last fifteen minutes or so while visiting my aunt and cousin in California this Summer, and said it was pretty good. She didn’t pick up on the “gay” aspect…because she didn’t know it was supposed to be there. It made us curious if all the fuss in the Christian community was just that—a lot of fuss.

So we stuck it in the NetFlix queue.

As far as the whole “gay” thing goes, there are really only one or two “uncomfortable” moments (Bro’s description), but overall, it’s very, very subtle, and if I hadn’t known Lefou was supposed to be a queer, most of his antics and lines that could be taken that way would just come off as goofy with a dash of “Wait, what?” Peter described it as “trying too hard to be funny.”

On the flip-side, I liked the other aspects of Lefou’s character development in this version. In the cartoon, Lefou was just Gaston’s goofy, caricatured, “whatever-Gaston-says-goes” little sidekick. In the cartoon, he was on Gaston’s team, so he was a bad guy. End of story. In this version, though, Lefou is a bit more complicated—a bit less black-and-white. As the movie progresses, he goes from hero-worshiping Gaston to becoming increasingly conflicted with his best friend’s actions, until he’s finally so disillusioned that he essentially turns against him. His line in “Kill the Beast” illustrates his growing inner conflict: “There’s a beast on the loose, there’s no question/But I fear the wrong monster’s released.” He’s seeing Gaston for who—and what—he really is: A self-centered, unfeeling “monster” who will stop at nothing to get what he wants, no matter who gets hurt.

In some ways, this was an improvement over the original character, and I really wish Disney had left it at that, rather than Doing The Thing.

What is more in-your-face, in my opinion, is the man who, when the Wardrobe dresses him up in women’s clothes, looks ridiculously pleased.

That, and the dog…um…marking his territory…on the hat stand’s foot…while the latter is turning back into a human. Totally ruined the moment.

*Eyeroll* Come on, Disney….

/RANT

I always knew that, if B&B were a live-action production, it would definitely earn a PG rating (in fact, I sometimes wonder if the cartoon shouldn’t have had that rating), given some of the dark and intense moments in the film. And those elements are darker and even more intense when rendered in live-action and realistic CGI (I actually kept forgetting that the Beast, the wolves, and the animated bric-a-brac weren’t real).

Personal caveat: Real wolves don’t viciously attack people unless they’re rabid or starving. Wolves get such a bad rap in stories anyhow, but the ones in B&B (both versions) are especially menacing. These ones, though, were even more so, and I felt their leader having that nasty scar over one eye was a bit over the top.  Bro’s theory is that, since the woods around the Beast’s castle were cursed,  perhaps the curse affected the wolves who lived there in some way.

Whatever the reason, the wolf-scenes (especially the Beast’s fight with them) are ten times more intense than in the cartoon. For this reason alone, I wouldn’t let anyone under ten see this movie, and even then, not without an adult present.

That said, there is no gore whatever—the Beast’s wounds look more like a bad sunburn under his fur than anything else. But it’s still hard to watch.

The Beast’s confrontation with Gaston is also ramped up a bit—mainly, again, due to being live-action. Having Gaston shoot the Beast in the back four times seemed overly vicious…but then, that’s Gaston. He figured if he couldn’t have Belle, at least the Beast wouldn’t, either. Plus the original knife-in-the-ribs thing probably would have jacked up the rating to a PG-13. Which would have been really sad.

At one point, the Beast tells Belle that he “received eternal damnation” for a rose, and when he catches Belle looking at that very (enchanted) rose, he shouts at her, “You could have damned us all!”

I don’t feel he’s swearing here—he’s using the word in its (mostly) proper sense…sort of. He feels the life he’s brought on himself (and all who live in his castle) is a living Hell, and he sees no way out of it (hence, “eternal”). His chance at restoration—and indeed, his servants’ very lives—are connected with the Rose, so if Belle had damaged it in any way, she would have sealed the Beast’s fate…and essentially killed everyone else in the castle.

But it still seems like rather strong wording for a family movie.

Personal observation/musing: When the last petal falls from the Rose, the Beast dies in Belle’s arms…and in this version, all his servants turn into lifeless furniture and knick-knacks. It isn’t until after this happens that Belle sobs, “I love you.” And it is at that moment that the Enchantress enters the room…and  lifts the curse.

Technically, she didn’t have to. The arrangement was, after all, for the Beast to earn the love of another by the time the last petal fell, and the last petal had already fallen before Belle’s declaration. But an Enchantress who could look into the Prince’s heart and find no love, surely could look into Belle’s heart and see that the Beast had earned Belle’s love long before she said it in words—before the last petal even wilted.

An interesting twist on this familiar and iconic scene, to be sure.

Admittedly, there were a lot of things that took some adjusting to, apart from the obvious live-action-versus-hand-drawn-animation. Little things, and not faults in anyway; just different.

While Emma Thompson’s Cockney (?) accent seems a bit forced (she doesn’t quite have Angela Lansbury’s soft, grandmotherly quality), her voice-acting and singing are pretty spot-on. And Ewan MacGregor does a good job of filling the late Jerry Orbach’s candlesticks.

Some of the familiar scenes are tweaked just enough that they’re different from the cartoon—sometimes for the better; other times, it made them fall flat by comparison. But they didn’t really harm the movie, on the whole. The exception is the scene where the Beast tells his servants he’s released Belle. When Cogsworth blurts out, “But why?!” it is Mrs. Potts who answers, “Because he loves her.” I felt this undermined the significance of the moment—robbed the Beast of confirming in words what he’s shown in actions: He has finally learned to love. I was also disappointed with the Magic Mirror. OK, I can understand their changing its appearance from frosted glass to heavily-modeled gold (there’s a lot of gilding in this movie)…but the looking-glass part looked tarnished around the edges and made images in it hard to see.

On the positive side, much of the bickering between Cogsworth and Lumiere is either toned down or cut out completely, which was nice. Sure, Lumiere teases and pokes fun at Cogsworth now and then, but overall they get along better. In fact, Cogsworth tells Lumiere, “It was an honor to serve with you.” To which Lumiere replies, “The honor was all mine.”

An interesting change from the original is that the one man in town who encourages Belle’s love of reading is the village priest, and his “library” is considerably smaller than the bookshop of the cartoon. It was interesting that Disney would take that route, especially considering the general anti-church attitudes in the world today.

Another change is that Belle asks her father to bring her a rose when he returns from…wherever he’s going (they don’t tell us in this version). Maurice, after nervously enjoying a good dinner at the Beast’s table, remembers Belle’s request upon seeing some roses blooming in the Beast’s garden—despite everything being frozen over…in June—and picks one to take to her. Little does he know, the Beast is watching from the shadows, and is none too pleased at this “theft.”

This is taken from the original fairytale—which my six-year-old self noticed immediately to be missing from the cartoon upon my first viewing—and it was neat to see it reinstalled in the live-action.

I’ll admit I wasn’t too thrilled with Disney’s choice for casting Belle, and I’ll own it was partly due to the fact that the other movies Emma Watson’s been in are on my Don’t Watch list.

Not to be mean, or anything, but to my eye, she didn’t really fit the image of Belle. Her acting also fell a bit flat in places, and I think it would have been better if Disney had hired someone to sing for her. Paige O’Hara might have been a little nasally now and then, but at least she had a good voice. I honestly can’t say whether Emma Watson has a good voice or not, as her singing was so heavily processed that it had an almost metallic edge to it in parts, which was rather distracting.

That said, the music—taken directly from the original cartoon and tweaked a little here and there—is superb. All the old favorites are there, with some of the lyrics cut out and new ones added, plus four new songs that give us a deeper look into the characters’ backstories. Really, this movie is almost an operetta.

I vaguely remember hearing good things about the Beast’s solo, “Evermore,” and when I actually heard it…WOW. Just…WOW. 

Honestly, Dan Stevens has to have the best voice in the whole cast.

Musically, it reminds me a little of “All I Ever Wanted” from Dreamworks’ Prince of Egypt, with a lot of emotional and visual similarities to “Out There” from Hunchback. Parts of it have a slight Phantom of the Opera flavor, too.

 “Evermore” is hauntingly beautiful, evoking a plethora of emotions and images in just over three minutes. My only beef is that it’s too short. It feels cut off, like it needs a couple more lines in the verses (and one or two more verses) to round it out.

It’s an oddly uplifting song, considering Belle has literally just left the castle, taking with her (as far as the Beast knows) all hope of breaking the curse. Even as he “rage[s] against the trials of love” and “curse[s] the fading of the light,” even as he accepts that the rest of his life will consist of “long, long nights” and “wasting in my lonely tower,” still under his curse, he still has Belle’s memory  and his love for her in his heart, and he’s grateful for it, and for the fact that, for a time, light did shine into his dark and lonely life. It’s as if he takes comfort in the fact that, twisted, cruel, selfish, and angry as he was, he was able to learn to love someone besides himself, and find the joy and beauty in life again. As if he’s happy just to have known Belle, to have had her in his life, and now her memory will “still inspire me/ Be a part of everything I do.” It was intriguing to have a glimpse of the Beast’s thoughts and feelings during this scene, and “Evermore” became my new favorite Disney song almost overnight…right on the heels of the afore-mentioned “Out There.”

This version fleshed out the characters a bit more—gave them more back story, thereby giving us a better idea of who they are and why they act the way they do. It answers a few questions the original left us asking—why Belle and Maurice came to the “little town” (which, BTW, is an even further departure from the fairy tale, but it totally works with how they’ve set up the story). Why no one in the village seems to have any knowledge of a CASTLE in the middle of the wood not five miles from their town. Why the Beast’s servants are still patient with and loyal to him, even though, as Belle points out, he’s basically responsible for their being cursed, even though they “did nothing” to deserve it, as he did. It even gives us a small glimpse into what happened to the Prince’s parents, and how he became “selfish and unkind to others.”

I’ll admit that I never cared for the Beast in the original movie—probably because he was rather loud and overdramatic. This incarnation has his tantrums, but they feel less explosive. This version’s Beast is more relatable. More human, even. One can better “see” the man behind the fur.

The movie delves deeper into the chemistry between him and Belle, which is at times humorously awkward, and later tender and endearing. This version showed me what Belle saw in the Beast…and made me love him, too. Or at least promote him to my Favorite Fictional Characters list. 😉

Perhaps my favorite addition (well, one of them) is the “travelling book” the Beast shows Belle—a magical book that will transport one anywhere in the world. While this, and the scene played out after its introduction, are a huge departure from the original fairytale, it totally worked, and provided so much wonderful character development, as well as a look at Belle’s past.

(Fun fact: If you watch Hunchback carefully, you’ll see Belle strolling through the street-scene in “Out There.” In this movie, the Book takes Belle and the Beast to Paris, with the cathedral of Notre Dame in view. Don’t know if Disney did that on purpose, but it was kinda cool anyhow!)

The costumes in this version are slightly more historically accurate, but with some whimsical details (on Belle’s frocks especially) that bump it into the “Fantasy” category. I was a bit disappointed in Belle’s peasant costume, as it sports a low neckline that shows some cleavage when she bends over—a sad departure from the beautifully modest (if rather modernly styled) original. On the up-side, though, her famous gold/yellow ballgown, while still sleeveless and low-cut, at least covers her shoulders and isn’t as shockingly low as the cartoon.

*EDIT 12-8-17*
Forgot to mention this originally, but it popped into my head the other day:
One of Lumiere's lines in "Be Our Guest" has been changed from Ten years we've been rusting... to Far too long we've been rusting..., which make the time factor a bit more ambiguous.
At the very beginning, the Prince is shown to be a young man (18 or 19 perhaps) when the Enchantress casts her spell. This fact, coupled with the afore-mentioned lyrics change, make a bit more sense; instead of punishing an eleven-year-old boy for being rude (which is really his parents' fault as much as his), she's showing a young man (who is basically an adult and therefore accountable for his behavior) that there are consequences to one's actions.

So, is the live-action remake better than the animated film? No.

Is it worse than its predecessor? No.

It’s a trade-off. The cartoon will always be a classic, and the remake will never completely replace it. The live-action lacks some of the charm, and is a bit darker and more serious (therefore not quite as “fun” as the original), but it has more depth. Yes, it has its issues—what movie doesn’t, especially ones made by worldly-minded filmmakers?—but they don’t “hijack” the movie. The main focus of the story is Belle and the Beast’s relationship, which is deeper, sweeter, and stronger for having more background and screen time. I’d make so bold as to say that that and “Evermore” alone make it worth wading through a bit of tripe.

The original was actually pretty “deep” for a cartoon, and I enjoyed it growing up. It’s great for kids and their families…but some of it fails to satisfy as one gets older. The remake takes that depth a step further and provides a slightly more mature portrayal. If it weren’t for the aforementioned tripe Disney felt they had to insert into this story (however subtle), this might become my favorite B&B retelling. I don’t think I could buy the DVD in good conscience, as that would feel like condoning that agenda. But I wouldn’t mind renting it every now and then.

What about you, Gentle Readers? What are your thoughts about this movie? Share them in the comment box!

Treat or Tripe? | The BFG

Having grown up with the rather dark TV cartoon version (circa 1989) of Roald Dahl’s otherwise delightful story, I had my reservations about viewing Disney’s 21^st century update. Reading the reviews gave me the impression it was pretty much a straight remake of the cartoon—with a few tweaks, of course—and since anything intense or frightening in a cartoon is usually ten times scarier in live-action and/or CGI…well, I wasn’t sure a trip to Giant Country was the best idea. However, as with several other new movies in recent years, my curiosity overcame my suspicions, and I put it in the NetFlix queue. We watched it last Saturday.

And while it will probably never be on my Top Ten Favorite Movies list…I’m glad we gave it a chance.

I’ll not delve into specific content and plot here—there are a couple Christian review sites that do a fairly good job of that. This post is simply my impressions of the movie, thoughts it provoked during and after viewing, and how it compares with the cartoon. I can’t say how it holds up to the book, because I’ve never read it (yet ;-)). In fact, I didn’t even know it was a book until almost half my life ago—long after I’d outgrown the cartoon. Story of my life…but I digress.

The live-action movie is definitely not a straight remake of the cartoon. In fact, it’s almost completely different, apart from the basic plot and several key scenes (which in themselves are portrayed differently). This is not necessarily a bad thing. As I mentioned before, the cartoon, for all its fun, lighthearted portrayals of BFG and Sophy’s friendship—and even a few goofy moments—does contain some pretty intense scenes for a kids’ movie. It’s never gory or particularly violent, but although Bro and I were pretty young when we first saw it, and neither of us had any ill effects…well, I wouldn’t recommend it for “chiddlers” under ten. Happily, this version isn’t quite as intense—although a couple scenes might be frightening for the under-eight crowd, especially in the theater in 3-D.

In fact, it almost feels tame by comparison (the climax especially).

The tone is, overall, more serious—even somber—than the cartoon, especially considering Sophy isn’t the first “Bean” BFG has brought back to his cave. It’s implied, although never actually stated (or shown), that one of the other giants eventually found out about BFG’s first little friend…and ate him. It adds another element of danger to the plot, and an extra layer of sadness to BFG’s character. It also explains why he’s so protective of Sophy…and why he eventually finds the courage to stand up to the other giants and help Sophy form a plan to end to their crimes against humanity.

I always loved the cartoon’s BFG for his cheerfulness and humor, and probably always will. This BFG, by contrast, struck me as being a bit grumpier, at least at first. As the story progresses, one gets the impression that BFG’s long years—and he admits to being “as old as the earth”—have made him tired and…well, I wouldn’t call him cynical, but he is definitely more subdued. He’s weary and heartsick at the “murderful” doings of his fellow giants, but too afraid to stand up to them. He feels he is too weak and too small to make them listen to him—he is, after all, the “runt.”

This BFG is older, wiser, and more of a thinker. This BFG is lonely, but shuns the company of the other giants because of their differences…and the fact that they bully and taunt and take advantage of him doesn’t help. He has a strong sense of right and wrong, but is too afraid to confront the wrong head-on (at first, anyway). He sees the faults of others around him and tries to compensate in his own way. He’s different from his peers—both in size and appearance, and in personality and conduct. He is creative and tries to make life beautiful; the other giants only know how to take what they want and destroy things. BFG lives in an improvised cottage or furnished cave; the other giants sleep out-of-doors. BFG collects firefly-like Dreams and gives them away like presents—blowing them into sleeping people’s rooms at night. Dreams that sometimes reflect the secret longings of the recipients’ hearts, which BFG can hear. And he’d rather eat disgusting, slimy Snozcumbers than stoop to his peer’s level of hunting and gobbling up humans. Even though he can’t stand Snozcumbers.

I saw a lot of myself in this BFG.

I must confess to being a bit shocked when, upon reading the reviews, I discovered that the effects of drinking Frobscottle—which BFG describes as a “whiz-popper”—is not, in fact, a burp. As a kid, I always assumed the downward-fizzing bubbles in BFG’s favorite brew came up once inside the drinker…or that it simply filled you with gas and lifted you into the air, rather like Willy Wonka’s Fizzy Lifting Drink.

*Sigh* The innocence of youth….

The cartoon just showed BFG, Sophy, and a kind of mouse-like creature rising into the air and zipping about randomly (accompanied by a catchy song that’s now running through my head…). The live-action version adds explosive clouds of green gas—and sometimes rude noises—to the “whiz-popping” experience. Which I felt to be a bit over the top, but then, I’ve never had any great love for body-function “humor.”

However, this is really a small part of the movie and doesn’t detract much from the main plot.

It’s hard to place the genera of this movie. Teens and older kids will probably find it slow and hard to follow, yet it doesn’t really offer adults much, either. As Bro put it, the moviemakers “focused more on abstract themes,” cutting out A LOT of the material we remembered from the cartoon, and leaving the movie feeling rather hollow.

Some of the tenderest and most important scenes in BFG and Sophy’s character development happen in the oddest places in the timeline, or with strange choreography—if you will—that doesn’t seem to fit the dialogue. Probably the biggest head-scratcher is their discussion of “Sophy’s Dream,” a special kind of Dream she caught in Dream Country…a discussion that takes place on a hillside overlooking the sleeping giants…while their plan to capture them is in motion. It just seemed out of place and impractical to be discussing Sophy’s heart’s desire in plain sight of nine other giants who would happily eat her for lunch if they saw her.

I’m not going to be mean and call this movie a load of tripe. This is actually one of the cleaner movies I’ve seen in a while (and considering some of Stephen Spielberg’s other movies—featuring rather cruder humor—that’s pretty good). And it was a bit of a “treat” to find it so much less frightening than parts of the cartoon.

However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s better than the cartoon. It is, and it isn’t. The darker elements are toned down, what violence/intense content is there is more cartoonish and comedic. The cinematography is amazing. BFG—and indeed, much of the world around him—is so realistically rendered that I actually forgot for a while that he is really computer-generated. The addition of BFG’s mad camouflage skillz during Sophy’s abduction was a hoot. The Snozcumber was appropriately slimy and unappetizing (in the cartoon, it was red-and-black striped outside and deep seafoam-green inside, and didn’t really look that “slimy and sickable”). BFG himself looked almost as if he’d stepped right out of the cartoon—from his mysterious black cloak to his wide, pointed ears, down to the style of his sandals—and gotten a more realistic makeover.  I especially liked how they designed his Dream-blowing trumpet, and the various mechanical devices in his cave—many of which were made from Human artifacts, as were many other things in Giant Country.

The music (composed by none other than John Williams) is delightful—it’s one of those soundtracks that, on the whole, fits the action so subtly and so well that you don’t really notice it, yet it undergirds the story. The one exception is the scene where the evil giants are rummaging about BFG’s Dream-cave while hunting for Sophy. The background music has a more comical feel to it—what I’ve dubbed “bumbling idiot music”—which helps diffuse an otherwise tense sequence rather nicely.

But the more abstract feel and odd script and directing choices leave it lacking the depth, both in plot and worldbuilding, that the cartoon had. The live-action is a bit more kid-friendly overall, but the cartoon tells a lot more of the story, and in a more interesting way. As Elizabeth Bennett would say, there is just enough between them to make one good sort of movie.

On the whole, we all enjoyed it pretty well (Mom’s biggest beef was that they made BFG so much smaller than the other giants!), and I wouldn’t mind seeing it again every so often.

But now I want to read the book and find out what really happened….

Until next time, Gentle Readers,

God bless,

~R~

Happy Things #6

Three things that made me happy today:

·        Peter getting caught up on his homework, thereby earning himself an evening off to relax with the family. Go, Bro! *Confetti*

·        Watching The Rescuers Down Under. Man, it’s been a long time! The “Joanna-Eggs” scene had us in stitches…and I don’t laugh out loud much. Definitely one of Disney’s better “kiddie flicks,” and great fun to revisit as an adult!

·        Eating chocolate-chip cookies with our hot cocoa. A step up from cookies-and-milk, wot? ;-)

Until next time, Gentle Readers,

God bless,

~“Tom”~

Birthdayness...belated

A conversation with Miss Kellie a couple weeks ago made me realize I'd left my Gentle Readers kinda hanging as to my injured hip. Oops! A thousand pardons; that was rather sloppy, aye? So below is the blog entry I'd started shortly after my birthday...and finished just tonight. Better late than never, wot? ;-)

--------

Twenty-seven. Such a strange number. Seemingly so much older than twenty-five, yet a bit younger than thirty.
But I really don't feel any older than I did last year—not drastically so, anyway. Not like the change from 19 to 20...but that's another story. Actually, I've been telling myself that I'm “practically thirty,” so twenty-seven doesn't seem so very old. :-P


The celebrations began on Friday, January 27^th. Friday night is Movie Night at our house (meaning we watch something longer than an episode of Star Trek or Murder, She Wrote during supper), so we decided to start my movie marathon then and go clear through the next Friday. So we began with the BBC's miniseries of Wives and Daughters, which we haven't seen in almost a year. I'd forgotten how much I love that movie. Almost as much as P&P (1995). We watched Parts 1 and 2 that night and finished with Parts 3 and 4 Saturday night.
On Sunday night we watched Emma (circa 1970's). Not the best version, but it tells the story more fully than the Miramax one (although that one is livelier). I think my favorite Emma is the 2009 (or was it 2010?) miniseries starring Ramola Garai, but we don't have that one...yet.

Monday night we had to settle for something shorter, as we had Bible study that night at our pastor's house...and that's how I came to be lame on my own birthday.

Monday had been a bad day anyhow, as I *think* that might have been the day I had my new dress all sewn up and put it on so Mom could take the hem...and found out the lower sleeves were so tight I couldn't bend my arms! It's been like that all through the sewing process—every time I try it on, we discover some new issue. Now you know why the thing has earned such epithets as “The Purple Monster,” “GownZilla” and “LavenDiva”...when I don't just call it, “That Infernal Dress!!!” :-P

So, erm, yeah, Tom was not in a good mood that day.

We had arrived at our pastor's house for Bible study, and Peter pulled into the driveway so as to be closer to the house, as there was still some ice and snow on the roads. For some reason I decided to walk round the back of the car, perhaps because we were parked too close to Pastor's rather prickly-looking barberry hedge. I don't know. All I do know is that, one minute I'm sulking my way around the car, and the next half-second I'm on all fours in a patch of crunchy ice. Normally I'm pretty good at walking on ice, but it was so dark the wretched stuff was invisible. Nothing hurt, and nothing broke, God be praised, although I landed with my left leg at a funny angle. And apart from adding to the “stick-a-blowtorch-in-my-ear-and-we'll-call-it-the-end-of-a-perfect-day” factor, and a bit of stiffness, I was fine all the rest of the evening. It wasn't till Tuesday that the trouble began. It was as much as I could do to limp my way about the house! Very probably I spent most of the day reading or napping. And my knees were still purple and yellow for several weeks afterward. Not fun.
However, by a miracle of God, my hip was so much better Wednesday (my birthday) that I could hobble about much easier than before. So I was able to move about better while Mom and I attempted to make truffles. I say “attempted” because it's harder than it looks to roll flavored cream cheese in melted chocolate and not use too much. Especially when the chocolate decides it wants to re-solidify fairly quickly. Even when it's still in the double-boiler with hot water under it! (Plus the strawberry flavor ended up runny because we didn't thicken the berries like we did with the raspberry filling. Oops.) I daresay our confectionery endeavors wouldn't make Better Homes and Gardens, but overall they were still pretty tasty.

It's been a sort of tradition the past few years for Mom and me to go thrift-shopping on my birthdays, but this year I just didn't feel like it (and this was before my injury), so we planned a quiet day at home. I hadn't expected any presents this year, but by Wednesday there were several on the little tray-table we set up in the living room!

Birthday Basket from the R family, with the lovely card it came with

The R family (who live just down the street from us) brought over this loverly little basket of goodies the day before, since they were going out of town and wouldn't be able to deliver it on my actual birthday. Notice how nearly everything in it is purple? Apparently Kayla (who takes sewing lessons from Mom) was asking at her last lesson when all our birthdays are, and our favorite colors, etc. Hee!

 
The first thing I noticed was this dainty china pitcher, painted with violets—one of my favorite flowers...and my birth-flower! (Although I notice violets don't bloom until March or April up here.)

Next came a box of Wild Berry Zinger tea, a pretty candle, an adorable kittens calender, a lavender-scented sachet (currently keeping one of my new dresses smelling pretty) and a package of Good & Plenty candy.

A Barbie-pink envelope from my Aunt B and loving Cousin Brenda contained a beautiful picture which Cousin drew just for me! I'll try and get a pic of it later. Eventually I want to have it framed to protect it from yellowing and dust...and dirty little kitty feet. :-P

Lastly, Mom and Peter gave me my very own copy of Nourishing Traditions, a fascinating (and sometimes alarming!) cookbook that challenges what the Powers That Be tell us is healthy, and educates the reader on the practices of our ancestors and how to emulate them in today's world...or try to, anyway. We had a copy once, but a couple years ago I went to take it off the shelf it was sitting on, and discovered it to be soaking wet! The shelf was under another, and the ceiling was dry. There was no water on the shelf, and none of the other cookbooks were wet (although the one directly next to it was a bit damp). And it wasn't the cats, neither, because it didn't smell at all (until it started getting moldy from being wet, that is). We tried to dry it out, but in the end we had to give it a decent burial*...$25 down the drain. :-(

So it was nice to get another copy—for less!

* Give [something] a decent burial = Throw it in the outside trash can. This treatment is given to particularly nasty and potentially smelly garbage, such as moldy cheese and packages that held raw meat.
~Tom's Dictionary of Whacked-out Terms and Old Family Sayings

The rest of the day we watched the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice (which is fast becoming a tradition) and made ravioli (courtesy of Costco) and meatballs with Alfredo-marinara sauce. Yum!

The rest of the week we watched a few more special movies, but I don't remember exactly what they were now. I do recall us giving Ivanhoe a try...and then switching it off because it was too graphic. O.O

Now I know that some of my Gentle Readers really like this movie, and I am not in any way putting you or your tastes down. Not at all. But seeing poor Wilfred—shirtless and bloody-nosed—being whipped because he won't tell where King Richard is (what a way to open a movie!), a dog being caught in a net, roughly-handled, having a spear thrown at him (it missed) and then licking his bloody paws (those who've read the book know why), and then...oh my gosh...a bunch of Normans on horseback chasing and trapping a pig—a sow who looked like she'd had piglets recently, to boot—and then spearing her for dinner (off-screen, but still...!)--all in the space of about five minutes...well, Mom and I just couldn't stomach it. Like Peter said, it was quite different from the Jane Austen flicks we'd been watching all week. I know things were gritty back then, but do they have to rub it in our faces?? Eesh.

It was all I could do not to think of those poor motherless piglets...and tell myself that it wasn't real. Editor's note: Too much information, Stupid! :-P

Oh. My.

So we watched something else instead. And more Jane Austen-type things the rest of the week.

So that was my birthday.

Fast-forward to the present.

CU of the print

I brought this little number home last Friday from work.

I call it "Jubilee" because the print is so cheery! :-D It looks vintage-y to me, just because you don't see prints like this much anymore, and the pattern used to make it was popular in the '70s (although the upward-pointed Empire waist and flared skirt look seems to be making a comeback). And the little piece of white sticky-tape on the neck facing--the writing all but gone now--makes me think it might have been a stage costume at one point. What fun!

Because the zipper was broken, and the back seam had ripped several inches (if not a whole foot) below it, and the insides of the collar and cuffs were stained (eeeew), and there was a good-sized hole in the hem...well, had it come in any other day, it probably would have been thrown in the Green Cross bin with all our other “rejects.” But the Lord had other plans for this cheery cotton print—He wanted me to have it! So I adopted it...and as soon as I got home, I threw it in the wash with a generous splash of white vinegar because it REEKED of mildew. That helped, but it still has a faint odor to it, so I plan to give it another wash later.

When I tried it on Friday night, I came to the conclusion that it probably would have fit just about perfectly ten years ago...back when I was 17 and under 100 pounds. :-P So yesterday and today I spent my sewing time happily ripping it apart, with evil plans to alter it. (Incidentally, it seems to be more relaxing to dismantle things than to sew them up...bizarre-o.)

Anyway, I noticed that the sash/ties were cut on the fold and fairly wide, so I opened them up and pressed them flat. That gave me two roughly 18” strips of fabric about 4-5” wide. I sewed one of them into the former back seam (having disposed of the busted zipper), trimmed off the excess and am preparing to use it to add some length to the shoulders (so the upward-pointing Empire seam hits me in the right place; it was too high before). Then I need to:

• Add 1” to the bodice front side seams, as it's a bit tight still
• Shorten the skirt (taking off fabric from the top) till it fits comfortably when zipped up
• Re-do hem to remove hole (which of course is right smack in front)
  
• Make front insert, because the neckline on this thing is shocking! :-O

...Oh yeah, and sew it all back together. :-P

And since this post is already over three pages long in Open Office, methinks I'll stop now and let you all rest your poor eyes. ;-)

Until next time, Gentle Readers,

God bless,

~“Tom”~