Movie Review: Marie Antoinette **

At least I didn't pay any money for this turkey, just grabbed it because I had a free rental coming and had read the book it was allegedly based on. (If I were Antonia Fraser I would sue the people who made this for libel.) Yes, as a lot of people have said, the costumes and sets were gorgeous (that's what the second star is for), but over one half of the movie was essentially saying, "Boy - those French aristocrats sure knew how to party!" Also, there was virtually no inkling anywhere that there was a world outside Versailles until all of a sudden this mob shows up with torches and pitchforks. Considering how little a lot of people know about history, I'm sure that a lot of them were scratching their heads and saying to each other, "Gee - why are those people so mad?" (Oh, someone at some point does say that the people have no bread, at which point Marie Antoinette utters her most famous non-quote, "Let them eat cake.")

If the makers of this movie had actually read the book that they were supposed to be basing it on, this could have been a good movie. The actors seemed to be competent, and a far more interesting film could have been made if they had spent maybe the first 15 minutes on Marie's early days in France and used the rest to show how much she grew and matured over the years. (They still could have used the pretty sets and clothes.)

Then there was the ending. I sat there stunned, saying, "That's it?" Somebody said something along the lines of "Well, we all know how it ends," but I wouldn't count on that, and showing the dignity that Marie displayed during her trial and the abuse that she received at the hands of the revolutionaries, even if they didn't show the actual execution, would have provided a moving contrast to the early scenes.

Final word - it could have been good, possibly even better than good, but they went for the easy, simplistic drivel, despite the high quality of their so-called source. Oh -and the music was horrendous, especially at the beginning.

Why isn't this splashed all over the media?

Three cheers for the Chattanoogan - the only mainstream media outlet that I am aware of that has reported on this! Click on link for full story.

Bush Makes Power Grab
posted May 24, 2007

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

...

Translated into layman's terms, when the President determines a national emergency has occurred, the President can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the President with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

...

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the President submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Matthew Hine
Chattanooga
MattHine@excite.com

Let's try again...

I’d really like to keep this going and to talk about different things, but haven’t been able to get back into the swing of it. New “format” – at least for the moment –  none. I was looking at a book at Borders last night that was a sort of reader’s journal - the author spent a year or so taking notes on what she was reading, what she thought of it. I think I’ll try that for now, with some other things thrown in.

Here are the last two books that I’ve bought: The Assault on Reason by Al Gore and The Great Snape Debate by assorted authors, among them Orson Scott Card. I haven’t actually started the Gore book but did read the first essay supporting Snape’s being a bad guy. They actually made a pretty good case, but I’ll continue to root for his being on the right side in the end.

Books that I’ve finished in the past few days and may review in the future, with brief blurbs:

1) Innocent Traitor by Alison Weir - a historical novel about Lady Jane Grey. Surprisingly enjoyable. Of course, while her rather opinionated non-fiction has annoyed me in the past I’ve never denied that she is a good writer. She occasionally slipped into “lecture mode” a couple of times at the beginning (maybe an occupational hazard for someone who normally writes non-fiction), but appeared to recover. The technique of using multiple narrators worked out well for me but may be confusing for people who aren’t familiar with the historical characters. Rating: 4-1/2 stars

2) Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism by Gareth J. Medway - Essentially argues that serious “Satanism” as it’s generally been portrayed by the Church and more recently by fundamentalist Christians, never existed, but then of course, the author is (gasp!) a pagan, so why should we believe him? (snark) Contains an excellent rundown of the “ritual abuse” scare of the 80s and 90s. Rating: 4 stars

3) The Children of Húrin by J.R.R. Tolkien (ed. Christopher Tolkien) - Not The Lord of the Rings, but then nothing is. An enjoyable and suitably high epic tragedy from the earlier days (some 6,000 years before LOTR) of Middle-Earth.

At the moment I’m working on Jane and the Barque of Frailty by Stephanie Barron, the ninth Jane Austen mystery.

Happy Memorial Day - drive safely, have a good time but don’t forget what it’s about, and that American troops are in harm’s way.

Book Review: North by Northanger

North by Northanger by Carrie Bebris ****

This series got off to a bit of a rocky start in my opinion, but this book and the previous one have only gotten better. In North by Northanger in particular, Ms. Bebris has really caught the bantering tone that I imagine conversations between Elizabeth and Darcy would have had after their marriage, and the back-and-forth between them over the sex and possible names for their coming first child was one of the most enjoyable parts of the book for me.

The mystery is bizarre and a bit far-fetched but not overly taxing, and mainly acts as a vehicle for bringing together several of the characters we love (and love to hate) so much from Pride & Prejudice, as well as from the other novels. (I wish that Catherine Tilney - née Morland - had made an appearance, though. I would have liked to see how she could have matured from the slightly silly, though good-natured, "heroine" of Northanger Abbey.) There is also some character development, and it's good to see Elizabeth, who at the beginning of the novel feels overshadowed by the memory of Darcy's mother, gain confidence and become truly the mistress of Pemberley, which certainly would have been a daunting task for her, given her modest upbringing. Darcy, too, must still learn some lessons about humility, particularly in his overprotective attitude over Elizabeth's pregnancy. This is made more understandable, however, by the fuller picture that we gain of his childhood, his mother's personality and the relationship between his parents, mainly through letters that Elizabeth must pore over to discover what has become of a precious heirloom.

Book Review: Water Like a Stone by Deborah Crombie

Water Like a Stone by Deborah Crombie ****

In the latest installment of her Duncan Kincaid/Gemma James mystery series, Deborah Crombie continues to maintain the high standards of writing, plotting and characterization that I have come to expect from her. I recently went back and read a couple of the earliest books in the series, and while they’re good, the later ones only get better. In this one, Duncan, Gemma and their children from other relationships, still feeling their way in their relatively new family relationship, travel to spend the Christmas holiday with Duncan’s parents. On Christmas Eve, however, Duncan’s sister Juliet discovers the mummified body of a baby in the mortarwork of an old barn she is renovating. Simmering family tensions and a present-day murder add to the mix.

The mystery is interesting and intriguing, if a big complicated, but what I liked best about this book was its portrayal of relationships of several kinds. Duncan’s parents seem like fascinating people and I don’t feel that I got to know them well enough; I hope that they will make appearances in future installments. His troubled son, Kit, who is still dealing with the death of his mother in an earlier book, is a believable teenager, as is his rather less likable cousin Lally and her creepy friend Leo. Characters outside the family, like Duncan’s old school friend Ronnie Babcock, now a local police inspector; former social worker Annie Lebow, who has taken refuge in a life on the canals after a painful case; and the Wains, a poor family who also live on a narrowboat and are portrayed with respect and dignity, come alive in Ms. Crombie’s skillful writing.

Book Review: The Last Wife of Henry VIII

Well, I think that I’ll give this a shot once again, though maybe just with book reviews, at least for now.

The Last Wife of Henry VIII by Carolly Erickson ***

Carolly Erickson has been writing biographies since I was pretty young, and I’ve always had a lot of respect for her, although I have to admit that the last couple I’ve read have seemed pretty insubstantial compared to her earlier work, whether due to carelessness or an attempt to appeal to a broader readership by “dumbing down” her writing. I haven’t read her previous novel, but this one was a terrible disappointment.

Some reviewers on Amazon have countered those of us who object to historical inaccuracies with, “Well, it’s supposed to be fiction.” I would like to explain my feelings about the subject. Obviously, since there is a lot we don’t know about people’s lives and, after all, it is fiction, I personally will give the novelist a lot of leeway. We don’t know that Catherine Parr didn’t have an ongoing friendship with Henry, and it’s certainly possible. We don’t know when she met Thomas Seymour or exactly what her and her second husband’s roles in the Pilgrimage of Grace were, so my attitude on those things is, “Go for it! Imagine to your heart’s content.” However, unless there is good reason for it, a historical novelist shouldn’t contradict history or the known character of a real person. It may be fiction, but it’s also historical.

One example: I can’t believe that the devoutly religious woman that Catherine Parr is known to have been would have conducted an affair with Seymour while she was still married, and certainly not while she was married to Henry, especially with the example of Catherine Howard so recently before her. Also, especially after that experience, Henry would never have married her if there had been even a whisper of scandal attached to her, and I can’t believe that she would have falsely sworn that she had never slept with any man but her two previous husbands.

Catherine is also known to have loved children and to have brought Henry’s family together in a way that they had never experienced, yet the portrayal of her relationship with them is superficial and, except with her second husband's daughter, I never get any sense that she cares for any of her stepchildren. Her relationship with Elizabeth, such as it is, is positively antagonistic, yet we know that in real life there was an abiding love and respect between them, despite their estrangement at the end of Catherine’s life.

As for inaccuracies of fact, the whole scene where the house is under siege and Seymour flees before Catherine gives birth is total nonsense. I also don’t understand why Erickson felt that she had to merge the very real and dramatic story of Catherine’s friend Anne Askew into that of her one-time sister-in-law. As for things that everyone “knows” happened that probably didn’t, Erickson, like every other author who has written about her, had no problem using the whole idea of Catherine acting as a nurse to Henry, which has pretty much been debunked as a nineteenth century invention to fulfill Victorian ideals of the “angel of the house.” Henry had plenty of doctors, and no gently born lady would have been expected to tend to suppurating wounds.

The book was well written, but as I got further into it I was more and more distracted and annoyed by the author’s flights of fancy, and I agree with other reviewers that at times it read more like a tacky romance than an accurate portrayal of one of England's most truly pious, well-educated and level-headed queens.