I'm curious about something:
Different things can stress out different people, and stress can manifest itself in different ways. Today's kids are getting stressed out at such a young age, and they're getting health/behavior problems that come from stress. Some of the stress comes about because their parents schedule too many things for their children to do during the week-- clubs, sports, band, and all sorts of other things-- and so I'm wondering: are all these activities for the benefit of the kids, or so the parents will be rid of them for a few hours at a time?
I think kids should be given the chance to find something they like to do and that the parents should encourage them in the wholesome things they enjoy. But if a child, especially a young one, is involved in more than one extra-curricular activity it can be stressful for them. Kids need unstructured playtime where they can use their imaginations, burn off energy at their own pace, and just be kids. But I think some parents either don't like spending time with their children or it wears them out too much, so they enjoy sending them off somewhere for an hour or two so they can have time to themselves. Not only that, but do parents really expect their child to excel at something when they've got at least one other activity they're focusing on as well? The expression "Jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind. At what point do these activities stop being about making the kids happy and start being about the parents wanting time away from their kids?
Friday, August 26, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
They're Finally Here!
They finally arrived: two textbooks about interior design!
Back in college while I was studying International Relations-- which turned out to be a huge waste of a college degree, but that's another topic for another time-- I sketched out a housing design for fun based off of a house that I saw in a movie that I really liked. A year and a half later when Mc and I got cable I found the HGTV channel which is all about house decorating and design and things like that, and I realized, "Hey, I really like this stuff!"
Fast-forward to today. Over the past month or so I've been feeling like I'm not going anywhere or accomplishing anything in my life, that I'm stuck in one place. So I looked online for community college classes that I could take either online or during the evening when Mc can be home with the baby. Something to make me feel like I'm learning something that's both interesting and useful; personal enrichment. I looked at interior design classes and cooking classes, and although some of them would have worked with my schedule, because I haven't been in Arizona for at least a year I am considered an "out-of-state resident" as far as colleges are concerned. There's no way I was going to pay $2,000 for 2 classes at a community college, NO WAY! So I became depressed again and I felt like, "Well now what? I'm back where I started." Then Mc suggested I could at least get some of the books, and I thought, "That could work. I would still be learning what I want to learn and then after a year I'll be ready for classes... if I still want to go that route." That helped me feel better. Now the books are here and I feel like I'm learning again and putting my brain to good use, that I'm working toward something and not just sitting at home wasting away, day after day. I'm happy :)
Back in college while I was studying International Relations-- which turned out to be a huge waste of a college degree, but that's another topic for another time-- I sketched out a housing design for fun based off of a house that I saw in a movie that I really liked. A year and a half later when Mc and I got cable I found the HGTV channel which is all about house decorating and design and things like that, and I realized, "Hey, I really like this stuff!"
Fast-forward to today. Over the past month or so I've been feeling like I'm not going anywhere or accomplishing anything in my life, that I'm stuck in one place. So I looked online for community college classes that I could take either online or during the evening when Mc can be home with the baby. Something to make me feel like I'm learning something that's both interesting and useful; personal enrichment. I looked at interior design classes and cooking classes, and although some of them would have worked with my schedule, because I haven't been in Arizona for at least a year I am considered an "out-of-state resident" as far as colleges are concerned. There's no way I was going to pay $2,000 for 2 classes at a community college, NO WAY! So I became depressed again and I felt like, "Well now what? I'm back where I started." Then Mc suggested I could at least get some of the books, and I thought, "That could work. I would still be learning what I want to learn and then after a year I'll be ready for classes... if I still want to go that route." That helped me feel better. Now the books are here and I feel like I'm learning again and putting my brain to good use, that I'm working toward something and not just sitting at home wasting away, day after day. I'm happy :)
Monday, August 15, 2011
Movie Quote about Being a Woman
Through Netflix, Mc and I are watching some old classic movies that I've wanted to watch for a while. One of them was the 1950 movie "All About Eve" and the main woman said something that's stuck with me ever since we watched it. Her character has been a very well-known stage actress for many years, but she's 40 years old now and she is coming to grips with the fact that in 10 years or so her career will be over and she's wondering what will be left when that's over. Here's what she said:
"At best let's say I've been oversensitive to, well, to the fact that she's so young, so feminine and so helpless; so many things I want to be for Bill. Funny business, a woman's career. The things you drop on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. That's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted. And in the last analysis nothing's any good unless you can look up just before dinner or turn around in bed and there he is. Without that you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a book full of clippings; but you're not a woman."
Feminists would hate that quote, I'm sure: the thought of needing a man to make yourself feel like a woman and that your career means nothing... at least that's how they would interpret it. But that's not what she's saying. What she's saying is that your title doesn't make you who you are; you might be a senior executive or a manager of a company, but you're still a woman, and you need to work at that too. If you look across the table or roll over in bed and your husband isn't happy, or isn't there, you're not doing your job as a woman; you haven't worked at it enough. We are supposed to be a "helpmeet" for our husband, and if we've failed at that, it doesn't matter what success we've had in our other careers.
Granted, this movie was made in 1950. Some people might say, "That was over 60 years ago; things are different now." They're right, things are different now... and look at the divorce rate in our country. Look at the number of children growing up in broken homes. This is going to sound harsh, but unless the man is a jerk or a scumbag, the fault of this is on the woman. Good men who are happy at home don't go looking for happiness elsewhere or with someone else. We're in the feminazi era where as a woman it's all about your own career, your own goals and desires, and any man or children who get in the way or want you to be more of a "traditional" woman or mother can take a flying leap off a bridge (while it's awesome to have goals, we shouldn't sacrifice our marriage or family to accomplish them). We're pressured to be competitive and to want the jobs that men typically have, to "pull our own weight" by adding to the family income. "Nurturing" as a feminine trait has been reduced to the equivalent of a four-letter word. Staying home to raise your children is considered old-fashioned, or worse, unnecessary. Working to have a happy marriage and doing things to make your husband happy are low on the priority list.
I'm not suggesting we as women need to adopt the "Leave it to Beaver" wife/mother image; the woman who said the quote above was far from being like that. But she understood the need to embrace what it is to be a woman, to be feminine, to let our man be the man of the house and to do what we can to make him happy. Some men are not worth keeping; that's up to your judgment. But if your man is worth keeping, keep him happy and he'll stay; it's that simple. All couples have problems here and there-- that's unavoidable-- but if you work on yourself and at the marriage, you can work through problems before they become big stumbling blocks. Being a woman, with all the complexity that this entails, is worth exploring and embracing.
"At best let's say I've been oversensitive to, well, to the fact that she's so young, so feminine and so helpless; so many things I want to be for Bill. Funny business, a woman's career. The things you drop on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. That's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted. And in the last analysis nothing's any good unless you can look up just before dinner or turn around in bed and there he is. Without that you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a book full of clippings; but you're not a woman."
Feminists would hate that quote, I'm sure: the thought of needing a man to make yourself feel like a woman and that your career means nothing... at least that's how they would interpret it. But that's not what she's saying. What she's saying is that your title doesn't make you who you are; you might be a senior executive or a manager of a company, but you're still a woman, and you need to work at that too. If you look across the table or roll over in bed and your husband isn't happy, or isn't there, you're not doing your job as a woman; you haven't worked at it enough. We are supposed to be a "helpmeet" for our husband, and if we've failed at that, it doesn't matter what success we've had in our other careers.
Granted, this movie was made in 1950. Some people might say, "That was over 60 years ago; things are different now." They're right, things are different now... and look at the divorce rate in our country. Look at the number of children growing up in broken homes. This is going to sound harsh, but unless the man is a jerk or a scumbag, the fault of this is on the woman. Good men who are happy at home don't go looking for happiness elsewhere or with someone else. We're in the feminazi era where as a woman it's all about your own career, your own goals and desires, and any man or children who get in the way or want you to be more of a "traditional" woman or mother can take a flying leap off a bridge (while it's awesome to have goals, we shouldn't sacrifice our marriage or family to accomplish them). We're pressured to be competitive and to want the jobs that men typically have, to "pull our own weight" by adding to the family income. "Nurturing" as a feminine trait has been reduced to the equivalent of a four-letter word. Staying home to raise your children is considered old-fashioned, or worse, unnecessary. Working to have a happy marriage and doing things to make your husband happy are low on the priority list.
I'm not suggesting we as women need to adopt the "Leave it to Beaver" wife/mother image; the woman who said the quote above was far from being like that. But she understood the need to embrace what it is to be a woman, to be feminine, to let our man be the man of the house and to do what we can to make him happy. Some men are not worth keeping; that's up to your judgment. But if your man is worth keeping, keep him happy and he'll stay; it's that simple. All couples have problems here and there-- that's unavoidable-- but if you work on yourself and at the marriage, you can work through problems before they become big stumbling blocks. Being a woman, with all the complexity that this entails, is worth exploring and embracing.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Best "Jane Eyre" portrayal
A little background first.
The book Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books. I can identify with the main character, and at the same time I admire her. She has developed many talents, she is honest, hard-working, shows self-control, and she does what she knows is best even when faced with temptation. She's someone I can look up to and I can aspire to me more like her, and I haven't found that in most of the books I've read.
One day my youngest sister called me to chat and in our conversation she mentioned that she saw a great movie: Masterpiece Theatre's 2006 movie "Jane Eyre". She loved the movie, and I asked if she'd read the book and she said she hadn't. I had read the book again about a year ago so it was fresh in my mind, and I was curious to see how well the movie matched the book (I've been disappointed in the past with such attempts by movies like "The Lord of the Rings" and The Chronicles of Narnia). A short while later Mc and I signed up for Netflix and I searched the website for "Jane Eyre" movies and many popped up. Over the next couple of months I watched the two that were available streaming and then sent for 2 others through the mail.
The verdict for the best version is: the 5.5-hour-long 1983 BBC version with zelah Clarke as Jane and Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester.
I could give you a rundown of all 4 of the movies I saw but that would likely be boring, so I'll just glorify the best one :) The casting was excellent. Not only did all the actors look the parts, but the way they delivered the lines and their mannerisms while acting were spot on. The dialogue came straight from the book, with some lines left out of course but nothing added (in other versions they added a lot of dialogue that wasn't in the book; typical). The events in the movie happened in the order that they happened in the book and no events were left out. There is a little bit of narration but it was well-placed, helping to move the story along and give some character development; it did not distract from the movie at all nor replace the actors' responsibility to tell the story through their acting (as was the case in the 1973 BBC version).
Really the only downside to this version is that at times, mostly with the indoor scenes, the filming seemed to me like they were filming a theater production. This was the first version of the movie I saw and after watching the 1973 BBC version last night I realized that it's just the way the British filmed things a few decades ago. If you've seen some of those British comedies that are sometimes on TV, you can tell that the way they film is... different somehow, and it's the same kind of thing with this movie. If I knew cinematography terminology I could explain it, but I don't. If you watch it you'll know what I mean. It took a little getting used to at first but after a while I didn't even notice.
If you want to watch a "Jane Eyre" movie without having to read the book, this is the one to see. 1983 BBC. Timothy Dalton. The British also did a fantastic job with their 1995 mini-series of "Pride and Prejudice" with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. Another instance of "watch this version if you want to get the full picture of the book without actually reading the book." Come to think of it, the British also did the best portrayal of the Chronicles of Narnia. Straight from the books! Our American version was so disappointing. Good movies for what they were, but they strayed from the books when they didn't need to and it ticked me off. Leave it to the British to accurately portray their classics! :)
The book Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books. I can identify with the main character, and at the same time I admire her. She has developed many talents, she is honest, hard-working, shows self-control, and she does what she knows is best even when faced with temptation. She's someone I can look up to and I can aspire to me more like her, and I haven't found that in most of the books I've read.
One day my youngest sister called me to chat and in our conversation she mentioned that she saw a great movie: Masterpiece Theatre's 2006 movie "Jane Eyre". She loved the movie, and I asked if she'd read the book and she said she hadn't. I had read the book again about a year ago so it was fresh in my mind, and I was curious to see how well the movie matched the book (I've been disappointed in the past with such attempts by movies like "The Lord of the Rings" and The Chronicles of Narnia). A short while later Mc and I signed up for Netflix and I searched the website for "Jane Eyre" movies and many popped up. Over the next couple of months I watched the two that were available streaming and then sent for 2 others through the mail.
The verdict for the best version is: the 5.5-hour-long 1983 BBC version with zelah Clarke as Jane and Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester.
I could give you a rundown of all 4 of the movies I saw but that would likely be boring, so I'll just glorify the best one :) The casting was excellent. Not only did all the actors look the parts, but the way they delivered the lines and their mannerisms while acting were spot on. The dialogue came straight from the book, with some lines left out of course but nothing added (in other versions they added a lot of dialogue that wasn't in the book; typical). The events in the movie happened in the order that they happened in the book and no events were left out. There is a little bit of narration but it was well-placed, helping to move the story along and give some character development; it did not distract from the movie at all nor replace the actors' responsibility to tell the story through their acting (as was the case in the 1973 BBC version).
Really the only downside to this version is that at times, mostly with the indoor scenes, the filming seemed to me like they were filming a theater production. This was the first version of the movie I saw and after watching the 1973 BBC version last night I realized that it's just the way the British filmed things a few decades ago. If you've seen some of those British comedies that are sometimes on TV, you can tell that the way they film is... different somehow, and it's the same kind of thing with this movie. If I knew cinematography terminology I could explain it, but I don't. If you watch it you'll know what I mean. It took a little getting used to at first but after a while I didn't even notice.
If you want to watch a "Jane Eyre" movie without having to read the book, this is the one to see. 1983 BBC. Timothy Dalton. The British also did a fantastic job with their 1995 mini-series of "Pride and Prejudice" with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. Another instance of "watch this version if you want to get the full picture of the book without actually reading the book." Come to think of it, the British also did the best portrayal of the Chronicles of Narnia. Straight from the books! Our American version was so disappointing. Good movies for what they were, but they strayed from the books when they didn't need to and it ticked me off. Leave it to the British to accurately portray their classics! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)