The New York Public Library Salutes Children’s Books

Posted on June 21, 2013 at 8:00 am

Today the New York Public Library opens a new show about children’s literature.

The ABC of It is an examination of why children’s books are important: what and how do they teach children, and what do they reveal about the societies that produced them? Through a dynamic array of objects and activities, the exhibition celebrates the extraordinary richness, artistry, and diversity of children’s literature across cultures and time.

Our first books stir and shape us as few books ever again can. Goodnight Moon!Alice in Wonderland! A Wrinkle in Time! For three centuries and more, books made especially with the young in mind have served as indispensible gateways to literature, art, and knowledge of the world. Viewed historically and across cultures, the sheer number and variety of such volumes is apt to amaze. If, however, as adults we find that our own childhood favorites remain as thrilling or funny or heart-stoppingly beautiful as ever we should not be surprised. As W. H. Auden wisely observed: “There are no good books which are only for children.”

Today’s brightly packaged, increasingly globalized books for young people have complex roots in world folklore, Enlightenment philosophy, nationalist fervor, and the pictorial narrative traditions of Asian and Western art, among other sources. Collectively, they form a vivid record of literate society’s changing hopes and dreams, and of the never-ending challenge of communicating with young readers in the most compelling possible way.

The ABC of It draws on collections across the Library to present the literature for children and teens against a sweeping backdrop of history, the arts, popular culture, and technological change. The books and related objects on view reveal hidden historical contexts and connections and invite second looks and fresh discoveries. They suggest that books for young people have stories to tell us about ourselves, and are rarely as simple as they seem.

Related Tags:

Books

Monsters University

Posted on June 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating:	G
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Mild peril, bullies, insults, hurt feelings
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	June 21, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	October 28, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B008JFUPLC

“Monsters Inc.” is one of my favorite Pixar movies, filled with wit, imagination, and heart. This prequel is a lot of fun, still very funny and wildly imaginative, but a little hollow where the heart should be.

One problem Pixar just can’t solve is that a prequel has to end before the original begins. “Monsters Inc.” has a brilliant premise: there’s a monster world fueled by the screams of frightened children. The monsters themselves are terrified of humans, even a toddler named Boo.

There is a power factory that sends them each night into children’s bedrooms. The monsters have to scare the kids without being seen by grown-ups and get home without being “contaminated” by contact. By the end (SPOILER ALERT) the monsters have discovered that children’s laughter is an even better energy source, and the audience goes home feeling happy and reassured. But a prequel has to stick with the idea that scaring children is a worthwhile goal, indeed it needs us to get on board with the idea that we should root for the characters to be really good at it. We know Mike and Sully will end up as friends. So the sweetness and the dramatic tension are dialed down.

Once again, our heroes are Mike (Billy Crystal), the anxious one who looks like a green beach ball with arms and legs and one great big eye, and Sully (John Goodman), the giant polka-dotted furry guy who thinks it all comes naturally and he does not need to work. They both pick the prestigious “scaring” major, under the stern eyes of Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren, impeccable as always) and Professor Knight (Alfred Molina).

Fans of the original will be intrigued to find that in the beginning, Mike and the chameleon-like Randy (Steve Buscemi) were roommates and friends. How that turns to rivalry while the initial enmity between Mike and Sully turned into professional partnership and personal BFF-dom is the story of the film, with some overtones of “Animal House,” “Harry Potter,” and every ragtag group of underdogs movie you’ve ever seen.

Mike is the one who studies all the time. Sully is the party animal who thinks that he can get by on charm and talent. Both find themselves kicked out of the program, with just one chance to get back in. If they can be a part of the team that wins the intramural games, they can get back in the scaring program and become professional human child scarers. They will have to work together — and bunk together — with the oddballs and rejects at the bottom of the school’s social hierarchy, the members of a fraternity known as Oozma Kappa (OK). Their fraternity house is the home of one of the members, with his mom as their RA and chauffeur.

The frat brothers are adorable, especially the two-headed Tracy/Traci (voices of Sean Hayes and Dave Foley), and a fuzzy purple log-shaped guy named Art who looks like a Muppet reject (Charlie Day). Art is a new age philosophy major who eagerly presses his fellow OK-ites to try dream journals. Don (Joel Murray) is a middle-aged guy trying for a new career (apparently there’s a recession in Monster-world, too). None of these monsters is especially smart or strong or fast or scary. They have to compete against the fearsome athletes of Roar Omega Roar (ROR), let by the arrogant Johnny (Nathan Fillion).

There are some exciting and funny moments in the competition, especially a too-knowing obstacle course where the teams have to avoid a truly terrifying foe: human teenagers. The monster-ification of the classic college movie developments is a lot of fun. In making sure each team has a quorum, Johnny sneers, “We count bodies, not heads.” Tracy/Traci only counts as one. Of course, the struggle to be liked by the cool kids is the same whether you’re a person or not.

They did not want to go for the usual ending here, which is admirable, but the result is surprisingly downbeat and disquietingly know-nothing. If is not the loud, over-done “Cars 2,” it is also not the expansive, transcendent “Toy Story” sequels. Second-rate Pixar is still better than most of what is out there, but we expect more.

P.S. As always, the movie is preceded by a marvelous animated short from up-and-coming Pixar-ians. This one echoes last year’s “Paperman” romantic (and meteorological) theme, with blue and red umbrellas finding each other in a rainy city.

Parents should know that this film has some mild peril, bullying, insults, and hurt feelings. Characters cheat and have to pay a penalty.

Family discussion: Why didn’t Mike and Sully get along at first? How were they different? What was good and bad about the fraternities in the movie and how are they like groups you know? How do they make a deficiency into an advantage? How can you?

If you like this, try: “Monsters, Inc.,” “Sydney White,” and “The Lawrenceville Stories”

Much Ado About Nothing

Posted on June 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sexuality and brief drug use
Profanity:	Some crude humor and sexual references
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness, brief drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Mild peril and skirmishes
Diversity Issues:	Brief racial reference
Date Released to Theaters:	June 21, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	October 7, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00ECR7KX2

Joss Whedon’s take on Shakespeare’s classic tale is swanky, sexy, and sophisticated, as crisp as a dry martini poured from a silver shaker on a summer night.

In many of his best-loved romantic comedies, William Shakespeare sends his mixed-up couples into the woods so they can learn some lessons and straighten out their complicated alliances away from the strictures of society and surrounded by the natural world. But in “Much Ado About Nothing,” the two couples resolve their mix-ups and misunderstandings at home.

Whedon’s new film version of the play takes that literally. The movie was filmed in the director’s own house. Whedon had a break in filming “The Avengers” and decided to invite some friends over to make a movie. There are scenes in his daughters’ bedroom. While characters confer in Shakespearean iambic pentameter we can see the girls’ dollhouse, music box, and stacks of stuffed animals. His kitchen, back yard, and hot tub provide the settings for eavesdropping, plotting, pining, and law enforcement. Wisely, Whedon had cinematographer Jay Hunter film in a lush black-and-white that gives magic and timelessness to the modern dress and decor. It seems to dip the proceedings in moonlight, very fitting for the story of two moonstruck couples, one dramatic and one comic, who mirror each other with themes of trust, honor, and intimacy.

Every romantic comedy with witty repartee between initially antagonistic lovers can trace its origins to “Much Ado’s” Beatrice and Benedick, who spend so much energy discussing their dislike for each that other they must be in love. “There is a kind of merry war” between the couple, a character explains, with a “skirmish of wit” whenever they see each other.

A silent opening scene added by Whedon shows us Benedick (Alexis Denisof of Whedon’s “Angel”) sneaking out after spending the night with Beatrice (Amy Acker, in a performance of striking intelligence and grace). He thinks she is still sleeping. She does not let him know that she is watching him leave. Much later, he returns with his friends the Prince (Reed Diamond) and Count Claudio (Fran Kranz), triumphant after success in battle. He is welcomed by Beatrice’s uncle Leonato (Clark Gregg of “The Avengers”), but not by Beatrice, who mutters, “You always end with a jade’s trick: I know you of old.” We understand what she is remembering.
Their friends conspire to make them fall in love. They let Benedick overhear them talking about Beatrice’s love for him and when they know she is listening they discuss his love for her. The next thing you know, the sworn bachelor Benedick has changed his mind about marriage. “The world must be peopled!” he reminds himelf.

Claudio impetuously falls for the lovely Hero (newcomer Jillian Morgese), daughter of Leonato. The Prince’s bitter half-brother (Sean Maher) tricks him into believing that Hero has been unfaithful. In the middle of their wedding ceremony, Claudio accuses Hero and storms off. Claudio is so afraid of his feelings, he clings to the certainty of believing the worst rather than take on the risks of intimacy.

The capable cast is mostly made up of Whedon regulars, with Nathan Fillion a standout as the clueless cop Dogberry, who is a challenge to modern audiences with less tolerance for slapstick and malapropism than the 16th century audience at the Globe Theatre and modern actors who tend to overplay him. Fillion plays him with a light, understated touch that conveys confusion rather than coarseness.

Whedon brings the same light touch in making the comic couple in every way the heart of the story. Beatrice and Benedick may be clueless about their own feelings, but they are the only characters who have the wisdom and integrity to understand the injustice of Claudio’s accusations. That unity of understanding and purpose is as important in sealing their union as their friends’ trick was in revealing that their “merry war” concealed a deep affection. This play about the ability to see through disguise and misdirection has been brought to the screen with wit and style that illuminate its true spirit.

Parents should know that this film has some bawdy language and sexual references and situations, some drinking and drunkenness, and brief drug use.

Family discussion: Why is it hard for Beatrice and Benedick to admit their feelings? Why is it easy for Claudio to mistrust Hero and the Prince?

If you like this try: The 1993 version with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson

Tribute: James Gandolfini

Posted on June 19, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Today we mourn the loss of James Gandofini, who died suddenly to day at age 51 while he was vacationing in Italy with his family. He will always be remembered for his iconic role as Tony Soprano, the mob guy who was in therapy, in the ground-breaking HBO series “The Sopranos.” His portrayal of the complex man who was often at war with the world and with himself was mesmerizing. But he was also magnificent in a wide range of other roles. I especially loved him as Bear, the doting father, sometime stunt man, and occasional enforcer in “Get Shorty” and as the general in “In the Loop.” Last year he was outstanding as the head of the CIA in “Zero Dark Thirty” and as the father of a music-obsessed teenager in “Not Fade Away.” He was an actor of endless power and sensitivity, able to handle a lead role but an ensemble player who made everyone better.

Here he is telling Zoe on Sesame Street about what to do when you’re scared.

May his memory be a blessing.

Related Tags:

Actors Tribute

Interview: Joel Smallbone of “The Book of Esther” and For King and Country

Posted on June 19, 2013 at 8:00 am

Joel Smallbone of King and Country plays Xerxes in “The Book of Esther,” his first film role. He was nice enough to take some time off from his For King and Country tour to talk to me about playing the Biblical king.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko63DUcc8i4

How did you get involved with this project?

I’ve always had a real passion for film and music — the arts in general. I’m one of seven children, five boys and two girls, and I’m in the middle. The brother just above me, Ben, we did films growing up together. We just had a Super 8 camera and we’d run around the property making films and submitting them to festivals. And then I got older and the brother just under me, Luke, said, “Hey, what do you think about giving this music thing a shot?” So he and I started leaning into music but the passion for film has always been alive in me. My father, who also manages us, has some connections in the film world and he was in touch with David White of PureFlix. When they were looking at doing “The Book of Esther,” David said, “I might have a role for Joel.” They were so gracious — we were in the middle of a tour and I had just five days off. We flew out from Virginia early Monday morning and was on set in LA Monday evening. I did my whole role in five days and flew out the morning of the show from LA to Phoenix and performed that night.

It was really fulfilling, kind of a dream come true to be involved in film after all those years.

So you had no time to rehearse!

I’d gotten a script a month or so before. What I wasn’t familiar with at that point was that they change the script all the time, up to the last minute. And this film in particular is a period piece. In order to make it feel more like the day and time, everything was spoken in old English. Sometimes when you’re memorizing something it’s easy because you think, “I could say something like that.” But this is all thees and thous and noblemen and stuff like that. I spent about a month prior preparing each day. I had a lot of dialogue. About five or six days before the shoot, as we’re on our first headlining tour, I get the revised script. And it’s not just a few changes. It was dramatically changed. I was pulling aside everyone in the band to help me memorize the lines. I focused on the first few days so I could feel good about that and build my confidence going into it. David White was very gracious and when I had to do a page-long monologue he really helped me pick it up and didn’t blow a gasket when I didn’t know a line.

What about the technical stuff, learning how to hit marks and where the lights are?

In music you have a cue and a spot on stage but not in the same way. If you move your head a little bit you might be out of frame or out of focus. So it was a trial by fire. But fortunately, my character was stoic and pretty immobile. Most of the scenes I was sitting on the throne or sitting at a table. Which creates its own challenges itself because you’ve only got so much to work with, hand movements, facial expressions. I stepped into it not knowing a lot and after that five days I really felt like I had a good handle on what needs to happen in film. Since then I made another film with Billy Ray Cyrus, “Like a Country Song,” and having “The Book of Esther” experience under my belt allowed me to step into this role with confidence.

How did you approach the character of Xerxes?

If you read Esther in the Bible you have to use some imagination. What excited me about the story is that you can read these epic stories from history and never quite dive into the reality of what was going on. Here’s a young man. He’s just lost his father and is one of the most powerful people in the world. The irony is that rather than being a bit of a narcissist and making decisions on his own and doing away with his advisors. Instead he leaned into counsel, people who counseled his father, and he hung onto them for better or worse. And he really, desperately wanted to find love. He looked in the wrong places and made a political decision rather than from the heart with Vashti, which was a mistake. Even when you look through the six months of preparation and the nonsense, in the end, if you really boil it down, the decision he made about Esther were about more than her physical beauty. There was a love. We really wanted to turn the lens on these four characters. What are some of the pressures and strains and motives? What were their fears? That was he heartbeat of the film at the end.

Related Tags:

Actors Interview Music Spiritual films