Okay, I didn't mean for it to take a week for me to get back to the blog. I'll have to start planning better.
Before I get back to the movies, I want to say that I hope everyone on the east coast is now and continues to be safe in the face of this monster storm. You all certainly appear to have managed to keep your sense of humor about it:
That's my friend Amanda Van Nostrand, New York actress, comedienne, and star of the Astro-Cons web series. (Yep, I totally just name-dropped.) My thoughts will be with Amanda and many others today. (And I will be referencing Amanda again later in this blog.)
Okay, back to the movies:
Love Actually (2003)
"Acting!"
I do, actually, love this movie, despite the fact that I fully recognize that it is deliberately manipulative and, at times, a bit silly. I'd call it a guilty pleasure except that I don't really feel guilty about having watched this film multiple times. I do wish that the director had chosen to excise the cartoonish, one-joke, and - compared to the rest of this film - aberrant Colin (Kris Marshall) storyline in order to flesh out (no pun intended) the cute story of movie stand-ins John and Just Judy (Martin Freeman and Joanna Page). However, it isn't my movie, and I'll just take the not-as-good moments with the I've-seen-this-film-a-dozen-times-why-am-I-still-giddy-when-Aurélia-speaks-English moments.
New Year's Eve (2011)
I passed on this and its earlier companion, Valentine's Day, because I felt that they were both simply going to be unsophisticated attempts to capitalize upon the Love Actually's formula for success: take several storylines that are insufficient to sustain a full film on their own and tie them together thematically into one movie. (And, yes, I know Love Actually is far from the first film to utilize this formula.) After a recent re-watching of said British rom-com, I decided to give Garry Marshall's recent effort a second chance.
"Dude, I was 7 when 'Slippery When Wet' came out."
Turns out my suspicions were correct. More a parade of stars than a cohesive film, this film's blatant manipulations just don't pay off in a way that I was willing to forgive them as I do with Love Actually. A storyline about a rocker hearththrob reconnecting with the girl he left behind seems like a natural fit for Jon Bon Jovi until you remember that he has to be able to do more than sing. What little chemistry there is between Bon Jovi and Katherine Heigl (seventeen years his junior) is provided entirely by the oft-maligned but truly wonderful Heigl.
There is one really intriguing storyline that has bike messenger Zac Efron (meh) bribed by frumpy (?) secretary Michelle Pfeiffer to help her complete all of her current year's resolutions before the start of the new year. This one does not fit the formula, and it really probably could have been expanded into its own feature (with some re-casting).
You've Got Mail (1998)
"Black 10 on red Jack, Hanks."
"Good dog."
This is another one that I can - and do - re-watch frequently, but it had been a while since I had last seen it. This time I found myself far less forgiving of Meg Ryan's choice to let her character bounce and flit through the movie. I may have actually yelled, "Sit still!" at the screen. I think this helped me to understand why my favorite scene in the film is when Ryan's character is home sick with a cold. She is much more grounded in the scene, and - as a result - much funnier. She reminded me very much in that moment of the aforementioned Amanda Van Nostrand, whom I had met sometime after my previous viewing of the film and who now lives in New York City. (Be safe, Amanda. Batten the hatches or hatch the battens. Whichever.)
Two Weeks Notice (2002)
Worst. Ventriloquist. Ever.
Shouldn't this be "Two Weeks' Notice?" I guess a contextual argument could be made for the absence of the apostrophe. I think about these things. My friend Erica and I argue about whether or not The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother is misusing its apostrophe. (I say it is.)
Anyway, this was another re-watch inspired by recent viewings of Love Actually and About a Boy. I wanted to watch another Hugh Grant movie, and - while I remember not being blown away by this one the first time I saw it - I decided to give it another chance.
Hugh Grant is funny and charming. Sandra Bullock is funny and adorable. For some reason, though, the chemistry (and the motivations) just feels a bit forced. Not a bad movie, really. Just not a great one.
It is worth noting, however, that this film was almost going to be shot in Canada to save on production costs, but producer Sandra Bullock insisted that a movie about New York must be shot in New York. The movie's production was a big shot in the arm for the city in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. That context sort of smooths out some of the rough edges of the film.
We're all big fans of Sandra Bullock over here at Superfluity central.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)
"Yes. I know who you are."
This movie boasts a handful of Orders of the British Empire - those bestowed upon Tom Wilkinson, Penelope Wilton, and Dames Judi Dench and Maggie Smith - so it sets the expectations pretty high. That's a tough position for a really nice, charming, but not terribly thought-provoking film to be in, frankly. I liked it, but I just can't rave about it the way that others have. It's a cute film that combines the idea of the elderly discovering that their lives are far from over with a fish-out-of-water tale in exotic India. Given the talented cast involved, it was a slam dunk, so I think I'd have liked to have seen the writers make it a little harder for them.
I think I'll leave it at that with the pledge that future blogs will occur more frequently. In the meantime, why not check out Amanda Van Nostrand and company in the animated web series Astro-Cons, as mentioned previously?
Here. I'll start you off:
I decided to return to the blog after - whoah! - after about three months. Interesting how life can do that to you.
Anyway, someone referred to me the other day as "a movie guy" - not in a disparaging way, just as a means of identification. I do watch a lot of movies. I guess I tend to think in terms of the movies I haven't seen yet (nearly 10,000 - I'm a list-maker) rather than the few thousand I have seen. Included among the films I haven't seen are several classic and new classic films that people I regard as movie experts say I "must see." (They're on the list. I'm getting around to them. I'm going to go watch The Best Years of Our Lives when I finish here today.) This is why I always talk myself out of starting a podcast about movies. I don't feel that I'm quite "expert" enough. Still, I do watch a lot of movies.
I'm also one of those people who likes to discuss a movie after I've seen it - preferably with someone other than my cat - but that opportunity doesn't always present itself.
So, as a precursor to a possible movie podcast somewhere down the line, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts about a few of the movies I've watched or re-watched in the last week or so.
(This may be a two-parter.)
The Muppets (2011)
Do a Google Image search for
"Kermit Goatse." Funnier than
this movie. Really.
I actually waited a little while to see this. I grew up watching the Muppets, so - like many others - when the first teasers for the the Muppet re-launch movie/tribute showed up, I was downright giddy, until . . . Jason Segel. I'm sure I will alienate many How I Met Your Mother fans (which will bother me for probably all of about seven seconds) but I just don't like Jason Segel. I didn't like him on Freaks and Geeks, and I haven't liked him in anything I've seen him in since. The only thing I like less than Jason Segel's acting is Jason Segel's writing, and - as a co-screenwriter on this film - his amateurish and forced sense of humor was evident throughout. And I'm not talking about corny jokes - corny jokes have always been a part of the Muppets in their subversive take on Vaudeville variety shows. I'm glad that Jason was a fan of the Muppets and pushed to bring them back into the public eye, but - as a storyteller - he's just no Jim Henson. But then, who is?
Hollywood has a tendency lately to take someone who has become a popular comic star (often inexplicably so) and simply give them carte blanche to work on whatever projects they want. Seth Rogen's insulting Green Hornet debacle comes to mind. I am disappointed that Disney decided to fall into the same trap in handing over to the Muppets to Segel.
It was nice to see the old gang again, but I'd suggest any one of the other Muppet films over this one - especially the first three.
The Sitter (2011)
"Man, I hope Elisabeth Shue doesn't see this movie."
I think Jonah Hill is a funny guy. Is he funny enough to carry a movie on his own? Sure, probably, but he needs a good director to make sure his improvisations don't go off-track or deviate from his established character, and he needs a good script that 1) helps to establish that character and 2) has him doing things that established character would do. The Sitter is just flimsy on all counts and is basically a vehicle for Jonah Hill to run around and be Jonah Hill on a pretty thin premise that doesn't so much mix genres as bash them together.
Now, this is not a new concept by any means. I can think of a few Richard Pryor films in the 80s, Jerry Lewis films in the 60s, and Bob Hope films in the 40s that followed the same formula. They aren't great films, either, but they do have a little bit of heart. So does The Sitter. Not a great film, but if you're a huge Jonah Hill fan, you'll probably be more forgiving.
I can think of one thing that - while it certainly wouldn't have fixed the issues with this film - would have made this film more enjoyable (and this is a note to all of Hollywood):
More Ari Graynor.
More, please.
My Favorite Brunette (1947)
"I'm being punk'd, right?"
This is one of those Bob Hope films that I mentioned above. Silly fun that is just a vehicle for Bob Hope's wackiness and more-miss-than-hit one-liners. Hope's brand of comedy worked better as the comic sidekick to Bing Crosby and in short sketches for NBC specials. I chuckled aloud once or twice during this film. For comparison: I'm usually holding my sides during a Marx Brothers movie - even one I've already seen.
50/50 (2011)
Look, Rogen is good in this film, but if you thought I
would pass up an opportunity to post a picture of Anna
Kendrick on my blog, you're sick in the head.
I really liked Seth Rogen in Freaks and Geeks and then, really, in not much else I've seen him in since then. Pineapple Express and Paul. That's about it. Until this film. Here he is the crass but lovable best friend of the lead character played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. When Gordon-Levitt's character discovers early in the film that he has a rare form of cancer, Rogen's reaction is not forced and fits well in-line with his character. This movie has great performances all-around from Gordon-Levitt, Rogen, Bryce Dallas Howard as the supportive but selfish girlfriend, Anjelica Huston as Gordon-Levitt's smothering mom, Anna Kendrick (I really like her) as a fledgling psychologist, and two of my favorite character actors Matt Frewer and Philip Baker Hall as fellow cancer patients. I also really enjoyed director Jonathan Levine's juxtapositional music choices that are neither prosaic to the scene (all too common these days) nor directly contrasting.
Good movie. Funny and touching. I recommend it highly.
The Three Stooges (2012)
I totally just forgot what this movie is about.
Oh yeah, it's - nope. Lost it again.
Unlike The Muppets, I was opposed to this update from the very beginning and then gradually warmed up to it. It goes off the rails a bit toward the end (which, actually, is more or less the case with all of the Farrelly Brothers movies), but this is actually both a very loving tribute to the slapstick trio and an updating that fits in line with what the Stooges were doing during their era. When Chris Diamontopoulus as Moe says to a zoftig woman at a fancy party, "Pardon me, Jumbotron," I thought "Classic Moe." Of course, the real Moe Howard may not have ever lived to see a Jumbotron. Will Sasso's Curly is a bit over-the-top even for Curly, but Sean Hayes is dead-on as Larry.
One odd thing: there's a scene where Moe says that Larry has a headache and Larry disagrees. Moe then hits him in the head with a hammer and says, "How 'bout now?" Larry holds his head and says, "Yeah, it's coming on." Hayes delivers the latter line in one way for the take used in the movie. The take used in the trailer is an altogether different delivery than the one in the film, and - in my opinion - funnier.
Why do studios show scenes or takes of scenes in the trailer that aren't actually in the movie? Anyone?
"Even like this, your girlfriend would
still dump you for me. Sucks to be
you. Sucks! Get it? I'm a vampire!"
Dark Shadows (2012)
I've only seen bits and pieces of the original Dark Shadows soap opera. I've thought about trying to watch the series at some point, but the 1,225 episode run seems a bit daunting. In any case, I'm not really qualified to compare the 2012 Tim Burton/Johnny Depp remake to the original article. I know that the original series wasn't a comedy, and the remake definitely is, so I can already see that there's a problem with the architects of the movie not fully trusting the source material. It showed. Dark Shadows the movie is uneven enough trying to incorporate elements of over a thousand episodes' worth of storylines (and character development) into a single feature, so adding comedy into the mix makes the film all the more wobbly. Setting the film deliberately in 1972 adds another element for the film to juggle and exacerbates the problem by adding the cheap gimmick of the 2012 Alice Cooper playing himself in 1972 (but bizarrely lip-synching to his old track. WTF?)
I guess Burton chose 1972 because it is 40 years in the past, but the actual Dark Shadows series ended in 1971. I don't know. It was just messy. Maybe Tim Burton was distracted with Frankenweenie.
The Avengers (2012)
Hawkeye. Yep.
I watched this twice in theatres - the second time just to re-experience the ride that Joss Whedon had created for all of us fanboys (and to appreciate the fine artistry of Scarlett Johansson's wardrobe designer). I know that there are holes in the film, and some seriously gimmicky moments. It was cool to see Thor bounce his hammer off of Cap's indestructible shield, but - given that Thor didn't know that Cap had an indestructible shield at that point - it also makes the God of Thunder an attempted murderer.
Anyway, I couldn't resist a third viewing, and it was still a great ride even on the small screen. This time around I watched Ruffalo's performance more closely, watching it with the foreknowledge of his revealed "secret" near the end. It was a little like watching the dinner scene between Bruce Willis's character and his wife in The Sixth Sense after having already seen the film. See what I did there? If you've seen both films, you know what I'm talking about, and, if you haven't, you're still not spoiled. Of course, the whole hammer-on-shield thing was kind of a spoiler, wasn't it? Sorry about that.
I rarely watch a film three times in the same year, but - holes and all - The Avengers has been my favorite movie experience this year.
So that's seven movies. That should do for one entry. I'll share my thoughts with you about a few more movies next time, including this one:
There has been some furor lately over who's a real "geek" and who isn't - stemming from a seething and immature CNN blog and an eloquent - if a bit naive - response. The resulting meme:
"Nobody gets to tell you if you are a geek."
Nice idea. If only it were truly so.
You see, right now, "geek" and "nerd" are really actually cool things to be - in some circles, and to varying degrees. As I said in a blog a few weeks ago, there are people becoming millionaires by appropriating the word "nerd," and there are supermodel/starlets who "confess" in men's magazines about what big "geeks" they are because they've seen every episode of Firefly.
"I've got heathens a-plenty here."
On the one hand, I'm glad that there is money to be made from embracing geek culture, and I relish the idea of sitting down with a starlet/supermodel and swapping theories about the true history of Shepherd Book. (I espouse the idea that he was a police detective in Greenwich Village for a time.) On the other hand, somewhere right now some brainy kid is defending himself against a physical attack by seven bullies who are calling him a "geek." Somewhere some socially awkward young guy has finally worked up the nerve to ask his crush to accompany him to a film festival screening of Serenity, and she just laughed in his face. Or maybe she was polite enough to say, "sure," knowing that she would cancel an hour before the show. (Is it just me, or do girls seem to spend a lot of time washing their hair?) Somewhere some bookish young fellow just overheard his father on the phone complaining about his "weird" kid who doesn't want to try out for the football team.
These kids are being called "geek", "nerd", "freak", "brain", "spaz", "weirdo", "dork", and a host of other names that I can't think of right at the moment, because I seem to have misplaced my high school yearbook.
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not endorsing Peacock's venomous attack on "booth babes." He is way out of line, and I suspect his tirade may have been sparked by being shot down at SDCC by a woman in a Harley Quinn outfit. However, I do understand from where some of that resentment originates.
At the same time, while I agree with Scalzi's indictment of the "geek hierarchy," I can only endorse with certain caveats his assertion that anyone who wants to can be a geek. (And I fully recognize that these caveats may reveal logical and/or emotional flaws on my part.)
When a former reality TV star builds a media empire on his nerd status but continually demonstrates his lack of knowledge about things like Doctor Who and Spider-Woman, I cannot help but bristle a little bit. When Hollywood's "it" girl of the moment goes on a late night talk show and talks about what a big nerd she is, I am keenly aware of just how thoroughly washed her hair looks.
Again, though, I recognize that these reactions are rooted in my own past experiences with the darker effects of geekdom. They are, however, experiences that have been and still are shared by many people in this world who embrace comic and sci-fi cons as opportunities to truly be themselves and as respites from a world in which they are either social outcasts or deeply and unsatisfyingly closeted.
My friend Jessica has a saying/hashtag that I really like: Own your dork. By that she means that you should embrace your geekiness - wear your nerd status like a badge of courage. I wholeheartedly agree.
I am learning to take those words and sentiments that were once hurled at me like weapons and forge them into a suit of armor - or at least a really cool hat. (By the way, if I can be permitted a further gush about Jess: she's wondrous. This is her blog.)
Scalzi is right that geeks should not be exclusive. We've been excluded so often ourselves that we really ought to know better. Peacock's blog post is vengeful, and we should not seek vengeance. So come on in! Come one, come all! We'll talk about Batman, Magnus Robot Fighter, and why Mary Tamm was such a wonderful foil to the Doctor as the 1st Romana. (You are missed, Time Lady. Greatly missed.)
::sigh::
There is no maniacal gatekeeper at a bridge of death who is going to test your level of geekness. You are welcome in this place. Here are your badges labeled "GEEK", "NERD", and "DORK." You can wear them one at a time or all at once, it's up to you. We've filed down the sharp edges, but - out of respect - we've not wiped them completely clean of the blood and tears. Wear them with pride. All that we ask is - before you put them on - you take a second to remember that there have been those who have worn them against their will.
Simon Pegg was at the San Diego Comic Con and posted a tweet with a picture that got him into a bit of trouble with a few female members of the cosplaying community. Here's the tweet:
The concern was that female cosplayers are dressing up to be a part of the geek community, not to be ogled by lascivious fanboys. This becomes increasingly difficult because - let's face it - female sci-fi and comic icons tend to wear rather provocative costumes. Wonder Woman - in most incarnations - is in a strapless one-piece swimsuit with boots. Catwoman is in a, well, cat suit. Uhura wore a minidress. Whether overt or subconscious in the design, women in science fiction seem to be drawn and costumed with ogling in mind - even by female designers.
Often it becomes ridiculous: in the short-lived Star Trek prequel series Enterprise, the Vulcan T'Pol is not an official member of the Starfleet crew, so she doesn't dress like this:
She's a Vulcan, and Vulcans wear this:
Okay, Trekkie question of the day: why do Vulcans wear make-up?
So, naturally, T'Pol dresses like this:
"I couldn't fit any emotions into this costume anyway."
The costume is designed to turn heads, and any cosplaying woman who chooses to pay homage to this character is likewise going to turn heads.
Mr. Pegg meant to offend no one, and he has said as much. Unfortunately, nerd culture is a culture in which female icons wear skin-tight or low-cut or short-skirted outfits or often some combination of all three. It doesn't make their characters any more powerful, tough, intelligent, or competent heroes, but it has - to a segment of the population - made them more appealing.
However, the proliferation and popularity of characters like Torchwood's Gwen Cooper, Firefly's Kaylee Frye, and Battlestar Galactica's Cally Henderson-Tyrol should be evidence that we sci-fi fans of the y-chromosome can admire - greatly admire - without requiring skin or curve showing costuming to ogle. (Of course, we ogle these characters, anyway. We still have a ways to go.)
Now, one final thought on Mr. Pegg's "gaffe": if the women in that photo were wishing to show tribute to one of the most iconic women in sci-fi history - Princess Leia Organa née Skywalker - they had a number of costumes over three films from which to choose.
The costume they chose was the skin-baring outfit she involuntarily wore while enslaved by a lecherous space slug.
Yes, I did make this picture larger than the others.
What?
It's possible - possible - that these particular cosplayers weren't all that bothered about being ogled by Mr. Pegg or anyone else. Possibly.
I don’t think that what I’m writing about today counts as a
“spoiler” per se, but I thought I should just go ahead and turn on the
UNSPOILER 3000 anyway, just to be safe. I just got this and I’ve been itching
to try it. I’m using the Charles Nelson Reilly audio file. It’s pretty cool.
(By the way, don’t order the DESPOILER 3000 by mistake. Friggin’ thing ate all
the peaches.)
Okay, so here we go **SPOILER ALERT!!** Yes, “Spoiler Alert.” Okay, so for
those of you who have seen **SPOILER ALERT!!**
. . . I think I must have it on the high setting, just a
**SPOILER ALERT!!** Um, I think there’s something wrong, I **SPOILER ALERT!!**
What the Punky Brewster is going **SPOILER ALERT!!** Oh, for the love of
**SPOILER ALERT!!** Seriously?
**SPOILER ALERT!!SPOILER ALERT!!SPOILER
ALERT!!**
Give me just a second . . .
[Foley effects from Rocky Balboa v. Clubber Lang fight – the second one – in Rocky
III. Sound of Nakatomi building roof
exploding in Die Hard minus Bruce
Willis’s teeth-grinding. Wilhelm scream.]
Alrighty then, let’s get on with this **SPURTY ALOT!!**
Well, that’s inappropriate. One more sec. . .
[That sound when Jerry hits Tom with a frying pan and leaves
an impression of his cat-face. Yoko Ono’s second album. Darius Rucker gargling.]
Well, that probably voided the warranty. Okay, shall we go
on?
*. . .*
Okay, so, for those of you who have seen The Amazing
Spider-Man movie and stayed through the end
credits, there’s a scene. Do you remember it? Don’t talk about it out loud
in case there are people around you who haven’t seen it yet. Just nod your head
if you’ve seen it. Okay, there are a number of theories floating around the
internet at the – okay, you can stop nodding your head now. (Really?) Anyway, there are several different theories I have
read on the internet regarding that scene, and, frankly, I disagree with those
that I’ve seen and heard so far.
I won’t spell out my own two theories in too great detail in the interest of
avoiding spoilers. [Looks sharply over shoulder at small plume of smoke in
background.] However, I will present two character profiles from the Marvel
Universe of two AARP-eligible baddies who have tangled with Spider-Man in the
comic books.
Suspect #1:
Adrian Toomes was an electrical engineer who invented both a
superhuman-strength-granting harness and a set of really awesome (and, frankly,
implausible, but who cares?) wings. Turning to a life of crime to continue to
fund his experiments, he became super-bad guy The Vulture, and engaged in some
pretty spectacular aerial battles with the young web-slinger. Really, though,
only one of them was wearing spandex in an age-appropriate manner.
Ew.
Suspect #2:
Silvio Manfredi, a.k.a. Silvermane, was a criminal
mastermind in the Maggia who also didn’t pay full price for coffee at
McDonald’s, if you know what I mean. He forced Dr. Curt Connors (yes, yes, put
your hands down) to create a youth serum for him leading to a confrontation
with both Spider-Man and the Lizard. Later, he would have his internal organs
transplanted into an all-powerful cyborg and became a formidable physical
opponent to Spider-Man as well (albeit with his left turn signal on the whole
time.)
Ew. Ew. Ew.
Anyway, if you’ve seen the end credits scene, you may see why I figure that one
of these two characters factors into that scene and the probable sequel.
Let me know what you think in the comments, but - since the movie has only
been out for a little over a week - watch the spoilers.
Also, does anyone know the exact wording of Amazon’s return
policy for items that have been, um, struck with a xistera?
I walked through a
county courthouse square
On a park bench, an old man was sittin' there.
I said, "Your old court house is kinda run down,
He said, "Naw, it'll do for our little town".
I said, "Your old flag pole is leaned a little bit,
And that's a ragged old flag you got hangin' on it".
He said, "Have a seat", and I sat down,
"Is this the first time you've been to our little town"
I said, "I think it is"
He said "I don't like to brag, but we're kinda proud of
That Ragged Old Flag
"You see, we got a little hole in that flag there,
When Washington took it across the Delaware.
and It got powder burned the night Francis Scott Key sat watching it,
writing "Say Can You See"
It got a rip in New Orleans, with Packingham & Jackson
tugging at its seams.
and It almost fell at the Alamo
beside the Texas flag,
But she waved on though.
She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville,
And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill.
There was Robert E. Lee and Beauregard and Bragg,
And the south wind blew hard on
That Ragged Old Flag
"On Flanders Field in World War I,
She got a big hole from a Bertha Gun,
She turned blood red in World War II
She hung limp, and low, a time or two,
She was in Korea, Vietnam, She went where she was sent
by her Uncle Sam.
She waved from our ships upon the briny foam
and now they've about quit wavin' back here at home
in her own good land here She's been abused,
She's been burned, dishonored, denied an' refused,
And the government for which she stands
Has been scandalized throughout out the land.
And she's getting thread bare, and she's wearin' thin,
But she's in good shape, for the shape she's in.
Cause she's been through the fire before
and I believe she can take a whole lot more.
"So we raise her up every morning
And we bring her down slow every night,
We don't let her touch the ground,
And we fold her up right.
On second thought
I do like to brag
Cause I'm mighty proud of
That Ragged Old Flag"
La Famille du Saltimbanque: L’enfant Blessé by Gustave Doré
Okay, I was just going to post the picture of this painting and leave it there. I wasn't even going to put a caption on it. I was just going to leave it there for you to drink in its wordless story, pretty much just as Gustave Doré intended it. But I chickened out. I wasn't sure that you'd get what I was trying to do - or moreover what Doré was trying to do - tell a story without using any words, which is what visual artists do.
Doré's other version. I prefer the top one.
I don't know why I didn't trust that you would experience this painting the same way that I did when I first saw it. I was moved by the anguish on the faces of the two costumed adults. Obviously, the anguish was for the child in the woman's arms. Obviously they were the child's parents and, obviously, some great malady had befallen the child who was now either dead or dying. No father looks at his child that way unless the situation is grave. Looking at the costumes, the parents are entertainers of some kind, and the child is in costume as well. They were performing and the child was injured. They must be acrobats of some kind. They may be street performers, desperate for money if they are including their small child in their act and now apparently unable to afford a doctor as they watch their child die. The story is as clear as if it had been penned by Hemingway or Austen. The title of the painting confirms part of the story. It translates as "The Family of Acrobats: the Injured Child." The placard next to the painting fills in a few more details that are of trivial note, but they do not really add to or detract from the impact of the painting. The painting was inspired by an event that Gustave Doré witnessed firsthand. He was so moved by the scene that he actually made two versions of the painting. This painting is why I so envy graphic artists. Even if enough words existed to convey the true emotional narrative of this story, I don't know that I - or anyone - could arrange them in a way that would have the succussion of this painting. I don't really have a point to this blog entry today. I just wanted to share this painting with you. If you'd like to see it yourself, it is currently hanging in the Denver Art Museum. Sixth Floor: European & American Art. It's actually right next to my favorite painting in the museum: the much more sanguine Childhood Idyll by William-Adolphe Bouguereau:
