The Help - A Review

Left to right: Skeeter Phelan, Minny Jackson, Aibileen Clark

Layers. That is the first thing I think of with this film. There are just so many layers to this film that I don't even know where to start with it. It's one of those films that you can't really forget because of how thought-provoking and spectacular it is. There are so many memorable scenes. The original book by Kathryn Stockett is just as poignant. I just hope I can do this film justice with my analysis.

Aibileen and Mae Mobley

One of the most iconic lines in this film is a lesson Aibileen, played by Viola Davis, imparts onto the child she looks after: "You is kind, you is smart, you is important." These words are repeated throughout the film, and she makes sure to say it with Mae Mobley. Given that this film is set in the early 1960s, the values of the 1950s are still running high among the women of this film. Aibileen tries to subvert these values by teaching Mae Mobley that her worth doesn't come from her appearance, but from the way she treats people and her own merits. Today, this is considered the norm; 60 years ago, it was considered progressive and possibly even dangerous. Women were still taught that their worth came from how they looked, and how soon they got married and had children. Intelligence and inherent dignity wasn't enough. Heck, intelligence wasn't even that important.

One of the main characters, Skeeter, goes through this particular issue. Out of her friends within her social circle, she is the most compassionate to others, regardless of skin colour. This is probably because she was extremely close to her own maid, Constantine. I think there was supposed to be a parallel here between Skeeter and Mae Mobley. Considering Constantine attended the same church as Aibileen, and their work likely meant they would have met up occasionally, it is likely they used the same techniques on those they looked after. Constantine is seen in a flashback talking to a teenaged Skeeter about how beauty isn't an outward thing: "I wish you would quit feeling sorry for your self. Now, that's ugly. Ugly is something that grows up inside you. It's mean and hurtful, like them boys." Because Skeeter wasn't a stereotypical beauty, she stands out compared to the women of her social group, who sport the latest hair styles and fashions. Constantine's words echo Aibileen's, and it's quite heart-warming to watch.

Left to right: Hilly Holbrook, Mrs Walters, Minny Jackson

Social status is everything to women of this time. The film makes that very clear. Just the image above makes it obvious. Hilly Holbrook, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, is shown as the leader. Her ailing mother with mental health deterioration is behind her, and apparently not even worth properly looking after besides taking her in (probably for appearances' sake). Right behind is Minny, Mrs Walters' maid, the bottom of the social ladder. I remember studying social rankings in GCSE English when I read John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Our class classified the various characters according to where they would rank on a social ladder. This scene made me think of that: the white able-bodied person would be at the top, while the black person - regardless of gender and ability - would be at the bottom. Quite the impressive line-up, really.

Minny with Celia Foote

Social status doesn't necessarily mean "poor vs rich." In Celia's case, she lives a glamorous life in a grand house on a plantation. However, she is shunned from Hilly's social group for two reasons: she doesn't have the same mentality as the group, and Hilly believed Celia stole her now-husband, Johnny, from Hilly. The latter allowed Hilly to spread gossip about Celia so that Hilly's social group wouldn't want to associate themselves with her, thus losing a social reputation. The former means that she will always be out of step even if she were allowed to socialise with them. This is quite similar to Skeeter, who shares similar views, but was kept in the group since she grew up with the rest of the women; we see her being slowly losing her status with the group because of her compassionate views. However, Celia only hires Minny because she needs help cleaning and cooking, not because it's social convention; she treats Minny as an equal, rather than beneath her. Minny even finds it bizarre that Celia would even try to sit at the same table as her. One of my favourite scenes with Celia is towards the end when Johnny discovers Minny had been working there for a while in secret. Celia prepares a whole dinner with everything Minny taught her as a means of thanking her for everything she did, something Hilly would never "condescend" to do. Johnny tells Minny that she "has a job there for the rest of [her] life, if [she] wants it." That little addition at the end makes a huge difference. Not only does Minny get job security for her whole life, she has the choice to decide whether she wants to continue working there or not at every point.

Minny exposes her chocolate pie to Hilly

I saved this one for last. The most iconic scene in the film. It doesn't even have a concrete historical element in it, but I just love it so much and it's so well-known that I can't not write about this film and not mention it. For a bit of context, Hilly has managed to pass an initiative in her town so that African-American people have to use different bathrooms to their employers, and it must be the new one that is set up specifically for them. However, there came a point where a hurricane went through Mississippi, and Minny was forced to decide between using the indoor toilet or her own outside the house. While Mrs Walters tells her to use the one inside, Hilly fires her for using her toilet. Minny gets her revenge by baking her signature chocolate pie, and serves it to Hilly, subtly hinting to her after that she put her own excrement into it. One might wonder whether she really did put it into the pie because if she did, wouldn't Hilly have noticed? I suspect she actually didn't do it, but made it seem as though she did. This wasn't just a simple prank either. Minny was particularly clever about this. She knew that she wouldn't get into trouble with the law over it because Hilly valued her social reputation above everything else. If Hilly told the police what happened, she would risk this information being known to those who know her, and she would forever be a source of ridicule. Of course, Minny uses this to her advantage. While Skeeter writes a compilation of stories from African-American maids, Minny insists the story be added to the book. As it would be completely anonymous, and the names would be changed, they would not be at any risk. Furthermore, Hilly would have to constantly deny the story was about their town because to give it any credibility would endanger her reputation. This was extremely clever, and I just loved how well-manipulated it was.

There are so many elements to this film that I could go on and on about it, but the post would be so long. I love the nuances behind each character, behind the key scenes. There's always a lesson to be learnt with the characters. Everything was just thought out so well.

The Boleyn Inheritance - Book Review

In light of my film review of The Other Boleyn Girl, I decided to do a book review of its sequel, since both were written by Philippa Gregory, thanks to a friend. If I recall correctly, this was the first historical fiction novel I read. I can't remember if there was anything else, but I remember thinking that I didn't want to degrade myself by reading the original novel of The Other Boleyn Girl, so I opted for this instead. The novel focuses on three different perspectives: Jane Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, and Katherine Howard. These give a different insight into the events that go on in the English court between 1539 and 1542. Honestly, this wasn't as bad as its precursor. At least this one made a bit more sense.

I'll start with Jane Boleyn's perspective. For those who don't know who she was, she was Anne Boleyn's sister-in-law through George Boleyn. In this novel, she is depicted as a rather vindictive woman with a guilty conscience. Historically, we know very little about Lady Rochford, except her close relationship with the Queens of England. She was known for having been a lady-in-waiting since the days of Catherine of Aragon, and served her faithfully until Anne Boleyn succeeded her. Although we don't know much about her, it has been traditionally accepted that Jane did not have a close relationship with George, and it is known that she did give evidence that led to his and Anne's conviction. Historian Retha Warnicke suggests that the reason behind this was because George was a homosexual. This line of thinking has been a common perspective to take regarding George's character, but Alison Weir argues that it was because of his promiscuity. As there was little evidence to prove his sodomite behaviour, she believes there was more evidence to indicate that he had been a bit of a playboy. However, Philippa Gregory takes an interesting approach to Jane's unhappiness: Jane contributed to the downfall of both her husband and Anne because of her strong jealousy of their relationship. Despite Gregory's love for historical inaccuracies, I have to admit this was a far more likely reason Jane hated her husband and sister-in-law than his sexual conquests. Anne and George shared an intimate relationship that Jane could not compete with, and thus her jealousy increased.

The novel suggests a certain guilt about Jane's actions. She goes on about her hatred for George and Anne, but frequently admits that she regrets what she did because she cannot do anything about it. However, her ambition is plain. When approached by the Duke of Norfolk (the uncle of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard), she makes it clear that she desires to attain a new position, better than her current one. If such an agreement was made, I think very lowly of Jane for it - as there evidence that she did contribute to Anne and George's undeserved executions, it is rather disgraceful that she still maintained such a high level of ambition that she did not deserve. Fortunately, I don't think any agreement of the sort actually existed. In the novel, the Duke of Norfolk and Jane agree that she might marry a foreign noble; such a thing seems extremely impossible as foreign matches were generally between royalty. Jane was far from royal, and given her reputation as an ambitious courtier who pleaded guilt on Anne and George's part, she would not have been accepted as a future wife. Gregory definitely plays on this when Katherine's downfall comes along, and the Duke harshly tells Jane that there was never any match for her in the first place. Smart move, since Jane was conspiring with Katherine to let her commit adultery, working with Katherine's lover to arrange meetings between the two.

Katherine Howard has been known historically for being a very frivolous and childish teenager, and Gregory takes full advantage of this fact. Many of Katherine's chapters begin with "now let me say, what do I have?" I did like this about the novel; it showed Katherine's rise and downfall very well, showing what kind of possessions she gains and loses as the novel goes. I don't know if it was Gregory's intent, but Katherine came across as extremely annoying. Perhaps that was meant to be the case, since we are talking about a fourteen-year old girl who only cared about jewels and dancing. There was something about the way she was depicted, however, that made me feel sorry for her in a way that the HBO series, The Tudors, did not. Katherine is shown to be very ambitious, but in a typical teenage way, easily led astray by shiny things. But Gregory shows a dark side of Katherine's role that betrays her true feelings: "Being the wife of a king is not all dancing and parties in the rose garden...Nobody must ever know that I am so disgusted that I could vomit; nobody must ever know that it almost breaks my heart that the things I learned to do for love are now done to excite a man who would be better off saying his prayers and going to sleep. Nobody knows how hard I earn my sables and my pearls." A vigorous young girl, she longs for true love, which she knows she can never find in her husband, especially since she did have an affair with Francis Dereham before she entered the English court. This was why I couldn't feel sorry for Katherine in The Tudors: Jonathan Rhys Meyers was depicted far too handsomely to be Henry VIII.

The most fascinating character of this novel is Anne of Cleves. In this novel, she is depicted as an innocent Lutheran, bent on being a devoted wife. She is the total antithesis of Jane and Katherine, lacking in ambition, and desiring the good of others rather than herself. The only thing she worries for herself is her safety, and does whatever she can to conform to the will of King Henry to protect herself. While she is sent by her brother in the hopes that she can convert England to a Lutheranism, she realises very early on that she will not be able to do this, and immediately begins following the religion of her husband, however confused she may be about it. Traditionally, it has been accepted that Anne was from a Lutheran family, since her father had been influenced by a moderate line of thinking within the Reformation, her sister married the head of the Protestant Confederation of Germany, and her brother was a leading member of the Protestants who sought to fight against the Catholic rulers of France and the Holy Roman Empire. At least on that front, Gregory stayed true to historical accuracy. Anne's upbringing in the novel is shown to have been very simple. She was taught common wifely skills of the time, such as needlework, but not much else. She is only able to converse in German, and when asked to dance by Henry, her party is forced to inform him that she doesn't know how to dance. Yet she is seen to be a quick learner; she adapts to the English lifestyle, picking up English with the help of her ladies-in-waiting, dressing more fashionably, and learning different habits of the English court.

However, she is shown to be in constant danger. Knowing the changeable nature of Henry, she fears for her life at every point of the novel. When she was introduced to the King, she feared that his disgust of her would either prompt him to send her back to Cleves, or that he might find a way to kill her. When the marriage was disintegrating, she feared he would find a way to convict her of treason, just as he did with Cromwell. Even after she had agreed to the annulment and lived quietly in her own estates, she frequently worried about Henry deciding to send for her arrest, even if she knew she did nothing wrong. It wouldn't be until his death that she would finally feel free.

Certainly, Gregory does explain the Boleyn inheritance well. The blurb of the novel is an excellent summary of the inheritance that is bestowed upon the three women. Anne's inheritance is accusations, Katherine's is execution, and Jane's is "a fortune and a title, in exchange for her soul." She explains all this very well in how she depicts the three women, and I have to say, she redeemed herself. Perhaps she knew that success with The Other Boleyn Girl meant more historical scrutiny, and thus she felt it necessary to follow history more closely rather than constantly go down the road of "what if?" At least self-reflection is possible with her, however much I still think she is sub-par compared to other historical fiction novelists.

The Other Boleyn Girl - A Review

Right off the bat I'll say this: Worst. Historical. Film. Ever.

This could easily take an award for being able to screw up a Tudor-inspired film in almost every way possible. The stories were all wrong, the characters were all wrong; the only thing I thought they did well were the costumes. That's about it. 

The film begins with Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn, and George Boleyn as children running in a field while their parents, Sir Thomas and Lady Elizabeth, discuss their daughters' marriage prospects with the Carey family. Already the beginning has screwed up. Based on historical evidences, there was never any indication that Anne Boleyn was a potential wife for William Carey. True enough Mary did marry William, but as the film goes on, it gives off the indication that Mary was the innocent, younger sister of Anne. The truth was far different: not only was it more likely that she was actually the elder sister, her reputation before she married was as the "very great whore," in the King of France's words. Instead, the film makes it seem as though Mary was inexperienced with matters of the world, and desirous for a simple life in the countryside as a gentlewoman. Meanwhile, Catherine of Aragon's last miscarriage is depicted as being around the same time as Mary's marriage to William - which is also false. Catherine's last known pregnancy ended with a miscarriage of a girl, not a boy, and was in 1518, not in 1520. These are only the smallest of historical transgressions with this film, but it's not a good start at all.

Not long after Mary's marriage, Sir Thomas and the Duke of Norfolk propose that Anne become King Henry's new mistress, believing she could gain a title out of it. Due to a mistake on Anne's part, Mary is instead recruited as Henry's mistress, soon falling pregnant with his child. This was not wholly inaccurate in that she was Henry's mistress, and she did fall pregnant around this time. However, there's little known about when her affair with Henry began and how long it went on for. While she embarks on this affair, Anne elopes with a courtier, Henry Percy, and consummates the marriage. When her family finds out, the marriage is supposedly dissolved and she is banished to France as a punishment. Okay, first of all, she never married him. She was secretly engaged to him around the same time Mary was with Henry, but the engagement was broken off by Cardinal Wolsey. No known sexual affairs were reported. Secondly, she was never banished to France; she was merely sent home to Hever Castle. She did live in France as a young teenager, where she developed an interest in the arts, music, writing and religious philosophy. If the film-makers had done any research at all, the idea of "banishing" Anne to France would have been more of a reward than anything since it was a hub of philosophical/theological debate and learning - something Anne would have loved. As for Mary's pregnancy, she was not pregnant with a boy at this point, but a girl.

Anne enlightening the English court of the French.

Anne's return from France to the English court was depicted as a means to ensure Henry would remain loyal to the Boleyn family. She is charged with the duty to keep Henry's focus on Mary during her pregnancy so that the family will maintain a steady rise in prominence and popularity. Instead, she attracts his attention and snidely rejects his advances in the guise of protecting her sister, which she knows is actually luring him closer to her. This was not totally inaccurate. While in reality she was not charged with helping her sister, as Henry did not pursue Anne until around 1528, she did reject his advances in some ways when she did attract his attention. Anne Boleyn was famous for being one of the very few women who refused to be his official mistress, being very protective of her virtue. There have been rumours that she had been sexually active, either with English courtiers before her marriage to Henry or with French courtiers knowing the sexual nature of the French court, but she had generally been regarded as a virtuous woman in that regard. Where the film went wrong on this was how Henry reacted. Initially he seemed entranced by her rejections, and wanting more of her, which was accurate; but when Catherine of Aragon was removed from palace and he broke with the Catholic Church, her rejection on the grounds that they were not yet married resulted in Henry raping Anne. This was one of the worst inaccuracies in the entire film. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that their first sexual encounter was a rape. While you might ask, "Why would there be evidence in the first place?", it is simply that Henry treated Anne like the Queen he thought her to be even before they were married, showering her constantly with gifts, and this continued long after they were married.

Queen Anne Boleyn was another problem. While the film at least got it right that she was indeed pregnant when she was crowned, it was shown as a very depressing public wedding. The coronation itself was one of magnificence, and it shouldn't have been understated in the slightest. Instead, at the grand feast and celebration of her ascension as Queen, a very slow dance was played while the public screamed "witch!" at her. Whether this actually happened in reality is unknown, but I won't lie - I wouldn't be surprised if they did. It's definitely far more realistic than HBO's The Tudors depicting William Brereton attempting to assassinate her during the journey for the coronation. When Anne gave birth to Elizabeth, the explanation given was that she was named for Henry's mother, which actually was rather true. Historians speculate that the future Queen Elizabeth I was named for either of her grandmothers as they were both named "Elizabeth." The disappointment was very much accurate for both characters. I reckon this was the only historically accurate moment in the film where I can't find any faults at all. Mary Boleyn was likely there for Elizabeth's birth (there's little reason why she wouldn't be), Anne was impatient to know the gender of her child, and Henry - while disappointed - was confident that a healthy daughter was a sign she could have a healthy son.

Anne Boleyn about to be condemned.

Anne's downfall was extremely ridiculous. While she did suffer a couple of miscarriages after Elizabeth's birth, although the film depicts only one, there is no evidence she considered committing incest with her brother, George, in order to bear the King a son. It wouldn't have crossed the mind of this great virtuous woman who protected her virginity so strongly until she was certain she would be the next Queen of England. She even swore on damnation of her soul in her last confession that she had never been unfaithful to her husband. There were accusations of incest and adultery against her at the time, but while the council was unanimous in their decision to condemn her, it was agreed around court gossip that the accusations did not hold much water. The film shows Mary going to Henry in an attempt to plead for Anne's life, and he temporarily agrees. This never happened. Mary re-married after the death of her husband to a simple soldier, William Stafford, but this was during Anne's reign, and when she revealed it to her family (after getting pregnant too), she was banished from the court and never allowed to see her family. Instead, the film makes it seem as though she left the court of her own free will, and only married William after Anne's death.

Speaking of, Anne's execution was...just bizarre. I can't even totally call it historically inaccurate simply because it was just complex. For one, her speech was very different to what is commonly used in historical dramas as detailed by Tudor chronicler, Edward Hall. Historian Antonia Fraser found an alternative source for Anne's execution speech, which was what was used in this film. I originally thought that was another screw-up, but this speech was reported by Sir Thomas Wriothesley, a lawyer and courtier at the Tudor court. It was interesting to see a different speech being used, but I do prefer the more common one. As for Anne's behaviour on the scaffold, she was seen as a sobbing mess in the film, quite unlike the real Anne Boleyn's personality. While Anne was known for being temperamental, every source I have read and every other depiction of Anne has shown her to have been very calm at her execution, if not joyful. The Constable of the Tower, Sir William Kingston, reported that he had "seen many men and also women executed, and that they have been in great sorrow, and to [his] knowledge this lady has much joy in death." Instead, we get Natalie Portman crying almost inconsolably on the scaffold as she awaits her impending death.

The weird thing is that this film was what got me into historical films and TV shows in the first place. I didn't care about the accuracies at the time (what 11-year old would?), so it was easier to watch it at the time. I can't damn it completely. But the film is just awful almost every level. The only thing it got right were the costumes. Most Tudor-based films/TV shows I've seen have butchered the costumes in some way, but this one actually did it justice. Anne did wear the French rounded hoods, which she was reputed to have loved. The unmarried women wore their hair down and it was visible; when they were married, it would be hidden from view. The gowns were glamorous but not overdone. Other than that, the film was a walking disaster.

Confined: The Child Alexandrina

When one thinks of Queen Victoria, the common image that comes to mind is the obese, stout-ish woman dressed in black from head to toe with a very harsh expression: the image of a great empress. Very few know about her before this appearance, save for those who have seen the ITV series Victoria, or Jean-Marc Vallée's film The Young Victoria. The average person probably won't have seen these, and thus her youth is a mystery. I chose this topic since today marks the late queen's birthday, having been born on the 24th of May, 1819.

Born the only child of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield, she was christened Alexandrina Victoria in Kensington Palace in the reign of King George III.  However, the young princess did not know her father as he died when she was less than a year old. Affectionately known as "Drina," the young princess had a large burden on her shoulders from a young age.When George III died and the crown passed to George IV, and then to William IV, due to legitimacy issues and lack of heirs, Victoria became the unlikely heir presumptive in 1830. An act was passed that same year known as the Regency Act, allowing Drina's mother to act as regent in the event William IV passed away while Drina was a minor. However, William hated Princess Victoria, and declared in 1836 that he wished to live until Drina's 18th birthday in order to avoid a regency. I tried to look up why she was so despised by the King and Queen, and there were a number of reasons. For starters, she didn't allow Drina to take part in many royal engagements, preventing her from leaving the palace for most of her life; the King and Queen desired to develop a personal relationship with the young princess. At the same time, Princess Victoria frequently snubbed William's illegitimate children, earning even more of his wrath. But Drina's problem laid in her upbringing.

When the Regency Act was passed, a new set of rules was instituted to supposedly protect Drina from worldly attacks. On the surface, these rules seemed fairly reasonable; the subterranean implication was actually extremely dangerous. The rules were developed by Princess Victoria and her comptroller, Sir John Conroy, and were named the "Kensington System." These rules controlled much of Drina's life, arguably preventing her from even living life. She was not allowed to walk down the stairs unless there was someone holding her hand. She must share a room with her mother. She must not be allowed to be by herself at any point throughout the day, being only allowed with either her mother, Sir John, or one of the Conroy sisters. Books must be vetted through and approved before Drina would be allowed to read them. All these meant she was totally isolated at Kensington Palace at the mercy of Princess Victoria and Sir John. Their argument was that it was completely for her protection. Historians argue otherwise. Perhaps they hoped that due to lack of exposure to the outside world, she would never be properly prepared for her role as queen, and will inevitably leave the ruling to her mother. The system also allowed Princess Victoria to prevent any of her late husband's family, such as the King and Queen, to have any influence over Drina. Every guest to Kensington Palace must have prior approval before meeting any of its inhabitants. Even at the age of 13, the common age of this time when a child would be allowed to eat with the others in the dining room, Drina was still confined to her nursery, occasionally being given permission to join public dinners for the sake of being taught social skills. Annie Gray writes in her book about Queen Victoria that the young Drina would eat her meals very quickly and in as large a quantity as possible. She doesn't give a reason, but my theory is that because Drina was given very plain meals in small quantities, she feared being starved by her mother and Sir John. This was a very sad revelation.

If anyone thought Drina would develop a close relationship with Princess Victoria as a result of living in such close proximity, they would be sorely mistaken. Drina became extremely bitter towards her mother, and absolutely despised Sir John. At the time of her accession to the throne in 1837, which thankfully happened after she had turned 18, and becoming Queen Victoria, she distanced herself from the two as much as she possibly could. Being the mother of the Queen, Princess Victoria was allowed personal apartments within Buckingham Palace, although they were far away from her own. She refused to allow Sir John to be anywhere near her. Sir John in particular was the target of Queen Victoria's hatred, especially since he tried to exploit her illness when she fell deathly ill of typhoid by attempting to force her to sign a document that would make him her personal secretary upon her accession. Instead, he was banned from her household - though not from her mother's - and was not allowed to attend her in court. Meanwhile, Queen Victoria's relationship with her mother would be halted and she did not see her often. At her own marriage to Prince Albert, she merely shook hands with her mother. It wouldn't be until 1840 when Queen Victoria gave birth to her first child that the two reconciled - my guess is that she recognised she did have some love for her mother, a dutiful one, and desired a maternal presence when she became a new mother herself.

Queen Victoria's behaviours in her later life can largely be attributed to the way she was treated as a child. Her large appetite and her strong desire for independence came down to what she lacked under the Kensington System. Despite her natural obedience and love for Prince Albert, she realised early on that she would never be subjected to such torture ever again. Becoming the queen gave her the freedom she deserved, even if it led to other problems later in life.

Downton Abbey - Season 2 Review, Part 2

And so continues my review of Season 2! It was a lot easier to stop at Episode 4 simply because the season contains 8 episodes. However, Season 2 has a Christmas Special - I considered reviewing it as part of this post, but because there weren't many historical details I could actually talk about, I decided against it. Maybe next season.

Matthew and William injured at war

Episode 5

This is where we see the extent of medical services during World War I, and the kind of injuries that could be sustained from trench warfare. Matthew sustains a spinal injury that causes him to lose the function of his legs. However, there is speculation that he might not even be able to bear children because he has lost all feeling from the waist down. This brings up the issue of who will be the next heir of Downton Abbey in the event that Matthew dies, but at this point, the characters are more focused on whether Matthew will marry Lavinia. Everyone believes the wedding should still go ahead as planned, but he is extremely pessimistic, for good reason. I think this also demonstrates general perception of physical disability during this time. While the other characters still see Matthew as a valuable member of the family, he has lost his confidence, believing himself to be useless. More about that later.

Meanwhile, William suffers a far worse injury to his lungs as a result of protecting Matthew during the battle, leading to irreparable damage. At this point in the season, William went to war under the impression that the scullery maid, Daisy, would be waiting for him when he returned so that the two could be married. As a result of his injury, he wishes to marry her before dying, prompting the Dowager Countess of Grantham to sort out the arrangements with the local vicar. I think many who watched this episode were surprised by the Dowager Countess' sudden act of compassion, since she often spoke of how much she valued class distinction. I think it was partly out of guilt that she organised it, seeing as she valued William's life, and she tried hard to prevent him from going to war; at the very least, she wanted William to have his dying wish. Daisy is reluctant, which makes sense - in her mind, she believed that she was leading William on as she only saw him as a friend. However, she couldn't reject his dying wish, and thus married him anyway. The local vicar, Mr Travis, made an interesting point about this union. He suspected that Daisy has chosen to marry William because there was a widow's pension for a soldier who fought in the Great War. So I did a bit of research into this. It seems many women abused this system to earn extra money, as the economy was horrendous around this time. In other countries, many used their war widow status as a political statement against the war.

All while this is happening, Mary discovers that Mr Bates' - who has returned to Downton Abbey - wife, Vera, is threatening to go to the newspapers after discovering Mary's secret about Mr Pamuk. Out of desperation, she goes to Sir Richard and asks him to intervene before Vera can ruin the family. This is an easy win for him. He agrees to help, on condition that Mary becomes his future wife, which would benefit his status greatly; in his words, "My house will welcome the finest in the land, my children will carry noble blood in their veins." It was not uncommon for marriages in this time to made for ambition rather than for love. It took a very long time before love between a couple was an expectation. For Mary, the reputation of her family was far more important than love. I don't think she would have cared too much if she was the only one whose reputation would be ruined.

Edith with the mystery soldier

Episode 6

Back to Matthew's predicament! Well, now we not only have to worry about what will happen if and when Matthew dies without an heir, a new character appears claiming to be Patrick Crawley - the son of the last heir, both of which died during the sinking of the Titanic. If his claims were true, that would mean Matthew would lose his own claim as heir to the title of Earl of Grantham. To Matthew, he seems to see it as a plus for the family: "This might be a blessing in disguise. Well, he seems a nice enough chap, he's not very pretty, of course, but he can walk around the estate on his own two legs and sire a string of sons to continue the line. All in all, I'd say that's a great improvement on the current situation." Of course he says this with a very bitter tone, as he is potentially to lose his social position as an heir to a grand estate and title. However, we don't know whether the soldier was actually Patrick Crawley or not. The soldier comes to Downton Abbey as a burn victim with a new name, Patrick Gordon, a survivor of the Titanic who lost his memory as a result of the sinking. Lord Grantham is extremely sceptical with this knowledge, and conducts an investigation. From his findings, there was a man who did apparently know Patrick Crawley on the Titanic known as Peter Gordon, and was rescued when the ship sank. The family suggests that maybe Peter assumed Patrick's identity - which was easy enough to do with a burnt face - in order to inherit. However, Edith believes it is actually Patrick Crawley. We don't know what the truth is in the matter.

I think this episode shed quite a bit of light on how physical disabilities were viewed around this time. We saw how the perspectives on mental disabilities were changing, but there was little to be said about physical disabilities. I used to think that they were only considered honourable if the person suffered with them only got them because it was in combat. However, Patrick's disability was also a result of war, yet the others were sceptical from the start. They were repulsed by him and didn't want to believe that he was the potential heir they knew. Perhaps it was to do with the validity of his story, but I do think there were varying degrees over what disabilities were worth considering.

Ethel bursts into the dining room to confront Major Bryant's parents

Episode 7

The last episode shows that the Great War finally came to an end. This episode shows the family trying to move on, attempting to resume the lives they led before the war. The medical equipment is moved from the house, and the great Downton Abbey is once more separated from the average man. A discussion begins among the family members about the new fashions that are about the emerge after the First World War. While the Dowager Countess and Lord Grantham are looking forward to returning to how their lives were before the war, Isobel thinks differently: "I like the new fashions. Shorter skirts, looser cuts. The old clothes were all very well if one spent the day on a chaise longue, but if one wants to get anything done, the new clothes are much better." Meanwhile, Mary points out that women in France have started to wear shorter hairstyles, particularly the famous bob. Even though the flapper look wasn't particularly famous until the 1920s, we can already see the roots from the end of the war. It does make some sense considering many women gained a certain confidence about being heavily involved in the war, and the new fashions that were about to make an appearance were far more practical for heavy lifting.

Ethel's issue - quite literally - returns. She now has a young boy, who by this point is a toddler. After failing to get Major Bryant to contribute in some way, she tries to see if his parents would be able, now that her former lover has been killed in action. Although she is advised by Mrs Hughes to wait, she rushes into the dining room to confront his parents, only for his father to completely reject her claims, believing she is trying to claim some money or position and demanding proof. I think everyone - both characters and audience - would be in agreement that he behaved badly, but Mrs Bryant explains that his behaviour is more down to denial about their son's death. We don't see many opportunities to explore how the parents of soldiers felt during this time, aside from William's father in Episode 5, who takes the death far more gently than one can expect. This gives us a bit more understanding that there was definitely a strong anger towards the war for taking the lives of so many men, especially propaganda promoted war as a means of glory rather than a cause for destruction.

Dr Clarkson and Sybil tending to Lavinia

Episode 8

The show chose a good time to close the season. Towards the end of the war, the world was struck with another devastation: the Spanish Influenza. It seems interesting that I cover this while we go through a pandemic around a century later than when this is set, but from here we can see just how deadly the Spanish Flu was. It was only recently that I learnt that the H1N1 outbreak in 2009 was actually from the same strain as the Spanish Flu outbreak between 1918-1919; of course, by now, the medical advancements that have been made countered the 2009 outbreak far better than then. If there is a new outbreak of Covid-19 in a hundred years, I reckon treatments for it will be way better then. I'm going way off topic. In this episode, several characters are afflicted with the Spanish Flu: Lady Grantham, Lavinia, and Mr Carson. Each experience the disease very differently, some with unexpected outcomes. For example, Lady Grantham is depicted as having a very violent reaction to the illness, and is even at risk of dying, while Lavinia had a very mild reaction and was able to converse easily with Matthew about their wedding plans...yet she took a turn for the worst unexpectedly and died of the virus. I won't lie, I think part of the reason she was hit so hard at the end of her life was because she witnessed Matthew kissing Mary when they danced downstairs, and she realised she would never be Matthew's true love. Yeah, it's kinda like a Star Wars moment with Padme when she lost the will to live. That sort of thing. Or maybe Julian Fellowes realised that killing off Lady Grantham and Mr Carson would invoke a lot of hatred from the audience.

While Matthew struggles with Lavinia's illness, Sir Richard is becoming more ruthless in his treatment of Mary. He realises that Mary is indebted to him for not exposing her family to social ruin, and thus he seems to have gained a surge of power over her. He becomes more controlling, insisting on where she should be, and avoiding any possibility of Mary being alone with Matthew, knowing she still had feelings for him. In the previous episode, he even tries to recruit Anna to spy on Mary, knowing she works closely with her. The thing is, this kind of controlling behaviour is not exclusive to a historical period. We still see that today. There are best-selling novels that romanticise controlling and abusive relationships. The problem is that there was still a desire to protect the aristocracy from ruin at this point in time, or to rise in power among social ranks, whereas today, it's more of a Stockholm Syndrome issue, if I'm being honest. When movies and novels depict a once-alarming situation that suddenly turns into "I think I like this guy even though he's an abusive mess," you can tell it's not about becoming the next grand duchess or something. Speaking of relationships, while Lady Grantham suffers, Lord Grantham decides now is the right time to have an affair! To this day, I still don't know why he suddenly lost his appeal for his wife. He seemed to be more irritated with her, easily enraged by her comments, even if they were well-intended. Fortunately, seeing his wife in a dire state made him return to her. Blessing in disguise, I guess.

The side plot of the episode is equally as astonishing. At this point, Sybil and Tom have declared their love for each other, and are willing to leave together. In the last episode, Sybil attempts to elope with Tom, but Mary and Edith manage to stop her. They feel it would be better if she told the family herself so that she would have done her part, rather than escaping in the middle of the night. She and Tom confront the family to announce their engagement, and their plan to move to Ireland. Most of the family responds very negatively, especially Lord Grantham; he threatens her with no income and that she will live a very different life to the comforts of the aristocracy, but I think because of her experience during the war as an auxiliary nurse, she knows how to live outside of wealth, and so she simply says, "Well, bully for that." Eloping was considered a very dishonourable act, and often suggested that certain improper intimacies had occurred to force a couple to have a shotgun wedding. In Sybil and Tom's case, they wanted to simply marry as soon as possible so that they could be together with there being any legal issues or any attempts to marry Sybil off to someone she didn't love. As stated before, marriage for love in this time was not a commonality. Often it was a sign of weakness.

Summary

There were so many details I wanted to mention, but it would have made this post ridiculously long. I just focused on the stuff I could definitely talk about that had historical elements to the plot. If one were familiar with the story, they might notice I missed out the issue of Mr Bates and Vera, and how her suicide led to Mr Bates potentially being on death row. I honestly just couldn't talk about it in much detail on a historical level to feel confident to mention it. It will be addressed when I review Season 3, since Mr Bates' story becomes a focus for the legal system, but I just really couldn't say much about it this time.

Anyways, I hope you enjoyed reading this - I really loved this season from this show, and it was just filled with historical elements. I will give it quite a bit of time before I return to reviewing Downton Abbey; other historical shows deserve to have the spotlight every now and then!

Downton Abbey - Season 2 Review, Part 1

Before I start, let me go on a tiny rant first: WHY IS TOM BRANSON NOT ON THE OFFICIAL SEASON 2 COVER?!?! Rant over.

I think this is probably my favourite season in the whole show. It covers a lot of historical events outside of just "oh the First World War is going on!!!" It showed that it wasn't just as simple as that, and definitely subverted expectations. I remember when this season came out, I just thought, "Okay, they'll probably cover some battles and maybe a feminist or two." I was in for a treat.

The charity performance in support of soldiers fighting in the war

Episode 1

Part of the focus of this episode is the charity performance. It's not because of the performance itself but rather because it is where a number of events occur. The episode takes place two years into the war, and Mary and Matthew are still no longer together. The show introduces Lavinia Swire during the concert, a middle-class girl from London, and Matthew's new fiancée. The other characters are a bit dubious about her, believing she is more than she seems. However, Mary and Cora, the Duchess of Grantham, try to be optimistic and friendly. I think they both knew that there was no chance Mary would be with Matthew with Lavinia in the picture, so they tried to move on by being accepting her. The concert also brings to light some of the more negative actions of the feminists during the war. During the performance, two women start distributing white feathers to men who weren't in military uniform, calling them cowards. In this time period, it was pretty clear who were involved in the military in some way. Even if they were invalided out of the war, the soldiers would still wear military uniform in their everyday lives, especially if it was a military event. One of the footmen, William, is only in his livery, making him a target for the two women. It was not an uncommon action for feminists in this time; Emmeline Pankhurst, a famous suffragette, encouraged the practice. To be a feminist pacifist was considered ridiculous.

The side-plot of the episode focuses on Sybil, who starts to feel as though she herself is a coward. Her sisters, Mary and Edith, have either found something else to worry about or made themselves useful in some way, leaving Sybil as - once again - the black sheep of the sisters. When her friend is killed in action, she confides in Isobel Crawley, who suggests that maybe she could be an auxiliary nurse, but that it would require some extra effort on her behalf, such as learning how to make a bed or make a cup of tea. Her solution is to ask the cook, Mrs Patmore, for cooking lessons. Eventually, she finds herself more practically confident to start her training as a nurse. I did a bit of research into the aristocracy and what their response was to the First World War. From what I gathered, this was a bad time for the aristocracy because many were high-ranking military leaders as a result of the Boer War, but they stayed far away from the actual combat, believing that all they had to do was keep spirits up. Instead, it caused the lower classes to be bitter. I think the show tried to avoid going down that route by giving the main characters something to do throughout the show, or to at least express their emotions about it. For example, Lord Grantham aspires to be on the front leading the men into battle, which he feels is more honourable than staying at home; instead, he is forced to stay at home, probably due to age. It makes us feel more sympathetic, I guess.

Henry Lang dealing with the side effects of shell shock

Episode 2

In the previous episode, Lord Grantham's valet, Mr Bates, is forced to leave Downton because his wife, Vera, threatened to go to the newspapers about a scandal regarding the family - which turned out to be about Mary's wanton behaviour in Season 1. He is replaced by Mr Lang, an ex-soldier who was invalided out for shell shock. I remember learning about shell shock in History classes, but it wasn't until I studied it in more detail in university that this was the point where society started to realise war could have traumatic effects on soldiers. This was essentially the beginning of understanding PTSD. I watched several videos of recovering soldiers suffering from shell shock, and to say it was jarring was an understatement. The show depicts shell shock with a very sanitised view of it - the video recordings of patients with shell shock depicted men who were barely able to stand, much less walk properly. Lang is still able to work, although we see his mental deterioration very clearly. He has lapses where he loses control of himself, such as dropping a gravy boat on Edith at a dinner. The show can only go so far in showing how shell shock affected soldiers, so at least they were able to address it. Honestly, they showed quite a lot about mental illness in the show. In the same episode, a soldier recovering in the hospital kills himself because he was depressed and he was going to be sent away after he only just started to feel normal (?). It's not until after his death that the rest of the characters who interacted with him realise what kind of toll the war is having on the mental health of soldiers.

I won't lie, that's honestly the only interesting thing worth talking about with this episode :p

General Strutt with Matthew Crawley, Isobel Crawley, and Cora Crawley

Episode 3

This episode is a bit more interesting. Due to the soldier who committed suicide in the last episode, Sybil, Isobel and Dr Clarkson come up with a solution of turning Downton Abbey into a convalescent home. Despite initial objections by the other family members, they eventually agree. This is where Edith starts to flourish. Up until this point, I always thought Edith was extremely annoying and vindictive. Mary is equally vindictive, but at least she had some personality. Here, she starts to realise that she wants to be useful. She takes care of the soldiers' personal needs, such as making sure letters arrive for them, providing books for them to read, etc, so much so that the soldiers praise her efforts to General Strutt on his visit. 

Meanwhile, Sybil and Tom Branson's relationship starts to blossom. The two bond as they start to spend more time with each other. However, Tom becomes extremely bitter about the military, to Sybil's confusion. It is revealed Tom had a cousin who was present at the Easter Rising in 1916. I didn't know much about this event when the episode came out, mostly because Irish politics was just plain boring to 14-year old me. I didn't learn about it properly until I started A Level History, and I had to study Irish history as part of the curriculum. The Easter Rising was probably the point where the Irish revolutionists decided that enough was enough, and that parliamentarianism was no longer a useful tactic. Armed rebels took to the streets during Easter Week to protest British rule in Ireland. Many were killed, but it sparked greater support for Irish home rule. I think Tom started to become more inclined towards reactionary motivations to promote politics around this time as well, but slowly. When he talks about the Bolshevik Revolution, and how Kerensky had been made Prime Minister, he argues that the political side isn't enough, and that the entire country's system needed to be changed completely, preferably without killing the Tsar's family. Within two episodes, Tom argues that the deaths of the Tsar and his family were "necessary sacrifices." Harsh.

The curiosity around Lavinia is heightened. When Lord Grantham's sister, Rosamund, catches Lavinia arguing with Mary's new partner, Sir Richard Carlisle, she and the Dowager Countess start to do some investigating. They soon find that Lavinia was the instigator of the Marconi share scandal, since she gave evidence about insider share trading to Sir Richard when he blackmailed her father. I won't lie, I looked into this scandal - I still don't get what happened exactly. It doesn't help that these characters are fictional.

Setting up a soup kitchen in Isobel's home.

Episode 4

When Isobel leaves Downton, believing she is not wanted, things become complicated. Matthew and William - who is now part of the army and working with Matthew - go missing after they stumble on a German army camp. Meanwhile, Isobel's staff, Mr Molesley and Mrs Bird, find themselves bored when Isobel leaves, but not for long. A veteran of the war appears asking for food, and before too long, he brings along other soldiers in similar situations as him. Interestingly, the two staff take pity on the first veteran, but he insists that they don't because he was considered "one of the lucky ones." I suppose in a way he's right, but not in a good way. Mrs Patmore and Daisy discover this and decide to help, saying that it would be a disgrace if they couldn't even feed soldiers who fought for them from their own kitchens. They provide food made from what the army gave them as they are feeding soldiers, but when Lady Grantham discovers the soup kitchen they begin running, she tells them to use the food provided by the house instead to avoid any legal problems of potential mismanagement. To probably everybody's delight, she joins them after that.

One new character introduced at the beginning of the season is a new housemaid, Ethel Parks. I only just discovered maybe...2 or 3 weeks ago that the actress who played Ethel was the youngest ever actress to be cast as Christine in the West End production of The Phantom of the Opera. Naturally, I was jumping out of my seat, as an avid Phan. Ethel is a light woman given to flights of fancy. She constantly goes on about how she thinks the working class will have far more opportunities to succeed in careers after the war, making her a target for lady's maid Ms O'Brien as a potential laughingstock. When Downton Abbey is turned into a convalescent home, Ethel is attracted to a young officer, Major Charles Bryant, and unfortunately ends up in a sexual affair with him, eventually getting caught by housekeeper Mrs Hughes and immediately dismissed. We already know the social consequences of premarital sex in this historical context, thanks to Mary. However, Ethel's tryst brings on a new challenge: pregnancy. By the end of the episode, she confides to Mrs Hughes that she is expecting Major Bryant's baby. What kind of impact will this have on Ethel? Stay tuned for the next post ;)

The "Chinese Immigrant" Generation

The idea for this one came along while I read Girl in Translation by Jean Kwok. I read this book a while ago, I think at least 5 years ago, when it came up as a recommendation on Goodreads. I'm pretty sure it was recommended because I read Amy Chua's autobiography, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Anyway, reading Jean Kwok's novel made me think about the Chinese migrants that moved to the United States over the last couple centuries, especially around the time Japan invaded China and then when China turned into a communist country. It was around this time America passed the Magnuson Act in 1943, as a result of China becoming an ally to America, repealing the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.

When I read Jean Kwok's novel, I learnt that a lot of the Chinese migrants who moved to America in the 20th century were actually illegal immigrants. The novel itself doesn't say what year it is, but based on the fact that having phones was a commonality and the main character, Kimberly, has the option of having an abortion, my guess is that the novel begins around the 80's, which makes sense, since it was the third wave of Chinese immigration - specifically of undocumented persons. Anyway, that's besides the point of this novel. The point is that the 20th century noted a ton of movement of migrants escaping persecution and oppression in China towards North America. Yeah it took me this long to point that out. I've been doing too many reviews. Oops.

From what research I have done on the topic, both legal and illegal immigration of Chinese people came in waves throughout the 20th century depending on what the threat was. There were waves during the 19th century, which caused some problems morally on American society - the Chinese were starting to become associated with opium use and prostitution. This led to the Chinese Exclusion Act to stop future Chinese immigrants, legal or not. However, during the Second World War, two years after China became an ally to the United States, the Magnuson Act was passed to allow some Chinese immigrants into the country as well as allow the Chinese who were already in America to become naturalised citizens. Fast-forward to the 1960s: a new influx of Chinese immigrants but a number of these ones were from Hong Kong and Taiwan, heavily cosmopolitan and capitalist cities. The Chinese communities in America started to change. Thanks to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there was no longer a barrier of entry based on racial discrimination. These new immigrants had more exposure to the latest fashion trends and music. Many had degrees and were professional workers. In changing the social mobility structures within Chinese communities, these groups started to adapt and assimilate within American society.

Because many of these immigrants had to learn how to assimilate, those who could studied at universities, which were havens of intercultural dialogue. Universities were the best place for people to improve their social mobility while earning qualifications. As a result, this generation developed a very harsh view of parenting when their children came along. It wasn't even just the Chinese who developed this trait; a number of immigrant families from all over the world did too. I read an article in the New York Times about this very issue. The writer, Ryan Park, noted, "Like my parents, many of these new arrivals brought two cultural values that would carry their children far: a near-religious devotion to education as the key to social mobility and a belief that academic achievement depends mostly on effort rather than inborn ability." These children, the second generation, would be subject to extremely frugal lifestyles and harsh punishments if they dared to achieve anything less than an "A" grade. Amy Chua wrote a number of chapters about how her parents - the immigrant generation - treated her and her 3 younger sisters:

"The immigrant generation (like my parents) is the hardest-working. Many will have started off in the United States almost penniless, but they will work nonstop until they become successful engineers, scientists, doctors, academics, or businesspeople. As parents, they will be extremely strict and rabidly thrifty. ("Don't throw out those leftovers! Why are you using so much dishwasher liquid? You don't need a beauty salon - I can cut your hair even nice.") They will invest in real estate. They will not drink much. Everything they do and earn will go toward their children's education and future."

The trade-off was clear. The immigrant generation, the most diligent, will work extremely hard to make sure they have enough to provide for their children, and they will ensure they do have enough to pay for everything as their children grow up. They will essentially provide every necessity until the children graduate from university. However, the second generation will be expected to pay this back by achieving only the highest possible scores to study at and graduate from an Ivy League university. Not only that, to repay the service their parents provided for them throughout their childhood, the second generation would be expected to take in their parents out of filial piety when their parents are no longer able to work or live independently. "What about their happiness?" you might ask. Ryan Park's article answers this question: "The traditional Asian parenting model is, in theory at least, premised on imposing pain now to reap meritocratic rewards later. For much of my life, I accepted this premise and assumed there must be a trade-off between inculcating academic success and happiness." No doubt the immigrant generation were successful. A large proportion of successful lawyers, doctors, bankers and businesspeople were Asian. The wage disparity demonstrated a higher income bracket among Asians compared to every other ethnic group.

Because happiness was not a concept to be incorporated into parenting styles among the immigrant generation, this led to the second generation raising their children differently. Amy Chua, the famed "Tiger Mother," believes it is because the third generation will have grown up in the luxury of being middle-class and they will be more likely to identify as American with American values, viewing the immigrant way as cruelty. I think it is more of because parents who grew up under immigrant parents might have developed an inner hatred for the way they were raised. They will still love their parents, no doubt, for providing them with every possible tool to succeed, but they will want their children to have a different life. The evolution of developmental psychology may also have something to do with this. The American Psychological Association wrote about how children of "tiger parents" were more susceptible to depressive symptoms. New York University psychologist Niobe Way recently interviewed several Chinese mothers, and found that these mothers are proof of a changing parenting style within Asian families; these mothers "encouraged their children to be independent and well-socialised as much as they encouraged them to do well in school." (Chamberlin, 2013) Personally, I think socialisation in today's society is a little...overrated. The advent of smart technology has caused a decline in social skills, and if socialisation means letting kids stare at a screen playing a Playstation for hours without even talking to each other, then I've got bigger issues than socialisation. I mean, if we could go back about 20 odd years, then sure, socialisation's key. It's a bit worrying when I can walk into a classroom filled with 7-year olds and they're all using iPads in class.

No doubt the Chinese immigrant generation of the first 60 years of the 20th century had much to contribute to society. They instilled a disciplined attitude towards improving oneself, not just in themselves but also in their children. But it was dangerous. We are already seeing the mental cracks in the second generation. People are finally willing to admit that they are not capable of feeling "happy" unless there was some academic or career achievement in the process. Enjoying life is a foreign concept for these groups. Yet the third generation is viewed as spoiled and entitled, and discipline is a foreign concept for them. What is the middle ground? I hope the next generation will be just that.

Brooklyn - A Review

Source: The Independent

There are a number of films I love that are extremely underrated. One of them is Brooklyn, directed by John Crowley, based on the book of the same name by Colm Tóibín. This film has so many motifs I love in movies: romance, empowerment, history. I decided to do another film review as I looked through my film list, and noticed I hadn't watched this one for a while. Watching it again, I really feel Saoirse Ronan was robbed of an Oscar here - but I haven't seen Room before, so I can't judge Brie Larson. I might just be a little biased here. Saoirse Ronan is one of my favourite actresses, and I've loved every movie I've seen her in. This one's special.

The film begins in a small town in Ireland in 1951, where the Saoirse Ronan's character, Eilis (pronounced like "ay-lish"), works weekends at a shop owned by a Miss Kelly as she is unable to find full-time employment. Her sister, Rose, tries to help by writing to an Irish priest in New York, Father Flood, to see if Eilis can start afresh there instead. I won't lie, the first eight minutes of the film are little bit...boring. I don't know if that was the intent, but it does somewhat make sense - Eilis' life is pretty boring. It's not until she boards the ship to New York that it starts to get a little interesting. She meets her temporary roommate, Georgina (whose name was not actually mentioned in the film, but I only learnt because I read the book), an assertive and experienced traveller. While Georgina decides to explore the First Class cabins in an attempt to bunk in there, probably through sexual favours, Eilis tries to make herself comfortable. She explores the confines of her Third Class cabin, which involve sharing a single toilet and shower between herself, Georgina and two other girls in the next room. She even has a nice meal of mutton stew in the Third Class cafeteria. Little did she know that was a dumb idea. She ends up locked out of her bathroom by the girls in the next room, and has to both relieve herself and throw up - due to seasickness - into a pail from the outside corridor. Georgina returns the next day and takes pity on Eilis, deciding to take her under her wing for the rest of the trip. She orders Eilis not to eat or drink anything except for water until the last night to counter the seasickness, and before arriving, she dresses Eilis so that she wouldn't look sickly at the immigration counter. I guess it's not a surprise that motion sickness tablets weren't a popular preventive medicine at the time.

Thanks to Father Flood, not only did Eilis get the necessary documents for a visa, he also secured a job for her at a local department store and a place for her to live in - *ding ding* - Brooklyn! Eilis moves into a boarding house with a number of other Irish girls, each with different personalities and backgrounds, the house being run by a Mrs Kehoe, played by Julie Walters. I remember being stunned when I heard Julie Walters speaking in an Irish accent. Up until this point, the only films I had seen her in were the Harry Potter films and the Mamma Mia! films - hearing her say a prayer in a strong Irish accent nearly made me laugh with shock. From what I gathered, boarding houses like this weren't uncommon. A similar concept was done in Season 1 of Marvel's Agent Carter. Doing a little bit of research, I learnt that all-women's boarding houses were set up for women who wanted to move away from home, or immigrants, and they often had very strict rules. Although religion was not as popular anymore in the 1950s, the traditions stuck: men were not allowed in women's rooms. 

Eilis initially struggles when she starts at the department store, perhaps partly due to the lack of proper character. When I went to New York in 2014, something I noticed about all of the workers there was that they all had a very friendly disposition, and they always wanted to strike up a conversation with you to keep your attention. I guess that's what Eilis lacked, making her a target for her boss. She doesn't realise it at first, but she starts to suffer homesickness, causing Father Flood to meet with her. He suggests that she start night classes to study book-keeping, and to take part in the Christmas dinner that he holds for Irish senior citizens who are mostly men. Father Flood explains to Eilis that these men have lived in America for a long time, being the ones who built the bridges and tunnels. I decided to look into this to see who made up the demographics of construction workers around this time. There was a very famous image taken in 1932 known as "Lunch atop a Skyscraper," which...sorta gave me a bit of a fright just looking at. From what I gathered, the majority of the workers were made up of men from minority groups. Some were of Irish origin, some were of Eastern European origin, and some were even Native American. 20 years later and anyone who wasn't essentially a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) would be viewed as subpar - even if they were the ones who helped build the the city.

Lunch atop a Skyscraper

One thing that was pointed out in the beginning of the film was that Eilis couldn't find a boyfriend in Ireland. This changes when she arrives in Brooklyn. She meets Italian-American Tony, a plumber, at an Irish dance, and the two hit it off right away. This improves Eilis' customer service behaviour, becoming more confident and charming. Even her boss is impressed. Soon, Tony invites Eilis to meet his family, all of which subtly hint their slight prejudice against the Irish community. Tony's outspoken youngest brother says that it's because "a big gang of Irish beat [Tony's brother, Maurizio] up and he had to have stitches, and because all the cops round here are Irish, nobody did anything about it." Even though Tony's parents and siblings tell him off for what he said, it does hint that there is some rivalry between the Irish and the Italians in America. I honestly thought this was weird because they were both minority groups in America and they were both predominantly Catholic as well, but after doing a bit of research, it started to make a bit more sense. The Irish arrived in America around the 1840s as a result of the potato famine, but around the early 1880s, Italian immigrants arrived in New York in large numbers to look for work, and they were willing to work longer hours for less money. The competition led to a fight for dominance in New York. Even Catholic churches became grounds for competition - priests were typically Irish, and Irish communities refused to allow Italians to join public Masses, forcing them to attend their own Mass in basements. Yet as Italian-Americans began to gain more popularity and wealth, there was a change in relationship between the two groups, especially after the Second World War, which coincidentally is sort of when Brooklyn takes place! I guess Eilis and Tony's relationship was meant to be symbolic of this change.

When Eilis receives news that Rose had suddenly passed away, she has to make preparations to return to Ireland to help her mother. There is no knowing at this point whether the move is meant to be permanent or temporary. Not taking any chances, Eilis and Tony secretly elope at a courthouse, where they meet another Irish couple. Reader, bear in mind that this is extremely scandalous and many might have accused them of being damned to Hell. You read that right. Eilis returns to Ireland and takes on Rose's job of book-keeping, eventually being introduced to wealthy bachelor Jim, played by Domhnall Gleeson. While she may develop some feelings for him, she doesn't feel committed to him, primarily due to her own secret relationship with Tony. Miss Kelly calls on Eilis to meet with her, who tells her that she knows from some gossip that Eilis is actually married...because of the Irish couple Eilis met in the courthouse. Recognising the toxity of her town, she tells her mother that she is married and intends to return to Brooklyn, leaving a letter for Jim. The film comes full circle on the ship. Just as Georgina took Eilis under her wing, Eilis helps another girl making her first journey to America, giving the same advice Georgina gave her. Eilis and Tony reunite when she returns to Brooklyn, happily in each other's arms.

I really think this film is seriously underrated. There's just so much about it that's amazing. Eilis' character development is stunning, transforming from a timid, shy girl to an assertive, confident woman. Many might know that I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about feminism, but I do love a feel-good empowerment type of film. I don't think one necessarily has to be a feminist to be in favour of gender equality (I'm an egalitarian). Just as we have films that depict confident men, it's good to have films that depict confident women. Preferably without the rage-y social justice stuff. That's what I love about Brooklyn so much. By the end of the movie, Eilis is a charming and feminine woman, but she is still confident. She shows that not everything in life has to revolve around marriage, but that if a woman chooses to do so, she is just as respectable as a woman who chooses not to. Feminists, take note.

The Butler - A Review

Source: Netflix

On May 14th, 1961, a group of civil rights activists - known as the Freedom Riders - rode an interstate bus into Anniston, Alabama, where segregation was still enforced. There, a mob of KKK members and their supporters attacked the bus, throwing a firebomb into it while slashing the tires to prevent the bus from leaving. I learnt about similar events like these through a film, The Butler, featuring Forest Whitaker and a number of high-profile actors. The film depicts a wide range of racial injustices and the civil rights movement's responses in light of discrimination, starting from 1926 until Obama's election as the 44th President of the United States. Honestly, I don't know why this film isn't that well-known given the amount of well-known actors in it, and given the topic. One would think this would be everywhere considering everyone's about social justice these days.

The film begins in 2009, where an elderly Cecil Gaines is waiting at the entrance of the White House to meet President Obama. The scene cuts to 1926, when Cecil was a seven-year old boy working on a cotton plantation, and witnessed his mother being taken away to be raped and his father being shot for trying to speak up. The estate's caretaker takes pity on Cecil and trains him to be a house servant. I honestly didn't know hard labour on cotton plantations still existed in this time - I thought they were more common in the 19th century. Even though slavery had been abolished in 1863, it took at least another century before the mentality that black people were second-class citizens had been abolished. Skipping to 1937, Cecil leaves the plantation to avoid the same fate as his father, but finds himself lost and hungry. He breaks into a hotel to get some food, but is caught by the head servant; even though the head servant could easily tell the police about Cecil , he is sympathetic and hires Cecil, training him in the ways of service. Soon, he is offered an opportunity to move to work for a hotel in Washington, D.C., where he attracts the attention of the staff working for the White House.

Working for the White House was probably the highest role any staff could have. The role brought a certain prestige, along with connections. It was not uncommon for many decades for visitors to walk through the entrance of the White House and be greeted by butlers immaculately dressed in tuxedoes. This was only changed when the Barack Obama was elected as the 44th President. In a recent Netflix documentary made by and about Michelle Obama, the former First Lady notes that their arrival to the White House saw a change in how staff operated. Michelle speaks of how she wanted her daughters to still have a normal life, which meant making their beds in the morning, and keeping their rooms tidy. She didn't want White House staff treating them like royalty. This meant getting rid of the tuxedo uniform. What do they use now? I honestly don't know.

The Freedom Riders bus in Birmingham, Alabama, featured in the film.

While working for the White House, Cecil's eldest son, Louis, moves to Nashville for university. There, he joins the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), where he attempts to fight the racial injustices perpetrated in the Deep South, taking part in a sit-in at a segregated diner. He gets arrested and put in prison, but it wouldn't be the first time this happens. He ends up being more motivated to take part in other activities, all of which land him in jail. One such activity is riding the interstate bus as a Freedom Rider to Birmingham, Alabama. When he takes part in the Birmingham Children's Crusade, President John F. Kennedy, played by James Marsden, admits to Cecil that he is now more aware of the plight of the African-American population, and feels compelled to speak up about it. He addresses the nation to propose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he never sees through due to his assassination at the end of 1963. The film suggests that the reason why he was assassinated was due to his beliefs about racial equality, but I'm pretty sure it was a lot more complicated than that. Heck, even the origins of the perpetrator's intentions are pretty cloudy. 

At this point, Cecil and his wife, Gloria, (played by Oprah Winfrey) are becoming more and more concerned about Louis' activities. While they do agree that Black Americans are treated more poorly than White Americans, they believe in a more peaceful resolution, preferably without breaking the law in the process. Gloria tries to explain to Louis that he could get himself killed fighting for this issue, to which Louis explains that if that happens, so be it. I know many who would be willing to die for what they believe in. It can be admirable. Martyrs can be found in any major social group, whether they are truly considered a martyr outside the group. Cecil and Gloria believe that change can happen without violence. However, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr prompts Louis and his girlfriend, Carol, to join the Black Panthers, a radical revolutionary movement. Initially, Cecil and Gloria express confusion over what the party stood for, but thought it might have been just another civil rights group. When Louis starts to explain that they were willing to fight back instead of taking the beating, and that they thought famous Black actors like Sidney Portier were just tools of the White race, I think it was pretty clear Cecil wanted nothing to do with him anymore. To be honest, I'd be the same. The Black Panthers were a terrorist group. They might have had good intentions in mind to make all races equal, and they even provided community service in the form of free breakfast for children and free medical services, but their attempt to fight racism was violent at best. 

This film addressed a large variety of historical elements that America went through in the 20th century. One thing I didn't expect it to consider was the Vietnam War. Cecil and Gloria's younger son, Charlie, admits to Louis that he plans to fight in the Vietnam War, something Louis can't seem to understand the reasoning for. He pleads Charlie to not go, but Charlie thinks his decision is far more justified than anything Louis has been doing lately: "You fight your country! I want to fight for my country!" Louis tells him he won't attend the funeral if Charlie dies. I don't support the Vietnam War at all. I can't understand the reason to start it or even indulge it in the first place other than it being a proxy war for the Cold War. It was cruel to the Vietnamese people, and was a war that was extremely unnecessary. Yet even I can see that Charlie fighting in the Vietnam War made more sense than fighting as a Black Panther. The Vietnam War was a good point for character development, though. Charlie dies fighting in the war, and Louis refuses to attend the funeral, as expected. Now you're probably questioning at this point, "Why is this a good character development point?" Well, it is also at this point that the Black Panthers have started to radicalise further and instigate violence on their own. Whether it is due to his parents refusing to keep in contact with Louis, or Charlie getting killed in action, Louis admits to Carol that he's not willing to kill another person. It probably wasn't intended this way, but I do think Louis had an awakening because of his family in some shape or form. He leaves Carol and the Black Panthers, and pursues a Master's degree in an attempt to get more directly involved in politics by running for Congress.

The Vietnam War affected Cecil and Gloria as well. It changed their perception of the government, which they had been so loyal to for many years. Cecil was always willing to serve at the White House without question, without even considering the politics. For a moment, they supported American involvement in Vietnam. Charlie's death caused them to question why America went to Vietnam in the first place. It is around here that Gloria starts to reconnect with Louis, after she sees that he has changed his ways and is attempting to be closer to the family again. Cecil, however, remains aloof. Even Cecil's colleagues push him to be less harsh on Louis. It's not until Reagan's refusal to support sanctions against the Apartheid in South Africa that he reunites with Louis, who remains a staunch activist for racial equality. Cecil even takes part in rallies with Louis, somewhat humorously ending up in jail himself for a little while. I should point out here that the film seriously misjudged Reagan's actions. His reluctance was not down to racism at all, since many former staff have confirmed that Reagan was heavily against the apartheid. It was more because he was concerned that had he actively supported the collapse of the apartheid regime, that the country would become another ally to the Soviet Union. This fear was not a ridiculous one. The fall of the British Empire saw many Commonwealth nations in Africa uniting together to support the Soviet Union. I don't blame Reagan for being concerned.

There are so many historical elements in this film that it would take much longer to address every single part of it. I do, however, have a personal deadline to meet with my blog posts so I have to be a little more concise. In spite of certain biases the film has, it's extremely underrated. It promotes itself with famous celebrities, and it's just fascinating to see the progress of the civil rights movement. This is one film I do think everybody should watch at least once in their lifetime.