Hidden Figures - A Review

I remember watching this film a couple years ago. I knew very little about the space program, simply because all I learnt in History classes were that the United States and the Soviet Union were in another battle throughout the Cold War: the space race. What I didn't know was that instrumental to the American successes were the works of very specific women in the space program, all of whom were African-American. In a time of segregation, the success of Black women was often ignored, sometimes even claimed by White workers. The film was based on a non-fiction biography about these three women: Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson. Theodore Melfi adapted the biography into a dramatisation. These three women present different stories and experiences, and depiction of which allows the audience to get a glimpse of what racial and gender discrimination in the early 1960s was like.

Katherine Johnson

Katherine Johnson, played by Taraji P. Henson, was a mathematician and a computer who was involved in calculating trajectories and launch windows for various space programs with NASA. Her work was instrumental in planning paths for Alan Shepard, John Glenn, and the Apollo 11 flight to the moon. The film depicts Katherine as a soft-spoken mathematician, but with a sharp tongue. Easily she was the most compelling character out of the three women. She kept her head down and did what she needed to do, but when push came to shove, she didn't hold back. In one particular scene, she finally lashes out at her new boss because she is required to run several miles to a different campus just so that she can use the segregated bathrooms for ethnic minorities. This was probably the most iconic scene of the film, and an excellent soliloquy delivered by Henson: "There is no bathroom. There are no colored bathrooms in this building. Or any building outside the West Campus, which is half a mile away. Did you know that? I have to walk to Timbuktu just to relieve myself, and I can't use one of the handy bikes. Picture that, Mr. Harrison. My uniform. Skirt below my knees, my heels, and a simple string of pearls. Well, I don't own pearls. Lord knows you don't pay coloreds enough to afford pearls! And I work like a dog, day and night, living off of coffee from a pot none of you want to touch! So, excuse me if I have to go to the restroom a few times a day." Honestly, you could hear a pin drop with that monologue.

Throughout the film, Katherine does a series of calculations to either predict certain coordinates or to confirm the calculations others have done. When presenting these calculations, she faces the complication of whose name is published on the front. Even though several are her own work, her colleague, Paul Stafford, takes the credit for it as he supervises her work. When she attempts to put both their names down, he rebukes her, saying that "computers don't author reports." This relationship between Katherine and Paul is particularly significant in demonstrating the development of what kind of mentality exists at NASA. By the end of the film, not only does Paul accept her name on future reports, he happily provides her with coffee from the same pot, allowing equality and integration to take root.

Dorothy Vaughan

Dorothy's story is perhaps the weakest in the film, in my opinion. Her influence on the space programs nor her character development is not as pronounced as Katherine's or Mary's. However, there is much to learn from the way she is depicted. At the beginning of the film, she is seen as the leader of the West Area Computers, taking charge as a supervisor. However, her antagonist, Mrs. Mitchell, frequently reminds Dorothy that she is not a supervisor even if the group needs one and if she has ordered Dorothy take on the role. Unlike Katherine and Mary, she does attain any promotion until the end of the film, which she earns as a result of taking initiative to explore the new IBM electronic computer. Thanks to some research, she is able to resolve the issues the other engineers faced, allowing the machine to work properly. This earns the respect of Mrs. Mitchell, who begins to call her "Mrs. Vaughan" to acknowledge the authority Dorothy now holds, and ultimately works to promote Dorothy to the role of supervisor of the Programming Department. This department is also demonstrative of racial integration that starts to take place in the early 1960s, which made a for a nice ending. That all being said, unless I missed something, I just didn't see the point in Dorothy's story in relation to the space program. She was an excellent programmer and mathematician, but her story could easily have been in any industry that involved such skills. 

Mary Jackson

Mary's story probably has the most nuance to her personality, and she was probably my favourite character of the film. Assertive but compassionate, Mary had a certain drive that I admired. From what I read about the real Mary Jackson, the film did dramatise her story somewhat for plot purposes. For example, she started working with the engineering department as early as 1953, but the film suggests she only started with them in 1961; even one of the leading engineers of this group has a different character, switching from the real-life Kazimierz Czarnecki to the fictionalised Karl Zielinski. However, the changes she goes through while maintaining the same personality is to be admired. She learns that in order to take up a more senior engineering role, she is required to possess an engineering degree, which she cannot earn in Virginia as the only classes available to her are in a segregated school. Yet she manages to convince the local judge to accept her case, allowing her to attend the school. Being the wife of a civil rights activist, she is opinionated and outspoken, which Katherine and Dorothy frequently remind can cause her to get into trouble. Instead of backing down, she uses her tenacity to her advantage and challenges her peers to go up and beyond. The film states that she became NASA's and America's first female African-American aeronautical engineer. One thing I admired about her character was that she didn't believe in simply making her ethnic group advance further; the film does show that she is supporter of seeing people of all backgrounds as equal regardless of whether they are white or black.

For all my political views, which - if you know - are somewhat controversial in today's political climate, I love films about empowerment. It's not because of the feminist movement or moves to promote equality, I just love empowerment films. They're uplifting and inspire one to be bold. They push you to use what skills you have to improve yourself. The world can be against you, but with the right amount of ambition, one can see all that as noise and move on. 

The Great Gatsby (2013) - A Review

It's going to take a lot for this to not sound like my A Level English essays, but I'll do what I can. The last thing I want to do is trigger flashbacks to 6th Form days. I'm not going to do a full plot analysis for this one. It's not even because the story is popular. It's just because the story itself is irrelevant to the points I want to make about the film. Yeah I know, a historical film but you don't want to talk about the plot? Insanity. I'm going to focus on the other elements of the film instead. Characters. Costume design. Music. Laws. That sort of thing. The last thing people need is a done-to-death plot overview with this popular tale.

When I studied the novel, one key aspect I had to research was the context it was set in: the Roaring 20s. A new era of decadence, rebellion, and style. Stepping away from the Edwardian fashions, thanks in part to the Great War, there was a desire to break with traditions and form new ones. With the new musical styles of jazz becoming popularised, people started to do away with restrictions that they found in their fashions. Corsets were done away with, and dresses had shorter cuts. Women's hairstyles took the form of the famous bob cut. Where the film was concerned, this detail was excellent. While there was the infamous flapper appearance, the film's costume designers, Catherine Martin and Miuccia Prada, gave the style a bit more of a unique touch, while keeping with Baz Luhrmann's typical modernist yet colourful style. The party Nick is invited to is a perfect example of this: we see all sorts of fashions that both men and women wear, with different colours, fabrics and sets. When I watched the film, I remember thinking how bright the entire montage was. No doubt it was modernised some to appeal to a 21st century audience, yet there was no denying that the costume design remained authentic. I actually enjoyed the modernist influence on the film. It made it easier to understand how seductive this kind of lifestyle was when we see much of it now. The allure of rebellious behaviour in a crowd is rather similar to today: instead of alcohol, it's drugs. 

I do think the styles in a way reflect the characters of the film. For example, Daisy is almost always seen wearing light colours, perhaps a reflection of her supposed innocence; the only time she wears black is when she restarts her affair with Gatsby. Meanwhile, Jordan's most iconic look is a black dress to match her dark hair and makeup - no doubt an indication of her corrupting influence. Costume designers very rarely have coincidental inferences with their work. I'm sure there was something important about trying to reflect differences between social groups - the aristocratic styles of Tom Buchanan, the simple tweed suits of Nick Carraway, and the "new money" custom-made cuts of Jay Gatsby.

The music of the film was definitely put together in a way that would appeal to the modern person. Upbeat jazz wasn't enough to keep our attention. From what information I could find about the musical styles, Jay-Z worked with Luhrmann for two years to blend the music of the Jazz Age theme of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel with hip-hop and pop. It was not a decision made lightly. Luhrmann stated, "The question for me in approaching Gatsby was how to elicit from our audience the same level of excitement and pop cultural immediacy toward the world that Fitzgerald did for his audience? And in our age, the energy of jazz is caught in the energy of hip-hop." Working with Graig Armstrong, the three managed to provide a soundtrack that incorporated the electronica that gained prominence in this time with the jazz of the 1920s, as well as not-so-subtle hint to classical music in the form of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. However, I won't lie - I didn't like the combinations. I have a love-hate relationship with jazz, and aside from a few exceptions, I don't like hip-hop that much. It was clever, but I really didn't like it.

The characters themselves were done very interestingly. Gatsby's entrance was far more satisfying than in Fitzgerald's novel, where it was almost anti-climactic that the man Nick spoke to at the party was Gatsby. Instead, there's the infamous scene of Leonardo DiCaprio raising a glass of champagne as fireworks explode in the background - far more satisfying. Roger Ebert made an interesting point about DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire's performances in the film, arguing that the two humanised their characters as Gatsby and Nick respectively, especially the latter: "It helps that he's played so many wry blank-slate types, but there's something else going on in his performance besides familiar notes — something deeper and sadder." Luhrmann's adaptation gives more substance to the characters so that we as the audience can feel more sorry for them, even if they were all horrible people in a way. Carey Mulligan and Elizabeth Debicki as Daisy and Jordan respectively were cast perfectly. I have to give props to the hair and make-up team for this one because the way they brought the 1920s out of these two actresses really felt like we had a proper glimpse of the styles of the time. The actresses themselves were able to portray a dichotomy of innocence and corruption, maintaining an aura of deception.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. There were a few hiccups, but the aesthetics of the film won me over. It transported me to the 1920s where there was an underlying knowledge of misconduct, disguised with liberty and amusement. As Nick says in the film, it was a kaleidoscopic carnival.

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 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.

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.

Victoria and Abdul - A Review

Source: Vanity Fair

I first watched this film in 2018 on a flight back to Dubai for my annual summer holiday trip. Okay, I'm not sure if I can actually say I watched it because it was while the plane was landing, I couldn't hear a single thing because the Emirates flight attendant had taken away the headsets, and I only caught maybe the first 10 minutes of the film. The first time I properly watched the film was on my flight back to Manchester from Dubai. The first ten minutes I caught was enough for me to attempt the film a second time, this time allowing for the whole film to be completed, and with a working pair of earphones. Truth be told, it gave me a new area of history to explore, one I never really saw as interesting enough to look further on Wikipedia. This is a bit strange to admit as a lover of the British Royal Family and its history. I enjoyed the film so much that I began looking for history texts to read, just so that I can learn more about Queen Victoria - so I found The Greedy Queen by Annie Grey, whose text was used for the film. I even found the original book the film was based on, written by Shrabani Basu, which was far more detailed.

The film begins in Agra, in British India, where we see a Muslim man, Abdul Karim, praying. This same man is seen walking to work; he works for a prison where he compiles a ledger of the prisoners' names. Abdul is later informed that he will be travelling with another Indian man, Mohammad Bakhsh, to Britain to present a ceremonial coin to Queen Victoria; along the way, Major Bigge explains to the Indian men the hierarchy of staff in the Queen's household. What I found rather amusing was their arrival in England; Major Bigge proclaims "Civilisation!" when they walk off the ship, to which Abdul and Mohammad look at each other while several beggars look at the gentlemen asking for money. I suppose this was an indication of how racial intolerance existed in the aristocracy: it was more civilised to be a poor white man than to be an Indian cleric. When Abdul and Mohammad are dressed in their new uniforms, Abdul points out to the tailor that a sash is not traditional, to which the tailor remarks that the paintings they copied from "didn't look very...Indian." I wouldn't be surprised if this was the actual mentality of many at the time, but it did feel rather infuriating anyway. I guess that was the intended effect.

The first scene featuring Queen Victoria, played by Dame Judi Dench, is probably my favourite scene in the film. As I've stated in previous posts, I love studying lifestyles and etiquette, so that was a check on my list watching this film. We see that as soon as the Queen begins her meal, the rest dining with her can begin; however, as soon as she finishes, the rest must stop as well. Unfortunately for Victoria's dining mates, she finishes her meals very quickly, and does not socialise while she eats, which the others do, meaning that by the time she has finished her meal, the rest are just barely beginning. I read once that because of how fast Queen Victoria ate, dining events often ended within half an hour. The kitchen staff and the footmen developed a system so that every time the Queen finished her food, the next course would be served promptly without fail. I wondered what was the reason behind this, so after doing a bit of digging, I understood that the Queen's gluttonous diet stemmed from the depression she suffered after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, and the speed at which her dinner events happened was a result of the Queen hating social events at that point. Makes sense. I'd probably do the same. At the end of the dinner, Abdul and Mohammad present the ceremonial coin to the Queen, who is taken by Abdul, remarking, "I thought the tall one was rather handsome."

Abdul and Mohammad are hired as the Queen's personal footmen for the entire of the Jubilee celebrations, but she becomes more enchanted by Abdul, who tells her stories of India's culture and history. He explains the origins of the Taj Mahal, built by a Mogul King for his beloved wife. He talks of the amazing Indian food that can be found: "Dal, rogan josh, biryani with mango chutney!" Poor Queen Victoria admits that she can never set foot on India because there is risk of her being assassinated, despite her curiosity. I read in the titular novel that Abdul had brought a number of spices, took over her royal kitchens, and prepared a variety of traditional Indian dishes for her, to the dismay of the rest of the household. Victoria's interest in Indian culture causes her to ask Abdul to teach her an Indian language, arguing that she should as Empress of India. Initially she asks him to teach her Hindi, but he tells her that it would be more fitting for her to learn Urdu: "You are the Empress of India. You should learn Urdu, language of the Mughals. There are a thousand languages in India, but Urdu is the most noble." I'm pretty sure many Indians might disagree on this point. With over a thousand languages in India, there's bound to be one who think a different language is superior to Urdu. Naturally, given that Abdul is Muslim, it's not too surprising why he would argue in favour of the language.

As Victoria's interest in Indian culture grows, so does her relationship with Abdul. Eventually she confides her struggles as Queen of England to him, and how lonely it is given that her husband is dead, her closest confidante (John Brown) is dead, and her children are all spoilt and ambitious. She questions what her purpose her life has anymore, to which Abdul explains from the Quran that people are on Earth to serve others. Learning that Abdul knows the Quran by heart, she removes his status of servitude in order for him to become her "Munshi." I found this rather controversial. As the head of the Church of England, one would question whether this status would come into question; however, Queen Victoria never showed any sign of converting to Islam, so her interest in the religion and Islamic culture remained simply an interest.

Throughout the film, a sense of uneasiness grows among the staff and with the Prince of Wales, Bertie. Shrabani Basu's novel writes about Victoria's lack of racial intolerance, and her hatred of such sentiments; yet she was the minority with this view. Her loyalty to Abdul might theoretically have inspired others to follow suit, yet Bertie, along with Victoria's private secretary and her personal physican, work to find any evidence that might incriminate Abdul in order to remove him from favour. When Victoria intends to bestow a knighthood upon Abdul in order for him to gain any level of respect at all, they threaten to declare her insane to remove her from power. Whether this actually happened in reality is a mystery to me, but given the racist sentiments of the time, I wouldn't be surprised if it did. However, when the new Prince of Wales, George, visited India between 1905-1906, he met with Abdul, who was wearing the medal of a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, one of the highest honours of the order. Yet the film shows that to even bestow a knighthood on an Indian was considered worthy of the household servants threatening to resign, as they believed it would tarnish the reputation of a knighthood. The idea of an Indian being given a title suggested that they would have to view him as an equal, which they did not believe.

Unfortunately, the only reason why Abdul did not have to worry about his newfound luxury of being so close to the Queen, and of being able to live in a nice house in England, was because he had Victoria's protection. In the film, Victoria warns Abdul that while she still has a few days left, he should go home because she would not be able to protect him when she dies, and there was no knowing what Bertie or the staff would do in her absence. True enough, when she does die, Bertie immediately sends staff to burn any evidence of correspondence between Victoria and Abdul to remove the idea that there was such a relationship at all. The reality was slightly different in that Bertie, or Edward VII as he would be at this point, had only called for correspondence between the Munshi and the Queen to be retrieved after he had been sent back to India, to which the Viceroy of India at the time had reacted negatively, insisting that the letters be returned. Thankfully, Abdul's diary and some of his correspondence with the Queen was hidden, and his family made the story public in 2010.

I love this movie. It's not amazing on a critical level, but it's at the very least a guilty pleasure film that I can enjoy lying in bed. It has a sad ending, but that was to be expected given the racialist sentiments of the time. Truth be told, I'm still going through Shrabani Basu's novel of the same name to learn more about Abdul's relationship with the Queen, which is far more detailed than the film can portray. Perhaps it is time to do some extra research on Indian history next ;)

Marie Antoinette - Review

I remember watching this film for the first time in 2014. I knew very little about the French Revolution; to me, it was synonymous with Les Misérables, even though it took place after the revolution. All I knew was that there had been a revolution against a decadent royal family. That was an understatement.

Arguably Sofia Coppola's magnum opus, the 2006 film is quite literally eye candy. The costumes are bright and colourful, and the cakes and pastries match the aesthetic. Somehow the colour palette matched perfectly with the aesthetics of the Palace of Versailles. It made me feel like I wanted to lie on a chaise longue while eating a strawberry pudding with a glass of champagne on the side. Marie Antoinette's youth and innocence was heavily emphasised in the film. Coppola's brother, Roman, deliberately threw in a pair of Converse trainers into a scene where Antoinette tries on a number of heels (see image below), a decision originally made for fun, but still significant nonetheless. Highlighting Antoinette's youth, it demonstrates even more her extravagance and love for fashion, typical behaviour of a teenage girl.

Perhaps what fascinated me the most was the etiquette observed. I have always had an interest in social etiquette - how one behaves in general society according to their social rank has varied throughout the decades, far more throughout the centuries. The etiquette observed in the French court was one of the key subjects of the film, especially in the first half. In Antonia Fraser's "Marie Antoinette: The Journey," she cites an alleged quote by the then-Dauphine, "I put on my rouge and wash my hands in front of the whole world." Getting dressed is a very intimate act, yet the Versailles court was not sympathetic to private matters. The film sees the newly-wed Antoinette being forced to get dressed in front of at least twenty people, who hold either major or minor rights in her bedchamber (quite shameful, in my opinion!), quite humorously to Vivaldi's Concerto in G Major.

What did annoy me were the accents. Films often establish a certain class divide based on accents; My Fair Lady is a perfect example of that. To be refined is to speak in a certain way. Generally speaking, many films are guilty of this fault. Les Miserables, though a musical, is just at fault; they seemed to try by giving the Thenardier couple a stereotypical cockney accent, but there was no generic accent for the upper classes, and tended to range between American and British depending on whether one compares the film adaptation of the musical or just the live musical on its own. Anyway, I digress.

Something I didn't expect was the focus on Marie Antoinette's affair with Count Fersen in the film. From what I know of their actual relationship in history, there was actually no concrete evidence to suggest that the two were having a sexual affair. A statement from the Swedish ambassador did however point out that the two were close in some way, to the point that the Queen's eyes were "often filled with tears" before Fersen departed for good. Perhaps the two did have an affair; honestly, given Marie Antoinette's personality after she had settled in France for some time, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

All in all, I love this film. The aesthetics are done so well, the actors immersed themselves into their characters, and if one ignores the historical inaccuracies, it's easy to enjoy the film.