ReviewsMinimalism and Dissatisfaction in “Our Town”

Posted on October 24, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Brian Roach and Shelley Little in “Our Town”


Our Town, Thornton Wilder’s classic about a small American town at the turn of the century, is a play that was first introduced to me to 80s sitcoms and 90s teenage dramas. For some reason, Our Town was the go-to play for teen characters on television shows to use as metaphors for their lives. On My So-Called Life, notable lovable screw-up Rayanne Graff delivered Emily Webb’s last monologue to say goodbye to her friendship with Angela Chase. On The Wonder Years, notable mathematical genius Winnie Cooper played Emily in Our Town and her performance brought her estranged parents back together. On Growing Pains, notable homophobe Mike Seaver flirted with stardom after playing a lead role in Our Town before trying to make it on Broadway.

The most I knew about Our Town was that the play centered on a woman named Emily who died and said goodbye to the people she loved. What I found at Tongue in Cheek’s production at the Shetler Studios was something much different – not a play about a woman coming to terms with her own death, but a story about the people of Grover’s Corners, New Hampshire, going through the motions of life and never stopping to appreciate the moment.

The direction and staging of the show is sparse, as indicated in Thornton Wilder’s text of the play. There is little scenery except for a few wooden tables and chairs that are arranged and re-arranged to indicate different settings. The actors use no props and believably mime their actions against a blank white wall. Minimalism is a key aspect ofthis production of Our Town, highlighting the predictability and blandness of the lives of the people in Grover’s Corners.

Women’s issues play a big role in this production, as the best moments of the play come from some of the female characters and actors. Nina Leese and Kathryn Neville Browne are particularly strong as Mrs. Gibb and Mrs. Webb, respectively, showing passion and fear at the wedding of their children. Mrs. Gibb admonishes her son George to be a man while Mrs. Webb laments that it seems “downright cruel to send girls into marriage,” highlighting the play’s criticism of the restriction of traditional gender roles – George can’t run out on his wedding because that would make him less of a man, and Emily might not get the best deal out of life  by marrying young, but she doesn’t really have any other choice. As Emily, Shelley Little is also affective in her last speech to Grover’s Corners before she joins the other dead, and director Jake Lipman shows empathy for the other characters as the omnipresent Stage Manager (a role traditionally played by a man).

Tongue in Cheek’s Our Town has strong moments, especially near the end, but I remain confused about the ultimate point of the play. I don’t know if we’re supposed to embrace the quaint small-town values of the people of Grover’s Corners, or criticize them for their occasional judgmental nature. I don’t know if we’re supposed to believe that Emily loves George when we see her sitting with him in an ice cream store, or if we’re supposed to take her at her word when she tells the audience she hates him before walking up the aisle. Does Emily love George and hate the societal pressure to marry so young, or does she have ambivalent feelings about George himself? The play isn’t clear with answering that question, and I still can’t decide if the ambiguity is a positive or negative aspect of the text. Despite some of the strong moments in Tongue in Cheek’s production, I have to wonder if a play like Our Town is better left to the historical fiction section of the library, or at least in the realm of 80s and 90s teenage dramas.

Our Town is playing at Shetler Studios on 244 West 54th Street from October 17-20 and October 24-27.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

ReviewsTravel and Fantasy in “Tarragona”

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Lidia Ornero and Tom Berdik in “Tarragona”)
Photo credit: Ahvi Spindelli

“Would you like to fall in love in a foreign country?”

Ask this question of an American, and the answer is likely to be an immediate, enthusiastic, “Yes!” Many of Americans feel the slog of humdrum day-to-day lives and 9-5 jobs and yearn for something adventurous, something new. Americans fantasize about traveling to other countries, learning new things, getting swept up in other cultures, and eating, praying, and loving all along the way.

In fact, if one looks closely at American stories about travel, one might think that foreign countries – and foreign women – exist simply as filters through which Americans can find themselves.

Tarragona, written by Gary Giovannetti and playing at the Workshop Theater Company, follows the story of Greg (Tom Berdik), a man dissatisfied with his professional and personal life who begins an email correspondence with a woman named Cristina (Lidia Ornero). When he hears of an accident at her branch of the chemical company, Greg impulsively takes a trip to Tarragona, Spain to break from his routine and go on a journey of self-discovery.

The contrast between New York and Tarragona can’t be clearer. Greg’s co-workers and boss are distinctly American: friendly but dull, stuck in routines, drifting through life, unwilling to take risks. The people he meets in Tarragona are distinctly Spanish: passionate, romantic, sexual, exotic, and willing to embrace adventure and live in the moment. Scenes in New York City take place within the sometimes pleasantly boring, sometimes soul-crushing office of Graham Chemicals, complete with bare white cubicles. Scenes in Tarragona are designated with bright colors, romantic lighting, and intoxicating music. Director Elysa Marden and the production crew make a seamless transition from New York City to Tarragona, and the audience can easily see why Greg would fall in love with this new city and the people in it, but the sudden shift seems almost too good to be true, as though the city conveniently exists as a source for Greg’s inspiration.

Much like the setting, the secondary characters in the show act in convenient ways to push Greg’s personal journey forward. Cristina is the most obvious example of a thinly-drawn person who has little internal life or motivation. She’s spirited, vivacious, sexual: the perfect male fantasy of a foreign woman. She (of course) first appears on stage wearing a red dress and a flower in her hair as though she’s auditioning for a production of Carmen. She responds to Greg’s messages with pleasure even when he pours out his soul to her in a long, rambling email. As Greg, when Berdik reads his email in monologue form to the audience, he sounds passionate, heartfelt, and fundamentally decent – but Cristina, of course, is not privy to Greg’s internal monologue, has never met him, has never heard his voice. If Cristina were a real woman, I’d imagine that she would be immediately put off by the written form of Greg’s passionate speech and move the email into the “delete” box, but the plot and Greg’s personal journey require that she be charmed by his too-personal confession. Despite a lively performance by Ornero, Cristina never comes across as anything but a cipher.

Playwright Gary Giovanetti has a good ear for dialogue and the rhythms of human conversation. Most of the conversations between cast members seem organic and natural. But aside from Greg himself, the only other character who seems to have an internal life is his co-worker Nelson (played with wry humor by CK Allen), a man who is bored by his job, but tolerant of it, and speaks in technological jargon when he wants to exit conversations with his colleagues. Everyone else is either written flatly or written as a caricature, generating several amusing moments, but little realism. The production is well-paced with a strong sense of timing, and the script touches on intriguing themes about human connection and the way people let their fears hold them back, themes that should be further developed. Tarragona would be well-served if a few comical back-and-forths were shelved in favor of giving more shades to characters like Cristina and her friend Ana (played by Lori Faiella), if we saw glimpses into what make them tick other than a plot requirement to help Greg find himself.

Tarragona is playing at the Workshop Theater Company from October 4 to October 27. The Workshop Theater Company’s Main Stage Theater is located on 312 West 36th Street, 4th Floor East, between 8th and 9th Avenues.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

ArticlesDating Violence and Sexual Abuse in “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[This was originally posted at Bitch Flicks.]

“We accept the love we think we deserve.”

This line is spoken twice in The Perks of Being a Wallflower. First, Charlie (Logan Lerman) asks his teacher, Bill (Paul Rudd), why his friends and family choose to be with people who treat them badly. Later in the film, Sam (Emma Watson) poses Charlie the same question. The response is the same both times, echoing a theme that resonates throughout the movie.

Charlie’s sister Candace (Nina Dobrev) excuses the violence she receives from her boyfriend (nicknamed Ponytail Derek), who slaps her in the face. She defends her boyfriend to her brother, giving a list of excuses that seem all too familiar: he’s not usually like that, she was egging him on, he’s a sweet guy most of the time.

Charlie’s friend Patrick (Ezra Miller) is in a secret relationship with a closeted gay student Brad (Johnny Simmons). Brad doesn’t want to make the relationship public because he fears losing his social position, and fears a violent backlash from his father – but he no longer has to get himself drunk before being intimate with Patrick. Patrick accepts the terms of the relationship because it’s still an improvement from what it used to be.

Charlie’s friend Sam is in a relationship with a guy who cheats on her, disrespects her, and doesn’t value her opinion. She doesn’t end the relationship until she finds out about his cheating. Before then, she makes excuses for him, and even halfway admits that he’s no good for her, but she still continues the relationship for longer than she should.

Charlie himself enters a relationship with Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman) almost by accident. He doesn’t really want to be with her, is turned off by her aggressive personality, and has lingering romantic feelings for Sam, but he continues to date Mary Elizabeth because he doesn’t want to hurt her feelings by breaking it off. Mary Elizabeth, in turn, doesn’t seem to be getting much from her relationship with Charlie, but his appeal to her seems obvious – he’s nice, he’s her friend, and he won’t disrespect her.

All of the characters accept less than they deserve, and the consequences are humiliating and/or catastrophic, as we see them experience behaviors that range from normal teenage insensitivity to violent assault.

Candace has the easiest time getting away from Ponytail Derek’s violent behavior; she breaks up with him off-screen and attends her senior prom with her girlfriends. The rest of the characters aren’t as lucky.

Shortly after that, Sam and Charlie kiss and become intimate. It’s a beautiful moment between two friends who love each other, but the result is near calamitous. A flood of repressed memories washes over Charlie as he realizes that his beloved aunt, the one member of his family who he felt close to and understood him, molested him when he was young, and he has a mental breakdown.

The characters in The Perks of Being a Wallflower make excuses for the way their partners treat them – “He’s not usually like that,” “At least he doesn’t have to be drunk to love me anymore” – but the most telling excuse of all is the reason why Charlie ultimately forgives his late aunt: he knows that she, too, was sexually abused as a child.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The Perks of Being a Wallflower premiered in September, but its themes resonate in a month dedicated to understanding and stopping domestic violence and sexual abuse. The characters in the film show us how the cycle of abuse repeats itself, how abuse victims often blame themselves or make excuses for the people who hurt them.

But the film still ends on a note of hope, as Charlie begins to recover in therapy and his friends and siblings visit him in his institution. It shows that empathy and strong ties of friendship and family can help heal old wounds, and how survivors can help each other cope through trauma with love and understanding.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 2 Comments

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 6.09 – “Smashed”

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[Note: I’m writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every month. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODES: “Smashed”
INCIDENT: Violent sex
PARTICIPANTS: Buffy and Spike

The specifics: Before “Smashed,” Buffy kissed Spike twice. She kissed him at the end of “Once More With Feeling” and “Tabula Rasa.” In the beginning of “Smashed,” she swears to never kiss Spike again. By the end of the episode, Buffy and Spike are having sex in a dilapidated building. They quite literally fuck a house down.

The specifics, from Spike’s perspective: Spike thinks Buffy is leading him on – she kissed him twice and pretended it meant nothing. He tries to physically restrain her so she’ll listen to him. She hits him. He hits her back and realizes that he felt no pain from the chip in his head. After a conversation with Warren, he finds out that the chip is fully functional and just doesn’t work on Buffy. He calls her out, and when she doesn’t respond, he follows her and goads her into hitting him. He hits her back and informs her that the chip doesn’t work on her because she “came back wrong.” They fight, and he taunts her about being a “little lost girl” and being “less human” than she thought. He asks Buffy if she’s afraid of “giving him the chance” to hurt her. Before he can finish asking the next question, she’s kissing him and initiating sex.

The specifics, from Buffy’s perspective: Spike won’t leave her alone. She’s told him several times that the kisses meant nothing, but he still follows her around. She rejects him when he tries to call her on the phone. When he shows up, she tells him to get out of her way. He doesn’t listen, so she hits him. When he hits her back, she’s horrified that the chip doesn’t seem to work on her, and repeatedly insists that he’s wrong. They fight, and it isn’t long before she’s kissing him, pushing his back against the wall, and unzipping his pants.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

You’ll notice that I didn’t post my usual “victim” and “perpetrator” labels in this edition of “BtVS and Consent Issues.” That’s because I’m not entirely sure what’s going on here in terms of consent. The relationship between Buffy and Spike in season six of Buffy the Vampire Slayer makes consent issues very murky.

On one hand, I feel that Spike is taking advantage of Buffy’s extremely vulnerable state to get what he wants. Buffy is obviously clinically depressed, and her decision-making skills are not great. He claims to be in love with her, and yet he takes entirely too much pleasure in informing her that she came back “wrong,” that she’s warped and strange and not entirely human.

On the other hand, Buffy is the one who turns the violent fight into a kiss, and she’s the one who shoves Spike against a wall, unzips his pants, pulls her skirt to the side, and starts riding him.

Is Spike violating Buffy’s consent by manipulating her when she’s particularly vulnerable? Or is Buffy violating Spike’s consent while initiating sex during a violent fight? Can both of these things be true at the same time? Or, is it possible that neither is true – that even though the sex is angry and violent, there is no violation of consent on either side?

I’m not sure how to answer those questions. I’ve watched the last few minutes of “Smashed” more times than any other single scene in Buffy the Vampire Slayer history, and I’m still not quite sure what to make of it.

I tend to believe that Spike provoked Buffy with the intention of making her emotionally vulnerable, or at least with the intention of proving her wrong, but that he was completely surprised (though not unhappy) when she initiated sex. I also believe that Buffy was attracted to Spike for a long, long time before the “you came back wrong” speech, and that she used the “you came back wrong” doubt in her mind to have sex with him – but I still don’t know exactly when and how she made the decision to stop fighting and initiate sexytimes.

What do you all think?

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Blog PostsI Don’t Like Lena Dunham, and You Can’t Make Me

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Theresa Basile

It’s October, and we’re still talking about Lena Dunham. The first season of Girls ended in June and the second season of Girls won’t air until January 2013 (assuming that we all survive the Mayan apocalypse where unfinished calendars will apparently rise up and destroy the world), but Lena Dunham still did something worth talking about. She sold a book proposal for 3.7 million dollars.

The book is an “advice” book where Lena Dunham will tell her readers what she’s “learned” in her life. Before anyone could even think the words, “Who needs 3.7 million dollars for a single book?” factions of the Internet feminist blogosphere leaped into action to defend Dunham against predicted backlash. Bloggers asked questions such as, “Why does a wildly successful young woman owe anyone an apology?” (here) and offered “ten reasons not to participate in Lena Dunham backlash” (here).

Last week must have been a slow news week for writers who cover women and gender in media. Maybe the feminist blogosphere didn’t have as much to say about Mindy Kaling’s show as they’d hoped, or maybe they still haven’t caught up on The Misadventures of an Awkward Black Girl and don’t have much to say about Issa Rae’s TV deal.

Whatever the reason for this backlash-against-the-backlash, I’m officially sick and tired of the Dunham defenders, and I’m going to state, for the record, that I don’t like Lena Dunham, and you can’t make me like her.

I officially don’t care that she’s a Woman in Comedy and has to face more criticism than a male counterpart might. Feminism shouldn’t be about lowering expectations for women until they hit our expectations for men. Feminism should be about leveling the playing field and holding all of us to a high standard. I’m not going to give credit to Dunham for “continuing a conversation about racism and sexism on television” by not including any people of color on her show, any more than I would give credit to Daniel Tosh for “continuing a conversation” about rape humor by making rape jokes. Or are we supposed to take this tweet as an important contribution to a discussion about racism?

I officially don’t care that she’s “brave enough” to show her naked average-sized body on television. There was a time when I admired her for that, but I lost interest when she showed up to a public event in a long-sleeved shirt. I don’t turn up my nose at that fashion choice because she’s not a size zero. I turn up my nose at that fashion choice because I am a firm believer in putting on some damn pants before you leave the house. Dunham thinks that if she had the body of Olivia Wilde, no one would have commented on her outfit. I think that if she had worn a short dress instead of a shirt, decent people would have said nothing.

I officially don’t care that she writes about awkward people doing awkward things and it’s so brave of her to write about awkward awkwardness. I’m not interested in how “real” her characters are. Of course they’re real. They’re all versions of herself. I am not very impressed with writers who only manage to write about people who are versions of themselves.

Finally, and most importantly, I officially don’t care that she’s a woman who’s successful.

Okay, that’s not completely true. I’ll amend that last statement: the fact that she is a woman who is successful is not, in of itself, reason enough for me to like her work and want to support it financially. I am glad that many women find her work inspiring and feel that she speaks to them, but I am not one of those women, and I resent the pressure to like her work just because.

The writers of that HuffPo backlash piece would probably disagree with me. After all, as they put it, “Jealously is useless.” (No, that’s not my typo – that’s theirs.) They write the following:

“Jealously is useless.
In all of the cries of nepotism and other attempts to tear Dunham down, it’s hard not to hear a base note of envy. Yes, it would be pretty awesome to have accomplished all that Dunham has by 26, have a cute drummer boyfriend, a book deal and write for the New Yorker. If you haven’t, that is not Lena Dunham’s fault.”

For the record, I am a 28-year-old writer who has not yet accomplished what Lena Dunham has, but I assure you that I have never once blamed her for my lack of success. In the list of reasons of “Why Lady T Does Not Have a Book Deal Yet,” Lena Dunham’s success does not even qualify.

But let’s say that someday, I do achieve some success. Let’s say I get nominated for three Emmys and get a book deal for several million dollars. Let’s say, as I receive international acclaim for this success and people everywhere tell me how great my work is, another group of people decides that they don’t like me or my work very much, and blog about it.

This is just a guess, but I’ll imagine that when I’m rolling around in my millions, I’ll probably be okay.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 8 Comments

ArticlesWhy I’ve Fallen in Love with “New Girl”

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[This was originally posted on Bitch Flicks.]

I’m not sure what’s happened, but I have fallen head over heels in love with FOX’s New Girl. I devoured the first season within a week and immediately caught up on the first few episodes of season two.

New Girl wasn’t a show I ever planned on watching. I actually like Zooey Deschanel, but I didn’t feel like I needed to see half an hour of her “adorkable” antics every week. The initial ads also made me believe that this show was going to be about a weird woman-child who moved in with three men who would eventually either a) pull a My Fair Lady on her and craft her into a more normal human being, or b) come to appreciate the quirky elf magic of this manic pixie dream girl and learn how to live their lives. Then one of them would fall in love with her, and they’d have a “She saved him back” moment from Pretty Woman, and they’d live manically and pixie-like forever after.

Well, this goes to show how marketing can be misleading, because New Girl is not that show at all.

Yes, the first few episodes were largely about Zooey’s character Jess moving in and the male friends adjusting to her personality, but soon, the audience was introduced to the weirder sides of Nick, Winston, and Schmidt, and we quickly saw that this was a group of people who are all freaky oddballs. Sure, Jess makes up her own theme songs and speaks in silly accents, but Nick believes that an old man who speaks to him at the bar is himself from the future, Winston gets overly competitive about a middle school bells group, and Schmidt…is Schmidt.

Sometimes Jess is the voice of reason among the weird people, sometimes she’s the odd one that one of the guys has to rein in, and sometimes, in the very best episodes, the whole gang is completely off the wall. More importantly, Jess  never has to be the mommy to a group of manchildren, and the guys never have to be the condescending Three Men and a Little Lady daddies to a girl-woman. I was afraid of both of those tropes before I started watching of the show, but neither has been the case.

On top of that, New Girl also showcases a female friendship that I find delightful to watch. Jess’s childhood best friend Cece, a confident, gorgeous model, is another main character on the show, and they complement each other perfectly. They’re highly supportive of each other, they share tough love when they need to, and their heartfelt moments are always genuine. When they fight, they fight like real women fight, not like a male fantasy of catty, bitchy women.

One of my favorite episodes of New Girl is “Secrets,” when Schmidt and Cece’s secret relationship becomes known to everyone else in the apartment. Jess is horrified to learn this information, but she’s also hurt that she was the last person to find out, thinking that Cece doesn’t trust her anymore. Cece, meanwhile, was afraid of Jess’s judgment, but was more afraid of admitting that she cared about Schmidt as something more than a hookup. The fight was over by the end of the episode, and there was a refreshing lack of catfight jokes.

There was another episode that featured an argument between two women – Jess and Nick’s girlfriend Julia – that was a great commentary on the way women fight when their personalities clash. Julia (Lizzy Caplan) is immediately put off by Jess’s whole persona, assuming that her super-girly attitude is nothing but an act, and feels threatened by Jess’s  place in Nick’s life:

“I know that I’m the mean lawyer girl who wears suits and works too much, and you – you’re the really fun teacher girl with all the colorful skirts, and you bake things, and eventually Nick will come running to you, and you’ll tuck him in under his blankie.”

This ends in an argument where Julia flat-out admits that she doesn’t like Jess and quietly asks her to go away so she can cry in the bathroom. Jess doesn’t want to leave because then she won’t have anywhere to cry, but runs into the men’s bathroom to see Nick crying, and is then forced to cry in the hallway.

The sequence is hilarious and I watched it a million times, but I also thought the scene, and the episode in general, was a great commentary on the way women misunderstand each other. Julia sees Jess as a threat because Jess is the living embodiment of the bubbly feminine stereotype that male writers use and re-use and over-use in their navel-gazing stories. Julia’s not being fair to Jess, but her feelings are more than understandable; many of us have had that jealousy and resentment towards women who have an easier time being traditionally feminine.

And by the end of the episode, Jess and Julia have put their issues aside and bonded over some girl time crocheting. They’re not suddenly best friends, but they’re cool with each other, and it was so refreshing to see two women put aside their differences without a) showing any underlying cattiness, or b) turning the show into a Hallmark card.

The show isn’t perfect, of course. The writers broke up Schmidt and Cece much too quickly, almost as though they bought into the idea that happy couples are never funny. Winston as a character still isn’t as clearly defined as the other three roommates, even though Lamorne Morris is a very funny actor. And as a former teacher, I’m perplexed as to why Jess has to quit teaching entirely after getting laid off from one school, instead of, I don’t know, trying to find a job at a different school, like most teachers do. But despite its flaws, I love New Girl for introducing me to this group of weird people and treating all of its characters with respect and affection.

Posted in Articles | Tagged | 2 Comments

Blog PostsAt the Movies

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Last Saturday, I saw The Perks of Being a Wallflower. It’s a beautiful movie, filmed with care and respect for all of its characters. Stephen Chbosky did an excellent job adapting his book to the screen, a story of beauty and pain and broken people finding solace in each other.

I’m glad the movie was so good, because I had to sit through quite a bit of crap to get to it.

I saw a trailer for the upcoming Seven Psychopaths. It was a very abbreviated version of the tv spots and trailers I’ve seen in other movie theaters. It was so abbreviated, in fact, that even though the film is called Seven Psychopaths, only five of them were featured in the trailer. Any images of Abbie Cornish and Olga Kurylenko, and in fact, their names, were completely missing from this version of the trailer. Gee, I wonder what Abbie Cornish and Olga Kurylenko have in common? I hope eliminating all traces of the women in the trailer saved them a lot of time!

I also saw a sneak peek at the upcoming History Channel special, called The Men Who Built America:


This is another trailer that has no trace of women in it, but I don’t even have a problem with that in this case. (It’s a special about a very male-dominated industry; of course it’s not going to feature a lot of women.) No, my problem with this trailer has to do with the way that Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, and Morgan are portrayed as badass rockstars.

Look at them talk about how innovative and badass they are by using oil! Look at them act all rebellious and tough by making lots of money! Look at Carnegie shove someone aside and yell, “Get out of my way!” with his masculine masculinity! Look at these rebels fight against the system LIKE A BAWSE.

Much has been written on the subject of hypermasculinity and portrayals of hypermasculinity in the media, but I worry for our culture’s future when aggressive, macho masculinity manages to permeate a damned History Channel Special. Is it really necessary to advertise a special about oil magnates the same way you would advertise an action movie? Why do marketers insist on always being aggressive, be-eing aggressive?

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 1 Comment

Blog PostsStoneybrook Revisited: BSC Books #25-28, Super Special #2

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Theresa Basile

#25 – Mary Anne and the Search for Tigger
This book should really be titled Mary Anne and the Search for a Better Boyfriend. Logan is a total jerk when Mary Anne loses her kitten. When she gets emotional at a meeting, he even whispers to her, “Mary Anne, can you stop being so…sensitive?” First of all, Logan, if you’re looking for a girlfriend who’s not sensitive, look elsewhere. Second of all, this isn’t equivalent to Mary Anne getting teary when Kristy’s voice is too loud. Mary Anne has lost her pet. At the end of the book, his excuse is that he’s worried about his poor performance on the baseball team, but he seems wholly uninterested in his girlfriend’s problem, beyond the point of simply being distracted by his own problems. Shut up, Logan.

“I might as well be straightforward (even though I hardly ever am) and say right out that Jessi’s family is black.” That has got to be one of the most awkward “JESSI IS BLACK” references in the entire series. If I come across descriptions that are even worse, I’ll let you know.

“We had all just seen each other at school, but that didn’t matter. Every time we get together, it’s as if we haven’t spoken in a week.) Uh-oh, y’all – the baby-sitters are collectively suffering from short-term memory loss. Someone get them a doctor.

In the third chapter, Mary Anne and Logan are sitting outside the house talking, and he seems annoyed by everything she says and does. Then she asks him what he wants to drink, and makes a big deal of telling the reader, “I knew exactly what he wanted. That’s how well we know each other. I didn’t even need to ask him.” She really sounds like a girl who knows deep down that her boyfriend’s an asshole and is overcompensating by talking about their great connection. Fortunately, this is a book where the baby-sitters live up to their “we’re such good friends” reputation, because all the girls are very supportive of Mary Anne losing her kitten. Even when Kristy’s running the search, she manages not to make it all about her.

This is Mary Anne’s second book in a row that’s all about a “mystery” plot. The first one was about a series of stupid back luck instances, and the second was about a stupid search for a lost kitten. (Not that I don’t sympathize with people who lose their pets, but I didn’t need to read a whole “whodunnit” book about which person took Tigger.) Meanwhile, Mary Anne and the Secret in the Attic, a story that actually addresses a very important part of Mary Anne’s past, is NOT in the original book series, but is shoved to the mystery spinoffs. Bad decision. Bad, bad decision.

#26 – Claudia and the Sad Goodbye
Mimi’s gone. 🙁 🙁 🙁

I’m not cool with Martin’s decision to kill Mimi. Mimi was just so classy and gentle. This book is a good tribute to her memory, and a decent portrayal of a teenager’s feelings of grief and loss. But now I still have more than one hundred Mimi-less books to read. I guess Mary Anne’s dad is going to have to replace Mimi as my favorite BSC guardian. (I don’t know why; I just find that man adorable.) I wonder if Ann M. didn’t anticipate writing (or having people ghost-write) hundreds of books after this – and if she did anticipate it, maybe she wouldn’t have killed off Mimi so early in the series.

Anyway, like I said, this book has a decent plot and portrays Claudia’s emotions well, but the writing is hampered by the 15-chapter BSC format. Claudia starts getting bratty about taking care of Mimi after Mimi’s been in the hospital for, like, a day. Then she’s apologetic very shortly afterwards. The book has to cram all of Claudia’s emotions into such a small window of time that she comes off as bratty and a little unhinged rather than a normal thirteen-year-old. This could have been a good book instead of just a decent one if she had more space to explore Claudia’s emotions over time.

I think it’s sweet that Claudia tells Mary Anne first, and it’s sweet that Mary Anne offers to call the other BSC members so Claud doesn’t have to.

Claudia describes Stacey’s diabetes as a “huge drag,” by the way.

Claudia is also snarky about Janine’s class, Advances and Trends in Computerized Biopsychiatry, saying she doesn’t know any of those words except “and” and “in.” Oh come on, Claud. You don’t understand “trends?”

The baby-sitters are Very Concerned when Corrie Addison looks like she’s getting attached to Claudia, even though they never said boo about the fact that Charlotte Johanssen has complete emotional breakdowns when she can’t be near Stacey. Stacey’s allowed to have her favorite charge in Char, Kristy’s allowed to have Karen & Andrew and Jamie, Mallory gets the Arnold twins, Jessi gets Matt Braddock, why can’t Claud have a favorite kid?

“Kristy may be a loudmouth. She may be bossy sometimes. But I think she understands kids better than the rest of us does.” Holy bad grammar, Batman, but Claudia might have a point, and this is the second book in a row where Kristy doesn’t act like an asshole, so she gets points for that.

Rest in peace, Mimi.

Super Special #2 – Babysitters Summer Vacation
This book was published after Claudia and the Sad Goodbye, except Mimi’s still alive in this one. Oops. Maybe Claudia’s writing her postcards to Ghost Mimi.

I love kid and teen books about summer camp, which is why this is one of my favorite super specials. I don’t care about Dawn and her weirdo camper who turns out to be useful, or Claudia and her romance with a male CIT, or Stacey and her poison ivy. But I love Kristy getting her big feminine makeover from her girly CITs, Mary Anne proving her gutsiness to the other CITs, and Jessi and Mal teaming up to fight racism! I’m especially delighted that the racist idiots in Mal and Jessi’s cabin don’t even know how to use a racial slur correctly, calling them both Oreos. LOL.

What makes me LOL even louder is when Kristy’s cabin mates loudly sigh over the boyfriends, and Kristy just pipes in with, “I miss Bart.” Oh, poor repressed gay Kristy trying to fit in.

Claudia’s postcard to her parents: “Hi how are you? Me just fin.” OH MY GOD how have the Kishis not signed her up to be evaluated? She breaks my heart a little bit when she purposely mispronounces the camp’s name so she can laugh at herself and not feel embarrassed. “That’s a good way to get out of embarrassing situations – make a joke. I do that a lot in school.” People make fun of her bad academics all the time. Poor girl.

I love when the boys come to the girls’ cabin and they all freak out. “I’m changing!” “I’m naked!” “I’m Claudia.” I love that girl. I really do.

A lot of the characters joke that the cabins have such “boring” names, and it just irritates the crap out of me, especially when Logan does it. Why exactly should cabins at summer camp have creative names? What are they expecting aside from Cabin 7-A and 7-B? Logan also doesn’t stand up for Mary Anne when his male counselor/CIT buddies call her a “feeb,” because he is a terrible boyfriend.

#27 – Jessi and the Superbrat
Jessi baby-sits for a child television star, because that makes sense, and said television star rips off the plot of Shirley Jackson’s short story “Charles.” Then she flirts with the idea of trying to be a star herself, but realizes that she was only pretending not to care about being cast in Swan Lake because she really DID care after all.

I want to make a Black Swan joke about Jessi. I probably shouldn’t, because it would be racist, but to be fair, the books make such a big obnoxious deal about Jessi BEING BLACK that I can’t help that it popped into my head!

Yeah, I don’t have much to say about this book except that I think Becca and Squirt seem like cute kids, and her parents seem reasonable. So that’s nice for the Ramsey family.

#28 – Welcome Back, Stacey!
Woot woot! Anastasia Elizabeth McGill is in the HOUSE!

It’s pretty neat that three of the seven main baby-sitters have divorced parents. Girls who grow up reading these books and struggling with their parents’ divorces probably felt comforted seeing representations of themselves in the BSC.

The fights between Stacey’s parents are pretty well-done, but I don’t remember them not getting along before this book, so the divorce seems rather sudden. I guess we can’t spend too much time with Stacey while she’s still in New York.

“You know what’s funny, though? When I’m with the Walkers, I don’t think of them as black, just as people.” WOW, STACEY, YOU ARE SO PROGRESSIVE AND AWESOME. I’m going to throw a “Congratulations On Not Being Racist” awards ceremony JUST FOR YOU.

Noteworthy about this book: Dawn is not a jerk, nor is she boring. She gives Stacey some practical divorced kid advice and does not guilt trip Stacey into coming back to Stoneybrook. Good for you, Dawn! Keep it up!

Welcome Back, Stacey! is a very good BSC outing. Very little baby-sitting (heh heh) and I think Stacey’s mixed emotions and anger come across as very realistic. The ending isn’t neat and tidy, and things aren’t all better for Stacey just because she’s back with the BSC. I’m actually moved when she realizes that Stoneybrook kids are better friends than the New York kids; I flash back to descriptions of poor Stacey being ostracized right as she started to get sick. Claudia and Stacey’s friendship is also quite sweet in this book, very mutually supportive, and wow – for once I’m more moved than snarky. Who’d a thunk?

In some ways, I think this book is even better than Claudia and the Sad Good-bye. The pacing and timing of Stacey’s changing emotions seemed more organic and less rushed than Claudia getting tired of being Mimi’s maid after, like, a day. Even the baby-sitting was better integrated into the main plot. Stacey’s attachment to Henry and Grace Walker is better developed than Claudia’s sudden attachment to Corrie, because Stacey’s sat for them in the past, and Henry and Grace weren’t just introduced for the sake of making her feel conflicted.

I also love her reaction to her dad calling his new apartment his “pad.” “His new pad. He actually said that.”

Coming up next: Mallory gets a stupid mystery book that’s posing as a regular BSC book, Mary Anne’s dad and Dawn’s mom get married, and they have another super special that I only read once and don’t remember very well.

Also, Kristy baby-sits an autistic child. When I read that book for the first time as a kid, I was neutral on its portrayal of autism. We’ll see how I feel this time around. That book review might take a separate post because the topic is of special importance to me.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog PostsCh-Ch-Changes

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Hello, everyone. I’m back to blogging after a one-week break and I’ve decided to make some changes in my writing schedule.

I’ve been writing at this blog for almost two years now, and I love doing it. I love writing, I love communicating with readers (even if I’m sometimes embarrassingly slow in responding to comments), and I love the opportunities that blogging has afforded me.

However, I’m also feeling a bit of a grind. Blogging has become more of an obligation than a joy, and lately I’ve been writing posts that feel rushed and less inspired.

Sometimes that happens. Every writer feels bursts of inspiration followed by periods of sluggishness. But sluggishness isn’t my only issue right now. Sometimes I run out of topics to write about, and I feel like I’m not devoting enough time to my novel-writing.

That’s why I’ve decided to make a few changes with this blog and my writing schedule.

I will be writing on a M-W-F schedule for the first three weeks of every month. Expect posts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Every month, I will take the last week off. This means I’ll write 9 posts a month instead of 14.

I’m making this change in the schedule because I need to focus on my novel-writing and my paid writing assignments. This blog has brought me some name recognition and a wonderful audience, but as of yet, I’m not getting paid for it, and I have to earn some money. If I write fewer posts, I’ll have more time to work on my other projects, and I can concentrate on writing better, more inspired columns.

Changes in regular features. The “Buffy and Consent” series, which is almost at an end, will continue, but I’ll write one post a month instead of two. The same will go for “Stoneybrook Revisited.” As for “The Rom-Com Project”…well, I’ll address that in my next point.

Knowing my limits. “The Rom-Com Project” sounded like a great idea when I started it, but after watching dozens of bad-to-middling romantic comedies, I feel a little exhausted. The thought of watching and reviewing even more dozens of bad-to-middling romantic comedies makes me shudder.

Maybe I didn’t start by watching the right movies. Maybe I shouldn’t have watched He’s Just Not That Into You and Valentine’s Day and Along Came Polly so early. (I watched Along Came Polly a few months ago, and it was so terrible that I wanted to sob over the amount of time I wasted on it. Not a single redeeming feature in that paint-by-numbers piece of crap.) All I know is that I’m dreading snarking over rom-coms while I don’t dread re-reading bad Baby-sitters Club books – maybe because BSC books at least have the nostalgia factor that bad rom-coms don’t.

That doesn’t mean I’m abandoning The Rom-Com Project. I just need to figure out how to re-tool it. I might watch one featured rom-com of the month, or two if I have the time.

The new schedule will go into effect this week. Thank you all for continuing to read, comment, and share. I love reading your thoughts and your support means everything to me. My posting schedule will be lighter, but I’m going to continue to make this the best blog it can be.

 

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 2 Comments

Blog PostsBlog Note

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Theresa Basile

I’m taking the week off, folks. I have deadlines for other projects, I’m adjusting to a new work schedule, and it’s my birthday on Wednesday. I might have time to respond to some week-old comments, but I won’t be writing new posts until Monday, October 8. By that week, I’ll return to the regular schedule. Thanks for being patient. Enjoy your week!

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 2 Comments