I Wish You All the Best

I Wish You All The Best, directed by a trans person, has received good reviews. A Bronx connection: she went to Fordham University. This is her directorial debut. She was an actor in 13 Reasons Why, another case where I only read the book. 

I noticed Cole Sprouse had a supporting role as the protagonist's brother-in-law. I remember him as Ben, the son of Ross and Carol (a lesbian), on Friends. Now, he is in his 30s. Time flies. 

“Non-binary” is an umbrella term that includes those whose identity falls outside of or between male and female identities; as a person who can experience both male and female, at different times, or someone who does not experience or want to have a gender identity at all.

The film concerns another Ben, who is kicked out after they come out as nonbinary to their parents. They moved in with their sister, who had left the family years earlier. Ben has a path of self-discovery, including a cute romance. The book is overall well-written. 

Lena Dunham has a role in the film as an understanding art teacher. The character is Asian-American in the book. The film also, for some reason, also has the sister having a newborn. I don't see a Muslim nonbinary character listed, who plays an important role in the book as Ben's mentor.

Mild spoilers. In the book, things overall work out well for Ben. Their sister provides a safe haven. She and her husband have the resources to help them. It's convenient, for instance, that the brother-in-law is a teacher and helps Ben transfer to a new school. 

They and their parents do not reconcile. They overall do not come out well at all, hints of backward religious beliefs. The mother comes off better. She feels sorry about the pain she is causing her children. But, ultimately, she is loyal to the father. 

(I began using male pronouns for Ben when writing this piece. Even the hosts of Gay USA sometimes trip up with using preferred pronouns. It can be tricky.)

The book shows the value of therapy, the usage of anti-anxiety medication, and dealing with social anxiety. It also shows the essential nature of finding good support. Ben finds a support network that they did not have before, including in school. 

Before, they didn't hang out with people. Finding someone who here helped Ben find two more close friends was oh so important. This is a general principle and not limited to people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. 

Attacking trans people is deemed acceptable by many governments, up to and including the Trump Administration. Transphobia is both understandable (as far as bigotry can be) and ridiculous.

Transphobia arises from different things. The Trump Administration being so anti-trans might confuse someone. It seems logical (if wrong) for them to target Democrats in illegitimate ways or monetize the government or demand utter loyalty to Dear Leader.  

Why the anti-trans stuff? It does have a right-wing religious angle. It is fitting that the Religion Clause Blog often has news on trans-related lawsuits. Sex and gender flexibility clash with right-wing religious beliefs. Not "Christian" beliefs. To be clear. 

Such beliefs do not only have a religious angle. People can be religious and support nonbinary and trans people. Religious positions often have more to them.

Gender fluidity endangers traditional masculine-dominant beliefs and practices. Fascism and authoritarian governments regularly promote such beliefs. It is fitting that one book about them is entitled Strongmen. Anti-trans policies fit in here.

A book (written by a non-binary person) and a film (directed by a trans person) respecting the self-actualization of a binary person are quite important. We need to be good people and provide support for those in need. We need to not focus on false issues.

A final word about young adult non-fiction. It is often not only for young adults. After all, people enjoy television shows and films about teenagers without being teenagers themselves. YA fiction can be similar.

The Rewrite

 

I rewatched this. It's a pleasant film. Good character actors. Has something to say. Nothing profound, but I enjoyed it. 

Tanna

 

This 2015 film is based on true events involving an indigenous tribe (and a star-crossed romance) on a Pacific island. The actors are amateurs but quite good. It often has a documentary-like feel. 

Cry 'Havoc'

 

This film was released in late 1943 and early 1944, based on a late 1942 play. The sacrifices of the women nurses have added bite mid-WWII. Some reviews suggest it is too stagy. Overall, I was impressed. As we feel sorry for ourselves, a bit of historical memory, please.

About Time

Rachel McAdams was in two films where she was a "time traveler's wife." This one is British and quirky. The time travel is largely used to fix social slip-ups. It was pleasant enough, and the two hours passed quickly. Still, it was a tad too cutesy. And, the time travel at times seemed a tad bit "cheat-y." And, the rules a bit sketchy. 

One Little Indian

 

James Garner, in his autobiography, didn't rank this very highly, though he said he enjoyed working with a young Jodie Foster. One movie book gave it 2.5/4 stars and called it quirky. I think that's fair. I overall enjoyed it. Decent pace and some good performances.

The Garner Files

I saw a reference to James Garner's autobiography when reading about They Only Kill Their Masters. He ranked his films and gave it two stars. He didn't want to talk about the film otherwise. So mysterious!

The book is overall pretty good. He wrote it with someone a few years before his death.

I can do without chapters on golf and racing, but they are two of his passions. An "outtakes" section provides various stories from family, friends, and others. He talks about his childhood without talking much about his wife and daughters (very little, though they pop up in the outtakes section).  

Garner (originally Bumgarner) references that his cousin once told him that his mother died from complications of an abortion. She was twenty-six and had three young boys in Depression Era Oklahoma. 

(It was just referenced in a discussion about his childhood. He later says he supports abortion rights and is a strong Democrat.) 

Julia Sweeney, in an otherwise light-hearted book on parenthood, talked about how her mother-in-law got an illegal abortion in the 1960s. Sweeney did some good long-form monologues, including her first, "God Said, Ha!" A later one was basically "God? Ha!"

You can hear Garner's telltale voice while reading the book. His characters often had much of him in them. He did not train to be an actor. He got work early on because he had a movie star look. Garner got married in around two weeks. It worked for him -- they stayed together for nearly sixty years.  

I was not a big fan of his private eye television show, though I know people who liked it. I wanted to check out Maverick, his 1950s show, and saw it was on. It turns out to have been a late episode with Roger Moore, who replaced him! 

I like James Garner overall as an actor, including in Murphy's Romance. I did not see that many of his movies. I checked out the first of his Western spoofs. Didn't much care for it. His one-season television show, Nichols, was playing on one of the retro stations. Think he would appreciate that. 

(I agree with him that The Notebook is very good.) 

I had difficulty finding a good book lately. The latest by Erik Loomis (Organizing America) with twenty thumbnail biographies was pretty interesting. 

This one was a good, easy read, though again was not really interested in forty pages about golf and racing. And would have liked to read a bit more about his daughters. Overall, he had a good no-nonsense philosophy mixed with empathy. Good values. 

He gives some opinions, good and bad, about some actors and other people he knew. Nothing too terrible, but he does criticize a few celebrities. 

Garner also said that he was a long-term user of marijuana, finding it helpful for medicinal purposes. If anything, alcohol was more dangerous in his experience.  He tried cocaine via Jim Belushi but didn't care for it.  Not too many big reveals overall.

They Only Kill Their Masters

This film was on TCM. 

Good group of character actors. Seriously. The film is almost like a Murder She Wrote episode regarding the number of classic film actors in supporting roles.

Garner (in his autobiography) once ranked his films. This received 2/5, but he didn't want to talk about it. That is likely to lead people to wonder why. 

I would probably rank it 3/5 on that scale for the cast, setting, and the plot for much of the film. It was an enjoyable, deliberate mystery taking part in a small town. It was a very good role for James Garner.

[The film does go in an annoying direction, so I might give it 2.5. OTOH, lots of 3/5 films have flaws. That sort of film is decent, taking everything into consideration. So, the bad stuff is averaged in.] 

The film, in a limited fashion, involves bisexuality/lesbianism, which is put in a bad light given the plot. Some people will be a bit shocked at who the killer turns out to be. At least given who plays the role. Garner's character, at one point, out of nowhere (really), references not being a "faggot" for some reason. I was a bit taken aback.

Anyway, the film was enjoyably moseying along [I was watching it late at night], and then it hit into stupid plot point territory. Garner's character not only made a misguided assumption (or three) but also did something dangerously stupid. 

It ruined things for me, and I shut it off. I checked Wikipedia to see what happened. The solution to the mystery was unpleasant and somewhat lame. Plus, there is the "small town has a dark side" flavor there. Finally, how many seems fine but has a creepy side roles has Hal Holbrook done?  

We also have another case of the gratuitous shooting of a guilty party. Television and film don't need the death penalty with all the people being shot dead. 

So, I enjoyed the movie until I didn't. James Garner was overall very good. Not sure why he didn't want to talk about it. Probably something personal, including conflict with a cast member or the like.  

There is a "title drop" (involving a dog) early in the film. As noted in Wikipedia, there were multiple (failed) attempts to use the general concept as the basis of a series (using different actors). I can see it. 

The Makeover

 

A Hallmark Hall of Fame film from 2012 with Julia Stiles and Camryn Manheim (supporting role). Stiles plays uptight well. Good cast. Overall, enjoyable, with a bit of a twist near the end. 

Friends XXX Parody

I like the show Friends and have seen episodes over and over again. I generally skip the first and tenth seasons, though there are a few episodes from those seasons that are fine. It is comfortable food television, even with all its issues. 

For instance, Rachel gets pregnant and suddenly becomes conservative. Well, romantically and sexually. This is someone who has sex on first dates. Now, when she gets horny mid-way (before she is showing), she can't REALLY have sex with anyone? She is appalled at the idea when Phoebe brings a virgin guy to have sex with her. 

Rachel goes on a date early in the pregnancy and feels compelled to tell the guy. This, obviously, ruins the whole thing. Why is she obliged to do this on a first date? I can go on, but this sort of thing bothers me.  

I saw two shortened porn clips involving a Friends parody on Pornhub. One involves the women, the other Monica/Rachel, and Joey. The characters don't really look the part, but they do a decent job of it. Chandler/Joey gave the big apartment back for just a minute of Monica/Rachel kissing. Imagine if they could see all three having sex?

(There was that episode when they had free porn. Note the film discussed below also has a scene with the three women, though that one has a guy too.)

There are many full-length parodies of many different films and television shows. There obviously would be one of Friends. The video provides basically the film without the porn. So, it is under twenty minutes long. 

You can read a Vulture review, get a summary of the sex scenes, and a Wikipedia summary (you can translate it). There is also a way to get a free preview (about a minute) of the film. Also, yes, I can see the porn actor (in a bunch of things) who they picked to play Ugly Naked Guy. He works.

The summary makes a comment that the film does a decent job, but does not provide much of a fantasy experience keyed to the show itself. The characters (with their clothes on) are reasonably comparable to the original, but the sex scenes often are just that. They are not that character-specific. 

For instance, the Chandler and Monica characters ("Monica" dressed looks decently like the original) have sex. Basically, like any two people would have sex. The Monica character has a lot of tattoo art, apparently, which is a thing these days. Not a fan. Anyway, that sort of ruins the fantasy. 

The film was made long after "doing a Monica" would be a topical reference. Monica here does do that, though her porn name is more about her moaning. She did some moaning on the show when Phoebe gave her a massage. On the show, there is a Mona, who is pretty cute. 

The show was not political, though it made a few references to Bill Clinton. They couldn't make one reference to her being named Monica? In the 1990s? 

The film clip (again, it's PG) shows the two apartments and the coffeehouse (given a stupid LA name here). They do a pretty good job with the apartments. For some reason, however, they put a big window in the main area of the guy's apartment. No idea why from watching the film clip.

Okay, just to toss it in, Ross gets to have a threesome with Carol/Susan (or whatever they call her), and this time [unlike on the series] he has fun. Joey has sex with Ross/Monica's mom (more of a MILF here). And, the foursome with the women and Ugly Naked Guy (not too ugly here) goes a long time.

Those are decent choices, though I think many fans have different possibilities in mind. For instance, when they all find out Monica/Chandler was dating, there was an amusing bit where Chandler and Phoebe played a game of chicken regarding faking liking each other.  What if they actually had sex?  

IRL, Matthew Perry said in his autobiography that he had a crush (not returned) on Jennifer Aniston. Those two characters having sex would be ... strange. But, they did kiss (college flashback), and Rachel (before she got married) thought about having sex with him!

One thing I didn't like about the series was that after Chandler/Janice broke up (after a charming subplot where Chandler truly fell for her), they just kept on having the same plot of Chandler being disgusted by her. There are two serious exceptions, but that is generally the nature of her once-a-season experiences from then on. Why can't he move on and remember the good times? Maybe in the final appearance?  

Is there a fan fiction where Chandler and Janice hook up again, perhaps when Chandler and Monica have some marriage problems? After all, Janice even tells him to call her in that episode after he's engaged and all three have dinner with each other.  

Janice would be a good character in a porn -- her "OMG" would fit well in the bedroom. After all, Joey in one episode says she is loud. Oh. On the show, she hooks up with Ross. A Joey/Chandler/Janice threesome (to show Joey is okay with her!) would be a possible scene. More can be imagined. 

Ross got in trouble saying Rachel's name at his second wedding. Maybe he can turn things around and say Emily's name in the bedroom with Rachel? On the show, there actually is a video of Ross/Rachel having sex, which they watch. Maybe we can see that?

The show has various other risque opportunities for sex scenes. Monica, in an early episode, has sex with a teenager (IRL, he was in his 20s). Phoebe's half-brother marries his much older teacher (on the show, they keep on making out). Phoebe's twin sister in one episode even starts making amateur porn using her name! Why not have Phoebe fill in one time?!

Oh well, if we are talking about fantasy, I would change various things, including ending the series about a season earlier. But this has gone on long enough. The one where Joey tells Rachel he fell in love with her is airing now. If only they didn't go ahead and have Rachel fall for him later. Blah. 

Heavily pregnant Rachel having sex ... some people like pregnancy porn. And, come on, Rachel not having sex her full pregnancy is just silly.  

When Sparks Fly

 

Meghan Markle was in two Hallmark Channel movies. I talk about them here. I rewatched (if a bit late) this one. It was pleasant, and my general sentiments are the same. 

Follow the Stars Home

I have watched this Hallmark Hall of Fame film multiple times. 

These films are not like the usual current Hallmark fare. They are more often serious and not merely focused on romance. They were on CBS on Sundays before we had a Hallmark Channel. (Or three) They are now most likely to be found on Hallmark Family.  

The film has many familiar faces, including Blair Brown as the mom who is a librarian. Alexa Vega (many know her from Spy Kids)  is all grown up now and pops up in some Hallmark films as a lead. 

"That girl" (that is, someone you know from somewhere else) includes a young mom who decides to keep her baby even after she finds out that she will be disabled. Her husband cannot handle it and abandons them. 

Skip ahead six years, and she's dealing with a girl with special needs, helped by his brother (a doctor) who clearly loves her. Alex Vega, whose mom is an alcoholic and has an abusive boyfriend, comes in as a "mother's helper."  Vega has needs of her own, as a reference to her social worker shows. 

The whole thing is a flashback of sorts, starting with a car accident. It is based on a book.  Not a short one. As usual, they change a few things, including from looking at Amazon, a good change.  No, I never read the book, which is somewhat strange, since I first watched this thing a long time ago. 

The film has many moving parts, all of which are generally well done. There are some good scenes between the mother and her mother. The problems of caring for a special needs child while still being blessed. The girl struggles with her own mother while also showing her value, including being a friend to the disabled daughter (who seems to be played by two non-disabled child actors*). And, the husband who is unable to handle the responsibility of a disabled child.

It is a lot. For instance, the mother (Dianne) of the disabled child becomes something of a second mother for Alexa Vega's character. This is a difficult situation. Once, Dianne's mother suggested she take Vega for a special trip that they often took as mom/daughter. Dianne notes, "She isn't my daughter."  

There are various little moments. For instance, Blair Brown's character is retiring partially to help care for her granddaughter. She will miss being a librarian. We see her tear up on her last day.  

The husband obviously does not come off very well. There is little to defend, except to somewhat understand, his abandoning his family. There is some realism there. His argument that she should abort and telling his brother that he too would want her to is also realistic. Many people will feel that way.

The result helps his argument to some extent. The girl does suffer. She has a condition that limits her mentally and physically. She is too young to understand, including understanding the physical pain it entails. Morally, it is a serious question if it is right to put her through that by not aborting.  

People will argue her life is still worth living. The point is generally moot once the mother decides to have the child. The child is surely alive, then, and people have an obligation to her needs. The mother was informed about the risks. Once she made her decision, it was correct for her brother-in-law to respect it and help her in whatever way he could.  

Some parents and family members do not want to deal with people in their family who have problems. They would rather ignore them if possible. 

That's a problem. This includes if someone still wants to stay but does not pay attention to that person. So, the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but ignores the needs of his child. 

I think the film is well-acted and written. Not surprising since I watched it so many times. 

It also might be deemed "pro-life," but that doesn't make it anti-choice. Her ability to make a choice made the result that much more significant. Yes, the only person who puts forth the other option is coded as horrible. A more appealing relative also voicing doubts would have been nice.  

(The Amazon summary says they found out "weeks before" the birth. In the film, it was early enough for her to have an abortion.) 

I can carp about some part or another, but the film is rather remarkable for all it does. Okay. A few times, the soundtrack is annoying. And, the mom has one of those special jobs (she seems to build dollhouses or something) that allows her not to struggle for money while having a comfortable existence. 

Overall, it's well recommended. 

ETA: I also watched Remembering Sunday, another Hallmark Hall of Fame film. The guy has the "Momento" disease, where he wakes up each day forgetting everything since his brain went screwy. 

He does have long-term memory, so he remembers his best friend and sister. Zachary Levi plays the guy who manages (for a time) to have a job, though he doesn't tell his boss about his condition. 

Alexis Bleisdel (Rory Gilmore) is a waitress waiting for an inheritance (how convenient!) and falls in love with him. She only finds out about his condition near the end. He did try to tell her about it, if not right away. Overall, an interesting movie with a twist. 

No totally happy ending. 

==

* The two actresses do a good job in a role that is not easy. They need to realistically portray a child with Spina Bifida and Rett Syndrome.  

Sex Kittens Go to College

This is a ridiculous film that was on TCM. A different sort of "classic." Somewhat strangely, it was on at around 7 A.M. This is late-night fare.

Mamie Van Doren (Wikipedia tells me she is still alive and in her 90s) plays a former stripper who is the surprise new brainy professor at a college. Tuesday Weld, a serious actress, played a student, as did Brigitte Bardot's sister. One of the "hey! it's that guy!" roles was played by someone many know from the Addams Family (1960s version).  

Van Doren has a dance routine at one point, but overall plays it fairly "straight" in this film. Much of the movie is badly acted and written "comedy" material. Then, late in the film, in the most gratuitous way possible (it appears to be a robot's dreams), there is a series of topless women. 

Not quite what you expect on TCM at shortly before 9 A.M. I figure various cuts of this film do not have this sequence. After that scene, we go back to the movie for a largely tacked-on conclusion. 

The whole thing has some "so bad it's good" value, but at some point it is rather dull.  The nudity is a surprise. The Wikipedia summary does not even discuss that part of the film. Again, I think some cuts of the film just leave the whole thing out. 

I think Mamie Van Doren, as a brain blonde bombshell, does an okay job. She has a blog, and the last entry is at the end of 2023. Good to know her political bona fides seem to be reasonable. 

Wedding Daze (Including a Serious Aside)

The third Hallmark Channel is the place to go for older films (not that old; I'm talking pre-2010), including "Hallmark Hall of Fame" performances. Hallmark Hall of Fame films were the ones you could find on CBS before we had all these Hallmark films, and were higher standard fare.

Wedding Daze is somewhat standard Hallmark fare concerning a dad (John Larroquette, yes, Dan Fielding) dealing with the wedding of his three daughters. Another familiar face, Karen Valentine, plays his wife. French Stewart is the uptight but efficient wedding planner.  

It was a pleasant time-waster with good performances without any tiresome "special complications." The film also had a few good lessons that were not applied in a heavy-handed fashion. 

I'm not sure about the likelihood of success of a firm that names things, but perhaps that might work. What do I know? Plus, their house seemed suitably middle class, not as over the top as many of those films.  

A late complication was that the minister originally scheduled for the wedding had a late medical emergency. So, who would preside? Joey on Friends might have suggested an Internet ministry.* 

But maybe they lived in a state that did not recognize that?* Seriously, they went another way.

A rabbi accidentally showed up for another event. He performed the wedding. That's open-ended for everyone, including the perhaps somewhat traditional Italian family of one of the future husbands. Maybe I'm being a bit stereotypical, but overall, some might not like this. 

(The rabbi insisted they include the glass-breaking ceremony. For those interested, check out the tradition here.) 

The issue wasn't really addressed, but apparently, the family overall was not deeply religious. Many people think certain religious officiants are necessary to properly legitimize the wedding. Others are not as particular. A religious officiant generally sanctifies. Why not use a rabbi?

I recently read a discussion of the usage of Old Testament readings in Christian services. Often, so said the discussion, the passage is not given much attention. At best, the Old Testament is a prelude to the main event, so to speak.

Others find this problematic. If we take Christianity seriously, we should take the whole Bible seriously. Jewish sources would provide a helpful bit of context. Amy-Jill Levine, who also talks about the New Testament through Jewish eyes, would be a useful example. 

A helpful approach would welcome helping hands to fully understand things. For instance, a discussion about the anti-abortion movement could include input from members. 

We might disagree with their position. Nonetheless, people like Mary Ziegler, who talk about them, helpfully cite their views directly. The same idea can be used to discuss religion, politics, history (a Mexican view of the Mexican War), and other subjects. 

A religious ceremony can have guest lectors from other religions when appropriate. A CCD class can have guest speakers to provide helpful context. And, why not use clergy from other faiths when possible for ceremonies?

(At the very least, some dual religious couples have clergy from multiple faiths involved in their ceremonies.) 

One more reference -- the rabbi presiding reminds me of official chaplains. Yes, there often are multiple chaplains for different faiths. Nonetheless, we can also have one overall top chaplain who can serve the needs of various faiths. 

Anyhow, I think a rabbi standing in for the wedding ceremony was a nice touch. Hey, it worked in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, right? 

==

* The law in New York is somewhat convoluted, with a lower court covering 3/5 of New York City (but not Bronx or Manhattan, so Joey was safe), some time back, questioning if an Internet minister qualified. 

A more recent state law allows a run-of-the-mill non-religious officiant to apply to have a one-off right to preside. I personally registered years back as a Universal Life Church minister in New York City. 

This blog used to have a semi-regular "Rev. Joe" feature that reflected my ministry. I never had an opportunity to use  my "authority." 

Mom's Day Away

Bonnie Somerville was great as Mona (a very forgiving girlfriend of Ross) on Friends. She was involved in various things since then. This was around thirteen years later.

It's an enjoyable Hallmark film. She's a (married) mom who needs a break. So, the film is not really a romance, except for a little bit about her bestie needing to decide if she wants to get serious with her boyfriend. The girlfriend sounds familiar, but maybe it's the accent. Don't recognize her stuff. 

Nothing profound, but paced well and has a good message. Plus, the supporting cast is overall good and works well together. Multiple montages and stuff since the mom is slumming it for her Mother's Day weekend. 

(I watched some of Bad Moms, after Christiana Applegate referenced it on her podcast. It has some charms, but it was also like a mom fantasy. The lead gets the hottie widower, who not only praises her mom skills, but asks her if he could go down on her again. "Uh nah, you did enough already!"*)  

So, it was a bit different from the usual Hallmark fare and went down easily. Not sure why it was on the day before Mother's Day, but these days you DVR and watch later a lot anyhow. 

Nice to see you again, Mona! 

==

* Somehow, however, the only nudity in the film was a full frontal involving the cam girl, who she caught her husband watching. A joke is that the woman is quite hairy down there. Which is a nice look. 

If we are going to give the moms some love -- and ultimately it was pretty conservative since even the whore-y single mom turned out to LOVE her kid -- shouldn't we have a bit of male nudity? 

Trivia: Mila Kunis was born in Ukraine! 

Conclave and Doubt

I enjoyed the movie Conclave. And as a new pope is being selected, it was a good time to watch. 

The film was well-acted with a bunch of star actors, including the conservative cardinal, a leading Italian actor whom I saw in the film Mostly Martha. 

One thing raised was the importance of some doubt. Being too sure you are correct was cited as a barrier to compromise and unity. Plus, humility. And to be fair to the context, faith. Also, only God knows all. It would be somewhat blasphemous to think you do. 

This theme also arose in a young adult novel entitled Converting Kate about a teenager leaving a conservative religious sect and dealing with other issues. She likes a verse from one of Trump's favorite biblical books though he had a trouble with the name.  Remember that? So much silliness. 

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The chapter also honors love (sometimes translated as "charity"):

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Paul is not a big one for doubt. He was often quite sure of himself and critical about opposing points of view. Not much modesty or williness to compromise, even when "the pillars" of the Church were involved.  

The book takes a somewhat revisionist take on the passage. Paul was not honoring doubt. He was noting that Christianity moves past confusion and "childish things." We can still go our own way. 

Christianity thrived partially because it suppressed opposition. Pagans were more open to various types of belief. Within certain limits. Christians saw one path to nirvana. It selectively honored free exercise of religion until it gained control. Then, it was less gung ho about that.  

Maybe it is telling that my middle name is "Paul." I have a firm opinion about many things.  

Still, I do try to leave some doubt. Also, other points of view are regularly treated as totally stupid. That is not often the case. There is usually some level of sanity there, even if the views are wrong. For instance, I have a generally libertarian view of free speech. In recent years, I have been more sympathetic to those who disagree.  

And, sometimes, "childish things" are not too bad either. Those little devils have some good qualities. 

We shall see who the next pope is. I don't think he will have the sort of secret involved in the film. The film is based on a book. I will eventually check it out.  

==

The first Thursday of May is the National Day of Prayer. I have spoken up against this in the past.  

The day does not merely honor prayer, which itself would be sketchy. It directly requires the president to announce a day to encourage prayer to God. 

That's a bit ridiculous. 

Mario Vargas Llosa

The Nobel-winning novelist Mario Vargas Llosa has died. He had an interesting life. 

I vaguely know the name but do not know much at all about this Peruvian celebrity. For instance, he was big on free markets, sending flowers when Margaret Thatcher retired. He also ran for president:

He led polls for much of the race, but was roundly defeated by Alberto Fujimori, then a little-known agronomist of Japanese descent who later adopted many of Mr. Vargas Llosa’s policies.

Llosa sounds like he had an interesting life. My small knowledge of him is from watching Tune in Tomorrow, an American version of Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter. The novel was inspired by his own marriage mixed with some fantasy. His "Julia" (they were married nine years) was not overly pleased with his take. 

Tune in Tomorrow (1990) starred Keanu Reeves, Barbara Hershey, and Peter Falk (as the screenwriter). It had various other notables in the supporting cast. I saw it a long time ago but recall finding it amusing. 

RIP Val Kilmer

Val Kilmer was in a few well-known films in the 1980s and 1990s. He continued to get work but was no longer in his heyday. I saw his first two films: Top Secret! (from the makers of Airplane!) and Real Genius (directed by Martha Coolidge, so better than many 1980s teen films).

He was also a joke in an episode of Friends. Ross gets a "celebrity suit jacket" and thinks it is from the premiere of Batman, but it is actually from a drama "chick flick" film he did. Chandler ultimately likes a suit jacket that turns out to be from Diane Keaton. 

Roger Ebert found Top Secret! very amusing. I re-watched it (part of the DVD was inaccessible) and found it amusing and clever. Unlike Robin Hood: Men in Tights, some moments made me laugh out loud.  

It is a fun movie to watch on television. LATRINE!!!!! Both films had a character named "Latrine," one of each sex. Both have music numbers too. Ha! 

I also checked out Psycho again after reading the book. I only watched the very beginning, not feeling like rewatching it after reading the book after all. 

The doomed shower person is more sexy in the film, the film starts with her in a hotel room with her boyfriend in her bra. The scene is not in the book. The boyfriend also is not as explicitly manly as in the film.

Royal-ish

The current Hallmark Channel films premiering on Saturday are a collection of films involving different members of a foster family watched over by Mindy Cohn, who some best know from The Facts of Life. 

They don't interest me so far. Before them, there were multiple royal-themed films. I enjoyed The Royal We and Royal-ish. Nicole Sakura, who comes from a Japanese/American/Irish background, has an interesting voice. She is a somewhat atypical choice for a Hallmark film. The guy is more standard. 

The young daughter is cute and has a good performance with the typical posh-sounding European-y accent found in these royal films. The royals nearly always come from some imaginary West European location. Why not have some coming from other parts of the world? There are lots of Pacific islands, for instance, they can be from. 

Anyway, Royal-ish went pleasantly along and there was even the kiss (the "rule" usually is that it is at the very end, but not always). I was waiting for the "complication." And, there it came with about twenty minutes left. It was forced but obligatory. 

The Royal We handled things better. Still, I enjoyed Royal-ish, especially because of the lead actress. 

==

I also re-watched Robin Hood: Men In Tights. I saw the film but have not seen the whole thing for quite some time. The sheriff character is the best. There are many familiar faces, and it is easy to take like Spaceballs. Good for television viewings. 

Mel Brooks had a short-lived Robin Hood television show parody in the 1970s that is on Catchy Comedy Channel. Looks good, but I can see why it didn't last.  

("Looks good" means the sets and so on are good for a television series, but the scripts from the bits of a few episodes were lame comedy-wise.) 

==

Saving Hope was a Canadian medical drama. NBC ran the first season. I checked out the first season DVD from the library. Four episodes in, I enjoyed it, though I might get bored with it after a while. 

It starts with a male chief of surgery going into a coma (he came out of it later) and being able to see dead people while walking around in the hospital. His fiancée is the chief surgical resident and is the focus of the show at the beginning.  

One member of the supporting cast was in many Hallmark Channel movies (many Canadian actors pop up there). I like Julia Chan as a young doctor, too. 

Generally well acted with good stories. 

ETA: Breast milk ice cream? Seems animal friendly.

The Royal We and Margot

I enjoyed the new Hallmark Channel film about a pair of royals who were pressed together to negotiate a marriage of convenience to bring peace to their kingdoms. She went to America to live a normal life, but her sister married a commoner, and our "spare" had to step in. They turn out to be a good match. 

Hallmark is having a few royal-based films this month. One charm here was that few Hallmark films involving royals focus on female royals. The actress years ago was in a musical medieval t.v. series. 

The actress is Australian, so she has a certain international flavor mixed in with a believable foreign accent. She also has nice hair.

I read a good book on Anne Frank's diary, and it included a reference to her sister's lost diary. I also found a reference to this fictional account of Margot Frank's survival. Good try, but it didn't work for me. 

One problem is that the book has a half-baked explanation of what happened. Margot Frank supposedly jumped off a train to the concentration camp where she died in real life. The plan was for both sisters to jump. Anne, however, did not manage. 

Okay. So, why did people think she died? Did Anne pretend someone else was her sister? Furthermore, why did Margot think her father was dead until the diary came out? She looked at reports to find the others who had died. 

It's okay to suspend belief, but if you go halfway with an explanation, which is not truly necessary given the whole exercise here, go all the way. 

However, there was no report of Otto dying. And, she even stayed for a long time with a friend of her mother's. He had no connections with Otto or his surviving family whom Otto corresponded with? 

(We simply get no sense of what happened when Margot finally told Otto years later.)

If we move past that, the story itself is not too rewarding. First, she finds someone with Peter's name (it turns out "really" she and Peter were an item; apparently, Anne made up her relationship with Peter) in Philadelphia, where she is now living. The book draws out for too long her finding out it isn't Peter.

Plus, a relationship with Peter is not necessary for the plot. Besides that, there's some drama at the law firm she works for (she hides that she is a Jew or a survivor), including a Holocaust survivor who claims discrimination. This provides some dramatic weight but not enough for over three hundred pages.

Again, it's an interesting idea, but it didn't work for me. I do wish to know more about Margot. Each Annex member has a story, including the dentist whose non-Jewish girlfriend and his son from his first marriage both survived the war. 

The book didn't do enough to help us learn about her, and a major thing was unnecessarily made up.