Title Pretty in Pink
Starring Molly Ringwald, Andrew McCarthy & Jon Cryer
Director Howard Deutch
Writer(s) John Hughes
Genre Romantic Comedy Drama
Release Date February 28, 1986
Filming Location LA, California, USA
Parental Guidance PG-13 for thematic smoking
IMDB Rating 6.8
Synopsis: Ever since Andie Walsh’s (Molly Ringwald) mother skipped out on the family, Andie has been busy working at a strip mall record store to keep house for her heartbroken and unemployed father Jack (Harry Dean Stanton), i.e. when she’s not already at school striving to remain on the honor roll. She is generally admired by the faculty and her employer Iona (Annie Potts) alike for the level of commitment she demonstrates in all her undertakings. However, this goodwill is not shared by the more affluent “richie” kids in school, namely Benny Hanson (Kate Vernon) and her boyfriend Steff McKee (James Spader), who take great joy in bullying Andie and her friends for their humbler lifestyle. Prom is coming up but Andie has no time to worry about attending, especially since she hasn’t been asked yet. Andie’s best friend “Duckie” Dale (Jon Cryer) is in love with her but Andie is oblivious to the nature of his “devotion” as he lacks solemnity in his professions of love. When one of the richies Blane McDonough (Andrew McCarthy) begins to show his interest towards Andie, often finding reasons to catch up with her at the record store or school, Andie reluctantly reciprocates, unsure whether dating a rich kid would be advisable. However, with a gentle nudge from Iona, Andie begins dating him and, when he asks, ecstatically agrees to go with him to the prom. Duckie is livid, seeing their relationship as a form of betrayal, and issues an ultimatum. Blane’s own friends, in particular Steff, too object to the union. Steff, who once himself tried and failed to conquer Andie’s “favors”, reminds Blane that not only will Blane be rejected by his society but asks if he’s willing to put Andie through his parents’ ridicule. Blane withstands the peer-pressure with less aplomb than Andie and their fledgling relationship seems to dive before even taking a proper flight.
Experience: Amazingly, I did not see this classic rom-com until this week. For one, when the movie was released, I was all of four years old. And B, there was never any occasion to before since plenty of romantic comedies were released annually to occupy my time since the days I turned a teen and was allowed to watch movies with smooching in them. But have you noticed how few and far between rom-coms have become lately? Yeah! Apparently, the audience doesn’t pay for romantic movies anymore. In fact, I recently read in a review of this one chick-flick version of Harold & Kumar… that made a statement to that fact. How rude! But I need my regular fix of the romantics and while The Hallmark Channel tries diligently to keep me in supply, those flicks lack a bit of variety, don’t they?
So Pretty in Pink! I liked it even though I think I have grown out of it a bit. I think I would have loved it when I was younger and such teen angst actually would seem like a do-or-die crisis. At this point in time of my life, I was like, “Chuck Duckie and chuck Blane! You can do better, Andie!” In fact, I thought Steff was someone I could work with [yes, I do have a bit of a taste for the bad boys] – you know? Save? I saw a lot of anguish in Steff, the abandoned rich boy who bullies others to make himself feel more important. Oh, yes! Andie the-good-girl could have totally saved his soul. But I’m getting ahead of myself and prattling about that which DID NOT happen in the movie.
Yet, the premise of the story was Andie handles her various romantic options: there was her wacky best friend, the kind-hearted-but-confused rich boy, and the self-assured web-spinning kingpin of haut monde. Which will she end up with? We watch as the Andie tries to find a balance between the world she is accustomed to and the “inside” world where she is invited. But the aspect of this movie that makes Andie such a special girl isn’t her ethereal red-headed sweet looks, her off-the-track fashion sense (all designed by her, by the way), or her great taste in music; it is the fact that even in the middle of her greatest predicaments, she is never dishonest with herself. Andie has a mind for speaking only the truth. She knows exactly what she wants and she is never afraid to let it be known. She does not allow Steff, Duckie, or even Blane talk her into doing what she doesn’t want to do. The way I see it, this movie was a feminist movement all unto itself, and I can only imagine how necessary for the adolescent girls of the 80’s, nay, even now. Even though many of the thematic angles of the story were a bit dated (I mean, I would never have been caught dead in all that lace and rhinestones though Andie’s style became iconic), I would give this movie all the stars in IMDB for holding steadfast to the stance that girls can risk swimming against the current and still get what they want if they only set their mind to it. And that getting the guy is NOT more important than being true to oneself.
Another aspect of the movie that really stood out for me was how writer John Hughes showcased “youth”. As movie aficionados may be aware, Pretty in Pink was only one among a lineup of teenage-angst movies that Hughes had written-directed to great success and followed Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club, both of which Ringwald also starred. However, unlike the doe-eyed timid Samantha of Sixteen Candles or the snobbish Claire of The Breakfast Club, Andie has both her feet planted firmly on the ground and, perhaps, is more adult than even her father. She is able to demand if necessary but with humility, provide solace with a bit of sternness, and even learns to let go at times to let fate take its course. And while we watch all the clichéd and prepossessed rules still prevail over her life and the lives of her peers, guiding how they behave and accept themselves, we watch Andie, 18 and on the cusp of graduating from high school, ready to break free and find independence. At the same time, we see a very self-sufficient daughter who never complains about having to be the adult, opening up to her father to ask him to give her a chance to be a kid and the father acknowledging his culpabilities in denying her the opportunity of a youthful existence. As Iona [who happens to be my favorite character in the movie and, frankly speaking, the best dressed] so poignantly and truthfully summarizes, “Oh, why can’t we start old and get younger?”
Recommendation: This is a must-see movie for teenagers everywhere, boys included. While the ladies would probably enjoy it a bit more, and I imagine there would be a few eye-rolls from the male side of the audience, there is still a lot to be learned for both parties in their youth and a few reminders for the older crowds too.
Via: Daily Prompt – Grit
Title The Americanization of Emily
Starring James Garner, Julie Andrews, and James Coburn
Director Arthur Hiller
Writer(s) Paddy Chayefsky (screenplay), William Bradford Huie (novel)
Genre Comedy Drama War
Release Date October 27, 1964
Filming Location Dukes Avenue, Muswell Hill, London, England, UK
Parental Guidance PG for thematic semi-nudity, carousing, and war imagery
IMDB Rating 7.4
Synopsis: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Madison (James Garner) of the US Army is a “dog-robber”, or batman, to Adm. William Jessup (Melvyn Douglas) and is known for managing the best supplies to make his superior’s lifestyle near the frontline of WWII opulent. Even based in London, Charlie can arrange the best prime cuts for the Admiral’s lunch, the most lavish food, drink, and women – down to the preferred hair color – for the evenings, and the biddable bedpartners for his best friend and co-worker Lt. Cmdr. Paul ‘Bus’ Cummings’s (James Coburn) nocturnal exploits with less than 24-hour notice. Such blatant display of pleasure-seeking in the middle of war rationing is something that Emily Barham, a driver from the British military motor pool and a woman who has lost her father, brother, and husband to the war, finds deplorable and has no compunction informing Charlie of her feelings to his face. Charlie too is wary of her moralization and forthright about giving her a piece of his mind. Charlie, who openly advocates his anti-war sentiments and is a self-proclaimed “practicing coward”, enjoys his position as the Admiral’s adjutant because it keeps him from having to actually fight in the war and feels Europeans have caused wars for centuries, which is nothing to boast about. However, soon Emily realizes that there is a kind of charm in his cynical honesty and approaches him to initiate a no-strings-attached affair, which quickly develops into a more serious meet-the-parents kind of tableau. When the Admiral, already depressed from the death of his wife, has a mental breakdown over the Army and Air Force overshadowing the Navy and initiates an idea of filming a “reality” movie of the bombing on the French shore of Omaha Beach on D-Day, Charlie is assigned the responsibility of getting it made and Bus is adamant to get Charlie onto the war site, putting a damper on his amorous plans for Emily and even risking his very life.
Experience: I think there is a bit of a pattern among my celebrity crushes and I realized it after seeing James Garner in this movie. It’s a weird revelation too. I like men who have wide foreheads with horizontal creases on them. Do you see it?
Be still my heart! There is something similar about their physique as well, though at different levels of buff. I just had to get this out of the way before I carried on with the review.
Aside from Garner, there is another heart-stopper to sigh over in this movie. I think the whole world has been crushing on Julie Andrews since The Sound of Music. With additional star actors Melvyn Douglas and James Coburn, this movie was destined to shine. But it’s not only the cast that makes it a success but also the eccentric plotline, the unabashedly candid characters, the snappy dialogue, and the unique theme for its time that helped it win hearts – at least, it did mine.
Let’s talk about the message of the movie. There is no doubt that the producers and director of the film took a big risk when they decided to make an anti-war dark romantic comedy at a time when the US government was only becoming more aggressive in its foreign policies throughout – or maybe it was just the perfect time. Sure, there was also a rising anti-war sentiment among the public but did it constitute the dominant segment of the public? Hardly. So the movie could have tanked.
But the plot carried the message of the movie by ensuring that it was “the virtue of war” and not the men and families who sacrificed their lives and loved ones that deserved criticism. We see an old man, bereaved by the loss of his wife, dictating and demanding what the movie should feature: a make-believe unnamed soldier who is the first to die on D-Day to stir up public sentiments for the glory of the Navy. He goes on as far as to enlist the president’s endorsement for a monument for this fake martyr. The idea reeks of the same self-indulgence that is depicted earlier in the movie where we see the American military that “can buy anything with a Hersey bar” enjoying a good bout of hedonism. With a finely written script, the argument cuts deep and succinctly.
Speaking of his lines, I was quite taken with how magnificently Garner delivered his dialogues. There is no apology in his expression when Charlie presents a set-down to Emily after she demonstrates her disdain for the amount of “swanky goods” occupying the bedroom-converted-pantry in the Admiral’s quarters. You would never imagine that he was talking to a beautiful woman that he had been slapped by after patting her bottom during their initial meeting. And Andrews, always the epitome of sophistication, demonstrates a starry-eyed enchantment even as she sincerely tells him why he is just all-wrong.
In fact, there is a bit of name-calling between the two throughout the movie that aptly describes the traits of each character. She is “something of a prig” with an “ingrained British morality”, “facile” yet a “fancy Euro”, and “emotionally sticky” with a propensity for “sentimental contempt” who takes “sensual satisfaction in grieving”; he is a “rascal”, “charmer scoundrel”, the “most immoral man [she] ever met… a shameless coward, selfish as a child, and ruthless about what he wants”, “a Yank who can’t even show affection without buying something”, “dotty” but who “cuts to the core of things”. Gee, tell us how you really feel. But it really makes you want to see the two actors saying it all to each other, doesn’t it?
And the two actors wear their roles like finely fitted gloves. Andrews manages to generate a certain softness towards him even as she is exasperated with him and listing out all his negative qualities. While there are such competence and cockiness to Garner that a girl cannot but help swoon. In fact, there is this scene early in the movie where Charlie goes about folding clothes and running baths and doing all the things a valet does while preparing the bedtime rituals for the Admiral, and I was so mesmerized watching him in action of domestic efficiency that I had to keep replaying the scene to catch what the Admiral was yammering about. It made me think there’s a man who is comfortable in his skin no matter what the situation. Garner in motion is a graceful thing to watch. That scene alone is worth re-watching the movie.
Recommendation: It’s a fine movie, as efficient in delivering the message as the actors were in playing their roles. Prepared to be riveted.
Via: Daily Prompt – Pluck
Title Seducing Mr. Knightly
Series The Writing Girls #4
Author Maya Rodale
Genre Historical Romance | Regency | Adult
Publication Date October 30, 2012
Setting London, Great Britain, 1825
Synopsis: It has been exactly three years, six months, three weeks, and two days since Ms. Annabelle Swift fell in love with her boss Mr. Derek Knightly, the owner and editor of The London Weekly. This is precisely the amount of time she has been employed as one of the Writing Girls to feature in her own advice column and since the day she laid her eyes on the tall, dark, and determined Knightly. Unfortunately, not only is he totally unaware of her feelings but he seems also oblivious of the fact that she is a living breathing flesh-and-blood single woman worthy of male attention. Exasperated with being continuously overlooked and desperate to get out of her brother’s house where she lives as an unpaid servant and governess to her malicious sister-in-law, niece, and nephews, Annabelle decides to resort to drastic measures – she courageously reaches out to her readers for advice for a change on how to attract the attention of the nodcock! she’s in love with. Suddenly all of London swoops in to assist her cause, sending mails carrying the most outlandish and scandalous advice and, with the additional help from her fellow Writing Girls, she finds herself in lowered bodices and silk unmentionables, waltzing with lords of the ton, flirting up a ruse with fellow male colleagues, and being dropped off home after work by Knightly in his private carriage. Her quarry is finally paying attention but one obstacle still stands in the path of true love. Knightly, who has built his empire and reputation as a media tycoon to raise himself from the status of a by-blow of a late earl, has one other life goal: marry high into the aristocracy so that his half-brother is finally forced to acknowledge him as one of his class. Unfortunately, this puts Annabelle squarely out of the running for his affection… or does it?
Experience: I came to know about Maya Rodale a little late. Only this year, in fact, upon watching the live feeds of the #RomanceisFeminist discussion hosted by Avon Romance at The Strand bookstore in NY, NY where Rodale was on the panel of authors. I appreciated a particular comment she made about being more than willing to “throw historical accuracy under the bus” for the sake of diversity and inclusion. That is precisely what I have found – as much as the realm of believability will allow – since I began reading her works (three novels so far) and thought I should do a review of at least one. I picked Seducing Mr. Knightly because I have a soft corner for heroines who write professionally and this is the most hilarious piece of Rodale’s works I have come across thus far.
Imagine Lucille Ball in I Love Lucy and you will get a rough idea of the kind of scrapes Annabelle gets into in this novel. Short of hitting our hero in the eye with her spilling bosoms, she has done it all – leave a shawl behind to find herself alone with him at work during after office hours, fake a swoon and fall lush into his arms so she can awaken his “baser inclinations”, make all of London – including the hero’s best friends – fall in love with her and defend her heart for her candid attempts to lasso the hero, and climb into his bedroom via a gradually-splintering bark in the middle of the night in hopes of ravishment, etc. And Knightly likewise reciprocates with a steady repeat of “Oh Annabelle, you have some explaining to do” whenever he finds himself at the end of her courtship tactics. It makes the relationship between our heroine and hero positively adorably frustrating – just what good romances require.
But apart from the cat-and-mouse conflict development of the romantic plot, the individual characters of Annabelle and Knightly are also fully plausible. I enjoyed how much pluck Annabelle demonstrates as pushes herself to cross her self-imposed boundaries to blossom out of her shell even as her natural timidity continues to attempt to keep her in check. She may be meek by genetic disposition (her brother shows fairly submissive traits in his marriage too) but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t dream big or aim high. After all, she pulls the wool over her family’s eyes for over three years pretending to go out on charity work while really working for a national newspaper and saving up for rainy days. She continuously challenges her shortcomings and faces her fears, which is a lovely display of feminism.
Our hero too has his demons to fight and has been fighting them quite successfully for over a decade. Being the firstborn son of and earl and a renowned stage actress, he craves acknowledgment from his step family and society. He has slogged day-and-night to build up his newspaper, laboring at the press himself and pushing boundaries of polite expectations, to get himself noticed, following three simple rules of life: “Scandal equals sales, drama was for the pages, and be beholden to no one”. It’s has made him a bit stoic but it has worked for him. And even as his heart tugs while watching Annabelle amidst her antics and his heart begins to unfurl the more details of her he starts to notice, he refuses to examine the burning question being asked in parlors across London, “Who is the nodcock that has yet failed to fall in love with Annabelle?” because he is afraid the answer might demand he surrender his heart to the heroine, which he is not in the position to do. Because all he wants to do is marry Lady Marsden, claim his rightful place in society while avoiding getting his newspaper shut down by her brother Lord Marsden’s mass inquisition against media extortion and nefarious means of procuring news, and kill two birds with one stone. The struggle is real.
Yes, I truly did enjoy reading this book. The only thing perhaps that did not suit me entirely was Rodale’s roundabout way of prolonging the story. While I loved each scene, I found reading through all the inner workings that bracketed each scene that mostly related the same conclusions over and over a bit tedious. Frankly, I felt there was more room for editing and perhaps leaving a little for readers to infer. But this is easily discounted for the fact that the overall content was engaging and oh-so-funny.
Recommendation: Well, if you haven’t read it already, what are you waiting for? I thoroughly endorse this novel as an experienced romance reader.
Prologues. Some authors swear by them; some readers roll their eyes at them and skip ahead. Me? I believe that, like most literary devices, prologues have their time and place, i.e. some stories need them while other stories are better off without them. If used with moderation-but-pizzazz, The Prologue is a vehicle that may really put your story into gear and make the reader buckle in. However, writers without a firm handle on the steering wheel may drive their story to an early death [especially when querying], so beware.
Ok, enough with the vehicular metaphors. Here are two lists of when and how prologues may work – or not:
My novella Bad Daughter will be available for FREE DOWNLOAD all day Friday, June 30, 2017 (Pacific Standard Time)! Just follow the link on the title.
I thought I would drop in a line with fellow bloggers to see if I could tempt any of you to read a bit of South Asian Feminist Fiction with a little of dystopia and a little of romance.
Be warned, it does allude to the harsh and unfortunate reality of child sexual abuse and the burden placed on victims from the taboo on disclosure imposed by conservative societies.