BOOK CLUB

Women are flocking to "Book Club", a movie starring legends Jane Fonda (81), Diane Keaton (72), Candace Bergen (72), and Mary Steenburgen (65) who in the show play friends who have been in a book club together for 40 years.   They are all financially secure, professional women who have made peace with their lives, settled, but not excited about where they find themselves.  To enliven their lives and their book club selection, the Fonda character shows up one night with copies of "50 Shades of Grey".  And on it goes....

I really wanted to see this movie because the ads on TV made me laugh out loud and I love every one of those actresses.  Plus, what a great girlfriend movie!  I went with one of my dearest, oldest friends and we had a blast.

My expectations were for a funny, light-hearted rom-com and that's pretty much what it was.  Could the topic have been explored with more depth and seriousness?  Yes.  I would like to see a movie do that.  But that wasn't what this one was setting out to do, so I was fine with it being silly at times, unrealistic in some ways, and totally predictable.

One of the things I was dreading about the movie was what I assumed would be a constant barrage of age-related (ageist) humor.  There was a bit of it, but it didn't offend me the way I can often be offended by ageism stereotypes.  At the very beginning I was put off by the "at our age!" jokes that took aim at sexuality in older people as an absurd notion, but the movie quickly moved on from there.  There was also a scene where the Keaton character is left in a mall sitting area with a group of older people who are variously vacant, mobility-challenged, or mouth-agape asleep....and she obviously laments being lumped in with "the old people", fighting her daughters' attempts to pigeonhole her into senility.  Seeing older folks portrayed such was an offensive shortcut way of differentiating her from them as in "I ain't old yet!"  But my friend and I agreed that the ageism trope was thankfully mostly left out of this.

I wrote about the 50 Shades book back when it came out too and wondered how it would be incorporated into this movie.  I was disgusted at how coercing a young virgin into S&M sexual exploration, and the way Grey "dominates" Ana outside the Red Room as well, was seen as a "love story" and there is a line in Book Club where Steenburgen says that "even Christian Grey" needed love.  No.  There's really no love in those books.  But most offensive was the writing in that book.  I wanted to shout out a Safe Word every time the overuse of cliches and the mangling of writing conventions was flouted.  I digress.

Book Club ended with each of the women getting a new perspective on their lives by reading a racy book that challenged them to think beyond what they had settled for and at one point challenging each other to get out of their comfort zone and DO SOMETHING!  Old flames (Don Johnson), new acquaintances (Andy Garcia), dating site risks (Richard Dryfuss), and a reawakened husband (Craig T. Nelson) led to what we presume to be a happy ending for all.

I just know that I enjoyed a couple of hours watching great actors, owning their ages,  playing characters with fabulous houses and witty dialog, each being her own woman, willing to learn, take risks, and keep living, loving, and laughing with life -- a hopeful, funny, human movie full of adults.

Good enough for me at a Tuesday matinee.

At least, that's the view from here...©

ROYAL WEDDING REFLECTIONS

I was up at 4 a.m. to watch the Royal Wedding this morning of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle, now the Duke and Duchess of Sussux.  I have no idea what those titles mean.  I looked up the whole who gets what title and why thing and found it very confusing and somewhat arbitrary, so whatever...

I'm not entirely sure if there is one big reason I became so captivated with this wedding this week.  I've paid little attention to the Royals in the past.   I'm not really an Anglophile, although my Ancestry.com and 23 & Me results tell me I'm mostly Great British.  I pay moderate curious attention and then let it all go.  But this week I decided to go all in.  I purchased a Fascinator.  I set my alarm.

I think it has to do with the image of William and Harry following their mother's casket through the streets of London after her sudden and untimely death.  My heart broke into a million pieces for them and what they'd lost.  I trusted Diana to raise them with a sense of fun and spirit and compassion -- at least that's how they looked in all the photos.  I wasn't so sure the Royal Family was equal to the parenting task, imagining the boys' carefree days suddenly turned to solemnity and duty.   William seemed to be the steady one, ready to learn the ropes of Kingship that would one day be his.  But Harry....Oh, dear.  What about Harry?  We saw him go through some rebellious years and he deserved to be scolded, but he seemed to be having so much fun! So much his own person.  So NOT succumbing to the Royal frown.

It also has to do with my whole "mommy" thing -- these guys are just a bit older than my own sons.  I watched with a parental eye as they grew up.  Plus, Harry and my "Son Two" look so much alike that for awhile, when they were both younger, it was a very common exclamation to hear..."He looks just like Prince Harry!"  They've lost some of the identicalness, but there is still a strong resemblance.  So that just solidified my sense of connection to Harry.  He was family!

Also, upon the recommendation of friends, I binged both "The Crown" and "Victoria" recently and became enamored with the "insider", albeit likely fictional in some senses, view of the Royals.   I like pomp and circumstance and palace intrigue.  And we are going to Great Britain later this year.  I watched for a history lesson that will serve me as we tour the Royal sites.

I didn't know Meghan at all.  I've never seen her TV show, "Suits".  But I liked what I heard about her and liked that they met and bonded over their individual humanitarian work.  She seemed intelligent and independent and "modern" in a way that seemed like it might shake things up a bit.  As the Queen has aged, she has stopped smiling.  And Charles has always seemed uncomfortable in his own skin.  I'm ready for the next generation to take the stage and bring the Monarchy into the 21st century, relaxed and happy.

I've taken some guff from others for this come-lately interest in the wedding.  Hub has been downright derisive, which hurts my feelings a bit.  I'm not normally a frivolous person, but I found some sense of fun and hope in this event that I apparently needed.  My worldview, largely focused on American politics, has been a dark, dark place for far too long with no light in sight.  I just wanted to escape into the fantasy of handsome Princes, gorgeous clothes, amazing hats, Princess gowns, and horse-drawn carriages.   That the ceremony included a rousing sermon by American Episcopalian Bishop Curry about the power of love, followed by the Kingdom Gospel Choir singing "Stand By Me" was substantial icing on the cake.

Speaking of the cake...wow!  And I love lemon!

I'm unsure when I will be able to wear the Fascinator again.  For now I've passed it on to my granddaughter's teddy bear.  (Even though she says he is a boy, he seems happy with the look.)

I think the relief of this day, from the torment of our American political scene, will stay with me for a while and if that's all it meant to me, well, that's enough.  But I have a feeling I'll be keeping my eye on William and Harry and their families to see how this all unfolds over time.  The Monarchy may be obsolete, mired in controversy, and ostentatiously expensive, but so is the Catholic church and the current U.S. political system and still we can't walk away without at least trying to make the best of the institutions that sustain the community, whether profane or sublime.

At least, that's the view from here...

Photo Credits:  Royal Couple -- AP
                         Cake -- Kensington Palace