DANCING BACK IN TIME - THE RENAISSANCE HISTORICAL DANCE SOCIETY

Louise Smith is my guest today to present her group performing dances from different historical periods, Renaissance Historical Dance and to tell us about her incredibly rewarding and entertaining activity. Read her blogpost and  welcome her on Fly High!

Renaissance Historical Dance Society is based in Plymouth, Devon, and we learn and perform dances from four historical periods - Medieval, Elizabethan, Stuart and Regency.  We perform at different venues across the UK in order to teach people about history in a fun way and promote both history and dancing. 

The group was initially set up by Rosemary Smith who wanted an activity that she and her daughter could take part in. Rosemary had seen a re-enactment group elsewhere in the UK, and after being diagnosed with Leukaemia decided that this is what she wanted to do too.   Her determination to promote history and dancing gave her the drive to achieve all her goals. The feeling of creating a social, fun night out for the members has been maintained, with members comprising of people who like performing, dancing and have an interest in history. The group has grown from strength to strength – after starting off using pillows or tomatoes to act as missing dance members,the group is now around 20 strong.

Every Wednesday evening, members from across Devon and Cornwall meet up to learn, practice, and share information about the costumes and etiquette of the time.It’s an ideal place to meet new people and learn history without getting stuck intotextbooks!

Costume is an important part of the group - although it's not worn during practice, at events members are expected to wear historically accurate costumes with no zips or modern fastenings to show the public an example of genuine clothing, so they learn what the period was really like.  Some in the group make their own costumes, and others use professional dressmakers or find costumes online.  The group plans costumes together to make sure colours don't clash, and no one looks too similar.  Rules extend to hair too - if someone dyes their hair an unnatural colour, they would have to wear a wig during events to maintain the correct look. When new members join, they often borrowa servants or basic costume so that they can feel part of the group until they organise their own costumes.

Although the group is intended to be fun for the members, one of the aims is also to show the public how things would have been, so members learn about the history of the time too.  This enables them to answer questions that the public might have.  It also allows members of the group to take their hobby in the direction that interests them - some are more interested in the dance and performance aspect, some enjoy learning about the costumes, and other prefer to learn more about the history or social etiquette.

A bit of knowledge about the time makes the dancing look more authentic - members understand what the dances were about, and so can behave in a more historically accurate way.  This is helped by the costumes, which tend to have a greater effect on the men, who get a real sense of the showing off and gentlemanly behaviour that was expected from them.  We also try to make the dances as real as possible, so audience members may see female dancers trying to catch the eye of the most eligible bachelor!

Renaissance Historical Dance Society is the main group in the South West to cover this range of periods, although Regency is the period in highest demand in terms of performance at the moment.  We have performed at sites across the UK, including many National Trust venues.  As well as dancing, we put on craft and food displays to show the public a little more about life at the time.  This also gives members the chance to show off their skills, for example, if they are particularly interested in lacework or embroidery, this can be incorporated into the displays. We also put on masked fairytales which appeal to all ages, and look particularly striking when the masks are paired with historical costumes.  If more children are expected, more crafts and dancing are included; each event is tailored to the venue and the expected audience.

We run public workshops at many of the events, getting members of the public to take part in one or two of the simpler dances, which are called by our dance leader.  The aim is to give people a taste of what it felt like to take part in the big social events of the time - if they want to take things further, we invite them to come along to our group or refer them to the Early Dance Circle, an umbrella organisation which can point them in the direction of groups local to them.  Lots of our members joined after seeing the group perform somewhere.  However, one member saw Pride and Prejudice, fell in love with the dancing, decided she wanted to do it too and searched the internet until she found us!

The group is suitable for all ages and abilities - we have members ranging from 11 to 80+.  No one will ever be forced to do something they don't want to - some members feel comfortable only doing the slower dances, while others prefer the more upbeat numbers.  There's never any rush to learn or perform dances, and no one is forced to take part in an event.  As all the dances require a partner, no one is ever left on their own - the groups changes partners all the time (especially because no respectable young lady would dance with the same man for more than two dances in an evening!).

We’re always on the lookout for new members, especially male dancers, as modern dance tends to be female dominated – despite the fact that historically, it was often the reverse with dances designed to show off men’s talents. 

Dancing was an incredibly important skill throughout all the historical periods we cover, and often the main reason for dances was to meet a suitable husband or wife. It could be the only time people would be able to look one another in the eye or even touch hands! Dancers would sometimes take advantage of this and add some cheeky touching and flirting. By looking at historical documents it is clear to see that people had fun.  We hope this is reflected in our dancing, as we are all genuinely having fun too.

Although we are a non-profit organisation, we often have to charge a small fee for some of the events we do. Thiscovers music licences, public liability and equipment insurance and some transport costs. Any money left over is spent on props, equipment and other important expenses. 

Historical dancing is an unusual hobby, but also extremely rewarding. Lots ofour members have been with the group for years because they enjoy it so much. There are a lot of groups who demonstrate the ‘below stairs’ version of history, but we prefer to show the side of history people are used to seeing on films and television - the more glamorous, exciting, interesting and colourful side of history.

Anyone interested in joining the group, or finding out more about booking us can visit our website, www.rhds.org.uk.  To keep up to date with events and anything else going on in the group, follow us on Twitter @rhdsociety, or find us on Facebook. (Credits for the photos: Zak Davies)

Louise Smith

The Author’s Bucket List on Plot Structure

By Jordan Dane

I’ve never been a plotter. I’m too impatient. Once I get the general idea of a story with a compelling conflict and a notion of my cast of players, I can’t wait to “discover” the story as I write. It plays out in my head like a movie, but I’m constantly exploring new ways to get organized so my daily word count goals can be achieved without roadblocks.


Today on TKZ, I submit my latest thoughts on the 3-Act Structure and the Storyboard method of plotting. These are purely my thoughts on combining these concepts as they might apply to my writing, but maybe you’ll see elements you like in this for you.


I used to think of the 3-Act Structure as beginning, middle, and end, but I’ve read it more accurately reflected as Establish, Build, & Resolve by Michael Hauge in his book “Writing Screenplays that Sell.” Thinking of these acts in this manner denotes movement. So imagine these three segments as buckets, but before I can toss wads of paper (or scenes) into these buckets, I must have a place to start. Set aside your buckets for now and grab a paper and pen—or Sticky Notes, colors optional.


Presuming I have a general notion of my book, I would create a list of 20-25 things I know about the action in my book in terms of what I call “big ticket” plot movements. No backstory. What will go on my list will be scenes that I envision as key elements to my story. They won’t be put into any order. I merely list them as they occur to me. I would brainstorm without censoring my thoughts. I heard an author talk about creating notes on 3-M sticky notes, rather than a random list, but you get the idea. I don’t expect to know every scene in my book at this stage. The storyboard I create will be an evolving beast that I will change as I write, edit, and final my book so I can see my plot at a glance.


Now let’s talk about the 3-Act Structure in terms of a BIG “W.”


ACT I – Establish - The start of Act I (or the top left of my “W”) is the Triggering Event. It’s the inciting incident that will start my story, the point at which my main character’s life changes forever. As I travel down the left side of my “W,” I head for the 1st Turning Point that usually sets up the problem or the first low point or perhaps a moment of hope. This is a reversal point that changes the direction of my plot as I head out of Act 1. I’ve “Established” my world up to this point and the general conflicts and players in the first 25% of my book, in theory.


ACT II – Build - As my plot heads toward the upward middle of my “W,” that is another key reversal. If I have a book with hope in my first turning point, this shift might dash those hopes to some degree. If I have a dark moment in that first turning point, things get worse, but the plot takes another key turn one way or the other as the action “Builds.” Act II ends with the next turning point (the 2nd low point of my “W”). This is the black moment where all seems lost. This part of the “W” represents the middle part of the turning point structure or 50% of my story, the “building” middle.


ACT III – Resolve – Now I would be in Act III, the last upward line of the “W” after the black moment. I’m headed toward resolution. In this section, my hero or heroine might discover something about the villain in the story that is his or her weakness. He or she implements a plan to take advantage of this Achilles Heel, but I might consider throwing in another epiphany or twist before the end. This could be a twist or complication—an “Oh my, God” moment the reader might not see coming before the world is restored or the ending happens. This last part of the structure is the final 25%.


I’ve oversimplified these blended theories for the sake of this post. The lines of the “W” don’t have to be linear, for example. I could have little ups and downs along the way that will take me through my book, but I wanted you to have a general idea of how this could work.

Now get ready with your buckets. Each of these acts is a bucket, for the purposes of this explanation. So the list I created at the beginning—the 20-25 brainstormed scenes—each has a place in an Act Bucket. I would add to these 25 things as I get more familiar with my book, but if I were to Storyboard this out, I would create 20 squares that represent chapters in my books. (You might write differently, so make this work for you with your average number of chapters in a single-title book.) I would write my 25 items down with each one going on a 3-M Sticky Note and place them on my storyboard where I think they will go in Act I (25%), II (50%), or III (25%). Since each of these scene ideas is moveable, I can change the order and chapter they might appear to get the pace and building intensity up. Once I see things on my storyboard in a visual manner, I will no doubt want to add more Sticky Note scenes to fill out the detail and transitions in my story as the plot develops.


I generally have 4-5 scenes in a chapter. So as my story plot movement gets established and building toward a resolution, I perhaps can add colored notes to signify POV switches or character story arcs or relationship arcs to deepen my story understanding. I thought this process might fit my “pantser” approach to structure with a simple method that I can see visually as I write and evolve the story. Writing software seemed too complicated to learn with my writing schedule, but I’d love to hear of a simple brainstorming plot method or storyboard concept if you have one.


What works for you?

THE INDIE CORNER, VOL. 23: RETURN OF THE INDIE CORNER

Hey independent filmmakers! Want to have me take a look at your hard-made film? E-mail me!

There might well not be a human population more thoroughly documented than young people of uncertain means living in New York City; thank God that there are so many kinds of New Yorkers, then, or the subgenre might be really tedious, or at any rate more tedious more often.

Things I Don't Understand, the sophomore feature made by writer-director David Spaltro, is probably not the most innovative or original entry among its peers; but that's not to say that it's a cookie-cutter quirky dramedy, as it briefly appears that it might be in the opening stages. Herein, we meet Violet Kubelick (Molly Ryman), a graduate student conducting a singularly morbid study of near-death experience; coming off of her own ambiguous failed suicide (she claims it was a staged experiment), this is not necessarily the healthiest course of action for her to pursue, which is why she's presently in therapy, under the care of a certain Dr. Anne Blankenship (Lisa Eichhorn). In the meantime, Violet, her gay roommate Remy (Hugo Dillon), and their new third, a fluttery radical green activist named Gabby (Meissa Hampton) are contentedly going about their business living in a nice-sized but ramshackle loft above a bar.

The three complicating incidents: Violet forms an unusually strong bond to one of her research subjects, a young cancer patient named Sara (Grace Folsom); she starts crushing on the downstairs bartender, Parker (Aaron Mathias); and the bucolic world of the loft is threatened by a real estate development. These three things allow Spaltro to explore the life of young urbanites from three equidistant angles: the philosophical (Violet's age-inappropriate obsession with death), the interpersonal (Violet's burgeoning love affair is matched by her roommate's individual goings and comings with lovers and other acquaintances), and the sociological (the economic world of unemployable young creative class types). Spaltro's screenplay doesn't delve into all of these topics with equal success (the Violet-Parker story in particular skirts rather near to cliché), but the mere fact that the film has its eyes open about the pragmatic details of life among the under-moneyed classes, without turning into a full-on message picture, is enough to put it ahead of the curve.

The generally intelligent script is matched with unusually polished cinematography for a low-budget film, courtesy of Gus Sacks; with one eye on ethereal atmosphere and the other on stripped-down realism, the movie pivots constantly from sleekness to grit and back smoothly. It's not the only sign of exceptionally professional filmmaking, though it is fair to say that nothing else here is so consistent: in particular, the film suffers from editing that's a bit more hectic than it needs to be, and a sound mix that's all over the place, with some characters virtually unintelligible - Remy is singularly horrible example, made worse because of Dillon's thick accent - and music that veers from too loud to barely audible with no reason (this could easily have been a result of the copy I was watching; either way, it's distracting).

Sadly, the acting isn't quite at the level of the craftsmanship and writing: there is a persistent lack of modulation demonstrated by nearly all of the actors (though Eichhorn is largely faultless throughout): a little bit too much mugging in some scenes followed up by slack, oddly-stressed line readings in the next. I don't think I could go so far as to call any of them bad, but there's a certain strained "we are acting! in a MOVIE!" quality that never quite shakes itself off, and it's hard to fully engage with the characters as a result.

This is not a minor problem, but it's also not uncommon in the low-budget world we're dealing with; and the sophisticated visual language is more than enough to leave Things I Don't Understand comfortably in the realm of above-average indie filmmaking. Not a slam-dunk masterpiece, but better than just a calling card, and a perfectly satisfying treatment of themes that don't get nearly as much air as the more common "I want to play acoustic guitar and have sex" tropes that dominate the urban 20something indie scene.

Official Site

* * * * *

The Big Something is the first feature to come out of Tempe, Arizona filmmaking concern Running Wild. This has the merit, first, of definitively answering the question, "Wait, they make movies in Arizona?", and proving that regional cinema not located in any of the expected urban centers is alive and well. It also explains and to some degree excuses the film's resolutely and at times aggressively frivolous tone: if it feels, from time to time, like the movie is the result of a bunch of friends hanging out and making a movie while they hang out, that's not exactly the opposite of what it is.

I will confess that it took me a while to warm up to The Big Something's shaggy tone, and particularly the lead performance of Michael Coleman; whether this is because it genuinely takes time for the character, actor, and scenario to gel, or if it's simply a matter of getting used to Coleman's sped-up energy, I am not entirely sure. Either way, The Big Something ends better than it begins, shedding the most cloying of its quirky notions as it goes along and coalescing as a light comedy-mystery after some rocky exposition of the "I want to have a stilted conversation about things we both know, and later I want to repeat it just to make sure the audience is 100% on board" variety.

Coleman plays Lewis, a homeless employee who works at a vintage record store and sleeps there by the grace of its kindly owner Marcus (Steve Fajardo). When Marcus shows up dead of an apparent suicide, Lewis is the only person to suspect foul play, which leads him to play amateur sleuth, with the intensely reluctant aid of his new boss, the hard-drinking, easily-angered April (Mina Mirkhah). The journey he makes to find the truth and secure his place in the easygoing, freeloader-friendly world of ironic nostalgia takes him through a cross-section of comic exaggerations, resulting in a film that is half parody of hipsters (a black market fixie operation is a particular highlight) and half tribute to their tenacity.

Mostly, though, it's a hang-out picture, the kind whose chief appeal is that it makes the protagonist somebody that we enjoy visiting with for a period of time - a slightly overlong 101 minutes, to be exact - without specifically needing to know exactly where his journey takes him, or why. Coleman's Lewis certainly fits the bill as a charmingly scabby indie hero, all gangly limbs on a tiny frame, and a slightly befuddled reaction to most everything that happens to him. It takes a while, as I said, to figure out the film's rhythm, which is unrelentingly slight; but getting there is worth the patience it takes.

As a piece of filmmaking, it's unmistakably a low-budget affair: the lighting isn't terribly even, for a start, with interiors that are a bit too dark and exteriors that are a bit too blown-out. But the worst that can be said about it, for the most part, is that it is unexceptionally competent. I am not entirely onboard with all of director & co-writer Travis Mills's conceits; the use of silent intertitles and old-fashioned irises in and out of some scenes both strike me as a contrivance that isn't used with near enough consistency to have the effect it's meant to (which, if I would guess, is meant to tie the loosey-goosey detective story into the tradition of '30s pulps, and reference the characters' love of retro aesthetics), though the ancient blues and jazz soundtrack, while coming from the same general place, is far more effect both in conception and execution.

It would be possible to complain about this or that - the scruffy audio, the unchallenging shot vocabulary, and especially the acting, which veers from moderately unsteady to perfectly decent, with virtually no genuinely bad moments but also no standouts - but it would be, to a certain degree, missing the point. The Big Something transparently has no pretensions towards depth; it is a lark meant to demonstrate "we can do this" rather than redefine the medium. At that task, it succeeds; I do hope that Running Wild finds a little bit more ambition at some point, but for now, engaging and genial character comedies are nothing to sniff at.

Official Site

Mark Crispin Miller's own 'identity politics'

Laurie Penny (New Statesman) rightly calls out the idiot and sexist Mark Cripsin Miller who decided to declare feminism a "CIA plot."  He decries "identity politics." Like most who do, he puts together a group of speakers and there are no women and no men or women of color.

He's a pig.  One that runs with other pigs.

He declares feminism a "CIA plot" but, notice, he's smart enough not to do the same with the Civil Rights Movement.  There's enough sexism (sadly) left in this society to allow MCM to get away with his crap but only up to a point.

Hatred of women being what it is, the comments on the article may be crazier than MCM's own thoughts:

Spud Middleton
29 February 2012 at 21:17

Makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Identity politics has done more to damage the left than anything else...more than globalisation even.-(btw, when I say 'left' I'm referring to what was once the political arm of the Labour movement-devoted to working for economic equality-rather than the shoddy self-obsessed alliance of middle-class liberals who've worked obsessively to 'affirm identities' and promote individualism over solidarity and commonality)

Sorry Laurie...he's right. Identity and middle-class liberals ruined the Left. The CIA bit might be a f**ed-up conspiracy theory but at least the 'theory' has a plausible motive...most don't even have that.

Mind, you, scrap that last bit...it's about time I had a conspiracy theory...I'm buying it. F**k it...it might not be true but it suits me anyway.

Bourgeois liberals...not just useful idiots, but CIA stooges to boot. How'd ya feel now?

Mark Crispin Miller is now my official favourite Media Studies professor.

'Spud' seems to miss the point.  Everyone deserves equality and if you want to end so-called "identity politics" then support equality.

It's also cute how these White men whine "identity politics" anytime the issue is that no one other than old White men get to speak.  Who's playing 'identity politics'?

Seems to me it's Mark Crispin Miller and his crowd.  They're the ones in a circle jerk with a bunch of men just like themselves.

So we they do it, it's okay but when men of color or any woman objects, it's "identity politics"?

They're so good at projecting, they're so awful at taking accountability.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, February 29, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's slammed with more violence, continued attention to Parliament wanting to provide themselves armored vehicles, sequestering and other issues are touched on by Congress' Veterans Affairs Committee, Hillary Clinton apparently wants to take a torch to her poll numbers as she makes illogical and unbelievable statements about Camp Ashraf residents, and more. Ranking Member Bob Filner: We got several hundred thousand claims for Agent Orange in our backlog. How long have they been fighting it? Thirty, forty years. People get sicker fighting the bureaucracy than they did with the Agent Orange. So you know what we ought to do -- aside from greatly expanding eligibility to boots on the ground, to the blue waters, to the blue skies and Thailand and Cambodia and Laos and Guam? We ought to honor those Agent Orange claims today. You know, let's give people the peace that they deserve. Let's give you finally some closure here. And, you know, they're telling us, "It costs too much." I don't know if it's a billion dollars or two billion dollars. I don't care what it is frankly. You don't think we owe it to you? We owe it to you. US House Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee which held a hearing yesterday morning. "We're hear today to hear the DAV legislative priorities for the year, : US House Rep Jeff Miller declared at the start of th ehearing. Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee which was holding a joint-hearing with the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee which Senator Patty Murray chairs. Appearing before the Committees were representatives with the Disabled American Veterans -- National Commander Donald Samuel, Garry Augustine (National Service Director), Joseph Violante (National Legislative Director), Barry Jesinoski (Executive Director, Washington Headquarters), Arthur Wilson (National Adjutant), Ron Minter (National Director of Voluntary Service) and Patrice Rapsiand (National Commander, Disabled American Veterans Auxillary). DAV, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America are the authors of the Independent Budget which contains various budget recommendations for VA and the programs that serve veterans. This Independent Budget -- focused on the needs of veterans -- is an independent guideline the Congress can use to contrast with what the White House is asking for to see if the needs of veterans -- outlined in the Independent Budget --- are being met by the administration's proposed budget. We'll note the following exchange from today's hearing covering a wide range of issues. Chair Patty Murray: I did want to ask you about health care funding. The VA's budget proposal reflects a very real committment to provides veterans with the care they need VA's budget request for medical care is, however, lower than the amount recommenedd by the Independent Budget. Can you tell us what the DAV's most significant concern with the administration's request for health care is? National Commander Donald Smith: I think I am going to refer that question to Mr. Violante. Joseph Violante: Chairman Murray, thank you for that question. You've been a strong advocate for veterans. And our biggest concern is, number one we believe they're about 1.5 billion dollars below where they need to be. I know a GAO report came out yesterday. I have not had the opportunity to review it. However, I understand that once again, they've inidicated that the management efficiences that have been identified by VA over the last several years. They cannot truly say that VA has generated any savings from those. That's a concern. Last year, the Secretary carried over $1.1 billion yet we continue to hear from our members around the country and from VA employees that they were short of funds, that Veterans couldn't get the service that they were eligible for because of the shortfall. So we have concerns. We would certainly love Congress to get VA in here to question them, to find out, again, why they aren't hiring people they need for homeless? Why veterans aren't able to properly access the care and to get what they deserve? Chair Patty Murray: Okay, I very much appreciate that. Let me ask you about another issue I brought up in my opening statement and that is construction funding. The Presiden't's request for major and minor construction is significantly less than the Independent Budget recommendation. I'm really disappointed in the size of the gap between what they say they need and what we need to bring our facilities up to date. And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Samuels, failing to close that gap, what does that mean for our veterans across the country? Joseph Violante: Madame Chairman, I'll go ahead and answer that question also. You know, it reminds me a lot of what happened in '04 and '05. And you remember very well in '05 when you and Senator [Daniel] Akaka tried to have an amendment passed in the Senate to increase funding by $1.5 billion for VA and at that time we were hearing horror stories from around the country about maintenance problems, about Togus, Maine where bricks were falling off the building and they had to put scaffolding up to protect veterans as they entered, other faciliites, where the air conditioning went down and the surgical units had to be closed because there wasn't air conditioning and the ability to get that fixed, MRIs that couldn't be repaired. And all of these items as well as building necessary or enhanced leases to provide the services that are needed in certain areas. So as that gap continues to widen, I think we're going to see many more of those same problems where VA is not going to be able to ensure the safety of the men and women coming for services. Chair Patty Murray: Okay and this is an area I'm going to continue to follow. I care deeply about this and I've seen exactly what you're talking about so this is one that I will follow up and push very hard. And finally, Commander, I wanted to ask you -- and I really want to thank the DAV for working closely with me on the Women's Veterans Bill and I look forward to working with you to continue to make sure that all the women coming into the VA system have the kind of quality care that they need after serving our country. But I want to [applause] as the last women standing up here, I will ask you, what more needs to be done to address the serious shortcomings that women are seeing as they come into our VA facilities? Barry Jesinoski: Chairman Murray, I'll take that question. First of all, thank you for your extremely staunch advocacy in this area. DAV stands with you in your concern and care for our women veterans. And Secretary Shinseki has stated that women veterans are a priority for VA. And they're going down the right track, we believe, so we're looking for your strong oversight as they continue to train their personnel and to ensure that all the areas of care are open to our women veterans whether that be military sexual trauma, homelessness and post-deployment mental healt. But there is much to be done, for sure, and, quite frankly, we're not finished until or unless all of our women veterans can walk down the halls of our VA medical centers with the same ease and comfort and receive the same level of care and breadth of care as their male counterparts. Chair Patty Murray: I appreciate that and I would add one more challenge to all of us and it's what I hear from women veterans all the time, it's that they don't indentify themselves as veterans, they don't write it on their resumes when they put it out there, their kids don't call and have their mom's call and have their moms come to school and tell their experiences as a veteran. They don't tell their neighbors. We need to give women the power to say, "I'm a veteran" and be proud of that. And I want to work with all of you to do that. One last question and I will turn it over to Senator [John] Boozman for his questions, last year, we both talked about -- Chairman Miller and I both talked about the Vow to Hire Heroes Act -- a very important first step in ensuring that we are employing our veterans nationwide. I did want to ask you what more can be done to help our service disabled veterans overcome some of their barriers to employment that I'm hearing about and I wondered if you could respond to that? Joseph Violante: There's a lot more that needs to be done -- particularly for service disabled veterans. And, if I could, Madame Chairman, I'd like to get back to you in writing on that to elaborate as to all of the things that need to be looked at in that particular area. Chair Patty Murray: Okay, very good. I look forward to your response on that.  Elsewhere in the hearing, the issue of sequestration was raised. It's expected to that the federal government's buget will result in sequestration -- that cuts to reach X amount were not made and as a result automatic cuts will be imposed on many departments (and programs) across the board. Is the VA exempt or not? That's been an issue that several members of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees have been trying to get answered (with no success). Chair Jeff Miller noted, "We believe that VA is exempt." He stated that it should be but if it is not, "we have to we'll make those statutory changes." Chair Patty Murray declared she was "confident" that sequestering would not effect VA but that she wants "clarity" on the matter. CORRECTION: Senator Murray questioned Eric Shinseki on Wednesday. This is an issue that's bothering a number of veterans because where would the money come from if the VA faces automatic across the board cuts. I agree with Chair Jeff Miller's earlier statements prior to today's hearing, that the administration should have addressed this issue publicly some time ago so that it wasn't so up in the air and confusing and, yes, distressing to veterans and their families. Chair Patty Murray noted during the hearing that she had heard from veterans in her home state of Washington at a town hall she held this month and they listed a number of issue -- including continued problems "with the dysfunction of the claims system," unemployment, and "unacceptable long wait lines for mental health care" which still doesn't result in "getting the type of mental health care they need." Ranking Member Bob Filner noted that the men and women of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are "becoming homeless faster than you who have come back from Vietnam" and that they were "committing suicide at a higher rate." Now we're dropping back to the February 15th House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing for just a second.: Homelessness was touched on by US House Reps Corrine Brown and Dr. Phil Roe. We're ignoring that for two reasons. 1) Roe brought up that once a case worker has X number of clients, the VA isn't issuing vouchers so even though there is space a veterans left sleeping on the street or somewhere else (he or she receives no voucher). Shinseki noted that homeless veterans were decreasing. Are they? Or is this program -- which tracks beds used in shelters -- not factoring in that veterans aren't receiving vouchers if their caseworker is maxed out? That's not addressed and until it is, I'm not interested in going into the figures. I have an answer on that from a friend at VA and from a reporter who covers the story in Dr. Roe home state: If they're not using the beds, they're not being counted. So if vouchers exist but aren't being handed out -- for whatever reasons -- then those not in the shelter beds are not being tabulated in the VA count. So we know the answer to that. And now we can pick up with Dr. Phil Roe who spoke briefly but did a really strong walk through on this voucher issue. US House Rep Phil Roe: Homelessness. I know you're involved in that. And one of the things that's holding up -- and this is something that we've got to stick the VA with -- our case managers. We have 10,000 vouchers for our homeless veterans but they can't get those vouchers unless there's a case manager. And right now, in my own district, we've got vouchers we can't use because the VA, since November, hasn't hired a case manager to manage those. That's ridiculous when you're going through the winter, you've got a veteran sitting outside and the VA hasn't hired one person -- because one takes care of 25 veterans, they have to have one person. So if we're going to have 10,000 more vouchers at 70-something million dollars, it does the veteran no good who's outside unless the VA simultaneously trains and hires 400 case managers. They need to do that. So I guess a real quick question I have for you is what -- as a veterans service officer with obviously decades of experience -- what's the single biggest issue you're running across that we coluld help you with up here? National Commander Donald Samuels: Well I would say, one, of course, is the backlog, the claims processing backlog. And of course the Secretary and our staff is working with the Secretary on trying to resolve that with a new IT programs coming in, pilot programs that the Secretary's going to introduce. But I would say that is one of the biggest problems that we hear from vetetan. Saying Why does it take two years to get a decision? Why does it take nine months to get a decision? I could ask my staff to respond more on that question but that is -- that is a big issue. If you're a service officer sitting in the bunker in a state, they constantly get calls where veterans are calling to check on the status of their claim because they have not gotten a decision on it. Baghdad was slammed by a bombing. BBC News notes it was a car bombing and that the tolls are at least 3 dead and nine injured. Al Rafidayn reports that the police quickly closed the scene to traffic. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports a Tuk Khurmatu car bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers, 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 Iraqi military officer while leaving two more soldiers, a police officer and a bystander injured and that Mosul saw a roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured while a car bombing left three civilians injured and "shepherd Abdel Karim Abdel Hamid" died from a landmine which injured two of his brothers in Kirkuk. In addition, Dunlop notes Sahwa was targeted last night with an attack on a Diyala Province checkpoint claiming the life of 1 Sahwa and leaving two more injured. Xinhua adds, "In Iraq's western province of Anbar, a roadside bomb struck a civilian car on a main road near the city of Hit, some 160 km west, killing a civilian and wounding three others aboard, a source from the provincial operations command told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." On violence, Al Rafidayn notes that approximately 69,000 Iraqis have died from 2004 to last year as a result of violence. These numbers come from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of National Security. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) notes that these "numbers are significantly lower than previous figures that cover a shorter time span, including from Iraq's own human rights ministry. The human rights ministry said in an October 2009 report that 85,694 people were killed from 2004 to 2008." Dunlop also notes Iraq Body Count's number for 2003 through the end of 2011 (114,584). Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) observes that Adnan al-Assadi, the Deputy Interior Minister, states that "six prominent Sunni armed groups say they will fight on to drive the last Americans from Iraqi soil and topple 'the occupation government'." Pay attention to this from al-Salhy, "The groups include al-Qaeda's Iraq wing, the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, the Islamic Army, the Mujahedeen Army, the Rashideen Army and Ansar al-Sunnah, Asadi said." Did you catch that? No, not all physically fighting the occupation and/or Nouri's puppet government are "al Qaeda in Iraq." Violence is among many topics that Dirk Adriaensens of the BRussels Tribunal Executive Committee explores in a new piece at Truthout that that suffers at the beginning. It has many important points to it but the beginning isn't just 'weak.' Adriansens notes the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pilay's public dismay over the executions in Iraq. He then attempts to tie that into a US trial. That's nonsense and it's offensive. You don't have to like the verdict, you may feel that someone guilty went free but there's a world of difference between feeling someone 'beat the system' and executing people from forced confessions. I haven't commented on that case, I have no public opinion on that case. You can and you can feel the US Marine got a fair trial, got away with murder, or whatever. But don't compare a verdict you don't like that you think set someone guilty free with putting to death innocent people. There are people around the world who have made it their life's work to overturn death penalties and they grasp the difference (some of whom will find the comparison being made offensive). You've taken disimilar objects and pretended you compared them when you did no such thing. I know the law and like some people (I would hope most people), I would prefer a guilty person walk to an innocent person being punished (and I oppose the death penalty). That is why the US has the legal system it does, because of that belief. A verdict you disagree with where someone walks on charges is not the same thing as someone wrongfully put to death. This is not a quibble. This is a major point. As the piece progresses, it has many wonderful passages. One of the most interesting sections of the essay is this: "The wave of attacks, carried out mainly by Sunni extremists from Al-Qaeda in Iraq against Shia communities, has alarmed many who fear the country could descend into chaos once more, with the government itself acknowledging it is not capable of ensuring security on its own."(82) This is the story that we constantly hear in the media, blaming the "Sunni" terrorist group al-Qaeda, which carries out attacks against the "Shiite" population. What is most saddening is that this particular sentence was written by IRIN, a news service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Why are the media so sure that it is "Sunni" al-Qaeda killing innocent Shiites? Let me put the record straight: in recent weeks there have been several bomb attacks in Ramadi, Adamiya in Baghdad, Mosul, Haditha, Diyala, Tikrit, Fallujah etc., all Sunni areas. The wave of attacks is nationwide. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should check out the Iraqi press accounts of the previous weeks. Then why do the Western media and IRIN focus on al-Qaeda and declare the Shiite population the main victims? It is relevant to remind the public of the ruthless killings perpetrated by Shiites against Shiites. For example, on 27 February 2009, The New York Times reported that 28 members of a Shiite messianic cult responsible for brutal attacks on Shiite pilgrims in Iraq were sentenced to death in the federal court in Dhi Qar Province. The condemned were members of the Followers of the Mahdi, itself a part of the Soldiers of Heaven or Jund As-Samaa, a destructive cult that believes that sowing chaos will pave the way for the coming of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam, who disappeared in the ninth century and who - Shiites believe - will return as a savior of humanity. Nineteen other members of the group were sentenced to life imprisonment, and six were acquitted, said the court official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.(83) And why is there no mention of the thousands of Sunnis who were recently arrested and detained by the government? Why don't the mainstream media write about the virulent sectarian politics of Maliki, who recently declared that his primary identity is "Shia"? Why is there no mention of recent "suspicious incidents" that have been reported in the Iraqi press? For example: On January 25, a senior source at the Iraqi Ministry of Transport confirmed to Al-Mada daily newspaper that the British security company assigned to security control at Bagdad airport caught a Czech security team from the Czech Embassy in Baghdad with a number of silencers and explosives in the beginning of January. The silencers had the smell of gunpowder according to the source whose name the newspaper refrained from mentioning. The security of Baghdad airport held the Czech security team for a number of hours; yet they were released following the intervention of the Czech Ambassador who had visited Iraqi Transport Minister Hady Al-Amery's office, according to the same source. The source told the newspaper that the security officers at Baghdad airport found it very strange such silencer guns were in the possession of foreign diplomats since these weapons are used by 'special elements' for specific acts, which are assassinations. Why were they released so quickly? Here's one clue: It is well known that Al-Amery is the head of the Badr Brigades, the armed wing of the Supreme Council of Iraqi Islamic Revolution. The Badr Brigades have changed their name into the Badr Organisation and joined the so-called "political process." Gov. of Baghdad Said Salah Abdul-Razzaq said in an interview in Al sumaria News: "A unit of the security forces near my house ordered a grey BMW to stop. In the car were four Americans, two men and two women, in the possession of handguns with silencers and machine guns and they wore bullet proof vests." Salah Abdul-Razzaq said that the four Americans were driving near his house and urged the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take diplomatic action and ask the US to clarify the reason for this "violation," and warned of the possibility that his police forces would fire to kill in the event of repeated violations, regardless of the nationality of the offenders. They were released soon after the American Embassy intervened. We conclude from all these events something that is being repeated over and over again by many Iraqi witnesses, namely that the recent strings of bomb attacks and assassinations are part of the counterinsurgency strategies of the US in conjunction with Maliki's government and probably Iran and other neighboring countries, false flag operations in order to create chaos and sectarian strife with the ultimate goal of discrediting national reconciliation efforts so that the country can be partitioned without too much popular protest and political opposition. There is a continuous flow of disinformation and one must be willing to dig deeper into the secret, dark underworld of dirty war, media manipulation and corruption to learn the truth. The terrible humanitarian situation in Iraq is the ultimate responsibility of the Anglo-American forces that invaded, occupied and keep occupying Iraq, together with the US-installed Iraqi government. And they should be held accountable. Those are some very important points and ones that I'm more than willing to consider. I like the BRussels Tribunal. But people who don't know it or may not like it only have to start with those opening paragraphs to have a reason to stop reading. 'Beating the system' is not the same as losing your life because you were tortured into giving a 'confession.' The two can't be equated. Last Thursday, as bombs swept Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament voted on the 2012 budget and to spend at least $50 million on the purchase of 350 armored vehicles for themselves. It was controversial last Thursday and remains so. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) notes objections are coming "from government officials to revered clerics to newspaper editors." AFP reports the plan was for "one armored car per MP and an additional 25 vehicles to be dispersed at the discretion of parliament's speaker." Al Sabaah adds that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi issued a memo noting that the vehicles would belong to the Parliament and not be the MPs personal cars to keep when the current legislature completes its session. As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) weighs in with a column on public opinion and appearance, how Iraqis are seeing that Parliament will take steps -- and spend money -- to protect themselves. Al Mada notes that supposedly the vehicles being purchased are basically good for two years and then require repurchasing and that the issue will be dealt with . . . after the Arab Summit. Back to the US, briefly. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's House Committee on Foreign Affairs this afternoon. It was one of two appearances before Congress today to argue for State Dept funding for Fiscal Year 2013. I didn't catch her morning appearance (I was at the veterans hearing). Clinton told the Committee that the US effort was now civilian-led in Iraq. She stated that in 2011, the US government budgeted $48 billion for Iraq. What the State Dept needed, she explained, was "only one-tenth of" that number, that the State Dept was asking for "$40 billion less than" what the US government wanted "just two years ago." The Defense Dept had over 50,000 troops in Iraq and the administration keeps swearing that the Iraq War is over. If someone tells me the meal's over, I ask for the check and I pay it. If they come up to me with another check, swearing it's a civilian-led check, my point would be, "Is the meal over or not?" Billions are billions. The State Dept wants $8 billion. The State Dept that refused to properly explain their budget to the Special Inspector General for Reconstruction in Iraq. Even after he took the issue to Congress (repeatedly) in 2011. Camp Ashraf. She was before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, so Camp Ashraf was going to come up. She spoke of the recent move of approximately 400 Iranian dissidents from Camp Ashraf. The dissidents were allowed in decades ago under Saddam Hussein; after the US invasion in 2003, the US government entered into talks and negotiations with them which resulted in their becoming "protected persons" under international law and the Geneva Conventions. Nouri al-Maliki is close to Iran and Iran doesn't want the residents in Iraq. Nouri and others have had to be restrained by the United Nations repeatedly on this issue. Hillary stated of the move this month of 400 Iranian dissidents from Camp Ashraf to the former US Camp Liberty, "There were complications but it was peaceful." That's really not true. They suffered through an invasive search -- body search -- before they left Camp Ashraf. Despite that search, they were then forcibly searched before being allowed in Camp Liberty. What should have taken no more than three hours, took over ten. It was not peaceful for the residents. If "peaceful" means "no shots were fired," then it was "peaceful." If peaceful means what the rest of the world understands it as, no, it wasn't peaceful. The US government (during Bill Clinton's presidency) put the residents on the terrorists watch list. Being on that list is a problem. Hillary denied that to be the case. She stated that it wasn't preventing anyone from taking the residents any -- any country. That's not true. She further rejected the assertion that being on the US terrorist list allowed Iraqis to treat the residents poorly and justify it. That's just an outright untruth. Either she's not following the region or she wasn't telling the truth. There is not a month that goes by when Nouri or one of his underlings doesn't tell Press TV or some other Iranian outlet that the US has the group on the terrorist list and so they're terrorist and Iraq cannot house terrorists (unless of course they have the title of Iraqi Prime Minister). What she should have faced was an intense grilling as to why the State Dept hasn't moved on this issue as they were ordered by the US courts to review the status in 2010 (the court faulted the decision and felt it had deprived the group of due process)? She was Secretarty of State when the court ruled. She is still Secretary of State. She should have conducted the review long ago and an announcement about the status should have been made. It is depressing to see Hillary Clinton's behavior on this issue. Is the State Dept allowed to ignore the US courts? Is the State Dept now above the judicial branch? Is there no check on the State Dept? Hillary told the Committee that the dissidents "successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf" and relocation to Camp Liberty would be "a key factor" on the status. No. That's not what the court instructed. Is the State Dept bound by the law or not? I like Hillary but were I Hillary and had I Hillary's reputation, I wouldn't want to be doing this. If it's not clear, right now she's one of the most admired women in the country. If she keeps this up and there's a push back, we're back to the days when Bill was in his first term and Hillary wouldn't turn over healthcare information and some might even want to go to the Whitewater well again. It's not smart for her, it's not smart for the image of the department. The move did not factor into the court's decision. What factored in was the refusal of the Clinton administration to guarantee due process when they pinned "terrorist" on the dissidents. So legally, her reasoning is not sound. Now let's get to another issue quickly. Unarmed dissidents are being moved by Nouri's thugs who -- as Amnesty International and others have documented -- have twice produced multiple deaths in their attacks on the dissidents. To now say that how these dissidents behave as they're forcibly relocated will determine something is nonsense and blatantly offensive. It's offensive to everyone aware of forcible rel-locations in history. Be it the Armenians, the Jewish people, you name it, those who are forced to relocate -- at gunpoint no less -- do not have the power and it is offensive to suggest that they do. It is also highly illogical to claim that you will determine whether or not a group of people are terrorists and we're out of space. iraq bbc news afp w.g. dunlop xinhua reuters suadad al-salhy al sabaah dar addustour as sheikh al mada alsumaria tv

My Week with Marilyn Review

Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) looks up at an admirer in My Week with Marilyn.

2.5 Stars

The story in My Week with Marilyn is one that seems quite cinematic. Two screen legends butt heads on set while one fools around with a young assistant director once her husband leaves town. It's juicy, deserves to be told, and could have made for a fine motion picture. But in the hands of director Simon Curtis, it falls flat. Passion is an emotion that doesn't exist in this world, despite the main character being one of the most lustful individuals in mankind's history. That's an inexcusable sin, and I blame the great and talented Michelle Williams as much as her director. Her Monroe is hardly compelling and only moderately alluring. At one point, Kenneth Branagh's Sir Laurence Olivier remarks that Monroe's only job is to show up on set and be sexy. You could make the same argument for Williams on this film in real life, yet she mostly fails (despite what the Academy would tell you). The whole thing is just a big disappointment.

The film is based on a pair of novels written by Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), a young British man with a privileged background who gives up his wealth to make a name for himself in the film industry. His family's contacts help get him a job as third assistant director on Sir Laurence Olivier's (Branagh) newest film, The Sleeping Prince (ultimately retitled The Prince and the Showgirl). While Colin would ideally assist creatively, he's fine fetching coffee and making sure the film's costar—American starlet Marilyn Monroe (Williams)—isn't getting into any trouble off set. Eventually, Monroe discovers Colin lurking around and questions his motives, but he's a sincere guy, and he becomes one of Monroe's few true confidants in Britain. But it's not a friendship built to last. Marilyn is quickly breaking down from her director and costar's angry and demanding nature, while Colin's romantic feelings for Marilyn develop alarmingly fast.

There are aspects to both the filmmaking process and Colin and Marilyn's relationship that work, but neither work completely. Shooting The Sleeping Prince seems like a real slog. Marilyn is obviously a big reason why, though she's not the only one. Olivier is perhaps unreasonable toward her from the start. It's as if he knew what to expect and never really gave her a proper chance. Though they don't share many scenes together, their dynamic is almost always front and center, and it's a relationship I found interesting, if not wholly engrossing.

The relationship between Colin and Marilyn is of a different sort, and by and large, it's unremarkable. But Eddie Redmayne, of all people, layers it in a surprising way. Throughout the film, Colin acts like a martyr to the cause, an angelic golden boy, a passionate cinephile who's dedicated to his job, no matter the costs. But once he and Marilyn begin spending time together, he becomes a very sexual creature. He lusts for her in such an indescribable way that he'll even defy his bosses if it means staying in Marilyn's good graces. It's an interesting take on a very familiar character and relationship, and though I don't think it ultimately goes too far, it enhances My Week with Marilyn's middle third quite a bit, elevating it above being barely watchable to being moderately recommendable.

Williams, unfortunately, does the film no favors. She's definitely better than Theresa Russell, who mimicked Monroe in Nicholas Roeg's Insignificance. But for an actress who's as close to Hollywood royalty as we have right now, this performance is a big disappointment. It doesn't detract from the film, but she doesn't really make it better either.

Kenneth Branagh, like Williams, earned an Oscar nomination for his work in the film. He, too, is relatively unremarkable, but at least he's not asked to carry the film. There are a few very funny moments during which he freaks out on set, but his attempts at earnestness just don't work.

My Week with Marilyn goes through the motions to such a degree that one can't help but be turned off by it. Without a noticeable style or a really unique hook, the film is just another tepid romance and a kind of blah behind-the-scenes look at the filmmaking process. A missed opportunity is what it really is, and though Williams' accolades ensured it was be seen by a good deal of people, I wish those people went to bat for her earlier last year in Blue Valentine, a great film with a great Williams performance, instead.

storing shoes (with the help of a kitty)

Finding a place for all my shoes has been no easy thing. I have, oh, just one or two pairs, um, maybe well a few more than that, and they need somewhere to live. A bookshelf was a great idea for a while, but I found it took up a bit too much space. I like the idea of keeping them in their boxes and having a photo on each one, but really, let's be honest, that's just never going to happen. Those fabric shoe holder hanging things don't seem to save that much space. And I'm definitely not quite at the point if keeping things in my oven. (My freezer, now, that's another story!) So, what to do with them?

They now live under my two clothes racks, where I can see them – and I can see them next to most of my clothes, too. I am terrible at getting rid of my old shoes; even when they're beyond both wear and repair, I have a habit of holding on to them for no good reason, other than as dust collectors, space cloggers and reminders of the favourite shoe-ness of them that is now no more. I need to have a good cull. I like the idea of having a smaller amount of perfect things... and then I like variety, too... it's a bit of a clash so the much-needed cull will be interesting.

And then, the actual order of things. Do I sort them by colour, by style, by season? Or do I accept that a tiny bit of chaos at this point might not be such a bad thing, and anyway, it's how I tend to like things?






Perhaps help is at hand (or foot) as Babycat has now thoroughly inspected the rows. I think she is thinking it over. Maybe she thinks I have too many. Or maybe she prefers things after she's knocked them over. Perhaps that is her organisational nirvana. Or maybe she is just as foxed as I am.

But tell me, how do you keep your shoes?

Single Zombie Female On Transvaginal Ultrasounds

Texas has just passed a bill and the Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other states' legislatures are considering bills that would require women who are opting for an abortion to first go through a procedure called Transvaginal Ultrasound. No problem, right, just apply some jelly and use a microphone thingy to listen in. Wrong? A transvaginal ultrasound requires a woman to be penetrated by a ten inch wand.

Medical professionals do not consider this a necessary or useful diagnostic test, it's merely another way of punishing women who elect to exercise their Constitutional right to decide what goes on in their own bodies. Many women are calling this procedure a state mandated rape. Imagine a scenario where your wife, daughter, or sister had been raped, then was forced to go through this additional torture. It's unacceptable. It's insane. And it's a painful, lengthy procedure no woman should be forced to go through by orders of a few whackadoodles who want to tell the rest of us what we can and can't do with our bodies. 

Tell your representative this is wrong

See Single Zombie Female artist Jenny Mathew's art here Tiny Drawings

Toby's almost two

Toby is just a few months away from turning two, and he's gearing up like a champ. He's been nailing the whining, fussing and general malaise that comes with being two years old. The word "no" is his motto, and, through his eyes, everything is either the worst or the absolute worst. Here, Toby gets carried to the playground (since naturally he didn't want to ride in his stroller), but was distraught because he wanted Mommy to carry him, not Daddy!!!!!!

Alex says he wants to write a biography of Toby's year called "A Portrait of Courage." It's so hard to be a baby! Keeps making me laugh out loud.

TYLER PERRY: MADEA'S BIG HAPPY FAMILY (2011)

Madea's Big Happy Family, the sole Tyler Perry film released in 2011 (which thereby became the first year with only a single Perry release since 2006), crystallises something for me: I don't get Madea. And not in the obvious sense of what that phrase means: by this point, I imagine anyone paying attention to this retrospective has figured out that I - a white, atheistic Midwesterner - don't get what makes Madea ostensibly funny. I mean, I do - in Spike Lee's ever-useful words, it is "coonery", because apparently in the 21st Century, enough Americans of all races still enjoy watching black people stripped of their dignity to make such farce economically viable - but I don't.

That's not what I'm referring to: I mean that I simply don't get what Madea is supposed to represent in Perry's moral worldview. Time and time again, the unresolved question has come up of why the apparent hero of a series of films that unambiguously double as evangelical Christian morality plays is so resistant to Christianity, and Big Happy Family nails that down in a scene where Perry's bellowing parody of matriarchal womanhood straight up refers to "the Christians" in terms that cannot be regarded as anything other than gentle, loving, and wildly condescending mockery. If there was any doubt left that Madea, consistently presented as the source of unfailingly sound, common-sense wisdom, views herself as not merely separate from the organised religion that has given so much shape to the universe of Perry's films and thinking, but in every significant way superior to Christianity and the people who let themselves be governed by the rules of organised religion. What message, if any, this situation is meant to impart, is completely unclear to me; perhaps this speaks to my lack of sophistication on the niceties of Southern Baptism, and perhaps Tyler Perry is one of the most terrible dramatic writers to ever ride that non-talent to tens of millions of dollars.

The film, adapted from Perry's 2010 play - the shortest stage-to-screen turnaround in his career - is once again a melange of family drama and broad farce, though the balance skews a bit more serious than it does in the bulk of the Madea pictures. We have here Shirley (Loretta Devine), who learns at the start of the movie that she is about to finally lose a seven-year battle with cancer; her response is neither fear or sorrow, for her faith gives her the certitude that she is leaving for a better place, but to hope, earnestly, that before her death, she can bring her three children together, patch up all the anger and mistrust that have marked their relationships, and leave this life with a happy family behind her. The problem is that her daughters, Tammy (Natalie Desselle Reid) and Kimberly (Shannon Kane) can't be in the same room without lambasting one another's parenting skills and general personality flaws, when they're not verbally abusing their husbands, Harold (Rodney Perry) and Calvin (Isaiah Mustafa), while her son, Byron (Shad Moss, better known to most of us as rapper Bow Wow), is always just one weak moment away from returning to a life of drug dealing, to support his son's wretched mother Sabrina (Teyana Taylor), and to keep his shallow girlfriend Renee (Lauren London).

If you have not noticed Madea factoring into all of this, that is because she spends the first half of the movie in a separate plotline, where the ebullient malapropist Mr. Brown (David Mann), in his third feature film appearance, is terrified about his own health prospects, and discovers in the process of having bloodwork done that he is not, after all, the father of his and Madea's daughter Cora (Tamela J. Mann). What draws the two together is the fact that Madea is Shirley's aunt, and she is called in to serve as heavy artillery by Shirley's other aunt, Bam (Cassi Davis, a House of Payne mainstay given her first substantial role in a Perry feature), to lay down that good old-fashioned Madea beatdown to get Shirley's children and grandchildren in line.

Structurally, this isn't really any different than Madea Goes to Jail or Madea's Family Reunion:a torrid family drama that is spiked with the spectacle of Perry in drag, shouting. Even so, there's an X-factor about Big Happy Family that feels weirder than those movies. I wonder if it's simply that the soap opera acrobatics are so much more earnest and dark here; there is, after all, no looming specter of death in most of Perry's earlier work. In that regard, this movie actually resembles the writer-director's The Family That Preys with a huge serving of Madea wedged in, and it's less than surprising that this graft doesn't hold, for at heart, the story of Shirley's march towards death is too muted, though Devine has the good sense not to play for too much sympathy or sorrow, which would only come across as out of place in the company of the clowns and melodramatic caricatures making up the rest of the plot. At any rate, the underlying seriousness of the film fits uncomfortably at best with the slapstick of Madea and company; it is a tension that has been found in several of the director's movies, of course, but in this case, the comedy loses out, with Perry's performance of Madea especially feeling flatter and more strained than he ever has in the role. Taking two years off of the character appears to have intensified the filmmaker's Madea fatigue rather than recharged his batteries: even his wig is limp and worn out. The less said about Taylor's comic relief performance as a character so insufferable that even the other characters don't understand why she's there, the better.

Indeed, the only parts of the film that are suffused with any kind of comic brio - any sense of humor at all that does not ultimately hinge on either Perry or David Mann being shouty, in fact - are the opening credits, a brightly animated sequence set to a Macy Gray song, and the famous series of posters spoofing some of the 2010 Best Picture Oscar nominees; and the fact that I've had to go to the advertising campaign to scrape up something remotely innovative about the film (and that said ad campaign is still a pretty far cry from "funny") speaks to just how tired Big Happy Family is within the Perry family of films. The dramatic A-plot is so ribboned with trite ideas, including a hokey third-act twist that is unpredictable only insofar as it's such an ancient idea that you wouldn't necessarily expect a filmmaker in 2011 to trot it out without a whisper of shame, that I see no reason to discuss it at all: other than Devine, who pushes against the role much less than some of the other genuinely great actresses in Perry films, but still lends it gravity and crucially, convinces us that impending death really isn't the biggest concern in her world, none of the performances are much of anything, one way or another, and the implied message of "Men, the right way to be a husband is to constantly intimidate your nagging shrew of a wife" is as indefensibly misogynist as anything else in the ordinarily woman-friendly director's career.

I take comfort in thinking that even Perry's fandom somewhat agrees with me: adjusted for inflation, Big Happy Family is the lowest-grossing of the major Madea films (excluding the two, Meet the Browns and I Can Do Bad All By Myself, in which she appears only briefly and is not mentioned in the title), and presumably this all has something to do with Perry's decision to take the rest of the year off. Whatever the case, we can be sure that the shrieking phantasm and parody of womanhood is merely resting, not retired, and perhaps when she comes back in Madea's Witness Protection, Perry will have something better in mind than just trotting out his signature character like a show pony, propping up a weak-kneed plot that goes nowhere and communicates nothing that he hasn't already said elsewhere. Till then, a horrifying, braying old grandma and her gun will always be playing.