Merry Christmas 2021: Blog Posts of Christmases Past

I'm seeing that a few of my past Christmas blog posts have been under my Popular Posts these last few weeks, so I thought that I'd share some of my best ones in one blog post. Merry Christmas, and thank you for reading! 🙂✝️🎄

A Perfect Christmas List Movie Review (2019)

A BAD MOMS CHRISTMAS (2017) Has a Church Scene EXACTLY like the Scene in HOME ALONE (1990)! (2017)

Why I Will Always Say "Merry Christmas" (2016)

Why PBS Kids Always Does Holiday Specials Right - By Not Just Celebrating Christmas (2014)

One of my Favorite Christmas Special Moments - The Church Scene from "Home Alone" (2013)

An Unrealistic Outcome: The Sad Truth About Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol" (2012)

A Good Twist and Variation...or a Rip-off of a Classic Ballet? A Look at Changes in The Nutcracker (2011)

The Symbolism of Angel Dumott Schunard in RENT: My Interpretation  (2011; first blog post!)

A Perfect Christmas List Movie Review

IMDb

I didn't want a whole year to go by before I shared this, so here is a review of my favorite Christmas movie this year!

Well, technically today is final day of the Christmas season for us, given that it is the Baptism of the Lord, so it's not too late after all! :D

So as you know, this Christmas season I've made it a point to watch as many cheesy Christmas movies as I can and have done so thanks to ION and ION Life. A Perfect Christmas List (2014), directed by Fred Olen Ray (who actually directs a number of these types of films), was playing back to back practically daily and I always found myself watching it every time, pretty much having it memorized by now. 

Ellen Hollman plays Sara Edwin, a children's book writer who has come home for Christmas because her grandmother Evie, played by "Happy Days" star and now retired actress Marion Ross, has taken a fall and sprained her ankle. Sara often keeps a distance between herself and her family because she has a tough relationship with her slightly overbearing and judgmental mother Michelle, played by Beth Broderick, who constantly pushed Sara and believes that she could have gone onto greater things had she gone to Harvard. Michelle overhears Evie talking with her doctor but mishears the conversation, believing that her mother is dying when really she is just moving out of her condo into a suite at the country club. It's one of those comedy of errors things. Think "Three's Company." 

Evie convinces Michelle and Sara to engage in a Christmas list, which is suggested to be inspired by one of Sara's previous books, to make this holiday a perfect one and to secretly reunite the constantly feuding mother and daughter. Michelle is happy to oblige to please Evie because she believes that her mother won't be around for another Christmas.

Part of the reason why I love this one so much is the cast, particular Sara's parents who bring me back to the 90s. Beth Broderick is best known as Aunt Zelda from "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" while Richard Karn, best known as Al Borland from "Home Improvement" and the host of "Family Feud," plays Sara's dad and Michelle's husband Tim.

As sweet as the story is, there is also plenty of corn and cheese served up in it as well. Here is a fun list of observations I have made about this film after multiple viewings. :) There are some spoilers in this post, so you have been warned!

Shout Out to ION Television and IONLife for their Christmas Movies This Year! :D

Earlier this Christmas holiday season I made a goal and vow to watch as many cute Christmas movie love stories as I could, and I was able to accomplish this thanks to the back to back original movie marathons on ION Television and IONLife, which are similar to Hallmark and Lifetime movies, and its motto to "Bring the Holidays Home" with that red Christmas ball ornament. Today I wrote down in my journal a list of all movies I watched this year and it looks like I've watched 20! Some of these films I even watched more than once.

I was working on a more in-depth blog post about one of them, but unfortunately I wasn't able to perfect it in time for today, but I might still deliver it perhaps later on this week or so. It's almost finished, for I completed most of it last Monday evening. I might even write about more of them.

But I still wanted to take this Christmas Day as an opportunity to acknowledge them and the joy they give. These are some of my favorite movies now, no matter how corny, predictable, and unrealistic they can be lol. I classify them as their own genre. They are heartwarming and bring good cheer, as they should for Christmas movies. Watching them made me happy and excited and also inspired my own creativity, such as writing my own possible Christmas stories. I was sick this past week as well, and these movies kept me company while I was recovering.

So thank you, ION Television and IONLife, for this sweet little holiday tradition! I'll miss watching practically every night but I look forward to what you have in store next year!

Merry Christmas, everyone! 😃🎄♥️

A BAD MOMS CHRISTMAS (2017) Has a Church Scene EXACTLY like the Scene in HOME ALONE (1990)!

So I FINALLY saw A Bad Moms Christmas (2017) with my own mother just in time for Christmas and was pleased to see a scene in there that exactly mirrors my favorite scene from Home Alone (1990). I was actually quite surprised to see it and wonder if the similarities are intentional. :)

By the way, this blog post includes some spoilers for both films I guess, but especially A Bad Moms Christmas.

I've blogged about the scene before and the blog post for it seems pretty popular on here. Long story short, the kid Kevin is left behind by his family on Christmas and goes to the local church and sits in a pew as he listens to the choir sing. He is joined there by Old Man Marley, an old man of whom he is afraid. However, there the two bond and from that point on Kevin is no longer afraid of him.

Interestingly enough, Home Alone and A Bad Moms Christmas are very similar. Both are comedy films with slapstick (and in Bad Moms's case, raunchiness as well) and yet have this quiet moment to form solace between two characters.

We meet Amy again, played by Mila Kunis, who again, along with her comrades from the first film Kiki (Kristen Bell) and Carla (Kathryn Hahn), is so sick of the pressure of being a perfect mother. The premise is very similar to the first film, except this time the plot involves Christmas. The trio makes a pact to take Christmas back so that they can enjoy Christmas for themselves as well.

Why PBS Kids Always Does Holiday Specials Right - By Not Just Celebrating Christmas

You know, I've been thinking a lot about the political correctness involved with the holidays lately, such as us Christians always being told not to "offend" anyone or leave anyone out with all of our "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Birthday, Jesus Christ" supposed mumbo jumbo. This makes holiday cheer very bland and generic with "Happy Holidays" being the ONLY acceptable greeting. It's a decent, collective phrase, and usually I don't have a problem with people or myself using it, but at the same time it tends to dismiss the importance of the holidays and strip them of their individuality when on its own.

I've always felt that I would be happy to hear whatever people wanted to say to me. For example, if a Jewish person were to wish me a "Happy Hanukkah," I'd be honored. I mean no harm if I were to wish a Jewish person a "Merry Christmas". Jewish people have wished Christians "Merry Christmas" and I have wished Jewish people "Happy Hanukkah". This really isn't a huge issue and to make an issue out of it is pretty ridiculous. Actually, it seems like not many people really care as much and we are making an issue out of it for no reason. I like learning about different cultures and it's great when we share cultures with each other. All we are doing is spreading joy.

I believe PBS Kids is partially to thank for this positive attitude of mine.

One of my Favorite Christmas Special Moments - The Church Scene from "Home Alone"

Plenty of Christmas specials have memorable moments. There's the love story between Rudolph and Clarice, The Grinch's heart growing three sizes Christmas Day, Ebenezer Scrooge's sheer happiness when he discovers that he has not missed Christmas, George Bailey running through the streets wishing people a Merry Christmas, and of course, Linus's brilliant speech about what Christmas is all about.

But then there are the ones that aren't talked about too much or even noticed. One that comes to mind is the church scene from Home Alone (1990). This movie is about a little boy named Kevin, played by Macaulay Culkin, who is accidentally left behind at home when his family goes away for Christmas vacation. Thereafter, while the family is away, it is up to him to protect his home from a pair a burglars.

However, the part I really love involves the subplot, which concerns Kevin's fear of his neighbor, Old Man Marley, played by the late Robert Blossom, because of rumors about him and Marley's scary old man demeanor. Towards the middle/end of the movie, Kevin goes to sit in a church and ends up meeting a rather friendly Marley there, thus easing his fear of him. Marley explains that the rumors about him aren't true, but that he does have an estranged relationship with his son and the only way he can see his granddaughter is by watching her perform in the church choir, which is singing in the scene. Kevin suggests that Marley should patch things up with his son, which he eventually does in the final scene with Kevin watching from his window and the two wave at each other.

In a movie where everything is pretty much slapstick crazy, this church scene is a nice juxtaposition to the rest of the film. It's nice to see a Christmas movie have a spiritual vibe, an acknowledgement for the reason of the season, no matter how brief. It's kind of rare to see religion and spirituality even mentioned in Christmas specials, oddly enough.

Mass isn't even taking place in the scene. Very few people are in the church at the time, the lights are dim, and it is very peaceful and quiet. It shows how welcoming the church is, that you can walk in at any time and just sit there to have one on one time with God. It reminds me of church during the Christmas season in real life and even brings back some of my childhood memories involving church and Christmas.

Another thing that is so great about this scene is that at church Kevin gains a better understanding of his so-called enemy and ultimately a friend (Marley plays a huge part later on in helping Kevin when he is in trouble), therefore suggesting that God is involved.

Isn't that part of what Christmas is all about? Looking beyond differences and fear and just loving one another? In the midst of all the slapstick and humor, this movie manages to teach valuable lessons about having Christmas spirit as well in a serious, well done way.

I unfortunately couldn't find a decent clip of the scene to include in this, but I definitely think you should check it out.

Merry Christmas, everyone! :)

An Unrealistic Outcome: The Sad Truth About Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol"

Welcome to my Christmas essay of 2012! I originally thought of this idea and began writing it in January of 2012, but since it was after Christmas I didn't want to post it, so I decided to work on it for this Christmas instead. It's funny because I have other ideas to write about when it comes to A Christmas Carol, such as the different film versions and how they each tell the story differently. I may still do that, but I also want to point out this observation I have recently made.

Alastair Sim as "Ebenezer Scrooge" in the 1951 film version

We all know the story of Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, right? An old miser named Ebenezer Scrooge is pretty much the world's biggest jerk. It isn't until he is visited by four ghosts, his old business partner Jacob Marley included, that he changes his ways and is a good man all around come Christmas morning.

It's such a heartwarming book, film, and Christmas classic, guaranteed to make your spirits bright and give you hope for the world. But what if I told you that A Christmas Carol isn't necessarily as heartwarming as we think it is?

This change in Scrooge's character isn't realistic and we shouldn't necessarily be proud of him. A Christmas Carol has such a happy ending just because it's a Christmas story ending on Christmas Day. Christmas is supposed to ignite happiness, so it would be blasphemous if a Christmas story, especially one that ends on Christmas Day, has a negative outcome.

This sudden 180 in Scrooge's personality is not natural even how it is done. How many of us want to make changes in our lives but find it difficult to do so? We can't expect flaws to leave altogether and never return. That would make us perfect, and we all know that perfection doesn't exist. It's a process and it takes time. We also all know that famous phrase: "Things don't change overnight." And yet, this is what Dickens leads us to believe, or at least tries to. Scrooge changes very quickly and we're supposed to assume that he never commits a bad act again and from here on in he is a good guy. All of a sudden he has a heart of gold and we're not supposed to question it.

Also, Scrooge is reluctant to change throughout the story until the point in his dream and ghostly visitations where he sees Tiny Tim and begins to sympathize with him. If a person is indeed going to change, the want to change also has to be there throughout the process as well. Here Scrooge changes without even having the desire to do so at first and throughout the story. It also seems like he gets off too easy. He doesn't want to at first, but yet it happens for him anyway. That's not fair to others that try to change but struggle with it.

So apparently at the end of the story Scrooge is an angelic man for the rest of his life, but who's to say that he didn't go back to his humbug ways the following days? The story ends on Christmas Day, which is when people are just automatically happy. Then again, this is the first time in his life after a long period that Scrooge is actually celebrating Christmas, so in that respect we can say that his reaction to it is genuine. However, a person doesn't make such a big shift that quickly and stay that way. First we are to assume that he does change, and now we are to assume that this change now lasts without any slip ups because the story concludes idealistically.

And finally, Dickens is trying to convince us that the life altering event that changes him so drastically is a bunch of dreams consisting of four wacky ghosts? Come on! If anything should change him, it should be an actual realistic event that he has to live through because that's how real life works. Even The Grinch from Dr. Seuss's "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" has a change of heart when he hears the Whos of Whoville singing, and he's not even human! Now that I think about it, Scrooge and The Grinch have a lot in common. They're both grumpy guys that isolate themselves from the rest of their worlds at Christmas time and then at the end learn to truly appreciate the season and everybody around them. We can argue that The Grinch's transformation is even quicker and less fair than Scrooge's, especially in the original 1957 book and 1966 cartoon version where all he has to do is hear the Whos sing and then realize that Christmas isn't about the presents but the people with whom you share it. It isn't until the year 2000 when a live action film version of the story came out starring Jim Carrey and provided us with a backstory and motivations for The Grinch, kind of like how the Ghost of Christmas Past shows Scrooge and the reader and audience his past. Past occurrences, and the fact that he isn't human, are the reasons why he hates Christmas. He meets little Cindy Lou Who and Martha May Whovier, his love interest, who help him along the way throughout the movie to make his changes and give him reason to do so. Sure it seems like throughout the movie he doesn't want to change, much like Scrooge, but there are moments where he does cave and seems willing. Also, keep in mind that in the movie the Whos ostracize him because they consider him a monster, making him feel unwelcome.

But the difference with Scrooge is people actually want him around to celebrate with them. Unlike The Grinch, who is pushed away by people because they make assumptions about him, Scrooge is the one that does the pushing away his entire life and it is ultimately his choice to be isolated whereas it may not be The Grinch's choice in his story necessarily. So The Grinch's story changes in the live action version to give him more to work with, but A Christmas Carol has never changed its traditional story too much (thankfully, because I made it clear in my Christmas essay last year that I don't really like that), so basically we have to work with the same thing we've always been seeing for years, which are his dreams. Also, we're supposed to relate to Scrooge more than The Grinch because Scrooge is a human being living among others in society whereas The Grinch looks like a distant relative of Oscar the Grouch and lives in the mountains by himself. (I've never noticed this before, but they look and act a lot alike, don't they? LOL.)

Sure the ghosts show Scrooge real past and present occurrences, as well as peeking into the future and how dire it is going to be if Scrooge doesn't change his ways, but these happen in dream sequences and you know how we humans are with dreams. When we first wake up we still feel like we are in the dream, so therefore Scrooge waking up fearing that he missed Christmas and dancing around in his pajamas in his first waking moment makes sense. He is still in dream mode, that limbo between being asleep and being awake. In this moment too he asks the kid walking by his house to buy his employee Bob Cratchit a huge turkey for his family using his money. All of a sudden he now trusts little children with his money.

This is all being done right after Scrooge wakes up because he didn't even have any time to register anything. He does all of this so hastily. When we wake up from such realistic dreams, aren't we shaken up too? Don't we have trouble thinking straight and critically? As we gradually wake up, the dream starts to make no sense at all. We even start to forget it until eventually it totally disappears from our minds and we come back to reality, thus returning back to our regular routines. After a couple of days, or maybe even later on in the day, since the story seems to conclude on Christmas MORNING, Scrooge could look back on his dream and ghost encounters that Christmas Eve and consider it a bunch of malarkey, returning him back to his old, nasty self.

Looking at it now, I'm actually pretty shocked that his belief in his dream seems to last the entire day, because there are versions of the story where he attends dinners and parties. I've always wondered what exact time he wakes up actually, because the little boy answers that it's Christmas Day, not Christmas morning. If he does wake up in the morning, time moves pretty fast in the final minutes of A Christmas Carol.

I know it's supposed to be fiction so therefore reality shouldn't really matter, but all of this makes me question just how joyful and moralistic this story really is. He supposedly learns his lesson after only ONE night of dreaming, but does he really? He dreams about his rough past and how currently people don't really like him, which actually brings up some unanswered questions on Dickens's part. Knowing Scrooge, why would he care about people liking him anyway? Also, why does he all of a sudden change his tune upon seeing Tiny Tim and how the Cratchit family struggles? He almost presents himself as a misanthrope not caring much about the well being of others, so how does all of this initiate change in him?

How sincere do you think Scrooge is at the end of A Christmas Carol? After reading what I have to say about it, do you still consider it an appropriate Christmas special? What about "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?

Merry Christmas Everyone! :D

Merry Christmas! Feliz Navidad! Boun Natale! Happy Hanukah! Happy Kwanzaa! Happy Las Posadas! Happy Holidays Everyone! Enjoy Every Moment! :D

I was thinking about writing a post about some of my Christmas specials like I did with my Thanksgiving post. However, though I have a lot in mind, I thought against it because a) There are so many and writing about them would be time consuming, b) Though it crossed my mind after Thanksgiving as well, I thought of this kind of last minute and didn't necessarily have the muse to write about them all because I have been focusing on school and other blog posts so I want to do it when I have more time to focus on it, and c) I wanted to give my computer a break today. Perhaps I will do it next year leading up to Christmas Day.

This year has been one of my favorite Christmas seasons. I did a lot to celebrate this season and I'm happy about that because I feel like all I have done this year has revived the exciting spirit of Christmas that I had experienced when I was a kid. These include:

Riding the carousal and walking around seeing the Christmas cheer at the Paramus Park Mall

My friend Janis's Christmas Concert

White Christmas at Paper Mill Playhouse 

St. Thomas the Apostle 17th Annual Christmas Concert featuring the Garden State Concert Band

Christmas Dinners at Charlie Brown's Steakhouse

The Holiday Lights Spectacular at the Turtleback Zoo

Baking Struffolis

Helping my family decorate the house for Christmas

Going to Church (especially when the church is dim and quiet playing choral angelic Christmas music)

Helping my mom prepare for and cook the traditional Italian seafood Christmas Eve dinner (and eating it! It was delicious!)

Exchanging presents Christmas Day

Watching Christmas specials
Wearing Christmas attire
Wishing people Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc.
Listening to Christmas music and eating Christmas food
Taking pictures of everything (lol)

All in all, it was one of my best Christmas celebrations ever. I found myself very cheerful and am happy I got to celebrate it with wonderful people by doing a nice list of experiences to remember it! It was also very relaxing.

Here's some footage of the production of White Christmas I saw at the Paper Mill. It's funny because a week later I had to take a final for my class "Introduction to the Theatrical Medium" and I wrote about this! I also like how it was advertised around Montclair's campus. It was a very heartwarming, Christmasy show!

During intermission, this happened. I took my own video of it, but this is one I found on YouTube.

I finally got my photo with Santa! I had been wanting to do this to relive my childhood and seeing him at the Paramus Park Mall a few weeks ago had inspired me. I got it out of my system by doing this. He was an awesome Santa Clause as well. He was really joyful and even asked me what I wanted for Christmas! This photo was taken at the Turtleback Zoo by my Aunt Ea.

I also wanted to extend my wishes to you, my faithful readers! Merry Christmas! I hope you and your families have a blessed holiday! <3

Happy Birthday to Jesus Christ, our Savior! :D

Yet Another Version of The Nutcracker...

I just found out tonight that "So You Think You Can Dance" judge Adam Shankman will be directing a gothic version of The Nutcracker that will be released in 2013. See? This is exactly what I was talking about when I wrote my other piece about this very idea!

I'm sure that all of these different versions are interesting and it's nice to see different perspectives and versions of the same story. It shows creativity, enriching The Nutcracker so that it never dies out and is always a new experience. A part of me wants to see this movie when it comes out and I am interested in seeing what is done with it. But still, I have my opinions and reservations on the matter. I just find this ironic considering I just posted a full essay about the subject so I just had to post it here. It's also ironic that a man involved with one of my favorite TV shows is directing it. Click here to learn more about Shankman's film.

A Good Twist and Variation...or a Rip-off of a Classic Ballet? A Look at Changes in The Nutcracker

So I guess my question is, does change to an original classic piece ruin it, or enhance it?

Now that it is December and we are in the Christmas season, now is a good time to write about this. Last month I discovered a trailer for a 2010 3D film version of the classic Christmas ballet, The Nutcracker. Check it out:

Here's the thing. I grew up with The Nutcracker. My family and I would try to go see it every year. It is one of my fondest childhood holiday memories and actually might be the first theatrical show I had ever seen in my life, so this show is a big deal because it triggered my interest in theater. I remember the dancing, the costumes, the scenery, etc. I am attached to it.

Before I go on, allow me to provide you with the basic premise of The Nutcracker with this simple video. You'll probably need this information to understand what I am talking about. Something I forgot to include in this clip is that the "Land of Sweets" is also referred to as the "Land of the Sugar Plums." This is actually the title I grew up with. No two versions of the actual ballet are the same, but they all seem to follow a basic structure.

This 2010 movie isn't the only version of The Nutcracker that exists. There are plenty of other versions as well. Even Barbie had her own version in 2001, which doesn't really follow the set up of the original ballet in any way. What I am wondering is, do these many different versions enhance The Nutcracker and continue and perhaps strengthen the tradition it brings to the holiday season by making changes and adding different flairs to it, or do these flairs make The Nutcracker out to be a watered down joke and not as much of a classic as it once was? Should it just be left alone in its original state, should it be altered for creative purposes, or does it make any difference?

I guess you can argue that there are plenty of remakes of anything. Movies have been remade, songs have been remade, so this shouldn't be an issue. However, that doesn't mean that these remakes are necessarily good. My argument is that this is a ballet with classical music composed by Pyotr Tchaikovsky we are talking about. A lot of times it seems like dance isn't as showcased or appreciated as it should be in today's world. Today, in popular culture, dance is people in the background bouncing around in little clothing. There's not much of a focus on the art behind it. A reason why I like "So You Think You Can Dance" is because that show tries to rekindle passion in regards to dance. I think that might be why I don't take too kindly to other versions of The Nutcracker. There are too many different storylines and not enough focus on dance! It's odd that I would be saying this because in a majority of my other blog posts I discuss on how to improve storylines. In this one, however, I recognize how in The Nutcracker, dance is more of the focus rather than the actual story.

This has gotten me to thinking about why the Mouse King, the ballet's villain, is so evil. So many of these different versions always try to come up with explanations as to why he tries to take the Prince's (whom he turns into a nutcracker) kingdom away from him. In fact, it seems to be a reason why these versions are even created. They find something missing from the ballet and decide to use their own imaginations to fill that void. I can relate to this because it sounds like something I would do with my own writing and I appreciate creativity. But does it really matter? When I was a kid watching it, it never really occurred to me why the Mouse King was the bad guy, and the lack of reasons didn't alter my enjoyment of the ballet in any way. The battle sequence between the toys and the mice was actually my favorite part that I looked forward to it each time I saw it. I still love that part to this day. I think here and there I may have wondered what his motives are, but I never really sat down and truly thought about it. 

What annoys me about the 2010 movie is how the Mouse King doesn't even look like a mouse! He looks more like a Dr. Seuss character in a live action film. Growing up I remember the Mouse King having multiple heads and looking like a rodent, considering he is a MOUSE King. Also, he actually scared the crap out of me at times. Recently, the Mouse Kings don't look as frightening. At one point in the trailer the Mouse King randomly hisses...or growls...or whatever you want to call that. Is this supposed to add some scariness to his character? Well, it doesn't succeed. The growl seems to be just another ploy added to a trailer to add some exciting shock value. Randomly hissing out of nowhere does not add the same level of intensity the original Mouse Kings have.

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the numerous versions of The Nutcracker is the constant debate of the main little girl's first name. I grew up thinking that her name is "Clara," but then I find versions of her named "Marie," and finally, in this 3D film, apparently her name is "Mary." Just choose a name! Why does this kid have so many first names? Perhaps it has to do with cultural versions of it, and I don't hate the name "Marie" for her, but I just find it odd how a main character doesn't have an official first name. I also found out that the uncle who gives the little girl the Nutcracker is called Uncle Albert in the 3D version. Uncle Albert? The original guy's name is Uncle Drosselmeyer! What they're pretty much doing is Americanizing German characters. Yes, this is supposed to be a German story in a German setting. There's no need for that. American audiences can still enjoy a flick even though the characters' names are a little bit cultural. Oh! And the Mouse King is actually called the "Rat King." Wow, they are seriously going out of their way to make this guy bad, aren't they? Um, did the word "rat" just sound more evil to the writers? Hey, at least the Barbie version got a majority the names right! However, they do make her Uncle Drosselmeyer her Aunt Drosselmeyer...

From what I hear, the 3D film didn't do too well. This does not come as a surprise, people.

But another thing I often wonder is if Clara (I'm calling her Clara. I refuse to call her anything else.) and the Nutcracker Prince fall in love. Obviously they probably aren't going to touch on this in the 3D film because they have children playing the characters, but it is suggested in the ballet itself sometimes, because it did cross my mind as a kid. But it is made obvious in the Barbie version.

I'm noticing that part of the magic of The Nutcracker is making a majority of the story up for interpretation. As long as the audience knows the gist of the story and what is going on, the minor details aren't much of a bother. However, the Barbie version doesn't leave anything up for interpretation. I actually enjoy the Barbie version and own my own VHS copy of it (It's also on YouTube if you want to check it out.), but it's just not traditional! I mean, one of my biggest problems with the Barbie version is that the dances are all mushed together at the end when the Mouse King is defeated, a feat that also takes place at the very end. Dances and music that should be during the Christmas party scene or any other scene in the actual ballet take place sporadically throughout the movie out of context. Scenes like these prove that it does not follow the original structure of The Nutcracker at all. The rest of the film is dedicated to the storyline of them traveling the mystical land, developing the love story, and other additional ideas that aren't in the original ballet. It may be a good creative story, but it is not necessarily The Nutcracker.

E. T. A. Hoffmann wrote the novel, The Nutcracker and the Mouse King, on which the ballet is based. Only Hoffmann knows the real deal. So I guess there could've been arguments back then about remaking a book into a ballet as well. I don't mind if movies remake ballets, as long as they do it right. 

Okay, so I just ranted a lot and gave plenty of points, so let me try to answer my original question: Do changes to The Nutcracker ruin it or make it better? It definitely depends on the individual. I don't see how any altered version can surpass the original ballet, but that's not to say that it is a horrible movie in itself. It also depend on your age. If a child watches a newer more enhanced version of The Nutcracker, with no previous knowledge of the original ballet, he or she may think it is the most epic piece of work ever. Maybe this whole time I am comparing film versions to the stage ballets. We all know that film and stage are two entirely different mediums so that isn't entirely fair. More can be done with fun so filmmakers take advantage of the technology to use their imaginations.

The changes I noticed have a lot to do with audience and popular culture. In the 2010 version, it seems that they incorporate modern forms of technology, such as what is used in the story itself and the fact that this is the first 3D version of The Nutcracker from what I see. I'm also thinking that because these film versions seem to be gearing towards children, they include storyline and slapstick to keep them interested. However, as a person who was a fan of the ballet as a child without anything additional, everything about it kept me entertained except for one scene, and that is the final dance, the Pas de Deux, between the Prince and the Sugar Plum Fairy. It is beautifully danced and the music is just as beautiful, but boy is it boring. To me, it is the longest routine in the whole ballet. Well, at least it feels that way. The other dances can drag on a bit as well, so maybe the time that was once dedicated to the routines is now dedicated to storylines to once again keep children interested.

I think what is best is taking it as a piece standing on its own, rather than comparing it to the original ballet. Though that can be hard to do considering the similarities they have, it should be fine to watch and considered Christmas enjoyment just like the original piece.

The Symbolism of Angel Dumott Schunard in RENT: My Interpretation

As my first legitimate post I figured I'd post this. I originally wrote this last spring and published it under my Facebook Notes but figured that since Christmas has just recently passed and I also mention New Years as well, it is an appropriate choice. I was inspired to write about one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite musicals and how this character represents the true meaning of Christmas.


Warning: This note is more so for those who are familiar with the concepts and storyline of the musical RENT. I’d love for anyone to read this but just a warning that it may contain spoilers. Also keep in mind that I don’t consider myself a Renthead because I just got into it a few weeks ago so if I get some facts wrong I apologize!

It has recently occurred to me that the phenomenon musical RENT is indeed a Christmas play and movie just as much as Charles Dickens’ specialty is. Think about it. It begins on Christmas Eve and ends on Christmas Eve a year later. In the theater production, the characters sing various Christmas carols, including Jonathan Larson’s original song “Christmas Bells.” Though it would not be considered one of them jolly Christmas jingles, it is still there. Plus, there are various Christmas morals of happiness suggesting family togetherness, living life to the fullest, and just trying to make the best out of the worst possible circumstances. What I want to know is when is RENT going to become a Christmas special on ABC in the running with Rudolph, the Grinch, and Frosty? I think it would be interesting to watch Idina Menzel moo in RENT a week before Christmas Eve instead of watching Jim Carrey steal Christmas. LOL. Nothing against How the Grinch Stole Christmas, for I happen to enjoy Jim Carrey’s portrayal of the Grinch and the movie itself, but it would be nice to have RENT in the lineup for the 12 Days of Christmas. I’m just saying. :) Though one would probably not think of RENT as a family-friendly film considering the various adult references. But I say, what is wrong with a little catering to the adults of the world?

Okay so I seem to be going a little off topic. So I have already established that I find RENT to be a Christmas production. That being said, why not believe that Larson had intended for his character Angel Dumott Schunard to represent his namesake, a legitimate guardian “angel,” a symbol of Christmas. I definitely feel like there is much more to him symbolically than what meets the eye. For those of you who do not know who Angel is, the following is a brief description of him in a nutshell: He is a homosexual drag queen who prefers female pronouns and has a keen ability to bust a move in heels. She hangs out in a tree playing a drum that looks more like a white plastic bucket, falls for fellow lead character Tom Collins after rescuing him from the street after he is mugged, kills Benny’s dog (without knowing it was Benny’s) by driving the dog crazy with her drum playing to the point where the dog makes a excitable jump from the third story of a building. This is all for a rich lady who randomly shows up in a limousine complaining about how the canine’s constant barking have kept her from her slumber. Phew. Try to say all that in one breath.

Also, like a majority of the characters, she also suffers from AIDS.

Regardless of this disease, Angel is one of the more joyful characters (after all, isn’t Christmas the season of joy?) in the production while the others pout about the doom and gloom of poor living conditions, AIDS, and relationship issues. In fact, the best relationship the story has to offer is the relationship between Angel and Collins, which seemingly has no visible flaws and is very heartwarming.

When the other characters begin to split apart, hence the term “rent” being a huge theme in the production, she is the optimistic glue that holds them together, especially in the New Year scene when all of the couples begin to argue and she encourages them to form a clean slate. Even take the scene where Angel first meets Collins. She did not have to help a total stranger, and yet she did. She, Angel, Collins’ “guardian angel,” represents what Christmas is all about.

What had me begin thinking about Angel symbolizing an actual angel is when I saw one particular scene: Contact. Look it up on Youtube. That is how I saw and heard it. It is basically the scene when Angel expires from AIDS. Cut out the various sexual innuendos and orgasmic moans and you get a very spiritual moment. We find Angel standing above a flowing white sheet dressed in white (the proper angel attire in my opinion), thus giving the illusion that she is ascending into heaven. “Take me! Take me!” she repetitively cries, and we can only assume she is crying for the assistance of a higher power. However, the sexual innuendos do serve a point, for once Angel's solo occurs, the rest of the cast, unsatisfied with their night of pleasure, claim, “It’s Over,” between them, to which Collins responds, “It’s Over,” meaning Angel has lost her battle with AIDS. Notice how as soon as she finishes singing to God the rest of the couples break apart and from then on the show takes an even more depressing turn and the friends go their separate ways. Angel’s death is the “rent."

I chose to write about Angel because I find her to be one of those very inspirational and complex (in a good way) characters that you just have to analyze. She has these many qualities and associations and seems to cover a more entertaining background throughout the show in comparison to the rest of the characters who seem to travel an unchanging wave. The way her character deteriorates as she perishes and how the rest of the cast is affected once their solid rock, their “angel,” is gone, is phenomenal. She is the piece of the puzzle to move the story along and seems to do so more than the lead characters, which is ironic for she is a subplot to the Roger and Mimi love story.

Nonetheless, Angel remains to be the group’s link to each other even after death when lead character Mark Cohen cures his “filmer’s block” (play on writer’s block) and dedicates his film to her and their friends’ lives in the past year. She is the angel who helps reunite a family once again. As you can see, Angel Dumott Schunard represents practically every aspect of what the Christmas season should be.