Children on Broadway: Why Being Repulsive Brats Actually Works

At this year's Tony Awards on Sunday night June 9, "Kinky Boots" won it all with Best Musical, but it's obvious who the true winners are: the kids.

And it's just as well too, since everybody on Twitter claimed that "Matilda the Musical" had been robbed of the ultimate victory.

There are a lot of child cast members on Broadway lately, with "Annie", "Matilda", and soon "A Christmas Story". And every single one is extremely talented. Please keep in mind as you read this that I am not talking about the child actors themselves, but rather the children they portray.

I was never a huge fan of children in shows. They're supposed to the adorable character everyone is supposed to fawn over, but in reality they're only annoying, repulsive little brats. These kinds of characters exist everywhere. The next time you watch a sitcom, especially those consisting of family units with children, check out the younger/youngest kid. Chances are this kid is the most intelligent, smart-aleck of the litter, and we can't even loathe the kid entirely because he or she is there to charm the audience with his or her one-liners. This happens EVERY. TIME.

This is no different from Broadway musicals, apparently.

The MSU Peak Performances Student Production 2013-2014 Season!

Ladies and gentlemen, my first blog post after graduation! And what better way to celebrate than to showcase next year's theater season! :D

What? Did you think I wasn't going to care anymore because I graduated? ;)

I went to Sprague Library on campus yesterday with my dad and of course traveled to Life Hall to see if they had the list hanging up. Before I graduated and last I checked, the heading was there but the list itself was blank. But now, lo and behold, the lineup is up! :D

Normally the list consists of plays I have never heard of before, except for a select few. Out of this list I am most looking forward to A Streetcar Named Desire and 42nd Street. However, I am also anticipating the rest of the shows as well, to see what they are about. Not to mention the dance productions.

Looking forward to it!

Why Carousel is Totally Unfair to Billy Bigelow, its Main Character

(The following is my final column and favorite assignment I wrote for my Column Writing class from my Spring 2013 and final semester at MSU. My professor wrote some minor corrections on it which I have incorporated here and I also included my own changes. He told me that he liked the ending and to chose words that are appropriate for all forums. We were supposed to chose something we passionately disliked and to rip it apart, so that is the reason for my choice of words. Naturally I chose to rant about Carousel because my friends and I have been making fun of it ever since we saw it in Kasser last semester. I could've ranted about the musical in its entirety, but decided to take it a step further and discuss how unfair the writers are to Billy. Somebody has to stand up for the guy and take him down at the same time. I received a B- for this assignment. Enjoy.)

Carousel (1945) is a Rodgers and Hammerstein classic. The music is memorable, the dance sequences heartwarming. Too bad the storyline and characters are STUPID.

From my understanding Carousel is one of the first musicals about domestic violence yet a prime example of how horrible Rodgers and Hammerstein are at tackling controversial issues. However its main character, or anti-hero, Billy Bigelow, is the greatest victim because the writers put him into situations where he is doomed to fail because society just works that way.

Their manipulations go straight down to his gender and make his life terrible simply because he’s a guy. Billy is this flirtatious carousel barker that is quite possibly banging his dead boss’s promiscuous wife Mrs. Mullin and sets his sights on millworker Julie Jordan. Billy touches Julie and Mullin kicks her off the carousel. Now we can say that Billy broke the law because back then men weren’t allowed to touch women, and still aren’t really, but it’s safe to say that the catalyst for Mrs. Mullin’s actions is that she is just a jealous bitch. Billy argues with Mrs. Mullin and gets fired. Mullin returns to the story every so often to seduce him back but Billy refuses Mrs. Mullin because he is aware of her sexual intentions and is a “respectable married man” now - that hits his wife. This is where gender problems really take off. Billy marries Julie and stresses out because he’s jobless and can’t support his family. Why they got married then is beyond comprehension. It’s stated throughout that he hit Julie once out of frustration about this and everybody makes a big deal out of it, for good reason.

Men were always breadwinners, so his concern makes sense. Julie reveals to him that she’s pregnant with their kid and at the end of Act 1 he has this soliloquy song thinking about his future child. Once it dawns on him that he could have a daughter he starts to panic again, suggesting the idea that women need men to take care of them. He doesn’t seem to have any other skill besides his barker job with the ONE carousal in the area, so what else is he supposed to do? Rob someone?

That’s exactly what he and his sailor pal Jigger Craigin decide to do.

Thanks writers. That’s one point against you.

Another reason why it’s evident that these writers hate Billy so much is that Billy Bigelow is a New Yorker with attitude. They throw Billy’s New Yorker personality into a Maine population where everyone else is singing and dancing about how “June is bustin’ out all over.” Chances are if this musical were set in New York Billy wouldn’t stand out so much as a bad guy but rather blend in more with other people like him. Billy comes across as a jerk because the writers decided to make him represent the aggressive New York stereotype in a setting where everyone else does not.

After an agonizingly long and unnecessary group musical number opens up the second act about what a wonderful clambake they just had, Billy and Jigger try to pull off their heist. It goes wrong and Billy decides that instead of going to jail where he cannot look after his daughter, he stabs himself to death because apparently him DEAD would help her more. He goes to Purgatory and though Billy really doesn’t give a crap the Starkeeper decides to help him gain entrance into Heaven. The key is to get his daughter Louise, who is now fifteen, to accept a star he gives her and then he’s good. So that’s all it took to get into Heaven back then? Billy agrees and returns to Earth as a ghost.

Don’t worry. He screws this up too. He tries to talk to Louise and she freaks out so he slaps her. Julie comes out because she hears her daughter screaming. Then Louise states the most insulting line in the history of insulting musical lines: “Is it possible that when he hit me, it felt like a kiss?”

No. No it is not. That is a terrible lesson. But of course Julie stupidly justifies her daughter’s dumb conclusion by responding “Yes.”

It turns out that the kid has been ostracized because nobody liked her father. Gee, that’s shocking. So Billy shows up at her graduation and whispers encouragement. Oh and Julie accepted the star that Billy left on her front porch, so he’s all clear for Heaven now. Yay.

Writers, Billy did nothing to redeem himself so stop acting like he accomplished something. Not only do the writers set Billy up for disaster, they force him to make stupid decisions because of the stupid scenarios they create. He fails again and again and never fixes anything. The best part is he is not somebody we root for, but yet that is the perceived intention for the character.

But that’s okay. The music is still nice.

End of Semester and College Career

Hey all!

I made a promise to myself that I don't want any month to go by without a blog post, so consider this Taking it One "Stef" at a Time's "April 2013 blog post" because I don't think I'm going to be writing anymore this month at the moment.

There is a lot going on with articles, school assignments, graduation, etc., that I can't really sit down and relax to write a blog post. I have topics in mind, but haven't been able to focus on them thoroughly.

I hope to write for you again soon. In the meantime I will probably be providing you with videos and articles on other sites. Feel free to follow me on Facebook and/or Twitter for these updates.

My Final First Montclarion Article of the Semester...

...and it's a double feature! :D

Look! My final semester as a staff writer for The Montclarion they include my middle name in the byline. Cool!

I took a photo of my one page feature as soon as I grabbed the brand new issue off the shelf!

A full page double feature! This is the first page of the Arts and Entertainment section of The Montclarion. I open up the section! :)

I am so honored to have come so far as a Montclarion staff writer for four years and am proud that something like this is the beginning of the end for me.

Here is a little behind the scenes story about these two articles and my feelings about them.

This semester the Arts and Entertainment section of The Montclarion got a new editor. His name is Jonathan and I love working with him. He is always on top of things and always gets back to me right away. Those are great qualities for an editor. In the past if a show was not playing anymore The Montclarion would not really want to run my story about it after the fact. Jonathan was okay with my Equus review, and I am grateful. I had been wanting to do this since last summer after all! I wrote it like a reflection as opposed to a review that suggests whether people should see it or not. Most reviews are just opinions pieces anyway so this was good practice for me. Upon receiving my articles and photos, Jonathan replied with "Did I ever mention that you're the best? Thanks for being on top of the game. I really appreciate it." and "You da best!" These definitely stroked my confidence.

Jonathan suggested that I could also do a story on an Equus cast member and since he is friends with some people in the show he would be able to organize an interview. I have done this for freelancing before so I agreed to it and asked who he had in mind. He suggested Taylor Dear, and I was proud to do the story about him. Why?

If you remember my background story about my review of Attempts on her Life from Fall 2012, I had a brief difficulty with the play at first. Taylor happened to have been in this show as well and I interviewed him after opening night to get a quote for my article. First I asked, "What do you want audience members to take from Attempts on her Life?", which he answered. Then I asked him something like, "How does a person GET Attempts on her Life?" meaning what should audience members do to accomplish understanding the play. This is actually one of the most difficult questions I have ever asked an MSU cast member considering its broadness and how ambiguous the play is and I could tell that Taylor struggled a tiny bit with it. However, he stayed with me and took the time to think about the question and answer it even though his friends were outside waiting for him. Now, this is not to say that other cast members would not have done the same thing, but because of this I have a lot of respect for the guy nonetheless.

This past Thursday as I walked down to the Student Center to get my copy of this week's issue, I was pretty nervous because 1) I stressed a little bit about these two articles because I wanted to do justice to them since I had planned it for awhile, worked on them throughout Spring Break, and am a perfectionist with my writing in general and 2) I had not seen my articles on The Montclarion website yet so I was wondering whether or not my article would even be there! I mean, I submitted the articles and photos in good time and Jonathan acknowledged them, plus I was told ahead of time that I was the feature full page article for the week, but this has happened to me before with The Montclarion so that was from where my concern was stemming. When I was about to walk through the door coincidentally Taylor was walking out with a copy in his hands. He told me that the article is great and thanked me. I immediately felt relief, grabbed my own copy, and took the picture up above, proud of myself.

It is because of reactions like Taylor's that I love my job and what I do.

Here are my articles:

Equus review

Taylor Dear Profile

Enjoy! :D

It is always so exciting to take your own copy of a freshly printed newspaper issue from the bunch and then open it up to see your article in it after much anticipation. I was shaking and very thrilled.

PBS Kids TV Shows and their Unexplained

My gigantic PBS Kids analytical essays are back again, this time not to poke fun at useless new characters, but to discuss details of the shows that are often left unexplained. These are details that I have come across and wondered about.

PBS Kids does everything from academic lessons to moral lessons, but there are some aspects of PBS Kids that seem to miss the mark.

For example...

What exactly do the hordes/hoards (spelling?) look like in "Dragon Tales"? 

In "Dragon Tales" the dragons have these pouches on their abdomens called "hordes" and they treat them like kangaroo pouches. The dragons store random objects in them. It's like their version of backpacks, only it's built in.

However, there is something I always wondered about these things. How big are they? What is the depth of these hordes? I know this is a cartoon, but these hordes have infinite space in there. The dragons constantly and often conveniently pull out random objects from these hordes, objects that look like they wouldn't fit in them. I keep recalling Ord taking a 7-foot sandwich out of his horde in one episode. Where did he store it? How did it fit? In another episode, Zak tells Wheezie that her side of the horde is messy. Do two-headed dragons have two separate compartments in their hordes?

How much stuff can they fit in there? What do they look like inside?

The Ghost Town Universe in "Sid the Science Kid"

First of all, I really want to commend "Sid the Science Kid" for getting kids excited about learning science. It's very rare that you see a show do that. The last time we saw this on PBS Kids was "Bill Nye the Science Guy", which is oddly enough a similar title.

"Sid the Science Kid" is about a biracial little boy named Sid that is fascinated by science. Every episode he has a different science related question which is answered later on because coincidentally it is what he and his classmates end up learning about in that very episode.

Maybe perhaps one of these episodes can discuss the lack of life forms in the show.

The next time you watch "Sid The Science Kid", see if you take notice of this. The only people viewers see are the main characters. Oh, and there was also a dog in one episode. But you never see any other random people walking on the sidewalk or cars out and about. It looks like they are the only inhabitants in their town. You know how in "Arthur" even though they aren't important characters you still see random civilians around? That's not the case in "Sid". It's actually kind of scary. Almost post-apocalyptic. I guess we can say that this is because "Arthur" takes place in all different settings whereas the "Sid" setting is limited, but it is still very eerie.

The show also makes it look like there are only four kids (Sid, Gerald, Gabriela, and May) and one teacher (Teacher Susie) in the entire school because you never see anybody else on the playground or in the building. One explanation for this that I've seen people state is that perhaps Sid attends a special education school. This makes sense because special education schools often consist of smaller class sizes. We also never meet any of the other kids' parents.

But there are even episodes where Teacher Susie takes the kids on a field trip to the local science center. Guess what? You don't see anybody else in these places either.

This is a public place! Where is everybody? It often looks like the place is closed and Teacher Susie and the kids just broke in.

Wait a minute. I just found this on Wikipedia.

Well there goes that.

There's a picture of this character on Google, but I've never seen her before. She must be new. Maybe they're starting to add new characters now.

But still, she's only one character. The rest of the atmosphere is still very empty.

Additional Puzzlement: The only thing these kids learn in school is science and no other subjects. I know that the show is dedicated to science, but yeah, just wanted to point this out.

Talking Dogs in Various PBS Kids Shows: Why Dog from "Word World" was Cheated

"Word World" is an interesting show with an interesting concept. Everything in Word World is built from the letters that spell the word. For example, the character of "Dog" takes the shape of the letters D-O-G. The characters consist of animals (and objects) shaped in this way and they all speak English (and probably other human languages as well depending on where the show airs and what languages it provides).

"Dog" from "Word World"

That is, except for Dog. Even though Dog is living in a universe where there are no humans and animals can talk, Dog is the only character that acts like an everyday dog and is treated as such whereas the other animals in this universe don't act like regular everyday animals. The other "Word World" characters are personified. They speak with words and walk on their hind legs, especially characters like Sheep, Bear, and Pig. They are almost equivalent to human beings in their world yet Dog barks, walks on all fours, and is sometimes treated like a pet rather than one of them. Why is this? Why isn't he (or she) considered equal to them? See, I don't even know what gender this dog is because he or she never speaks to help me determine this, but I'm pretty sure Dog is often referred to as a "he."

When compared to other PBS Kids shows that involve talking dogs, this makes even less sense. First, let's look at the show that makes the most sense, which is "Clifford the Big Red Dog". Imagine that. A cartoon series about a red dog the size of a house being the most realistic. Well it is when it comes to talking animals. To the humans in "Clifford", Clifford and the rest of the dogs are normal pets that bark. The only time these dogs speak English is when they speak to each other, and when the dogs speak English, the only thing the humans hear is barking.

Then there is "Arthur". Recently Pal and the other pets of the series, like Francine's cat Nemo (I just found out that this is the correct spelling. This whole time I thought it was spelled "Mimo".) and Alberto's dog Amigo (Get it? Pal? Amigo? Ha! Clever!) are all of a sudden speaking English to each other like the dogs in "Clifford". However, the only difference in this show is that they are taking it a step further and the animals are also able to communicate with Baby Kate, Arthur's toddler little sister. Yes, Kate is now speaking perfect English as well, to the animals at least. This is fine I guess because normally dogs and younger children have this sort of connection in fiction.

The worst and most offensive comparison is "Martha Speaks". Ha! This is the actual title of this series, which is about a dog that walks on all fours and is able to speak English and communicate with her human peers. It is explained in the opening theme that Martha can do this because she ate alphabet soup and instead of it going to her stomach the soup took a wrong turn and traveled to her brain instead...

I'm not kidding! See for yourself! This is seriously what supposedly happened!

Hey, it's PBS Kids, people!

But here's what's so offensive about it. So you're telling me that Martha, from eating alphabet soup and having a weird digestive tract, is able to talk fluently with humans in a human run everyday world like our own? Where dogs normally don't speak and she actually lives with another normal barking non-speaking dog, Skits? But Dog can't speak in a non-human world, a place only populated by animals, where animals much like himself can but only HE cannot?

What a slap in the face! He's like the one dog on PBS Kids that doesn't speak and should considering the world in which he lives and that the rest of his peers do. Dog should totally take this up with his creator and sue PBS for this injustice!

Additional Puzzlement: Not only do Pal and Nemo speak English, they also have English accents. How did that happen? Amigo has a Latin accent because he lives with a Latin family, but the other two don't live with British families, so what influenced their British accents?

"Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood": Daniel No Longer Lives in the Clock Factory

When I saw this "Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood" for the first time, I found so many things wrong with it, so much that I was planning on dedicating an entire blog post to it. I originally thought that the people creating the show got everything wrong, especially names, and were failing at being loyal to the original "Mister Rogers" franchise, making things up and just changing things out of nowhere.

Then after awhile I got my explanation. It turns out that this show is much like a "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood: The Next Generation" type of show with Daniel getting his own spinoff starring the descendents of the original characters. Daniel hangs out with X the Owl's nephew O the Owl, Henrietta Pussycat's kitten Katerina Kittycat, King Friday's son and Prince Tuesday's younger brother Prince Wednesday, and Lady Elaine Fairchilde's daughter, Miss Elaina. Now that this is all explained, it is all well and good. But, there is one detail that still doesn't sit right with me.

Remember how back in the days of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" Daniel lived in a clock tower and any time the human characters wanted to talk with him, they simply walked over to the Clock Factory and he would pop up.

This isn't the case anymore. Now the Tiger family lives in a hut and Daniel's father simply works at the Clock Factory. Why was this changed? This is an unnecessary change because Lady Elaine Fairchilde and her family still live in the Museum-Go-Round like she originally did, so why doesn't he and his family still live in the Clock Factory? Unless I only thought that he lived there...

I just found this on Wikipedia. See, I'm not crazy! He did actually live there!

But this suggests that the original Daniel the Tiger from "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" is the father of lead character Daniel from "Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood". But I don't recall the original Daniel being called "Daniel the Striped Tiger".

Wait. From "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" Wikipedia:

Unless they edited this Wikipedia page to make it match the "Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood" Wikipedia page, but probably not.

I had to look this up to confirm because I was starting to remember. Apparently this was his name. The fact that his kid's name is Daniel as well threw me off. I thought the lead character of the spinoff series was the original Daniel. This does explain a bit why Daniel from the next generation hangs out with Prince Wednesday and not Prince Tuesday, giving a little insight into why Prince Wednesday was created. The original Daniel used to be the same age as Prince Tuesday so they had to create a younger prince to hang out with the original Daniel's son. That is, if that is their intention here and I am guessing the characters right.

Well, perhaps Daniel felt that living in a clock factory was no place to raise a family so he moved out of his bachelor pad into the hut with his family. It does make sense why Daniel still works there. He still wants to be connected to the old days. I'm just glad that he's not totally removed from the Clock Factory.

Whew! PBS Kids TV shows weren't this complex when I was a kid...

Equus is Finally Premiering this Week at Montclair State University!!!

You read me talk about it for like a year now, and now after weeks of anticipation, and some personal preparation on my part to get ready for it, it's finally here. The Department of Theatre and Dance's production of Equus premieres this week at Alexander Kasser Theater! :D

It's funny that when I was reading the book for the first time this past summer, I thought it would be staged in L. Howard Fox Theatre, but normally shows that are a big deal like this are staged in Kasser, so this makes sense. I am interesting to see how it is going to be performed and staged after trying to picture it for so long.

Since the beginning of my Spring 2013 semester, I've been seeing flyers and framed pictures of this all over the place, and every time I see it I get so pumped! :) There's always that one big show they advertise like this.

I've been looking forward to seeing this play by doing some countdowns up to this week and wondering what to expect (and if it is going to be what I am expecting), so we'll see if its theatrical nudity goodness pulls off a good show! I'm also bracing myself for any potential uncomfortable moments considering the subject matter.

I think I am going to brush up on the script again before I see it. I will also be reviewing for The Montclarion, so stay tuned! :)

For more information about Equus at MSU, click here.

To read my book review of Equus, click here.

Theater Musing Series

"Theater Musing Series" is actually a video series I created when I was a sophomore at MSU but just came up with a title for it now. These are a series of videos in which I was musing about something in the theater field and decided to interview someone from MSU to get more insight on it.

The "From the Vault" portion of the titles of these episodes so far refers to the fact that these are old videos that have existed before on Facebook and have just now been uploaded to YouTube. They are from specific blog posts on here and I had uploaded them to my Facebook page then because I didn't have a YouTube channel at the time. I had been debating about doing this for a while and so I finally decided to dedicate today to it. They are going to stay on my Facebook page, but I decided to upload them to YouTube as well to give them a broader audience. I might add to this series in the future.

As for my other Facebook videos, I may or may not upload them to YouTube as well. As for me continuing to upload videos onto the Facebook page, I am yet to determine this.

For my "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" Facebook videos, click here.

For my "Theater Musing Series" on YouTube, click here.

The Anti-Feminist Feminist Scene in THE PATRIOT

So I discovered this movie, The Patriot (2000), starring Mel Gibson and the late Heath Ledger, during the final week of my winter break. It literally played four times on the same channel, thisTV, in one week. And I watched it every time (some in their entirety and some just in clips as I switched channels). I normally don't go for war films, but this one continuously grasped my attention. There's a lot I could talk about in regards to this movie but of course for right now I am going to focus on one of the movie's few FEMALE characters. :)

Watch the scene first and then read on. ;)

Whoa! Slow down there, outspoken feminist of the 1700s! :P

This young lady is Anne Howard (Lisa Brenner), love interest of Heath Ledger's character, Gabriel Martin. And she has a lot to say.

Why it's a feminist scene:

This scene consists of a great monologue delivered by Anne standing up for what she believes. Not only does she do this, but the men in the room don't stop her from doing it and are ultimately moved by her words.

This movie takes place during the Revolutionary War and the last I checked women had little to no rights back then so it is actually pretty shocking and inaccurate to me how they let her go on and on and actually look guilty as she tells them off. This young woman speaks her mind, a full speech, and not one man in the scene tells her something along the lines of "Shut up and sit down, little girl! You have no idea what you're talking about!" Actually, they do the complete opposite. They listen to every word she has to say and are convinced to join the militia BECAUSE of her words. It is because of her, a character we know very little about, that the plot of the film shifts and moves forward. Gabriel doesn't influence them to join the militia. A woman does.

However...

Why it's not a feminist scene:

It's easy to talk tough when you're not the one doing the dirty work. I originally didn't like Anne at first because of this reason and felt that this monologue was an ongoing rant that ultimately doesn't really mean anything. She convinces them to show their patriotism with their values and claims that they are just as much patriots as she, but yet never does she say something like, "If I had the right to fight in the war I would, so why won't you?!" I do understand though too that her fighting in the war would have been unheard of then, so therefore a thought like this would never cross her mind anyway. Then again if she were to say this line, this is still talking tough without action. Sure she talks the talk, but does she walk the walk?

She makes a persuasive argument, and a well spoken one at that, but in the long run she's also going to be safe and sound (well, at least for a majority of the film she's safe) in her town while the guys she speaks to so passionately are the ones constantly in harm's way on the battlegrounds. She speaks to convince THEM to go while she stays put. It's like she's saying "You guys said all of this so you go do it even though I believe the exact same way you do and I am currently speaking about it like you do. But you guys can still go and be in danger and I'll just stay here." It's like a "speak for yourself" kind of scenario.

But, I'm probably looking at it the wrong way because the scene is clearly not intended to be perceived this way. It is portrayed as a very inspirational scene and audiences seem to really appreciate it. Perhaps this scene is trying to prove that women back then would have been willing to fight as well and to portray them in an encouraging, influential light, but yet I feel like she just does this to impress Gabriel, a man and love interest, as well. But then again this isn't a very effective enough explanation and I may not be giving her enough credit.

A bit about my reaction to the film itself as a whole:

I didn't have much internet access my final week of break, so for some entertainment I turned to TV. Perhaps if I had internet I wouldn't have watched this film. Four times.

If you haven't seen it I recommend you doing so. It was directed by Roland Emmerich. I knew that name looked familiar so I had to look it up. That is the same guy who directed Anonymous (2011).  I'm sure you remember my YouTube review of it. :P Anyway, perhaps that is a reason why I really like this movie. I had been wanting to watch another Roland Emmerich film and I did so without making this connection until now.

Okay, so I was still shocked at myself for actually enjoying a war film, considering I have had bad experiences with war films in the past, so I decided to look up details on IMDb, which says that it is rated R and I had a feeling it would be, and on here as well. Kids-in-Mind is a fantastic site for parents looking up films to monitor what their kids watch. It can also help people that are squeamish like me because it gives specific details as to what exactly happens that might be considered questionable in any film so people can be well prepared ahead of time.

I know I'm not a kid! Shut up! It's still a very useful site! :P

See the thing is I knew it had to be rated R considering the subject matter, but yet I was surprised to discover that R is its true rating, along with the high levels of gore on the Kids-in-Mind website. It didn't strike me as a rated R film as I watched it and I do not recall some of the details given on Kids-in-Mind. In fact, I was amazed at how tame the film seems for a war film.

The only conclusion I can draw, and I drew this even before I looked any of this up because it made no sense to me why a rated R gory war film did not showcase that much gore in my opinion or bother me in this way, is that the content of the film was edited for TV, so the version I watched and was okay with was the censored version, excluding most of the really gory details. In other words, I didn't get the full affect of the whole movie and was spared of some of the gruesomeness and people in pain, which is something else I really hate watching in any form of media. Keep that in mind if you are like me but are also interested in watching the film. I'd say perhaps before you rent it wait to watch it on TV if you want to avoid certain moments. Either that or read Kids-in-Mind or other sites like that, ask around for advice if you'd like, and determine for yourself what you can handle, which is better.

On a side note, does anybody else think that this actress looks a lot like Rachel McAdams? I thought it was her!

New Year Brings Good Cheer! January Brings Me Writing Job!!!

Happy Anniversary, "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time"!

To celebrate "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time's" second year anniversary, coincidentally Awesome NJ posted my articles I wrote for the site just now!

That's right, I got a writing job!!! I didn't want to say anything until the articles were posted on the site. How "awesome" is it that they were published on the same day? This is so exciting! I am very appreciative. :D

One article is a review of The Sound of Music that was playing at Paper Mill Playhouse. The other is a profile about Erica Cenci, the show's assistant director and choreographer.

I am so proud to finally include both of these articles in my portfolio. They are my first ones for the site and I enjoyed writing them.

Here's to plenty more! :D

To follow Awesome NJ, check them out on Facebook and Twitter.