Friends were involved in the production. They went to the premiere. Yes, biased review...but fabulous. We're seeing it this weekend.

A heapin' helpin' of The Help:

http://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com

JUST returned from seeing The Help. GREAT movie. Like all book/movie adaptions, it is hard to compare, but I think they did a wonderful job in capturing the essence of the book. The movie was packed with Phi Mus having a sisterhood night - that was fun to see. Congratulation to Tate Taylor (Ole Miss) and Kathryn Stockett.

Saw it on Monday at an advance screening with my alumnae chapter. A few thoughts:

*Way too many chocolate pie jokes. Not that it grosses me out, it just seemed like it was overdone.
*In the book, all 3 main characters narrate, but in the movie, I feel like Minny's "voice" was reduced a little, and she became comic relief in many of her scenes, especially with Celia.
*The only major change I noticed was the reason for Constantine leaving. The book's reason was considerably more heartbreaking.
*Also, if Hilly is 22, which we can assume since she grew up being friends with Skeeter, and Skeeter finished college (4 years, what an eternity)...how the HELL does Hilly have a mother who is old/frail enough to be put in a nursing home, especially since women back then/in that part of the country have kids in their late teens/early to mid 20s??? Hilly's mom would have had to be like 50 years old when Hilly was born.
*None of these things interfered with my enjoyment. I liked seeing the characters come to life and thought it was well cast.

Fiction or not, stories create opportunities to discuss issues, past and present. Our not wanting to talk about the racial issues that did and do continue to exist in America, is what the author of the article is talking about when she speaks of "cowards." The book, although not completely nonfiction, is a reflection on Kathryn Stockett's family. I read an article in Essence or Ebony (not sure which one) about the real Abilene. She is not happy about the book or the movie and is trying to sue Kathryn Stockett for how she was portrayed (not sure if she meant the book and/or the movie).

I am going to see the movie tomorrow and will come back with my 22 cents.

I'm happy for that too but it's still sad that it always takes a movie for people (all races) to be interested in that era. The racial history in America is a huge part of American history and yet people still think MLK day for example, is a day for African Americans. Slavery, Jim Crow, the Minstrel era, Civil Rights, etc...it's all American history and all of us should know more about it, plain and simple.

Should I just go see it or it is the kind of movie where I absolutely need to read the book first?

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I found the book a really quick read. I finished it in 3 days with a newborn..and I consider myself a slow reader.

I'm having a GNO with my friends/book club. We all read it for leisurely reading. I'll let you know what I think about the movie when we organize ourselves, LOL, which should be difficult with 9 people.

You can see it without reading it. You might enjoy it more that way because you won't be comparing it to the book while watching.

:) Amen.

I honestly thought it was by far the best book-to-screenplay adaptation I'd ever seen.

#1 is true - I read a review beforehand that Aibileen's voice is the only one doing a voice over (and it wasn't that often) but I don't think that means we missed the voices of the others.

#2 I didn't really see Sissy Spacek's character as frail...more as selectively demented... :D

#3 Agreed - the casting really was well done. Everyone and everything looked as I'd pictured it in my mind.

I didn't say I was happy for that.

I said "...to have the privilege to now be interested in an era...." That means it is a sign of privilege (the same type of privilege that allows some people to pretend that movies like this could only be entertainment) to be oblivious about something that has been such a big part of people's lives. That isn't a good thing and it doesn't make me happy. I consider it pathetic.

ETA: For those who don't know, "sad," "pathetic," or "a sign of privilege," in this instance is not about taking offense with someone. It is about overarching dynamics that span across individuals; and what is embedded in these dynamics. Newsflash: Topics pertaining to race and ethnicity do not require taking offense with someone.

Read "Coming of Age in Mississippi" by Anne Moody. I bought it in college and have re-read it several times. I highly recommend it.

That book was my senior thesis in college. Powerful read.

But the problem is, just because it was a "big part of people's lives" doesn't mean it was a big part of someone else's life experiences; even it was such a huge event in other's experiences.

Truly not being sarcastic, but people are raised by other people who may not emphasize certain aspects of history or other experiences. I honestly don't remember much being taught about the Civil Rights movement or the effects of Jim Crow laws when I was growing up. I think I went to the only high school in the U.S. that never read "To Kill a Mockingbird" - which, like it or not, gets some people interested in learning about Jim Crow laws and leads to learning about the Civil Rights movement.

Most people don't learn about:

- the discrimination that the Irish faced when they first moved to the U.S.

- the discrimination and anti-Chinese laws that existed in the late 1800s/early 1900s

- the Japanese experience in internment camps in WWII

-the early pre-Stonewall protests in the LGBT community to change discriminatory laws aimed at them

-how the U.S. government led a coup that ousted the Hawaiian monarchy and annexed what was a foreign country and the discrimination that the people of that country had to face in their own land afterwards

Before the argument starts: yes, I know that traditionally the African-American experience in the U.S. has been more discriminatory and had more laws against them (with the exception of the anti-Chinese laws).

My point (and I do have one) is that you seem to be taking offense with someone who is saying that they never really thought about something before and now they are. It wasn't in their experience in the past. Shouldn't it be a good thing that they are now thinking and want to learn? Look over my list. How much do you know about those experiences? And, yes, the people who had those experiences feel just as strongly about them that other people do about theirs.