How to Hospital

Hey, it's time for my once-a-year blog post!

In the last two months, I have overseen the care of a hospital patient on two separate occasions at two different hospitals for two different sets of symptoms.

I know I have the Temporary Vagrancy post, but I haven't fully documented the extent to which I have been a Hospital Chaperone over the course of my adult life.  To be clear: the patient and I are incredibly lucky in that (1) none of their ailments have been terminal, (2) we have sufficient resources - including insurance YAY MERICA - to seek adequate and comprehensive treatment and (3) I remain, by and large, healthy enough to act as caretaker.

Having said that, this most recent stay included some commentary by the charge nurse on the length of my patient's medical history.  Several unwelcome growths and one organ out, a few pieces of medical equipment in, and lots and lots of repairs.  It is difficult for the patient because it often puts them in a vulnerable, dependent state that can foster boredom and depression, and it is difficult for me because it puts me in a limbo between the monotony of everyday care tasks and the low-level background hum of hypervigilance because every cough, wound or fever could mean another ER trip.  We're better at coping that we used to be, worse that we will be someday.  Such is life.

As a result, I have cultivated a series of habits around hospital stays.  Whether the trip is anticipated (as the penultimate one was) or a surprise (as the most recent one was, Merry Christmas!), the same practices proved vital in keeping a level head and being able to provide care to my patient.

1. Feel your feelings.  This sucks.  Even if it's something you wanted and planned, it's hard to be somebody's chaperone in a hospital.  On this last occasion, as it became clear my patient was going to need to go to the ER, I said aloud to God in my kitchen at 6:30AM, "Why are you doing this to us?"

2. Phone, charger, and something to read.  Self-explanatory.

3. Small blanket.  Hospital spaces are small and uncomfortable for people who aren't the patient.

4. Dress in layers.

5. Accept The Help (When It's Actually Helpful).  This one's going to take some unpacking:

    a. If you're like us and blessed to have family and friends who are genuinely available and want to help, you can give them something to do.  Let your dad bring you Wendy's even if you don't mind going to the hospital cafeteria.  Let your pastor cut your grass.  Let your mother-in-law bring her homemade chicken and dumplings.  If somebody wants to say that this makes you a burden or weak or whatever, please point them to this blog post and to me personally and they can take it up with me.  You have enough to worry about.

    b. If your patient is conscious, set an appropriate expectation with them of when you are and are not going to be at their bedside.  Condition Two Is Not Optional - Get Out Of There Once A Day.  You can't pour from an empty pitcher and there are paid professionals there to care for your patient.  Obviously this will vary based on age, capabilities, procedure being done, etc.  In Temporary Vagrancy, I slept in waiting rooms because that procedure was pretty massive and my patient was in ICU.  Once my patient was out of ICU, I alternated with family members and spent some nights at home.  This last time, once my patient was moved to a nice quiet room which was definitely *not* furnished for a second person to sleep there, my patient and I agreed very quickly that I would stay until evening and then spend the night at home.  I was much more useful to my patient and their medical team well-rested and in good spirits than exhausted, drawn and stressed out.

    c. The only people you are obligated to make comfortable are your patient and yourself.  If you want people to sit with and talk to you, send texts and bring in that cavalry.  If you want to be left alone, it's ok to say so.  Hospitals are public places, so it might be that someone insists on being in the waiting room that you don't want, but doesn't warrant getting security involved - this is a good time for headphones and/or a book.  Treat it like public transit.  And of course, if at any time you feel that you or your patient are not safe as a result of someone else's presence, alert the hospital staff immediately.

6. Treat yourself.  If you have a planned hospital trip, you'll want to do this the night before or morning of.  For those unplanned trips, do this during your first appointed away-from-bedside time.  I like to exfoliate using only the finest sandpaper scrubs CVS has to offer, shower and put on extra moisturizer because hospitals are super dry.  I walk out of that process feeling like a whole new person, ready to sign all the forms and fetch all the jellos.  For you, this might look like exercise, a manicure, or sitting in the corner of a Starbucks dissociating.  You are not selfish for investing time and effort into your own well-being, particularly when your charge is being looked after by people with nursing and medical degrees 24/7.  This is the most qualified set of babysitters you'll have; use them.

Maybe all of this is simple stuff that everyone else figured out long before I did.  Maybe this actually means that I am a selfish dirtbag millenial with no compassion.  Maybe these aren't really lifehacks at all and I've just grown so used to my patient being in the hospital that I've become able to maintain normalcy despite it.  But these things help me.  Maybe they can help somebody else.

Don't Be A Jerk - Workshop Choir Edition

 

I'm crossposting this on both of my blogs because it's that important to me.

Let me tell you a story!  When I was a younger, dumber teacher, I sent some kids to an honor chorus unprepared.  I hadn't read the emails carefully enough and didn't notice that a piece was attached to the email rather than sent with the other sheet music, and I also hadn't followed up with my students to make sure they were listening to their tracks (had I done so, we would have noticed that there was an extra track with no sheet music.)  My students were not alone in this boat, but it was still a pretty small minority of kids in the choir.  Their conductor, upon discovering that some kids in the choir not only didn't listen to their tracks, but were fully short a piece of music, asked them to name their schools so that he could personally contact their teachers.

BIG OWIES.  The threatened contact never happened, but just the threat was enough to make me feel terrible and motivated me to never make that mistake again.

And he was right.  He didn't shame the kids because he knew it wasn't their fault.  It was mine.

Over the years, I have become less young, less dumb, and have had the good fortune to experience these events from several sides.  I've observed close friends organize these events - those are the real heroes.  They toil endlessly for no money and no glory.  I've been an accompanist, an instrumentalist, and even a conductor a couple of times.  Between my past mistakes and my accumulating experience, I've got some clout behind me when I tell you: DON'T BE A JERK.  

To the kids, that is.

When you walk into those scenarios, sometimes there's a wide gulf between your expectations and the singers' actions.  It's possible, perhaps even likely, that you'll encounter something you don't like.  If that happens, here's what you should do:

1. Sit with and examine your reaction.  Is what you dislike objectively wrong, or is it just something you're unaccustomed to or a cultural difference?  

For example: music teachers in this region are, by and large, a pretty punctual bunch.  If we're going to be late, it's usually only by 10 minutes unless something has gone significantly wrong.  But there are whole cultures in which punctuality is not a thing.  We might like it and it might make things easier from our perspective, but it's not an objective good.  It's ultimately a habit that we've framed as a virtue to bolster our own egos.  This is coming from someone who is obsessively early to everything, lest you think I'm making excuses for being late to things.

Point is, if you can be honest with yourself and find that what you dislike is not objectively bad, then seek out ways to compromise.  If you don't feel comfortable doing that, it's ok to teach something different as long as you present it without judgment.  You can say, "I would prefer it this way" without also saying "You are wrong and bad."

2. If it is something that could be considered objectively wrong, such as my anecdote about unprepared/unsupplied singers, remember what the real source of the problem is.  Berating the kids will only create problems, not solve them.  It's ok to feel disappointed, and it's definitely ok to have high standards and to push the kids to develop better habits.  But again, these are things you can do from a nonjudgmental place.

You can say, "Hey, guys, let's make sure we're listening closely when someone has a question because the answer could make all of us better at this."  You don't need to say, "Shut up, you guys are so rude."

You can say, "This is a challenging piece, and this tempo makes it even more challenging.  But I know you can apply yourself and meet that challenge!"  You don't need to say, "Now we'll do it at the real tempo - try to keep up."

You can say, "Let's alter this piece a little so we can feel more secure and focus on other elements of our performance."  You don't need to say, "Why didn't you work on this?  Do you not care?"

You can say, "Our voices can do so many different things, it's amazing!  I'd like you to try to do it this way for this one piece, so that we can show off our versatility."  You don't need to say, "Do it like this recording.  Why aren't you doing it like this recording?  It would be good if you would just try."

You can say, "Ok, we're all getting a little frustrated.  How about we take a break from this piece and we'll regroup and find a solution later?"  You don't need to say, "We are DONE rehearsing this piece *slams music down in frustration.*"

Those kinds of problems are only a little bit the kids' fault.  They're largely the fault of either *your* misplaced expectations or biases, or circumstances and/or adults in their lives that aren't able or willing to model differently or follow up.  Again, people like the teacher I used to be.

If you can't accept that and place the fault where it really belongs...if you can't control yourself because you're "just so passionate" about your job...if you can't find it within yourself to create a positive experience for kids...

Then don't take K-12 conducting gigs.  Because you're a jerk.

Sunday Morning

I have so many memories of Sunday morning...

Being 11 and going to this tiny office space in a shopping center for church.  It was called Lanier Hills.

Being 12 and going to that same church, but this time it was in a beaten-up old movie theatre.

Being 13 and finally going to the newly built facility on Duckett Mill Road.  Pretty screens, fresh paint, new stage, the works.

Being 14 and joining the choir, sometimes sitting in on keyboard.  Watching your worship pastor run the band and choir like a theatre troup, with great skill, virtuosity, and pressure.  Christmas At Lanier.  Practices starting in July.  The November Thanksgiving food boxes.  Rehearsals until 8, 9, 10pm.  Stage lighting.  Gobos.  Stand lights.  Watching the pianist and thinking, "I'd like to do that someday."

Being 16 and becoming the pianist.  More Christmas at Lanier.  Recording albums.  Being at the church until at least 8 every Tuesday and Wednesday (because you also play and sing for youth) and from 7-noon every Sunday.  Special events.  Watching the choir director and thinking, "I'd like to do that someday."

Being 17 and feeling as comfortable and happy in your church as you do in your home or in chorus class at school.  Hanging out with your bandmates, inside jokes, pranks, sharing life together.

Being 18 and watching the whole pastoral staff that you've grown up with through high school walk out one by one over the course of six months.  Worrying that your church is falling apart.  Watching a former youth group musician rise to the worship pastor position and you becoming the choir director.  Learning how to conduct.  Learning that you don't deal with adults talking over you the same way you deal with students talking over you.  Learning how to conduct and play piano at the same time.

Being 19 and watching a new set of pastors come in.  Becoming attached to them, even the one you argue with because he doesn't like to be disagreed with and you don't like to be pushed around.  Becoming particularly attached (in a big-brother way, not a creepy way) to the associate pastor because he's really relatable and funny.

Being 21 and watching the choir slowly shrink into oblivion, as it did for every contemporary church during that time, because choir is less and less a part of people's musical experience now.  Becoming the assistant worship director because your worship pastor has suffered a medical setback and needs help (and because the church doesn't want to lose you just because the choir's gone).  Preparing for Christmas plays that operate on a far smaller, less formal scale than the juggernaut of Christmas At Lanier.  Preparing for Easter sunrise services that feel much more rushed and fraught than any Christmas At Lanier.  Bonding particularly with the associate pastor because you have similar senses of humor and similar tendencies toward tact and mediation rather than confrontation.

Being 22 and watching your church multiply by establishing a second campus.  Choosing to be the worship director for the second campus so your worship pastor can operate out of the "home" campus.  Also because the second campus is closer to your house and the associate pastor that you really like is the lead pastor there.  Starting to form bonds at this second campus and enjoying the feeling of newness and uncertainty.

Being 23 and watching your worship pastor, whom you had known since you were 15 and who had been a throughline for you amid all the changes, need to relocate for his family and being suddenly and frighteningly swept into the worship director (you're always a "director" because you're a girl and can't be ordained in this denomination) position.  Struggling to find your identity because the job you *actually* want is unavailable right now.  Cobbling together a work schedule between teaching at a tiny private school, working in music retail, and this church job for which you feel musically overqualified and spiritually underqualified.  Listening patiently and politely while people who don't actually know you give you advice about how to fix yourself.  Drawing very near to the people in your worship bands, who support and love you and form a hedge of protection around you.

Being 24 and watching the second campus move into the building it's in now (albeit under a different name and leadership).  Broken A/C, an uninhabitable auditorium and bumpy carpet, but a lot of goodwill and positivity.

Being 25 and finally getting that dream job.  Realizing you can't do that job well *and* the worship director position well.  Resigning from your paid gig, but staying on as the Sunday morning pianist and being the frustrating gadfly at every rehearsal.  Continuing to draw nearer to the people at this second campus and eventually feeling your ties to the original Lanier Hills dissolve.

(This is the part where I stop remembering how old I was when stuff happened.)

Getting the auditorium into Sunday service shape and moving in.  Casting vision.

Growing to the point where we could support ourselves financially and remove the burden of our mortgage from Lanier Hills - thereby becoming Journey.  New logos, colors, T-shirts...staff coming on as we become more and more able to support them.  More inside jokes.  Laughter.  The chili competition.  Camaraderie.  Failed Christmas plays.  Taxidermy in the War Room.  Successful Christmas and Easter services.  Hilarious mishaps, like sudden Sunday power outages.  Lakeside services.  Feeling at home like you used to.

Hiring a worship pastor with fresh eyes, lots of energy and lots of ideas.  New tech.  New patterns.  Being a complete pain the butt to him because you can't help your hairy eyeball.  Realizing that not only does he tolerate it...he sort of likes it and appreciates it.  Becoming fond of him and finding that playing for him is some of the most fun you've ever had in this role.

The sudden, shocking and painful loss of a pastor you've loved (again, in a fully platonic way) more than any other.  Alongside it, a resolve to stay right where you are because these people are your tribe and you're going to be there to provide stability and familiarity.  Just like you did the last two times.

The pastor who said yes and then said no.  The pastor who agreed to interim even though his health often made this burden dangerous.  The pastor who came on board for a few months, then scampered off because he didn't get the response he wanted.  (There might be one of those that I'm still bitter about.)

Finally, the latest pastor.  The latest name change to North Hall Church.  New logos again.  New colors again.  Lots of new faces in the crowd.

*******************************************************************************

I have put music on a Sunday morning stage for 21 years.  For at least the first 10 of those, I only missed one Sunday a year.  I make this joke about a lot of things, but it's still true: it all feels like yesterday and like 400 years ago.

On the one hand, I've never actually left a church during this time.  When I started going to the church I'm at now, it was a second campus of Lanier Hills.  I wasn't leaving, but rather expanding my existing church.  The other changes took place over my head.

On the other hand, I feel like I've gone to a different church every year.  The faces in the choir, then the band, changed constantly.  New leadership.  Reorganization.  Name changes.  People who dropped in and blew away like autumn leaves.  People who came to serve and left for missions.  People who came to build and left to build anew.  People who came to seek righteousness and left in handcuffs.

The longest break I've ever taken was one month, and that was a defined break.  I knew exactly which Sunday I'd return.

It has been a tumultuous and wonderful ride.  But guys.  I am TIRED.  I've had plenty of Sundays where I was ready and rarin' to go to church and plenty where I only went because I was expected to be on stage and I am ready for a change.  I am ready to start to explore my spiritual life more deeply, and for me, that means I need to extricate it from my profession.  Lots of people don't have that problem, but I do...I feel that I am stifled a bit by "church" and "job" being so closely connected.  I bring teacher brain to band practice and it's time to step back.  It's time to appreciate church for community and for spirituality rather than as a place to exercise my music muscles.  That was fine when I was younger, but it's becoming a hindrance now.

On a more sentimental note - I worry that my constant presence is a hindrance to someone else's journey.  There might be some kid in the crowd that sees me up there at the piano and thinks, "I'd like to do that someday" and I am delaying their someday by being up there.  I got my start at 14 (keyboard) and 16 (piano) because people we thought were irreplaceable needed replacing.  It's time to get out of the way and let someone else start writing their story.

So I'm going on an indefinite sabbatical.  I'm not leaving the faith, just giving this specific ministry a break.

Diana, Linda, Scott, Kevin, Skitch, Fletch, Cupcake, Sam, Dave, Julie, Chelsea, Chase, Jay, Jonathan, Beth, Stevie, Christi, Bradley, Kay, Megan, David, Jimmy M., Hastin, James, Keith, Jeff, Matt, Bud, Brett, Mitch, Jason S., Jennie, Chad, April, Trent L., Angela, Jason C., Kelly, Steve A., Jimmy S., Lindsey, Ashley, Will, Vanessa, Ferg, Cameron, Alan, Geezer, Greg, Kelli, Kendal, DB, Stoneburner, Don, Anita, Sarah, Trey, Chris, Jamie, and so many more that I can't even remember them all...

...Jon, El Gato, Charlie, Dan, Amber and Billy...

...thank you for everything.  See you wherever there's free food.

A Simpleton's Appreciation of Tarantino's "Last Film"

 I put "last film" in quotes because I don't believe for one second that it's really his last.

Massive Once Upon A Time In Hollywood spoilers, FYI.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is, in some ways, along similar lines as his last few films.  Tarantino rewrites a brutal, unjust history in such a way that the villains receive their due punishment.  We have no sympathy for Calvin Candie because he is symbolic of a violent, overtly racist system whose tendrils haunt us today.  We have no sympathy for Hitler because his evil and ruthlessness remains unfathomable nearly a century later.

In Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Tarantino once again invents a death that feels, at least partially, justified.  The Manson Family murderers were victims of brainwashing and cult programming, but at the end of the day, they took lives and are therefore given no sympathy when their lives are taken in fiction.

However, where Tarantino broke from his pattern is that, in addition to adding a deserved (depending on your stance on capital punishment) death, he also redacted a death in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  You could make a thin case that the remaining Basterds' lives represent escaped or resistant Jews, or that Django and Hildi represent escaped slaves...

But Sharon, Jay and Abigail unambiguously survived the events of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  To me, this added great poignance to the last scene.

Before the closing scene, there's a grand Tarantino catharsis wherein the baddies get what they deserve.  Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio's chatacters dispense with the Manson family forthwith in dramatic, violent and highly entertaining fashion.

Now, in past Tarantino films, this is where it ends or is close enough to the ending that you still feel that triumph.  Django blows up Candieland and rides off with Hildi.  Aldo drives Landa to the woods and carves a swastika into his forehead that he "can't take off."  We all walk away feeling like rock stars.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood has a similar catharsis, but that isn't the end.  Cop cars investigate and an ambulance comes to repair Pitt's character, which rouses the fictional Sharon (who is pregnant), Jay and Abigail.  The energy comes down and Sharon (Margot Robbie) invites Leo's character to her home.  No grand anthem, no closing laugh...the camera just pans to the sky.

Inglourious said, "This is how this man should have died!"

Django said, "This is how people like this should have died!"

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood said, "This is how this woman and her beloved and her friends should have lived."

It is at once comedy and tragedy, parody and tribute, fantasy and eulogy.  The last shot is beautiful and incredibly painful and I am filled with fresh mourning for people I've never met every time I watch it.

Apparently I'm a Film Critic Now (Pet Sematary)

I realize that it's been literal decades since blogs went from "online journal" a la Open Diary or Xanga to "pretend journal that is actually a carefully curated, polished online publication."  But don't let that cultural shift fool you into thinking that this is becoming a movie blog...this will cease to be a movie blog (indeed, will probably cease to be a blog at all for a while) once school starts again.

Should be obvious, but just in case: I'm going to massively spoil all three versions of Pet Sematary - novel, 1989 film and 2019 film.  Seriously.  Like, about to dissect all three in detail.

I read Pet Sematary on a whim during Spring Break this year and really liked it.  I'm not a writer by any means, but I feel like it works on a lot of levels.  There's the obvious, surface-level scares like zombie cat, flashback story of the zombie veteran with the demon voice, the Wendigo, stabby zombie kid, etc.  Then there's the deeper level that digs into what I think of as the "secular sacred" - things that people consider taboo on a human level rather than a cultural or religious one.  Obviously no line is truly universal, but I think there's plenty of reverence/fear for the death of an innocent, the bond between parent and child, the oppression of grief and the awfulness of the choice between living with the grief or profaning the grave.  I think those are the things Stephen King was talking about when he referred to Pet Sematary as the book that scared him the most.

I have a lot of feelings about different elements of the novel's plot and how they were handled by both movies.  Try to act surprised.  I've started this blog post several times and decided to organize it by plot element and character rather than by adaptation.

The Doctor

• In the book: Since it's a book, we can see Louis Creed's thoughts and whatnot.  The book would be third person limited, except that toward the end King takes us into his wife's and Jud's thoughts too.  Like lots of King protagonists, Louis isn't set up to be some saint or superman - he's a perfectly normal man.  Sure, every now and then he'll look at a pretty girl, or in frustration with his kids will fantasize about leaving it all and working at Disney, but ultimately he's a decent fellow who loves his family.
• 1989 film - There's an important argument Louis and Rachel have in the book that is completely omitted from this film.  I know you can't put everything from the book in the movie, but cutting that and similar conversations was the wrong choice.  Generally, my gripes about the 1989 film have to do with it trying too hard to adhere to the novel blow-by-blow - it ends up being a highlight reel with little to no character development.  The 1989 Louis has like two facial expressions and one tone of voice right up until the end.  He was Kristen Stewart before it was cool.
• 2019 film - This film spent more time in conversations and relationships.  There's still less than the novel, as there has to be unless it's a miniseries or something, but generally I think the 2019 version made much better choices about what book elements to omit.  The aforementioned argument is combined with other conversations in the novel and it gives lots of depth to Louis and Rachel in a short period of time.  So a better script and a much better actor make the 2019 Louis a more recognizable and sympathetic figure.  He comes much closer to embodying the torture and darkness described in the novel.

The Wife

• In the book - Rachel's big hang-up with death is made clear pretty early on, but the reason for it is revealed slowly.  Like Louis, Rachel is well described and realistic; in her actions, her dialogue and the occasional glimpses into her thoughts, she is made recognizably human and lovable and we are emotionally affected by the compound tragedy in her story.  I did roll my eyes a little at the intimate scene, which bordered on instructive, but I think that's a King trademark. 
• 1989 film - Like the 1989 Louis, 1989 Rachel is a cardboard cutout.  I am a little more sympathetic to this actress' plight because she has like 7 lines total, so she REALLY has no opportunity to give Rachel any life at all.  Since that all-important argument is cut, her hang-ups with death and the reasons for them have no teeth at all.  She has no righteous anger or compelling anxiety...just another scared blonde in a horror film. 
• 2019 film - This Rachel benefits from more screen time altogether, both because of the restored conversations early on and from some straight up abandonment of the novel's plot at the end.  The 2019 film makes the very smart decision to not have Rachel popping back and forth so much, so we get to see her grapple with her Zelda issues alongside the Church storyline so that more ground is covered in less time.  And having her come back and verbalize her feelings about Zombie Kid is just fantastic.  It heightens and further exposes the conflict of death versus reanimation, which is one of the *real* scary things about the story.

The Extended Family 

• In the book - Rachel's parents are kind of jerks, and they for sure don't like Louis.  The Daddy-hates-boyfriend trope is a little worn, but it does add salt to the funeral fight and subsequent reconciliation.  And wouldn't ya know it, soon as Dad starts to care about Louis, Louis needs lots of caring about.  Not that it helped much.
• 1989 film - In the interest of time, the part where Dad bribes Louis to break up with Rachel is cut.  It's just barely alluded to before the Thanksgiving trip and in what I think is a word-for-word transcription of the novel's funeral fight.  But without the preceding history, the fight just looks cartoonish and stupid.  In fact, I think this movie comes close to building some real sadness immediately after the child death, but then the fight happens with literally no warning or obvious reason and all that pathos breaks.  No salt.  Also, Dad's stereotypically Jewish mannerisms in this movie could have come from a Family Guy cutaway.
• 2019 film - Like the other movie, this one also cuts the bribery part.  Know what else it cuts?  Practically everything else having to do with Rachel's parents, including the Thanksgiving trip and the fight.  The ghost (HAHAHAHA) of that subplot remains when Louis tells Rachel how irresponsible her parents were for leaving her alone with Zelda.  Otherwise, they may as well not exist.  To me, that makes way more sense when it comes to dropping elements for a film.  The possible payoff of added tragedy and emotional pain was not worth the sacrifice of pacing and runtime, so they smartly removed it wholesale and spent more time on a smaller circle of characters.
  

The Zelda Subplot

• In the book - Rachel's breakthrough is a beautiful moment in the book.  We've been frustrated and confused alongside Louis for quite some time, so to finally understand what she went through is a relief to him and to us.  The Oz The Gweat And Tewwible thing is used to mess with our brains...it pokes at us like a song stuck in our heads and helps the reader feel unsettled or bewildered when Louis feels that way.  When I re-read the book knowing I was planning to dive into the movies, I thought, "Ain't no way this element makes it into the films.  It's too weird, takes too much explaining, doesn't deliver enough scares and there are better ways to achieve the same effect on film."
• 1989 film - Welp, I was right about Oz.  Rachel's explanation of Zelda is understandably rushed in comparison to the book, but it's also a little breathless and fake.  She doesn't look sufficiently grotesque to me, which might be due to the time period.  I don't feel afraid of her when she's "revealed" or when she threatens Rachel later on.  And when Gage holds a cane and has her dress and hat on, ostensibly to draw a connection between them to make up for the demon-who-knows-your-secrets thing, all I can do is sing, "It's hard out here for a pimp..."  To me, this movie would have benefited more from removing Missy and Zelda and restoring Norma for the first death.
• 2019 film - Oz makes a cameo in one of Ellie's lines - "The great and terrible."  Which, I'll admit, comes across as a weird non sequitur if you haven't read the book.  Similarly weird is the altered version of Zelda's death.  I understand that asphyxiation as described by the book is hard to make look truly scary and that the dumbwaiter creates jumpscare opportunities, but it still reads a little shoehorned.  "I wasn't supposed to use the dumbwaiter because it broke sometimes."  ...wat?  But I will say that Zelda's appearance is much scarier in this version and that the Zelda connection is made much creepier at the end.
  

The Kids Beforehand

• In the book - Standard-issue kids until Gage dies.  It leans too hard into the cheesy father-son bonding in an effort to make Gage's death hurt a little more, but at least there's the vomiting and terrible-twos for a little balance.  Ellie's psychic abilities are well established, if a little heavy-handed.
• 1989 film - The pre-accident kids are handled similarly to the book.  Ellie's lines in particular are a great study in how dialogue in a novel and dialogue in a film sometimes need to differ - what book Ellie says without much of a problem makes 1989 Ellie sound...just weird.  Having said that, the actress playing Ellie does a good job with what she has.
• 2019 film - Just like it's hard to make asphyxiation look scary, it's hard to build a deep relationship between a father and his preverbal toddler son beyond the obvious.  So instead, Gage is more peripheral, save for a brief foreshadowing that he's the psychic this time, and the relationship between Ellie and her parents is established.  This Ellie has fewer "I said this in the book" lines - indeed, fewer lines altogether until she dies - and more mannerisms, like fake ballet and wandering/nosy curiosity.   

That Darn Cat

• In the book - Church comes back janky, not mean.  Also, I feel like the neutering plot point was unnecessary if the cat was gonna get run over anyway.  Like the love scene, I feel like this is Stephen King's personal journal creeping into the book.
• 1989 film - Church comes back mean, and Jud KNEW HE WOULD MANNNN, because so did his dog!  "I had to teach Ellie that dead is better" is an awkward explanation in the novel and it's even worse here.  Also they keep him after he came back mean because....?
• 2019 film - Church comes back mean, so they do the somewhat understandable, if inhumane, thing and "lose" him.  I suppose they had to set up continuity so that when later zombies are mean, it all holds, but I feel like they missed an opportunity with their fancy 2019 special effects to make Church janky in addition to mean.  I guess they wanted to keep it as realistic as possible and didn't want to end up with an obviously CGI cat taking us out of the movie.
  

The Neighbor and History

• In the book - Jud's probably my favorite character in the book.  Like Rachel's story with Zelda, Jud's history with the sour ground is a good slow build to a satisfying conclusion, if you can call slaughter satisfying.  Norma is a little shallow in terms of characters, but I think that's intentional, so that we can feel as separated from her death as Ellie does.
• 1989 film - I'm pretty sure Jud has the most lines in this movie.  Admittedly, that makes sense - he's a major force for both exposition and plot.  By his second scene, I said aloud, "Fred Gwynne is working so hard in this movie."  As I write, I'm trying to decide if that's fair or not.  After all, he does have more opportunity than anyone else to do some acting.  But man, when he and Louis are headed up to bury Church, the juxtaposition between Louis's performance and Jud's is pretty striking.
• 2019 film - Jud is made more distant and creepy rather than a close family friend, although there's a little of that as well.  In the book and the 1989 film, we're meant to trust him from the first and feel for him when he deals with his internal struggle.  In the 2019 film, we always sense that he's a little off.  He's also not the sole source of information about the Sematary, as you'll see later...
  

The "Paxcow"

• In the book - If being in the room when someone dies makes you the recipient of Ghost Advice, Louis should be seeing way more people than Pascow.  He's not a brand-new doctor, man.  Also, "The barrier must not be broken...the ground is sour" and so on is all well and good, but Pascow is a 1980s college kid, so why can't he just say, "Yo, don't bury anyone past this point."  As far as their little hike together, the book does a great job of detailing the panic and rationalization Louis goes through.
• 1989 film - The special effects on Pascow are actually pretty good here.  His head wound is proper grody.  But his sight gag of being on the airplane with Rachel just annoys me, and the post-hike panic by Louis is cut.  He goes straight from muddy feet to the laundry chute with narry a scene.
• 2019 film - I worry that there's some tokenism at work with the casting of Pascow here... particularly when the poc doctor character has been cut for time.  Aside from that, this Pascow is appropriately spooky and we get a truncated, but still palpable, shot of Louis's bewilderment at his muddy feet.

The First Death

• In the book - Norma's death is the hinge point for a lot of things: Ellie's deepening grasp of death, Rachel's continuing avoidance of it, and Jud's modeling of healthy grief ahead of Louis's loss.  Like I said before, she's more of a distant acquaintance, both to us and the characters, so her death is sad but not overwhelming.
• 1989 film - So.  They deleted Norma entirely, choosing instead to beef up the Missy character.  I think they were trying to make her super awkward and off-putting intentionally, creating the knowledge-but-distance the book had with Norma in a different way.  Having her hang herself was an opportunity for what would have been mildly shocking imagery in 1989 that Norma's more conventional death would not have provided.  At first, I think I was just angry that they took Norma out.  In retrospect, I think they just made one choice among many possible ones that just happened not to be the choice I would make.
• 2019 film - Doesn't happen.  Norma's death is moved to before the Creeds move in and Missy is eliminated entirely.  The Pet Sematary conversation contains elements of all of Ellie's understandings of death from the book, and adds the notion that Ellie is vaguely aware of Zelda.
  

The Second Death 

• In the book - Happens while Ellie and Rachel are gone, so they are never aware of a resurrected cat and only vaguely aware that Church is janky.
• 1989 film - Sticks to the book
• 2019 film - This time, Rachel and Ellie are present, but don't see the dead cat.  Louis tells Rachel about it, but Church returns before they tell Ellie.  Rachel then assumes the cat was never dead, joking that she's glad Louis isn't a vet.
  

The Big Tragedy

• In the book - Gut wrenching.  Especially when it details how Louis replays it again and again, only this time he saves Gage.  Oh right by the way - Gage dies in the book.  This is important to remember.
• 1989 film - Another moment that could have been truly emotional, but they stifle it with a campy "NOOOOOOOO" and a too-soon cut to baby pictures and whatnot.  I feel like they were aiming for "overwhelmed by memories" and fell short.
• 2019 film - I'm sure the big switcheroo is foreshadowed plenty of times (the movie poster, for example), but there were two instances I picked up on.  The first is when Church comes back - he knocks over one of the wooden letters that spells "Ellie" on her dresser.  The second is super obvious - Gabe drew the picture of someone bleeding, meaning he's the psychic and Ellie's the zombie.  The way they shot it hits me as almost poetic: Gage sees Ellie and Church and starts running toward the road, but Louis catches him in time.  Just like the novel's Louis played in his head over and over.  But like they said in MIB3, where there is death there must always be death.  So in exchange for keeping Gage, we lose Ellie.

Brief sidebar: I often think that, in the era of Saw and The Human Centipede and whatnot, there's little to nothing that horror movie makers won't depict in detail.  But both adaptations of Pet Sematary approach the death of the child with allusion and subtlety - quite a contrast from the deaths of Missy, Church, and Pascow.  The secular sacred at work.

The Warning 

• In the book - Jud is at war within himself.  He finds the strength to warn Louis not to do it, but the Wendigo puts him to sleep when the game is on.  King's zombies kind of straddle the line between zombie and possession victim - that makes the flashback plenty scary.
• 1989 film - Another example of Fred Gwynne earning that paycheck.  "She knew it was an abomination!" with those wide eyes while Louis sits there looking like he's trying to get a popcorn hull out of his teeth is quite something.  The flashback definitely looks scary, but I was disappointed when it became clear that the movie was dropping the "dead person knows all your secrets" subplot.
• 2019 film - Jud's regret is scooted back to the scenes where Church comes back mean.  Once Ellie's dead and Louis gets the idea, he just drugs Jud to keep him out of the way.  The flashback is reduced to a news-article montage, which is a little hackneyed but acceptable for the greater cause of a decent runtime.  The zombie's various capabilities are therefore all revealed in Ellie later.

The Lazarus Effect

• In the book - King indulges in some nastiness.  Injuries left from the accident, underground things, etc.  Plus, this two-year-old says some REALLY grown-up things all of a sudden.  Resurrected Gage is frightening, obscene and heartbreaking.
• 1989 film - Just as the film averted its gaze when Gage died, so too did it treat his reanimated form with delicateness.  He's a little pale and has a scrape on his head, but otherwise he looks just like Gage when he was alive.  He's not even dirty.  Like I said before, the whole reveal-your-secrets thing is abandoned in this film; instead, like Church, Gage comes back mean and aims to take people out like he's auditioning for John Wick.
• 2019 film - Ellie's level of unsettling lands in between Book Gage and 1989 Gage.  She's not sporting obvious injuries as you would expect based on how she died, but she's not just dusted with white powder and sent on her way either.  She differs from her brothers (lol) in that she is the sole model for how a human reacts to being reanimated and she retains aspects of both prior approaches as well as some gifts of her own.  She knows secret things just like the book zombies, but in her case it's because she met the spirits of other departed people while she was gone.  She's mean and out to get folks just like the book and 1989 zombies, but it's because those people did something to deserve it: Jud did something unspecified to Norma, Rachel secretly wanted her sister to die and also "didn't do anything" to prevent Ellie's death, and Louis brought her back, which she describes as a terrible experience.  Her unique contribution is her ability to reflect on what has happened to her.  She makes it clear that she realizes she is dead and that her reanimation is unnatural.
  

The Climax

• In the book - Gage takes out Jud and Rachel, but Louis manages to stop him.  Does he learn his lesson?  NOPE.
• 1989 film - Again, could have been poignant...when Louis is forced to put the reanimated Gage down, the cry he hears and the expression (HEY I FOUND ONE) on his face create this pure, horrifying moment.  This is his baby that he must relinquish for the second time.  Then the kid wanders off and says "No fair" and I want to put my fist through the TV.  Does Louis learn his lesson?  NOPE.
• 2019 film - Ellie leaves Jud dead, but everybody else gets special treatment...
  

The Non-Novel Addenda

• In the book - She says "Darling" and then it's over.  Obviously the novel leans toward her coming back with all of Louis's terrible secrets (which would include certain marriage-specific closet skeletons) and an axe to grind.  And then put in his head.  But the more optimistic could choose to believe that Louis is right and that meanness comes with the passage of time - Church supports that theory, since he only came back janky.
• 1989 film - Another example of very good special effects for this era - Rachel looks real nasty when she comes back.  (Also another example of how sparing they were with Gage's zombie form).  She says "Darling" and then stabs Louis and then it's over.  Very "Thriller"-esque sinister ending.
• 2019 film - Ellie's mad at her parents, so she zombifies them too so they can all suffer together.  There's still some ambiguity - and according to Andy, a setup for a sequel - in the ending, though.  Over the course of the night, Gage is put in a car for his own protection.  The showdown at Pet Sematary ends with the other Creeds all turned into zombies.  They approach the car Gage is in and you hear the sound of it unlocking, but that's it.  If Ellie's stated reasons for killing fools was that they had each committed some terrible sin, then perhaps Gage is exempt.  Guess we'll find out in 2 years when they release the sequel!

The NONE - A Review and Better Ideas

I'm going to try to avoid spoilers for The Nun for most of this, but (1) it was released almost a year ago and (2) as CorderyFX (hella spoilers in that video) points out, it spoils itself.

I enjoy writing in the same way I enjoy crocheting.  I can do very basic little things, but I don't have a ton of time to devote to it, so I get occasional fits of zeal, do it for a few days, then abandon it for months or even years (have a look at my blog archive...)  I fershure ain't done any fiction or screenwriting and I don't pretend to know more about writing scripts than people who do so for a living.

I *also* enjoy the occasional scary movie, but I have certain tastes.  If horror movies are nachos, then the setting and characters are the chips, the central conflict is the cheese, and accessories like jumpscares and super detailed gore and violence are jalapenos.  "I want you to saw your leg off because it amuses me" or "I'm going to sew you and your friends together because I'm loco bonkers" do not cut it.  Those types of movies are flimsy chips and cheap "pasteurized processed cheese products" - I demand real tortillas and real cheese.  As for toppings...I like some sliced jalapenos on my nachos and I don't mind a few jumpscares or gory parts in my scary movies, but I'm not about to eat an entire plate of just jalapenos and I'm not going to sit through a film that relies on jumpscares or gore exclusively for its' scare factor.


I watched The Conjuring about a year and a half ago and I quite liked it.  Because I hadn't seen The Conjuring 2 or the Annabelle spinoffs, I hadn't seen Valak as depicted/foreshadowed in the other films.  My first encounter with The Nun's marketing came from a YouTube ad that said, "Original ads for The Nun were actually pulled for being too scary, so this painting is all we can show you..."

Girl did you fall from heaven...because I'm pretty sure you're Lucifer.

It was a midroll and I wasn't watching a horror-themed YouTube video, so to have that suddenly staring at me with the creepy voice-over and scary encroaching violins was effective.  I was both repulsed and fascinated.  I'm a little iffy with movies that have Christian content, and with the trailers for The Nun, it was kind of hard to tell how far it veered into Hollywood possession versus genuine possession.  And of course, although I'm less susceptible to scary imagery than I was as a kid, I'm not immune to nightmares or to suddenly visualizing The Nun, The Babadook, or the knife-wielding aggressor from Hush in the shadows as I get up at 2 AM to pee.  

This past spring break, I finally got the guts to do it, figuring that if I got super freaked out, it was ok to stay up all night watching cartoons with the lights on because I was off work all week.  So I watched The Nun at midnight.  A midnight viewing of the alleged "darkest chapter of the Conjuring universe" for which I paid seven American dollars that I will never get back.  Not only did I not get scared...I actually laughed at things that were supposed to frighten me.  Upcoming plot points were so obvious and formulaic that I took to yelling them out and making tiny bets with myself, winning each one.  If we return to my nacho analogy, that movie is like half a burnt chip, unmelted store brand American cheese slices and three jalapenos that have wrinkled with age and neglect.  It is garbage trash and I'll only watch it again if Rifftrax comes along with me.

So here, after a far-too-long introduction, are my story ideas that could have been used for The Nun.  I ain't a writer, I ain't a movie maker, and these ideas ain't original.  But they're (1) equally unoriginal as the real plot of The Nun and (2) WAY MORE ENTERTAINING.  They're also pretty much all abuse-driven, because I can't think of a reason an entity would want to do horror movie things except that hurt people hurt people.

 Better Plots for The Nun

(taking for granted that The Nun is a disguise for or is possessed by Valak, per Conjuring 2)

1. Childhood Horror - the nun was a normal little girl raised by an abusive authority figure whose torture ramps her people-pleasing skills to eleven.  She works harder and harder for approval and denies and suppresses her rage until eventually she snaps, killing the authority figure.  In this raw and vulnerable state, Valak overtakes her and uses her outward appearance as a nice Catholic girl/nun to seek out those who could be similarly victimized (like Irene) and "rescue" them by possessing/empowering them to destroy their abusers.  Irene has to protect her acquaintances from being identified as aggressors and targeted, and herself from being overtaken like the original nun, while also seeking to save the nun's soul from Valak.  The abusive-parent inciting incident is thoroughly trodden in scary movies, but at least it's a plot (cough cough).
2. More Straightforward Possession - the nun was just a nun with a less glaring vulnerability, like a vice she had prior to taking her vows, that Valak uses to possess her.  Valak just happens to be the biggest, baddest demon of them all, leaving in his possession history a line of destruction, depravity and general horror.  Basically The Exorcist with a dash of Oculus.  Irene's status as a novice can be taken to mean she's not really sure about her spiritual status, giving her that weak-but-strong underdog appeal to counteract Valak's strong-just-strong-all-strong.  While we're stealing from other movies, this movie would also need to borrow from the Scream trilogy the death of a major character or bankable actor to sell this one.
3. Social Commentary - like Childhood Horror, except in this version the nun is abused or assaulted from within the church or abbey by someone in power, so she actively seeks out Valak to exact revenge.  This would make Father Forgot-His-Name a target because CHURCH BADDDD and Irene ambiguous because she's a novice...she might take her vows and become Valak's enemy, or she might recant and be "rescued."  Irene's task becomes digging the original nun out from under Valak's shadow and showing her to heal, to react to her abuse proactively rather than destructively, etc. and perhaps also to expose and drive out the nun's abusers.  Again, critical theory premises are old hat in horror, but a plot is a plot.
4. Surprise Bad Guy, Version 1 - Valak was originally just a human and subordinate to the nun in some way, like a student in a school she taught at, and the nun was the abuser.  Valak dies as result of the nun's abuse or neglect and returns to Earth to possess her and cause her to do all kinds of overt sinning so that she feels the shame and anger that he was made to feel.  Irene and Father Forgettable have to (1) suss out that origin story, (2) separate Valak and the nun and (3) save them both from each other and themselves.  M. Night Shyamalan, eat your heart out.
5. Surprise Bad Guy, Version 2 - The Nun is a decoy, an illusion meant to distract the Vatican while the real Valak slips in via...IRENE!  Irene performs "exorcisms" which are actually "transfers" to stronger/more influential persons.  This would also provide an opportunity to connect the Farmiga sisters, because you know who else knows a lot about spirits and demons and is called upon to expel them all the time?  Lorraine.  Irene is suspected by the church and "disappears"...but in fact becomes Lorraine and continues her activities under different auspices in another country.  A story at least as old as Carmilla, but it's not fixing that which isn't broken.

Those are all I can think of at the moment.  Basically (here come the spoilers) I want either the Nun, Valak or both to actually *be somebody* and *have motivation.*  I want there to be real stakes, real danger, real harm.  "We all died because we were afraid of seeing Scary Lady in the mirror" is weak sauce.  "We all died because this thing either possessed our friend and had her kill us or possessed us and made us kill ourselves" is a non-vegetarian The Happening and still way better than The Nun. 

Miss me, ladies?

 

Anybody Can Be Genie

Every now and then, I write posts about movies.

I don't watch a ton of movies - I tend to have very narrow and difficult-to-define preferences when it comes to entertainment.  I hate "wacky misunderstandings", but I love verbal non sequiturs.  I love some of the current pop/rock musicals like Heathers and Legally Blonde, but I hate when the music seems clumsily written (lookin' at you, Fame) or is unnecessarily complicated as a means to show off how "deep" the composer is (lookin' at you, Sondheim.)  I love comedy that lives in good snappy dialogue rather than relying on funny visuals and I HATE romcoms.  Unless it's something that stays light and unserious like Family Guy or Monty Python, if a character behaves in a way I would not tolerate and this behavior isn't checked by other characters, or makes a choice I think is stupid beyond understanding, I can't stomach it.  That goes double for characters who mistreat others and it's forgiven because of sympathy or social convention - I can't watch the exploits of Sheldon Cooper or Emily Gilmore without yelling at everyone else to just drop these self-absorbed buttholes out of your lives.  Characters like that fill me with palpable rage and I am not entertained by that state of being.

Having said all of that...I'm a pretty reliable Disney fangirl when it comes to their movies up until about 1998 or so.  The Disney Renaissance began when I was three and I am well aware that Disney is fully exploiting my age group's spending power with its remakes.  Listen: Walt was no dummy when he decided to use centuries-old sources, like fairy tales, folk tales and Shakespeare, as the basis for his films.  Those stories lasted because they're good - let's don't fix what isn't broken.  The source material for Aladdin comes from a later edition of Arabian Nights (One Thousand and One Nights in Arabic) - it wasn't in the first version, but was added later by European editors based on a story by Syrian storyteller Hanna Diyab1.  There are published translations on the market now that make various attempts to both honor the original language and make the stories comprehensible to English speakers unfamiliar with Middle Eastern culture, but the stories themselves and several of their early English translations are in the public domain and can be freely sought and read online.

Point Is!  I'm probably going to like Disney stuff from that era, either in its 90s or remake form, because the storytelling is solid.  Yesterday, I saw the live-action remake of Aladdin and I have thoughts...

***THERE ARE FINNA BE SPOILERS.  If you're familiar with the 1992 Aladdin, that goes double for you - there are differences!  And I'm going to spoil them!***

I've missed a few of the Disney live-action remakes, largely the ones that are pre-Disney Renaissance (which is to say, pre-1989).  Cinderella, Pete's Dragon and The Jungle Book all got revamped, but I feel like I didn't see much promo for them and, although I like the originals, none is my first choice for a rewatch.

But then they went after Beauty and the Beast.  Which I completely adored and which, for me, set the standard when it came to seeing Aladdin.  With Beauty and the Beast, they took everything about the animated version and cranked it up to 11.  Belle's intellect and pluck, Maurice's mechanical giftedness, Gaston's chauvinism, more ornate settings, more detailed costuming, a bigger and thicker orchestration...  For us late 80s/early 90s aspiring Disney princesses, it was a rosé fever dream, a box of chocolates beside a bubble bath, a dance around your living room with your tiny feet shoved into the toes of Mom's high heels.  And of course, Disney took the opportunity to course-correct on a few things.  The origin of the servants and their lost connection to the village was explained more clearly, the Belle/Beast relationship was distilled in an attempt to make it less illogical (however unsuccessfully), and of course there was that one moment when a dude danced with another dude and people who had no problem with a girl falling in love with someone who literally imprisoned her were convinced that the world would end and I WONDER IF THOSE THINGS ARE RELATED IN ANY WAY...

...sorry, another topic for another time.  So going into Aladdin, I was curious about whether they would use a similar approach.  Where for Beauty I was excited about every element, with Aladdin I was mostly excited about the music.  I tend to love everything Alan Menken does (which, incidentally, includes the scores for Beauty, Aladdin and Hunchback, among many fantastic others) and I was ready to (1) sing along and (2) be delightfully surprised when my singing along didn't line up because lyrics or music were updated.  I was ready to see a retread of the original plot with more detail, more magic, more volume.

I was right and wrong and I loved it.

About 90% of the plot is faithful to the 1992 version.  However, in addition to small updates, like Iago speaking in short phrases like a real bird rather than carrying on conversations (no recreation of the Gilbert Gottfried performance) or the cutting-out of Jasmine's introduction and escape (she and Aladdin are introduced in medias res at the end of "Arabian Nights"), there's one major difference that clearly says "This is a 2019 Reboot!" and it's Jasmine.

She's still the princess and she's still under pressure to get married.  However, where in the 1992 version she had to be married to a prince by a certain age and she resisted out of wanting to marry for love, in the 2019 version she has to marry a prince because only a royal male can be Sultan and her father is getting on in years.  She resists because she believes she is more qualified to rule her own people than some rando from another country.  There's a tangentially related subplot involving Jafar's plans to invade a neighboring country and using fearmongering to convince the Sultan to do so COUGH COUGH WAT.  This beefing up of Jasmine's character and motives is reflected both in her dialogue, which paints her as witty, intelligent and compassionate, and in her music - she gets her own song called "Speechless" which is reprised a few times.  I will admit that, although I like "Speechless," I'm not sure it's on the same level as the other songs.  This is probably because I'm a nostalgia addict and am resisting the change and also because this was one of a few new tunes using Broadway lyricists du jour Benj Pasek and Justin Paul.  They ok, but they ain't Howard Ashman or Tim Rice.

Since we're on music!  The delightful thing about the new Aladdin score and soundtrack is that, for me, it is just the right amount of new.  Like Beauty, the original instrumentation and motives are still present; if you're a megafan of the original and hear songs like "One Jump Ahead" or "Friend Like Me" from the new one in isolation, you will recognize them before the actors begin singing.  Unlike Beauty, there are new layers added musically.  Continuing in the vein of correcting past insensitive content, the new Aladdin adds to the original orchestration several Middle Eastern instruments and rhythmic figures that are more authentic to the setting.  And of course, there's a thread of hip-hop percussion throughout, because Will Smith.  It's essentially like going from just deep-fried turkey, which is delicious on its own, to having that deep-fried turkey in a sandwich with all the trimmings you like.  I used to wear out "Prince Ali" because I loved every element - the tempo was fun and danceable, the melody was catchy, the harmony and chord progressions were smooth and engaging, and the instrumentation was thrilling.  The new "Prince Ali" still has all of those things, down to the individual string and brass motives that punctuated the vocals, but a thicker percussion section, a dash of electronic manipulation and a more robust ensemble sound make it even better.

So I liked almost all of what I heard.  Similarly, I liked almost all of what I saw.  Look, I like CGI as much as the next person, and for a character like Genie, we are willing to suspend our analytical/realistic eye in the name of magic...but Abu bothered me.  Why throw out all of Iago's original lines in the service of giving him a few pithy sentences as a real bird, but turn the dialogue-free Abu into a CGI caricature?  Don't tell me it's so we can see him "emote" - the live, trained spider monkey for Ace Ventura did just fine, thank you very much.  Don't tell me it's for Frank Welker's benefit - he could just as easily voice over a live monkey.  And definitely don't tell me that it's to show off Disney's CGI prowess - the resurrection of Peter Cushing for Rogue One was for sure a head-tilter, but it was a far sight more believable than Abu.  He looked good if we're looking at the grand scheme of everything ever animated on a computer, but he did not look 2019-major-production good.

I also took issue with Will Smith's singing.  Don't get me wrong - he can match pitch and either he or his musical director had the good sense to switch him to rapping or urbane sprechstimme when the notes fell outside his range, but next to Jasmine and Aladdin's big voices, he was clearly the weak link.  It is worth noting that Hot Jafar was not given his "Prince Ali" reprise, which gave me a tiny sad because it's one of my favorite songs from the original.  I get wanting a more authentic Jafar and not wanting to put Jonathan Freeman in JafarFace again (he voiced the 1992 film *and* played him in the Broadway adaptation with some, um, interesting makeup choices), but we really couldn't find a Jafar who was Middle Eastern, hot and vocally talented?  I bet he exists.  I bet lots of hes exist.

So Will might not be much of a singer, but he is a great actor and he exemplified something that I think is pretty cool about the Aladdin property as rendered by Disney: the malleability of the Genie character.  "Duh," I hear you say, "a character that can do actual magic is pretty easy to change."  But I think it's deeper than that.  You can see many varied performances of this character and it is still clearly the Disney Genie.  Part of that comes from Robin Williams' original performance - Williams was a master of impersonation and this gave the original Genie a broadness of personality.  They literally animated multiple Genies onscreen to keep up with Williams' frenetic rate of change, meaning that just about any take on the Genie is faithful to at least one of his iterations.  The other part of this, I think, manifests as expressions of respect for Williams' performance by not copying it directly (in the case of Broadway, as he was still alive when it opened) and by paying light homage while still leaving the core of Williams' Genie to the man himself (in the case of the 2019 film, released 5 years after his untimely death.)  Broadway Genie, James Monroe Iglehart, has a more jazz/scat approach to the Genie than his other portrayers because he excels at that style - it's Iglehart at his jauntiest, which is what you need for the Genie.  Will Smith's Genie is effervescently cool and sardonic.  All three have a lot of the same lines and sing the same songs, but each approaches it with his own strengths.  Iglehart and Smith tend to divide speaking and singing similarly to Williams in the musical portions and have similar asides in pieces like "Prince Ali", but the specific pop culture references Williams used, his inflections, his accents...are all respectfully and reverently left alone as Iglehart and Smith explore their own versions of Genie.  In this way, I think Genie is a lot like Leading Player from Pippin.  Ben Vereen played it so dynamically that it made space for literally anyone, any race, any gender to take up the mantle and be themselves while still clearly being Leading Player.  Conversely, although a character like Jasmine can be deepened and broadened as she was for this movie, certain elements are always going to be there.  She will always be youthful, Middle Eastern, conventionally attractive, a soprano...

I guess, in an infantile way, that's been a big draw for me with Aladdin.  Only some girls can be Disney Princesses...but anybody can be a Genie.

1 Wikipedia articles for Arabian Nights and Aladdin