Ballet Shoes

How do you usually choose what book to read next? You probably have many different methods, just like me – there is that favourite author (or six) to whom you keep returning, there are friends and family to tip you off, sometimes you just take a look at a book's back cover and find it interesting.

I can only recall one case where a book has had me obsessed just by its title. The title was Ballet Shoes. The second I learned that there was a book out there with that title, I didn't really care what the story was, who had written it, or if anyone liked it. If that book was called Ballet Shoes, I wanted to read it – because ballet shoes are beautiful! See that picture?

Of course, no bookstore here in our little Finland has ever heard of Ballet Shoes, and based on my very scholarly and accurate (yeah right) Google research it has never even been translated into Finnish – if somebody knows otherwise, please correct me. So, I seized my chance at acquiring this book when a nice friend of mine travelled to London where there are plenty of those lovely little shops called Waterstones. By that time, I had learned that there was quite a recent movie adaptation of Ballet Shoes, and that the original book had been written by Noel Streatfeild in 1936. It also turned out to be a children's book, which again somewhat shifted my expectations towards it. In the end, I was to be surprised one more time when I finally got to read this book – it's beautiful, it's sweet, it's engaging, it's emotional, it's so many different kinds of adjectives that I should really get to the point and start the actual review right now.

Ballet Shoes, by Noel Streatfeild, is subtitled a story of three children on the stage. These children are Pauline, Petrova and Posy, three orphans who are adopted by a very eccentric but kind old fossil collector, Great-Uncle-Matthew ("Gum" for short). Gum goes off to another of his long expeditions, leaving the girls in the good care of his grand-niece Sylvia. As the years go by and Gum stays absent longer than expected, the money he left for Sylvia and the girls grows short. However, the girls are given the opportunity to take lessons at the Children's Academy of Dancing and Stage Training, which will eventually allow them to work on the stage and earn much-needed money as soon as they turn twelve years old. Despite being adopted from different parts of the world and knowing nothing about their real parents, Pauline, Petrova and Posy decide to be true sisters to each others and start using the surname "Fossil" (because that was what Gum collected before he started bringing in orphan girls) to reinforce the idea. On each of their birthdays, they make a vow "to try and put [their] names in history books".

The Children's Academy and the entertainment business reveal the girls' talents as well as their shortcomings. Pauline is employed in one stage production after the other thanks to her classic beauty and great talent in acting though she has to learn the hard way that letting the success go into hear head and behaving like a diva will not impress her employers. Petrova, on the other hand, turns out to be completely mediocre in the arts of the stage and would rather learn all about the mechanics of cars and airplanes than practice lines and dance steps, but her diligent and selfless nature gets her through the work she doesn't like because helping to bring money to the house is the most important thing for her. The headmistress of the Academy immediately recognizes Posy's exceptional gift for dancing, and the passion for the art soon takes over Posy so completely that she appears somewhat insensitive to the people around her.

I would have loved Ballet Shoes when I was younger, but it doesn't really matter that I missed it in my childhood, as it's one of those brilliantly written children's books that can be very enjoyable to adults as well. Streatfeild provides a very interesting and clearly expert view of children's employment in the entertainment business in pre-Second World War England; we get to see everything from nerve-wracking auditions to rehearsals and then the backstage bustle during performances, but we are also provided a surprisingly in-depth explanation on how the child actors' payment and welfare were handled. I was intrigued to find out that children's working hours and age limits were so efficiently monitored in theatre business already at this period.

Not only is the setting for Ballet Shoes appealing and very well laid out; the story itself, centering around Pauline, Petrova and Posy, is so beautifully paced and full of ups and downs for each of its protagonists, that it's impossible not to be seriously interested in the girls' lives. In addition to the three main characters facing their own difficulties and disappointments in their studies and their work, there is also the constant worry of poverty over them. The adults in the house have to carefully count each penny that the children earn, and the children have to carry the responsibility of providing for their unconventional, but all-important family.

Pauline is the eldest of the three orphans and therefore is the first to start proper work on the stage, which gives her the most focus and development. Shakespeare enthusiasts will surely enjoy reading about the productions of A Midsummer Night's Dream and Richard III where she works, and eventually she aspires to work as a film actress too. Her story works excellently as the main focus of Ballet Shoes because she genuinely grows and changes as a character, and both her triumphs and her disappointments on the way really make you empathize with her and wish her success.

The younger sisters are not by any means overshadowed by Pauline, though. Petrova, who struggles to fit in the world with her "boyish" interests, makes quite an outspoken social commentary about traditional gender roles – even though the character herself is quite timid and only reads her airplane manuals when nobody is around. Posy is too young to work when the story takes place and because of that she doesn't get to do as much as the others, but it's very clear from the beginning that her passion for dancing is of a very extraordinary kind. It's not just a favourite pastime, it's a way of thinking for her – for example, she memorizes things by converting them into dance steps!

Posy Fossil, illustrated by Ruth Gervis – Noel Streatfeild's sister!  All of her illustrations for this book are lovely, I really like her style of drawing.

In addition to the three Fossil sisters, I would like to mention Winifred, who is another student at the Academy and Pauline's class mate. She often auditions for the same roles as Pauline and rivals her in talent (actually surpasses her in some respects) but she is not the typical, evil and jealous rival whom the reader is just supposed to hate in favour of Pauline. Instead, Streatfeild gives us not only a completely worthy competitor to Pauline, but one that deserves compassion and heartbreakingly reminds us that casting often overlooks a great talent in favour of better outward appearances.

So, if you are a reader like myself who wants a compelling story and well-developed characters, by all means you shouldn't shun Ballet Shoes just because it's labelled as a children's book. It has very nice material for lovers of theatre and advocates good values and morality without being preachy. I imagine that any parent who wants to introduce their children to good-quality literature would find Ballet Shoes very much up for the task – but, even though I vehemently oppose the ridiculous "acting and dancing are girls' hobbies" prejudice, I do think this is very much a girls' book. You can't really expect anything else when all the main characters are girls.

-----

I'll just squeeze in two very quick things I want to say, related to the blog but not to the book I reviewed. Firstly, you might have noticed that these posts are now being written by Manette instead of Mizzie-Me, but it's still the same old me – just showing some special respect to A Tale of Two Cities from now on! Secondly, my blog stats showed today that I have over 10000 page views! I would really love to know where all those views came from, how people actually find their way here – it's a great mystery to me! Except of course that handful of regular visitors who leave wonderful comments and whose blogs I follow in return. But anyway, thank you everyone who is responsible in any way for those 10004 page views – whether you are invisible or not!

MoMoMu: Oliver!

Here it is, finally. Consider this as August's MoMoMu because I started writing this ages ago and there's been a bit of a break with MoMoMus during the summer months. So I'll give you another film musical review later in September!

When Cameron Mackintosh – megaproducer of huge hit musicals such as The Phantom of the Opera, Les Misérables and Cats – announced that not only was he bringing Oliver! to Broadway but was also planning a remake of the film version of that same musical, the musical theater fandom, true to its habits, immediately united behind the opinion that this was the most unthinkable idea ever. The 1968 film is a masterpiece, it raked the Oscars! went all the fan forums. Nobody can top Shani Wallis' Nancy! Cammack's just after the money! The Oliver! musical film of 1968 seems so dearly loved by everybody and it is true that it collected an impressive number of awards (including Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director, and a Golden Globe for Best Film – Musical or Comedy), which made me wonder what indeed might be Mr Mackintosh's motivations behind a remake. Well, I watched the film and my extremely unpopular opinion is: Mr Mackintosh, please get that remake going!

As you will know if you've read the Dickens novel, seen any version of the musical or read my Oliver Twist post, the story follows young orphan Oliver Twist from the misery of a parish workhouse to the dangers of London's East End, eventually leaving him to the care of kind, long-lost relatives. For understandable reasons, the musical simplifies the plot somewhat and cuts some of the characters that show up near the end of the book. However, Oliver does encounter e.g. London's quickest pickpocket the Artful Dodger, his employer Fagin, soulless criminal Bill Sikes and his devoted girlfriend Nancy who comes to a tragic end.

The beginning of the film is actually quite promising. Like the stage musical, it opens with the hungry workhouse boys singing Food Glorious Food, and the way the grey-clad, depressed children shuffle in unison with their food bowls held out makes quite an impact. The next musical number, where Mr Bumble the workhouse beadle walks Oliver down the snowy streets announcing there's a Boy For Sale, is the best moment in the film if you think in terms of capturing the spirit that Dickens was going for in his book. However, Mr Bumble's actor Harry Secombe gets all the glory in this little scene because by now it has become very clear that Mark Lester, our Oliver, can't act for dear life. From here, the film just goes downhill.

Mark Lester's Oliver asks for more

I've come to the conclusion, in my years of watching films, that child actors fall into two categories. They're either totally adorable and really talented, like Jack Wild who plays the Artful Dodger and makes my favourite performance in this film, or they have absolutely no idea what acting even means, like Mark Lester. Oliver Twist is a very passive character anyway, so if his portrayal is so painfully awkward that the viewer can't even feel sympathy for him in his plight, the whole point of the character – and the entire story as well, as he's supposed to be the center of it – goes up in smoke. I honestly can't figure out how Mark Lester stood out in the audition process, because he couldn't even sing. Yes, dubbing has happened many times in film musicals (please remember to give Marni Nixon all the credit she deserves from My Fair Lady, West Side Story and The King and I films just to name a few) but usually the actor and the singer are of the same age group and gender. Not so in Oliver! – Mark Lester's singing was dubbed by Kathe Green, daughter of the film's music director, who was 24 at the time when Oliver! was made. Apparently the filmmakers thought that a grown-up woman can sound like a little boy if she wheezes out the songs in a soft, whispery voice, but I certainly don't agree. How come is it possible to find dozens of singing and acting boys through auditions whenever there is a stage production of Oliver! going on, but they couldn't find one for this film?

Alright, so Mark Lester isn't quite up for the job of being the main character. Can we find any others in the cast who could save this film? I already mentioned Jack Wild, and he certainly lights up the screen every time he appears with his adorable top hat. He's got the voice, he's got the look, and he's got the moves. So does Ron Moody, who reprised his role of Fagin which he had originated in the stage version. Moody handles the transition from stage to screen expertly, and he has great chemistry with Jack Wild's Dodger.

Two great talents at work: Ron Moody as Fagin and Jack Wild as the Artful Dodger

What about our lead female? The lady in the iconic red dress who experiences the most terrifying of death scenes – Nancy. Shani Wallis gets mountains of praise for her portrayal of the character, but unfortunately not from my direction. I will not say she's downright bad. She has a beautiful voice and she can act to some extent, but she isn't Nancy – she's some sort of a Barbied version of Nancy with perfectly coiffed golden hair and a voice that delivers the songs like they would sound in a recording studio, not in the actual situations where Nancy is in. Dickens' Nancy is a prostitute and a heavy drinker who doesn't get sanctified till the end of the novel, but Wallis' Nancy (or the Nancy that the film production team wanted) is so pretty and angelic to begin with that it is impossible to believe her when she sings "I rough it, I love it" during It's A Fine Life when she appears for the first time. Her performance of Nancy's power ballad As Long As He Needs Me is downright boring, no matter how much I adore that song otherwise. But this isn't entirely Shani Wallis' fault – there is another issue connected here, which I will start talking about now.

In my opinion, a really good film adaptation of a musical balances on the fine line between respecting the original stage version and bringing in something new. While us musical fans are anxious to see that a film musical stays true to our favourite songs and characters, it is equally important that the filmmakers take into account how different the stage and the film are as story-telling media, and try to make the most of the cinematic tools. Many things look great on stage but don't serve any purpose on screen – such as the numerous, never-ending, over-choreographed dance numbers in the Oliver! film. Of course, dance numbers are an integral part of most musicals and I probably don't respect then enough because I understand very little about that art form myself, but the way every single group scene in this movie turns into an elaborate dance sequence where every movement is choreographed, it just annoys me. They could have easily shortened some of those massive dance routines and kept in My Name instead, because it builds up Bill Sikes' character so well that I get chills each time I listen to it, and if Bill doesn't get his song we really don't get to understand what lies in the depths of his pitch black soul.

All the things that I've complained about so far – the casting and acting choices and the treatment of the musical numbers – are really connected to one major issue: the overall style of the film. It seems to me that the production team was going for a nice, family-friendly version of Oliver Twist's story. Why else would they make Nancy into every little girl's role model and refuse to show us what a gritty place the poor side of London really was, instead giving us a humongous, over-long dance party where we see members of every possible profession smiling and skipping around, apparently just to show the newly-arrived Oliver what a charming, welcoming place Victorian London is?

I refuse to give Oliver! the excuse of "it was made in the sixties so it's just a little outdated from a modern point of view". Sound of Music and My Fair Lady are both film musicals made in the sixties, and they are still great to watch. Many people seem to appreciate Oliver! out of nostalgia, and I can understand them. I grew up with the Sound of Music film like many people probably grew up with this film, and I can't honestly say whether I find it hard to criticize my childhood favourite simply because of the golden gleam of nostalgia or because it really is that good. So fans of the 1968 Oliver! film, I'll gladly let you continue loving that film, if you let me anticipate eagerly the remake that Mr Mackintosh promised.

MoMoMu: Jolly holiday with Mary!

MoMoMu??? That stands for "Monthly Movie Musical", which means I'm going to blog about one movie musical each month. I started off with my Les Mis post in April but missed May, so I'll try to redeem the situation by doing TWO movie musicals for June.

I actually did watch this movie in May even though didn't get around to write about it till now. 9th of May was some sort of a Christian holiday – I wasn't really aware of what the celebration was, but I decided that a holiday would be a wonderful excuse to watch a dear movie musical which I hadn't seen  in a couple of years. So, the next installment of the Monthly Movie Musicals: Mary Poppins!

Mary Poppins was one of Disney's most successful films, earning 13 Academy Award nominations and winning five, including Best Actress in a Leading Role for Julie Andrews, who made her film debut as the title character. She made another great musical film role in The Sound of Music, so things turned out pretty fine for her even though she didn't get the much-expected lead role in the My Fair Lady film.

But it isn't the amount of trophies that shapes your personal opinion of a movie. I still love the same things about Mary Poppins that I loved when I was younger: Julie Andrews in all her beauty, the whole animation combination part in the painting, the chimney-sweeps' awesome Step in Time dance, and Uncle Albert who just floats around the ceiling and laughs.

However, a whole new aspect of the movie rises up when you watch it after learning something about the English history. I didn't realize until now what Mr Banks – the more than slightly chauvinistic banker who ends up hiring Mary Poppins as his childrens' nanny – is really rejoicing about when he sings "King Edward's on the throne, it is the AGE OF MEN!" Before King Edward, Queen Victoria had been on the throne for 64 long years. Get it? And married to Mr Banks with these ideologies is Mrs Winifred Banks, who energetically sings, shouts and marches for women's votes whenever her husband is out of the house. Clearly a match made in Heaven.

This brings us to the central theme of the movie: the reunion of a dysfunctional family from which especially the uptight father Banks is estranged. In flies Mary Poppins who puts the household upside down by teaching the children, Jane and Michael, the things that their parents can't teach them, and when the father's eyes are opened and the whole family is happily flying a kite, Mary Poppins leaves as her work there is done.

There is another intended theme which doesn't come across quite as well. The Feed the Birds ballad and the resulting "invest your money in the bank vs. buy food for the pigeons" heralds the morale of caring about others around you and giving what you can, but the birds make kind of a weak target for sympathy because we never see them properly in the movie (and judging by the amount of pigeons in my area, they really don't need peoples' charity to get fat).

Speaking of the ballad, I should say something of the music in general to make this a proper MoMoMu review. Most of the tunes are really catchy and I could still remember almost all the lyrics even though it had been a while since I last heard them. Memorable as they are, I don't think there's anything ultra-special about the songs themselves – it's the setting where they're in. Like the jaw-dropping dance number of the chimney-sweeps, to take my favourite example. And now that I've mentioned them twice already, I really have to share this video.

Did you see Dick Van Dyke's (Bert's) moves there? Did you know he'd never had any dance training before Mary Poppins? I find it just as amazing as the fact that this was Julie Andrews' first movie. It just seems so totally natural to her what she's doing. The two Banks children (Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber) act very nicely as well, which can't be said of all child actors.

Even though none of the movie's songs make it to my list of favourite musical tunes and it isn't very deep thematically, Mary Poppins is definitely a recommendable movie musical. It's very clear how much heart and effort was put into it, and it will always make you happy – it's quite literally a "jolly holiday with Mary!

Good old English fox-hunting in good old English countryside – wouldn't even dream of chuckling at these elegant upper-class redcoats! I honestly didn't!!

Fun Facts

• Julie Andrews does the bird whistling in A Spoonful Of Sugar
• Feed The Birds was Walt Disney's favourite song, he would constantly invite the Sherman brothers over just so they could play it.
• While Dick Van Dyke showed some natural talent in dancing, his wannabe Cockney accent was ranked #2 on the Empire magazine's poll of the worst film accents in 2003.
• David Tomlinson, who played Mr Banks, also voiced Mary Poppins' talking parrot umbrella handle.
• The three geese in Jolly Holiday are voiced by Marni Nixon, who has dubbed many singing parts for actresses who couldn't sing – she sang Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady as well as Maria in West Side Story, and finally made an actual screen appearance in The Sound Of Music as one of the nuns.
• Dick Van Dyke also played the ancient and hobbling Mr Dawes Sr. and had some fun with it: he'd go outside in full Mr Dawes Sr. makeup, spot a tourist bus and make it wait while he slowly limped across the street à la Mr Dawes. When he'd finally made it across and the bus took off, he'd run at a full sprint next to it and shock the tourists.

Before you go, take this challenge: try to watch Uncle Albert's clip from start to finish without laughing out loud!