The Devil Wears Prada

We all have hopes of landing the perfect job right out of college—after all, now we’re educated and fresh, and who wouldn’t want us? Andrea (Andy) Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is no exception. With dreams of high-class journalism, the new grad with a—shall we say—casual approach to fashion ironically lands a job as the second assistant to New York notoriously high-maintenance fashion editor of Runway magazine, Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep). In her mind, this is a one-year stint that will get her the contacts she needs to become a serious journalist, but when Miranda’s demands rapidly devour Andy’s life, she is forced to confront what it takes to get ahead in her career.

The “devil� in this movie rather clearly refers to the “Dragon Lady� editor—she is unrealistic, condescending, aloof, and generally rude. But, as my fellow critic pointed out afterwards, there is a definite reference to the fashion industry in general, and how insidiously it captivates us all, whether we know it or not. Particularly interesting to me was the flagrant mockery of the “number game.� While I was initially concerned by the jokes that Andy was “fat� (a whopping size 6), it soon became a running joke about how ridiculously thin models have to be, and the drastic measures they take to maintain a size 0 (which was the old size 2, by the way). As a woman who has felt the pressures of the number game, I appreciated the way Prada pokes fun at the emphasis on size and diet, making it evident that it’s all pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. After all, Miranda Priestly is no toothpick—in fact she has a very flattering womanly shape—and no one comments on her being “fat�!

Another prominent theme throughout the movie is that of choices—and what we do when we feel like we don’t have them. Several times when Andy has neglected her group of close friends, including her boyfriend, she bemoans the fact (or at least her perception) that she “didn’t have a choice.� After the third of fourth repetition of this rather pathetic whine, it’s pretty clear that we’re watching Andy learn that she’s making choices all the time, and they have consequences. She does have a choice, and her choices to proverbially kiss Miranda Priestly’s demanding hiney eventually cost her her closest friends. But what’s a career-minded girl to do?

Ultimately, the tension revolves around Andy’s choices—and how she reconciles these choices with who she is and who she wants to be. One of the strengths of the movie is that, until the end, the audience isn’t absolutely certain how she will choose—will she abandon the high-class fashion industry altogether? Or will she make choices that will allow her to continue in her career without sacrificing her relationships? It’s a choice Andy will make, and it may not be the one you expect.

Artistically speaking, Prada isn’t a blockbuster, but a truly ensemble cast (including Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt) makes for a (somewhat surprisingly) three-dimensional movie. Streep plays the invincible Priestly to a “T,� and when the façade cracks for just a moment, Streep captures the depth of character in a truly stunning and engaging manner.

Prada certainly made for an enjoyable evening, as well as numerous post-viewing discussions. While I imagine it will appeal more to the women in the audience, it shouldn’t be relegated to the “chick flick� bin—there’s plenty of meat to chew on for the men, too.

Because real women eat carbs.

Relentless (Novel)

Author: Robin Parrish
Bethany House, July 2006

Synopsis:
Grant Borrows' life has just taken a drastic left turn. There's another man in the world wearing his face and living his life. What's more, the man he sees in the mirror is a stranger. Somehow, he's been Shifted—his whole life fundamentally altered, in the space of a single breath. But the changes don't stop at skin-level. Inexplicably, he's able to affect objects around him by simply thinking about them. And as he soon learns, he's become the central figure in a vast web of intrigue that stretches from an underground global conspiracy to a prophecy dating back over seven thousand years, that tells of his coming. Enemies and allies find him at every turn, but one thing they all learn very quickly is that you don't want to push Grant Borrows too far... Can destiny be undone?

The writer of Ecclesiastes tells us that there’s nothing new under the sun, and with literature that is very often the case. Every story is a new take on an old theme, a theme first explored thousands of years ago and simply repackaged over the millennia.

Robin Parrish’s debut novel Relentless, however, has found a brilliant and tantalizing package for the often-overused theme of self-discovery.

In a somewhat sci-fi (sans pointy ears and unconvincing alien forms) setting, Parrish explores what he has termed the Shift—a sudden transformation in a person from one body to another. Our protagonist, Grant Borrows (known pre-Shift as Collin Boyd) is a lonely man, riding a lonely bus to a lonely job for a lonely eight hours of work before returning to his lonely apartment for a lonely evening before going to bed—alone. Suddenly he looks up and sees himself—really, himself—on his way to work. Same briefcase, same watch, same slightly overweight lumbering gait, same disobedient lock of hair continually dropping into his face. He gives chase, briefly, until a strange barefoot woman stops him, interrupts his identity crisis, and basically tells him to act now and ask questions later. His life is in danger, and many people are depending on him. No time to waste.

Meanwhile, he’s caught his reflection in a window—now a svelte, broad-shouldered, well-postured, GQ-type man, he’s more than a little uncomfortable with his new form. Women are looking. But inside he’s still the lonely, overweight, dead-end job “loser� he’s convinced himself to be. Inside the fine leather wallet he finds in his finely-tailored coat pocket, there is a load of money (another novelty), a driver’s license with his new name, and the key to a bachelor-pad-furnished penthouse apartment is a flashy neighborhood.

This was going to take some getting used to.

So begins the journey of a new man—a man given a new life of responsibility and adventure—the life he once dreamed of, and now he’s not sure he likes it. Intense, sometimes eerie, and always engaging, Borrows’ plight to understand his role in saving a special group of people (of which he has become one) explores the ups and downs of becoming a savior. Parrish draws us in with finely-tuned dialogue, surprising but not completely implausible plot twists, numerous interesting and well-developed characters, and yes, a relentless pace.

While I wouldn’t have chosen this book off the library shelf, the combination of an incredibly original narrative of a man striving to reach his potential and brilliant storytelling captivated even my stuffy literary attention. The title page indicates this is the first of a trilogy; if so, I am eagerly awaiting the sequels.

This is one fine debut novel. While Christian themes (particularly regeneration and redemption) are present and very worthy of discussion, there is absolutely no heavy-handed, overtly Christian reference, making it a great read for all audiences, and a superb conversation-starter for those interested in following spiritual themes.

Rather than being a great “Christian novel,� Relentless is a great novel by a very talented Christian writer.

Waking Lazarus (Novel)

Author: T. L. Hines
Bethany House, July 2006

Synopsis:
Jude Allman is no ordinary man: he has been clinically dead three times—and yet he lives. The subsequent celebrity of his “accomplishments� has left him paranoid and more than a little unbalanced. He has changed his name and fled to the quiet anonymity of Montana, where he desperately attempts to hide from the press, his past, and his future. But when a string of crimes against children pervades his relatively quiet life, Jude is called out of his fear and into a new kind of living.

Writer T. L Hines has crafted an amazing work for his debut as a novelist. Unlike many “Christian thrillers,� Waking Lazarus is a good story, well-told, without apology for its underlying faith motif, yet certainly without preaching. Despite being published by a Christian publisher, and having evidently Christian overtones (the opening page bears a quote from the gospel of John), the novel could easily become a “crossover� hit, simply because both the spirituality and the humanity are realistic and absorbing, without ever becoming overbearing. A distinct lack of “Christianese� truly keeps the book well within the range of interest for anyone interested in near-death (or full death and resuscitation) experiences and any flavor of spirituality.

The unlikely marriage of crime thriller and self-examination creates a unique yet intense storyline that Hines has not only deeply contemplated, but made real and tangible for the proverbial Everyman. Jude Allman, the modern-day Lazarus, is beset by paranoia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a host of personality quirks that would make a millionaire of any decent psychiatrist. He is scared spitless by his death experiences, by the publicity, and by the potential meaning lurking behind them. In short, Jude Allman is as human as we get—an unequivocally sympathetic character caught in a life the reader might eschew just as thoroughly as Jude. But Hines’ story doesn’t stop there…

To put it rather simplistically, Waking Lazarus is about purpose: fearing it, avoiding it, circumventing it, and finally embracing it. Jude Allman resents his resurrections—to the point of taking on a new identity in order that no one (including himself) will connect him with those three fateful and frightful times when he died—and then didn’t. The constant hiding takes its natural toll, though, in his paranoid window-boarding and home alarm systems and reticence to form any meaningful relationships. But when, after being pulled into the realm of deliberately risking his life for the sake of someone else, he sees some purpose in having thrice been to the Other Side, he is able to welcome his purpose, and begin living.

Yet while purpose is the underlying theme, it does not at all detract from the page-turning crime thriller status that Hines gratifyingly achieves. While not creepy or overtly violent, there are many spine-tingling moments, psychological twists, dangling carrots, and extremely subtle references (i.e., Kristina) that keep the reader engaged with all aspects of the story. The crimes, Jude’s mental torment, and the final twist that brings Jude to his psychological and spiritual sense carry the reader all the way through until the (rather satisfying) end.

In short, Hines has truly succeeded in writing a book with Christian content that can (and I project will) be enjoyed by people of other faiths as well. The universality of accepting both one’s past and one’s future ensures that any spiritually inquisitive reader will find both an engaging crime novel and some spiritual food for thought.

A peculiar recipe, perhaps, but one that will satiate many a reader’s appetite for drama with a backbone.

Interview with Patrick Creadon

Patrick Creadon, director of the documentary Wordplay, has served as a cameraman for literally every major network as well as Paramount Pictures, Disney, Warner Brothers, and numerous others. In his debut as a director, Creadon explores the world of crossword puzzle fans across the country, and their hero, New York Times puzzle creator Will Shortz. He lives with his fellow-crossword puzzling wife, Christine, and their two young daughters, in California. In anticipation of the release of his film, he was kind enough to participate in the following e-interview.

JW: What, specifically, did you find compelling about Will Shortz and the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament?

Patrick Creadon: My wife, Christine O'Malley (producer of Wordplay). and I have been big fans of the New York Times crossword for years, and we'd been looking for a great topic for our first documentary feature for quite some time. One day it just hit us—Why don't we do a movie about Will Shortz and his puzzle? The tournament was not on our radar early on (in fact, we didn't even know there was a tournament until after we'd started the project). Originally the tournament was going to be a sidebar to the rest of the film, but once we shot the tournament—and it's incredibly exciting finish—we knew we had an ending to the film.

JW: Are there any sequences that you wish had been included that weren't? If so, could you discuss one or two of them, and explain a) why they weren't included; and b) why you would have liked them to be?

PC: There were several people we shot for the film that ultimately weren't included in the final cut. This was probably the hardest part of the process for me. I feel very indebted to people when they open up to me and my camera, and not including someone in the final cut makes me feel quite badly. I've since spoken to all of them and they understand the decisions we made in the editing room. They also all really enjoy the film—which takes some of the sting away.

JW: I noticed that there at least seemed to be a distinct absence of minorities at the tournament. Is this an accurate observation? If so, why do you think such is the case? If not, why did we mostly see and hear from Caucasians at the event (leaving aside the fact, of course, that the finalists happened to be white)?

PC: The film is a very accurate portrayal of who attends the tournament. I wish I had an answer for why there aren't more minorities in attendance but I don't. Will Shortz certainly welcomes anyone to attend.... perhaps we'll see a more diverse group at future tournaments.

JW: The film's production notes mention that you're a Wednesday/Thursday puzzler, having been introduced (and immediately addicted) to the NY Times puzzles on your honeymoon. Do you work the puzzles together with your wife, or do you “compete� against each other? Any advice for us can't-even-finish-the-Monday puzzlers?

PC: Christine and I definitely solve together as a team. If we did have a competition I don't think I'd stand a chance. For someone who is intimidated by the puzzle (it does have a fierce reputation!), I recommend you grab a Monday New York Times, rip open the Arts page, and dive in with a #2 pencil. No matter how far you get, grab Tuesday's paper the next day and go over the answers to Monday's puzzle (the answers always appear in the next day's puzzle, except for Saturday's answers which appear on the following Monday).

JW: I agree that changing the focus from “one man and his puzzle� to an exploration of his puzzles through the countless devotees was a wise one. However, I also found myself wanting to know a little more about what makes Will Shortz tick, how he fine tunes the clues, how he can continually come up with new themes and ideas. Could you shed any light on that from what you learned while creating your film?

PC: Will is an extremely intelligent and clever person. He's literally “the man with all the answers.� Originally we were going to devote the entire film to him and his work because he truly is a fascinating man. However, as we started shooting and the movie began to branch out into more characters, we realized that we could learn an awful lot about Will by learning about his fans and the people who attend his tournament. Will is extremely happy with the results of the film, so I think he too is satisfied with the direction we took.

JW: The film notes that people in certain professions are more likely to be successful at crosswords than those in other fields. Did you notice any personality traits (or quirks) that are common among puzzlers? What about the puzzle creators—any interesting common traits among them?

PC: Crosswords fans come from all walks of life, but most of them share certain basic characteristics: they love a challenge, they love the process of figuring things out, and they are highly engaged in the world around them. It's a very intelligent, witty group of people. The ones that are really good at solving often have somewhat of an obsessive personality. And without question they are a decent, hard-working bunch. I've yet to meet a crossword solver who isn't a joy to spend time with. As for crossword constructors, they're really smart and really funny. And if you ever have to drive cross country alone, try to recruit one of them to ride shot-gun with you... they can turn anything and everything into a game.

JW: Did you participate in any part of the tournament, just to see how you'd do? If you did: are you willing to disclose your results (after all I hear Ken Jennings didn't place very high!)? If you didn't: are you willing to conjecture as to how you might have done in the competition?

PC: Ken Jennings actually won the B Division last year, which is amazing for a first-timer. I've yet to compete, but I might give it a go next year!