Stop-Loss

First of all I have to offer great thanks to my father for choosing me as his favourite daughter. Well, for choosing my laptop as the recipient of the great gift that is Sky Player over that of my sister's. Me and Arabella won out over S and poor-nameless-laptop due to our future plans for travel and world domination. With the aid of Sky Player we can do this whilst keeping up on documentaries and hit movies. Goody.

And why do I praise the Lord for Sky Player? Because after sifting through (and admittedly watching) dross such as The Hottie and The Nottie (so sue me, I had a morbid curiosity) I have found gems such as The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, a truly magnificent film based on the book of a truly magnificent man written under the most trying of circumstances.

Yeah, I know...times are boring round my part of the world right now and there is only so much high-brow literature (and zombie-filled Austen) that a girl can handle of a day.

Anyway, after sifting through the nonsense 'comedies' I stumbled across Stop-Loss.

Warning: Spoilers ahead for Stop-Loss

So I may have tuned in to watch Channing Tatum in military khakis (how cliched am I?) but I found the actual film surprisingly enjoyable. I'm perplexed as to why it performed so poorly at the box office - Stop-Loss offers a stellar cast, engaging plot line and opens political debate where, certainly in my case, ignorance previously existed.

Stop-Loss focuses on three soldiers returning from a tour in Iraq. Brandon, played by Ryan Philippe, has become disillusioned over the loss of several in a preventable ambush and plans on leaving the army now his compulsory service is complete. Steve, portrayed by Channing Tatum, a talented marksman and Brandon's best friend, is also due to complete his service and plans on wedding his long-term girlfriend upon returning to Texas. Tommy, acted by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the more unsettled of the three, is fighting to be allowed to be kept in the army but his drink problem causes problems for both his career and marriage.

For those of us who have never served in the military it is hard to understand the links and honour felt by servicemen and women to the army. It is hard to understand why Tommy, after being thrown out by his wife and being given a 'big chicken dinner' (bad conduct discharge) by the army, takes his own life. It is hard to understand why Steve sacrifices his relationship and re-enlists as a sniper. It isn't hard to understand why Brandon goes AWOL after being 'stop-lossed.'

Stop-lossed is an interesting idea. Referred to by John Kerry as 'back-door recruitment' the American military reserves the right to, in times of war, re-enlist soldiers who have completed their service even if this happens to be against their will. America land of the free and the brave. America, the mother of democracy, swooping in to save the poor people of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or Korea, or Iran, or Germany, or Russia. Where will it be next? Great Britain? I'd like to suggest America herself. What kind of institutionalised hypocrisy allows for volunteers to be forced into further military service or face criminal charges? As the old adage goes, charity begins at home America.

However, Stop-Loss is more mature than I and refuses to become a petty swipe at an authoritarian reality masquerading under the democratic sham evident today. Instead it is an accurate portrayal of human relationships and the biological desire of fight or flight. In a situation like this we need to stop and think, not what Jesus would do, but what I would do. Would I glibly follow orders and fight for a hypocritical cause that I no longer believed in? Would I flee my duty, bid farewell to my family, friends, identity? Would I spend the inevitable future railing away in a military jail?

After 9/11 enlistment inevitably skyrocketed. But now, nearly eight years on we need to stop and re-evaluate our war on 'terrorism'. How are we combating this enemy, and has our method been successful? Results would indicate, no. I'm no political expert - heck, I know very little about politics but what I do know is people. What I see in our world today is terror: soldiers returning from war broken men and women; soldiers not returning from war at all; acts of terrorism and religious hatred increasing; a steady abandonment of trust in mankind; fear, fear of when the next attack if coming.

Our men shooting their men, women and children. It hardly seems fair to them at all, but what about the cost to our brave young volunteers? Who is caring for them, looking after them, giving them the democracy they go to war for? What do soldiers get from the US government: stop-loss and big chicken dinners.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

I must admit, I was rather apprehensive when I first heard of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies a few weeks back. I was also rather affronted. Who was this Seth Grahame-Smith and what had he done to my Jane's masterpiece? Therefore my initial impressions of Grahame-Smith and his work were less than favourable.

However, I find it impossible to hate a book which replaces Austen's classic aphorism with "it is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains." Genius.

And Grahame-Smith's work only gets better from thereon in. As any good book should do, it includes illustrations by Philip Smiley:

"Mr Darcy watched Elizabeth and her sisters work their way outward, beheading zombie after zombie as they went."

The portrayal of the Bennet sisters as hardened warriors adds an even deeper element to Elizabeth's pride, Jane's goodness of heart and Lydia's self-importance. The contrast between Mr Bennet's cynicism and Mrs Bennet's foolishness is further demonstrated by Mr Bennet's desire to keep his daughters alive and Mrs Bennet's desire to see them well married.

I do hold some criticism for Grahame-Smith's work though. I found myself tsk-tsking like an old women at the crass and tawdry humour of Mr Darcy's comments and was rather disappointed in Grahame-Smith for sinking as low as to insert a 'balls' joke into my beloved Austen. Whilst I am now quite satisfied that zombies do belong in Meryton, crude jokes should most certainly not be involved. Grahame-Smith's comedy was at times schoolboy in its language. Show some restraint and reverence Mr Grahame-Smith!

However, what I missed most from Austen's original was...the comma. Having studied Pride and Prejudice (without Zombies) in great depth, I fell in love with the comma, and have taken to using it liberally, AS IT SHOULD BE. This is what a comma looks like:

Surely they taught you that as a child, Seth?

Still, I find it hard to fault this man and his 'work' (although in reality the majority of the original text stands unchanged and as beautiful as always). Indeed, Grahame-Smith amendments almost serve to make the original text more wonderful than ever, high praised indeed from a die-hard Austenian like myself.