The Sparks Oeuvre: The Last Song (movie)

Tagline: A Story About Family, First Loves, Second Chances, and the Moments in Life That Lead You Back Home

IMDb description: A rebellious girl is sent to a Southern beach town for the summer to stay with her father. Through their mutual love of music, the estranged duo learn to reconnect. (this description is so weird because music is honestly not what helps them reconnect)

Roger Ebert review: two and a half stars ("Miley Meets Cute over a spilled milkshake")

Female protagonist: Veronica "Ronnie" Miller (Miley Cyrus)

Male protagonist: Will Blakelee (Liam Hemsworth)

Star supporting cast: Greg Kinnear as Ronnie's dad; Kelly Preston as Ronnie's mom; Bobby Coleman as Ronnie's brother (I only note him because he was the kid star of the movie I worked on in 2009, Snowmen 

Background: the second Sparks adaption to be released in 2010, the only time there were two Sparks in one year. This came two months after Dear John and was the first to have a screenplay by Sparks himself. He actually started the screenplay first as a vehicle for Miley Cyrus, which made reading the book interesting. This film is also infamous/famous for being how Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth met. They dated on/off for ten years before getting married in late 2018 and then divorced in 2019. (Yes I know too much because it's one of those celebrity relationships I was inexplicably invested in.)

Since the screenplay is written by Sparks, there's not too much that's different from the novel. Sparks is still trying way too hard to make Ronnie an outcast. When she first arrives, against her will, for a summer with her dad and brother, she walks on the beach and gets stared at by all the other girls there in their swimsuits. Because Ronnie is wearing jeans and boots. That would get stares from anyone; it does not make Ronnie an outcast or the others girls mean. 

Sparks, however, loves his gender stereotypes and almost all of the girls are mean and have it out for Ronnie. The mean girls try to break up Ronnie and Will by giving her bad information. Will even says the classic, tropiest of lines "You're not like other girls." Yes, Ronnie is different because she wants to save sea turtle eggs nesting near her dad's home and is....nice. It's all very surface-level. 

Which is to be expected, as this is a story centered on teens and their drama, angst, and love. It's fine for certain demographics, but I'm beyond the age where any of it feels compelling. 

The story ends in sad tragedy, as Ronnie's dad is dying of stomach cancer. He's kept it a secret (is this a thing people do in real life?) so he can enjoy one final summer with his kids. He and Ronnie patch things up before he passes, and it's actually very sweet that Ronnie chooses to stay and take care of her dad when the summer is over. 

If you're curious about seeing a celebrity relationship where it began, this could be a good watch for pure anthropological purposes. If not, then it can definitely be skipped. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Dear John (movie)

 Tagline: What would you do with a letter that changed everything?

IMDb description: A romantic drama about a soldier that falls for a conservative college student while he's home on leave (this is truly a strange description that labels Savannah as "conservative" which has no bearing on the story). 

Roger Ebert review: two stars ("....heartbreaking story of two lovely young people who fail to find happiness together because they're trapped in an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel.")

Male protagonist: John Tyree (Channing Tatum)

Female protagonist: Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried)

Star supporting cast: Richard Jenkins, the best character actor out there, as John's coin-collecting dad; Henry Thomas as Savannah's friend/future love 

Background: This is the fifth Sparks adaption and also the fifth Sparks book! The movie was released in February, which is a perfect time for a Sparks movie to hit theaters as by this point a Sparks movie was shorthand for a romantic "chick-flick" and it likely had a marketing campaign geared towards Valentine's Day. Also, for whatever reason this film was not produced by Denise Di Novi, who had a producer credit on all previous Sparks adaptations except The Notebook. 

I think I like the movie adaption more than it's source. The movie makes some weird changes with characters that aren't necessary, but it also cuts out some unnecessary elements that make the story tighter. As with most Sparks adaptations, the movie leaves out all the religious stuff (it's pretty minor in this book). The director is truly the key to a good Sparks adaptation, and Lasse Hallstrom does a decent job with this one (he's the only person to director two Sparks adaptations). He has very pretty if not exceptional actors in Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried, but he manages to give each of them two knockout scenes. 

For Tatum, he actually gets two knockout scenes, which is fine because he's the main character. The first is when he's returned home immediately after 9/11. He gets a short leave before presumably re-enlisting, but doesn't know how to tell Savannah since he had been nearing the end of this commitment and both were excited for planning their future together. Faced with John being gone even longer and in a more dangerous situation is more than Savannah can take. John has a moment with Savannah where he just pours his heart out and ends with "just tell me what to do?". Tatum plays this so well, showing John's struggle between his commitment to Savannah and to the military. 

His second comes in my favorite scene (probably of all Sparks adaptations). His father is in the hospital near the end of his life. John and his dad have had a strained relationship most of his adult life, not for lack of love but for understanding. But since Savannah he had started seeing his dad differently and was understanding him better. He writes a letter to his dad, a letter that encompasses all his love. At first he just gives it to his dad to read later, but he realizes that's not possible and decides he'll read it out loud to his dying dad. Tatum knocks this out of the park. He has just the right amount of emotion. The quick tears leaving his eyes. And his dad slowly puts his hand on his head and the two hug and cry together. This brings me to tears every time I watch it. Both Tatum and Richard Jenkins kill in this scene. 

Savannah makes some truly baffling decisions, with the motivation seemingly being that she's in a Nicholas Sparks adaptation so there has to be angst. I don't want to downplay or overlook her feelings and how having John gone and the stress of worrying about his safety while's deployed affected her. BUT. Instead of, I don't know, talking through it with him or a professional, she instead starts writing less. Then makes the truly baffling decision to instead get married to a family friend who is sick with cancer and has an autistic son. She believes that being a wife, mother, and caretaker is an easier choice than waiting for John to come home. 

For most of the film, Amanda Seyfried plays Savannah as sweet and loving and frankly she doesn't have much to do. But near the end of the film she's given a scene that lets her showcase Savannah's pent up anger and exhaustion, as she tells John how difficult it was for her when he was away. I feel her struggle and pain. I just wish she had found a way to express that before she decided to tell him she was engaged when she Dear John'd him (also, the letter serves as a breakup letter but it's also her announcement to John that's she's engaged, so technically she cheated on him and that's not cool).

There is one truly baffling scene (it's in the book, too), where John is visiting Savannah in her new life. Somehow wine is spilled on both their shirts; John goes to the bathroom to wash it out (what??) and Savannah goes into her room to completely change her blouse (okay?). These are both baffling choices, but there are more! Savannah doesn't close her door when she's changing her blouse, also is not wearing a bra even though she was out riding and working with the horses earlier (not one to judge other women not wearing bras, but it seems highly unlikely in this scenario she wouldn't be wearing one), and John sees her in the mirror from the bathroom. They just stare at each other for a moment and it is truly bizarre. 

As mentioned previously, the truly moving relationship of the film is the one between John and his father. Richard Jenkins, who is marvelous in everything, plays John's father so quietly perfect of an adult man that was never officially diagnosed as on the Autism spectrum. John is always a little bit exasperated by him, as he's a good father that has provided for him but John has never been able to connect with him. They once shared a love of chasing and collecting coins, but John grew out of that. 

I feel like this review craps a bit on the movie, and gives the sense that I didn't care for it. And maybe it's not my favorite because of the scenarios that seem to only exist because a Sparks plot dictates strife and tragedy. However, the scene with John and his dad always redeems it for me. Give it a watch if you've never seen it. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Dear John (novel)

 Nicholas Sparks' fifth novel is Dear John, published in 2006 and 4 years after his previous novel, Nights in Rodanthe. It's in stark contrast to that novel - focusing on young love, autism, duty to country after 9/11, being in the military, and moving through and past relationships. It was inevitable in my eyes that Sparks would write a story that uses 9/11 as a story device. Lots of people have done it since then, and art is nothing if not a reflection of the time it is made in.  

This Sparks story gives us John Tyree, on home for two weeks of leave in Wilmington, N.C. (classic Sparks setting) where he meets college student Savannah Lynn Curtis. She's also there for a few weeks building a home for a family, Habitat for Humanity-style. They meet when he retrieves her bag when it falls off the pier and into the ocean. In true Sparks fashion, they fall and it's deep and fast in two weeks. John has to leave back to Germany due to his commitments to the Army, and they agree to write to one another while he's gone. Their life and plans for the future are interrupted by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and after he reenlists much to Savannah's dismay he eventually receives a "Dear John" letter. 

The story is told from John's point of view, and it, surprise surprise, starts in the present and then has John tell us the story. This is entirely unnecessary; it doesn't add any suspense to the story and it's only used at the beginning and the end. Several of his other novels had the narrator checking in during the present but that doesn't happen here. For whatever reason, Sparks likes his readers going into his stories questioning if the characters are still together. 

Because of this choice, Savannah isn't really a full character. She's kind of like Jamie in A Walk to Remember. She's there to help the main character on his journey. That's not a bad thing outright, but I kind of like his stories more when they focus on both the male and female protagonists. Sparks writes her as deferential. Whenever her and John get into an argument, she always says "You were right." even though, in my opinion, that is incorrect! 

For his part, John has what I would say are some issues with anger. Savannah shares an honest thought about John's dad with him, and while possibly a bit out of line it wasn't hurtful or mean. John yells at her, then gets in a fist fight with the dudes Savannah is working on the house with. When Savannah shares that she was sexually assaulted her first year of college, John's reaction is not to comfort Savannah but instead say that he'll beat the guy up (and Savannah sincerely is like "thank you so much that means a lot" like whaaaaaat?). When they get into another argument based on competing expectations of their time together when he's on leave again, he's rude and again yells at her. And she again is like "You were right, I'm sorry."

Also, John and Savannah's guy friend, Tim, talk a lot about Savannah in a way that seems....not inappropriate but slightly uncalled for. Tim provides a lot of feedback and acts as a sounding board for John, when really he should have been talking to Savannah. The gender dynamics are a bit weird, to say the least. 

Sparks gives Savannah and John a real predicament in their relationship - how to keep it strong and together when one half of the relationship is across the world? He does highlight the strain it puts on the relationship during the small interludes they get when John is on leave. However, he squanders most of it by having Savannah send the "Dear John" letter because basically the two can't communicate. It feels like a Katie/Greg from The Bachelorette situation and it's overall just frustrating. 

What's interesting about Dear John is that Sparks has a secondary relationship that feels just as important as the romantic one - the one between John and his dad. It really is quite beautiful to see John accept his dad for who is, and then to take care of his dad as his health deteriorates. In some ways it's better than the relationship between John and Savannah. 

The book is good, not great.

The Sparks Oeuvre: Nights in Rodanthe (movie)

 

Tagline: It's never too late for a second chance. 

IMDb description: A doctor, who is travelling to see his estranged son, sparks with an unhappily married woman at a North Carolina inn. 

Roger Ebert review: one and a half stars ("A Leaky Weeper" is the title of a truly great review)

Male protagonist: Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere)

Female protagonist: Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane)

Star supporting cast: Viola Davis as Adrienne's best friend; Christopher Meloni as Adrienne's cheating husband; uncredited James Franco as Paul's son; Mae Whitman as Adrienne's daughter

Background: Gere and Lane starred together as married couple in 2002's Unfaithful, the Adrian Lyne sexy thriller that earned Lane an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. That same year, Nights in Rodanthe was published, and made it's way to this adaptation in 2008. As the fourth Sparks movie adaptation (and fourth adaption!), it's the first to nearly completely miss the mark. 

For the most part, the story from the novel is the same. However, for the first time in the Oeuvre, the changes that were made for the screen feel detrimental to the film. The biggest change, for me, is the update in Adrienne's marital status. In the novel, she's been divorced for three years, but in the movie she's just separated from her cheating husband. Separated is still married, and I just don't like that this means Adrienne is technically cheating. This change effectively removes the lovely arc in the book of Adrienne and Paul both having the new versions of themselves post-divorce be discovered and loved by someone else. 

The book uses the Sparks-loved device of flashback to tell the story. None of the adaptations have kept this device (except, of course, The Notebook, as it's actually integral to the story) and this is the first time where I felt like it was actually needed. Without it, we lose all sense of Adrienne's journey. We lose the scope. We lose meaning in her choices and the way she has learned to live with the loss. None of it translates with the shortened time frame of the film. 

 Nights in Rodanthe underscores how important the director is in making a Sparks adaption really work. Director George C Wolfe has a great cast, but he mostly squanders it. Gere and Lane were great as a married couple in Unfaithful, and they do their best here but are saddled with a bad script and very bad staging. Wolfe bizarrely stages a dinner scene between the two where I was sure Gere wasn't actually there and Lane was acting against a stand-in; then he frames them each against a yellow wall in medium close-ups and it looks so very bad. He can't direct a proper kissing scene, as I was sure Paul was going to devour Adrienne's face. The visual effects are terrible, and the post hurricane scenes are laughable when their intent is to be tragic.  

This adaptation felt distinctly like most involved did not understand the essence of the book, and just wanted to cash in on the popularity of the last Sparks adaptation, The Notebook; at this point in the timeline of the Sparks Oeuvre it's become the standard and created/enforced the shorthand we know today as "a Nicholas Sparks movie." Unfortunately, it takes more than attractive actors to make a good Sparks adaption. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Notebook (movie)

 

Tagline: Behind every great love is a great story. 

IMDb description: A poor yet passionate young man falls in love with a rich young woman, giving her a sense of freedom, but they are soon separated because of social differences. 

Roger Ebert review: three and a half stars

Male protagonist: Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling, young; James Garner, old)

Female protagonist: Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams, young; Gena Rowlands, old)

Star supporting cast: Pulitzer Prize Winner Sam frickin' Shephard as Noah's dad, Joan Allen as Allie's mom

Background: This was Sparks' first novel, but his third to be adapted to a film. However, according to his commentary in the DVD extras, the film rights were sold before the film was even finished. There were various directors and actors attached (Spielberg, Cruise) but for whatever reasons nothing was ever a go and it ended up being the third film adaptation. Whatever those reasons were seem to have worked out just fine, as the film was a smash and is generally seen as the quintessential Sparks movie. 

If I had read the book first, well before it became a movie, I likely would have been pretty pleased with the adaptation. It stays pretty true to the story and characters, but adds a lot more to the beginning of the story. In the book, Noah and Allie's summer romance takes up about 2-3 pages. The movie, though, spends almost half of the movie on the summer romance. We see them meet, dance in the street, ride bikes together, meet parents. We experience the passion and sometimes volatility of their love. They fight and don't always agree, but they always make up because they truly love each other. 

This extra time with Allie and Noah is pivotal to understanding their relationship. We've seen them fight and laugh and get frustrated with each other. Most notably in their break up at the end of summer, when they go from declarations of love to crying to screaming to apologizing to leaving. When they have reunited, and Allie must choose between Noah and her fiance, Lon, she's given the straight truth by Noah - sometimes they'll fight and he'll tell her when she's being a pain in the ass but they'll work on it because they love each other. 

I used to think their fighting was a bit much. However, I watched the film with the director Nick Cassavetes commentary and it changed my perspective. He said he made Allie and Noah fight and yell in the film because, being Greek, he felt that was normal in relationships (and then said that perhaps those from colder ancestries maybe felt different and I felt that as a person with Danish ancestry haha). Anyway, Cassavetes made great choices with the film that really set it apart and I think he was perfect for it. I especially liked his stance on Lon - that if Allie had met him first he likely would have been her one true love, but it was really a matter of timing not him being a bad person. James Marsden plays Lon so perfectly. 

The film holds up really well after all these years, I think because of the great actors involved and a director who knew exactly what he wanted. It feels the most grandiose and epic and passionate of the Sparks films (to this point) and I recommend it. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Notebook (book)

Well, I've made it to THE Nicholas Sparks book--The Notebook.  It was Sparks' first published novel, arriving in 1996 and becoming an immediate bestseller. It's the standard that all Nicholas Sparks novels (and movies) are compared to. Since I'm reading in order of the films being released, I'm reading this third and it's interesting to read this knowing what comes after. 

The Notebook is about love. First love, reunited love, and forever love. Noah and Allie meet one summer when her wealthy family is summering in his town. They quickly fall in love, but get separated due to class, miscommunication, WWII, and just time. Fourteen years later, Allie is engaged and, when she sees a photo of Noah in the paper with a home he refinished, impulsively decides she needs to see him. Despite being engaged, she and still has feelings. So does Noah. Their young, first love is the real deal and Allie has to make a choice between her fiance, Lon, and Noah. The story then goes back to the present, with Noah reading the story to Allie from a notebook because she has Alzheimer's and reading to her is his daily task. Of course Alzheimer's is degenerative and memories don't come back, but this is a story about love and how it can create miracles. For brief moments Noah will get Allie back. But Noah is also old and his body failing, and the two share their final(?) moments together laying next to each other. 

Sparks is able to fit in all the stages of love by skimming over over Allie and Noah falling in love (seriously, it's like 2-3 pages) and spending the bulk of the story on their reunion. This mostly works, and probably is helped because I have the movie in my mind while reading and it spends a lot more time on the falling. But he nicely works in background details through their conversation and inner thoughts. He then spends the last quarter or so of the book with older Noah and Allie. They married and had kids and were happy, until she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and eventually had to be placed in a care center. They're past the passionate, reunited love stage of their relationship that dominated most of the book and are in caretaker mode. It's no less full of love though, as it's Noah's love for Allie that keeps both of them going. She wrote out their love story before her memory was completely gone and asked him to read it to her. 

It has become clear that Sparks has a few storytelling devices he likes to use. First, he loves to start a story in the present day and then spend the book having a character(s) look back on the past and their relationship. Theresa does it with her and Garrett's story, Landon with his and Jamie's story, and now Noah does it with his and Allie's story. However, with The Notebook, the device actually feels integral to the story. Noah is reading his and Allie's love story because she is suffering from Alzheimer's and actually can't remember their love story. This is inspired. The other books use the device as a crutch, either to lend some mystery to what happened or just because he wanted to set a story in the 50s. 

I don't think the fourteen years between their reunion works. I get that WWII probably hindered Allie's dating life a little, but it seems fairly unrealistic that a woman of her class and wealth would still be unmarried at 29 in the late 1940s. Noah, as a man in a world that catered to men (especially in the post-WWII America) could absolutely still be single at 31; he wouldn't need a wife to enjoy or participate in society the way Allie would need a husband. 

In this first novel, Sparks really sets a tone for what kind of stories he wants to tell. He hits all the best marks that have become his calling card. There's a reason why you never forget your first. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: A Walk to Remember (movie)

 

Tagline: She didn't belong. She was misunderstood. And she would change him forever. It all comes down to who's by your side.

IMDb description: The story of two North Carolina teens, Landon Carter and Jamie Sullivan, who are thrown together after Landon gets into trouble and is made to do community service. 

Roger Ebert review: 3 stars (he calls it "a small treasure")

Male protagonist: Landon Carter (Shane West)

Female protagonist: Jamie Sullivan (Mandy Moore)

Star supporting cast: Peter Coyote as Jamie's dad and Darryl Hannah (in a truly terrible wig, per the DVD commentary) as Landon's mom

Background: This film came out at the start of the second semester of my freshman year of college in January 2002. I feel pretty sure I saw it at the theater in Ephraim, UT but I can't find my ticket stub. However, I remember very clearly my BFF, Lindsay, and I being obsessed with it that summer when we returned to Pocatello. We rented it (bought it?) and watched it several times. We even watched it with the commentary from Adam Shankman (the Director) and Shane West and Mandy Moore. We were obsessed with the soundtrack (it slaps y'all). Lindsay even got her hair cut like Mandy Moore (not in the film, but in the "Cry" music video). Lots of nostalgia wrapped up with this one. I did my re-watch for this project with my friend Rachel and we had a great time watching it. 

As with Message in a Bottle, the basic story from the novel makes it's way to the screen. But once again, the medium of film brings the story to life and adds to it. First, the film swaps out the 1950s for present day; this change feels critical. Second, movie-Landon is more of a present-day cool kid (in the book he's Student Body President and planning for college, in the movie he's smart but doesn't really try at anything because that's not cool), and movie-Jamie gets a lot more personality and feels like a person rather than a device. 

The love story in Message in a Bottle was adult and earnest. In A Walk to Remember, it's two high school seniors falling in love so one might think that it's more simple, or trite, or even silly. While Theresa and Garret had to deal with very adult things in their adult relationship (dead wives, careers, different states), the obstacles Landon and Jamie face to their love are no less compelling or real; one just has to remember what it was like to be a teenager and to care what people thought of you and if you were cool. I don't entirely buy into school cliques and cliches because that wasn't my high school experience, but I do remember thinking what my friends would think if they knew I had a crush on a certain guy who wasn't our brand of cool. 

Landon thinks he knows Jamie because they've been in school together since kindergarten; he can list off outward things about her - she wears the same sweater, sits at uncool Lunch Table 7, tutors kids on the weekend, and looks at her shoes when she walks - that he thinks means he actually knows her. It's like when we stalk our crush on the internet; we find out things about them but it doesn't mean we know them. Jamie knows that's what people think about her and she doesn't care because she knows those are just things about her. Landon is amazed by this; all he does is care what his friends think about him. So much that he can't really be true to himself.  Jamie is a chance for him to forget about outward things and focus on real things. 

When Jamie takes her turn to assess Landon, she does so with deeper things than just his outward characteristics. She recognizes the part he plays as the cool kid in school who has no cares because he's "too young to die." Which is especially poignant giving that Jamie is herself dying (though he doesn't yet know that and neither does the audience). It's interesting that Landon gives no real thought to the future; his only goal for the future is to just get out of Beaufort. He sort of lives in the moment. Jamie of course does think of the future because she knows she's sick and hers is limted. When she decides to take a chance on Landon, their first date is all about Landon having her live in the moment and Jamie having him think more concretely about the future. When he's confronted with her sickness he has to really think about the future, but he also finds a way to be present and in the moment with Jamie in her final months and that's really lovely. 

That's why I love their love story. Lots of romances and love stories (even many by Mr. Sparks himself) have intense passionate love (what T. Swift would call red love). Landon and Jamie's is no less full of passion, but it's more stable and built on shared respect, support, and love. They bring out the best in each other and support one another (what T. Swift would call golden love). To learn, feel, and have that kind of love at 18 feels pretty remarkable, and that it's pulled off with such care throughout the film is pretty remarkable.  

Lots of credit for the film goes to the director, Adam Shankman. He had only directed one film before this one, the Jennifer Lopez delight The Wedding Planner. But he was already known in Hollywood for choreography - he choreographed the out-of-nowhere prom dance sequence in She's All That and the Buffy musical episode "Once More With Feeling". He doesn't do anything terribly flashy with the camera, but he is able to get great performances from his leading actors. With his choreography and music background, I feel like he was particularly a good choice for relatively new to acting Mandy Moore, who had this point was mainly a pop star with only a small part in The Princess Diaries on her resume. At times you can tell she's working hard (the credits list "Mandy Moore acting coach", no shame, kudos to her for working on her skill) to convey all the right emotions. There's only one scene where I feel like she gets it slightly wrong, and that's when she tells Landon she's sick. He first misunderstands her as not feeling well based on the way she phrases it. When he says he'll just take her home and she'll feel better, she responds angrily as it it's his fault he's misunderstood her and it feels off to me; her tone needed to be more heartache than anger in my opinion. But she mostly plays Jamie as sincere, but also confident. 

Music and wardrobe really have an impact on the story as well. The soundtrack is absolutely killer, with perfect songs at the perfect moments. The New Radicals singing over the montage of Landon practicing and rehearsing for the play, ending with him and Jamie passing in the hall IS SO PERFECT. Who doesn't remember being in high school and waiting for the moment(s) in they day when you would pass your crush in the hallway?! And wardrobe. I mean Landon in button-ups and baseball shirts is swoon worthy, and is epitome of cool guy. Jamie dresses simply but not frumpy; she is consistently and emphatically herself with her "uncool" outfits. She's always in stark contrast to the two "cool girls" that are part of Landon's friends group, and, thankfully, never has to suffer the indignity of having a makeover or changing her wardrobe once she starts dating Landon. 

In the book, Jamie always has her in a bun UNTIL she starts dating Landon, at which point he comments that she starts wearing it down. In the movie Jamie is always wearing her hair in a low ponytail UNTIL she starts dating Landon at which point she starts wearing it down (or in a half pony sometimes, which honestly looks great). Nevermind that I think this is dumb because guys rarely IMHO notice things like that (and also I personally hate wearing my hair down) and why would Jamie even think about that every day, but whatever this was written by a guy who seems to think hair is an important part of a couple's relationship. (Not that hair isn't important....who hasn't drastically cut their hair Felicity-style after a breakup?! I just feel like Sparks gets the sentiment of a woman's relationship to hair in our relationships wrong - it usually changes as a result of a bad end not a fresh start. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.)

(Random aside: when I watched the DVD commentary, Adam Shankman said he actually received complaints that having Jamie in a ponytail perpetuated the stereotype that unattractive women wear ponytails. He was so taken aback because, he said, if that was true then why did he have Jennifer Lopez, an objectively beautiful woman, in a ponytail basically the entirely of The Wedding Planner?!)

Minor changes from page to screen include Landon being estranged from his dad because his parents are divorced, rather than his dad just being gone all the time because he's a Senator; the play is put on by the school in the spring instead of by the church at Christmas time; Jamie's dad, Reverend Sullivan (a great Peter Coyote), is a lot more likable and isn't crazy old (in the book he married a younger woman later in life and was quite old); and there isn't a weird family grudge between Landon's grandparents and Reverend Sullivan. Still the same: Landon's terrible friends.  

The film is lovely and overall tells a better, more complete and engaging love story than the novel through direction, acting, music, and wardrobe. I say definitely give this one a watch. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: A Walk to Remember (novel)

 "You have to promise not to fall in love with me." Jamie Sullivan, a religious and very self-aware teenager, says this to Landon Carter, a popular and unknowing teenager, after he asks her to the homecoming dance. And with that, we know that fall in love with her is exactly what Landon is going to do. 

A Walk to Remember was Sparks' third novel, but my second to read/review because I'm going in order of the film adaptations. Whereas Message in a Bottle was about mid-adult love, A Walk to Remember is about young high school love. The aforementioned Jamie and Landon have known each other their whole lives going to school together in Beaufort, NC. However, Landon is more "worldly" and popular while Jamie is religious and everyone makes fun of her (the only way this makes sense to me is because the characters are in high school, but even still I think it's a stretch). When Landon ends up having to star in the local Christmas play opposite Jamie, he begins to see her differently than just the girl that wears brown cardigans and her hair in a bun every day. They fall in love against the odds of differing life views and truly terrible high school friends. However, Jamie is dying of leukemia and Landon, faced with losing the one person he's ever loved, doesn't know what to do. Eventually he decides to help her fulfill the one dream she's ever had. And then...the book is ambiguous if/when Jamie dies but it's implied. 

Sparks again uses a framing device to start and end the story. Landon tells the story in first person, looking back on the events of forty years ago when Jamie changed his life. The "voice" Sparks adopts in the writing for Landon can be annoying, as he kept saying "if you know what I mean" about all sorts of things. The setting is also 1959, which.....ok, I guess? There isn't really a need for this, and at times I felt like Sparks forgot the setting he had set his own book in; he referenced Landon driving all the time and calling people on the phone. I know those things existed in 1959 but I don't think they were as prevalent as they seem to be in Landon's life.

Landon at first only really notices Jamie when she's in the role of the "angel" in the play - her hair is down instead of in a bun and she's wearing make up and beautiful dress. He makes note of her looks ALL. THE. TIME. As if she's not worthy of being loved because she's "plain" and wears a bun. Seriously, the bun and her hair being worn down are mentioned a lot. I'm harping on this a lot, I know, and I give Sparks some serious flak for being obsessed with how his female characters look when I do the same thing with men. What can I say, I'm complicated and it's a complicated issue and we're all full of multitudes of contradictions (shrug emoji).

Anyway, the story is short and broad, and uses Jamie less as a character and more as a device for everyone else to realize how they can be better. Forgiveness is a big theme. Recognizing that people are more than what we assume they to be. And that when you learn someone is dying, start being nice to them. Or maybe you should always be nice to people...because we're all basically dying? I don't know, just be nice to people that aren't like you. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Message in a Bottle (book)

Message in a Bottle the novel uses a framing device to start the story. It's told in third person, beginning with Theresa thinking back on the events that are going to happen in the story. I don't really think this device is necessary, and it feels a bit like a crutch to make events in the story be shrouded in mystery. 

The thing with Sparks is that he isn't a terribly great writer. His prose feels more perfunctory than poetic, rote instead of riveting. He often explains exactly what a character is doing. Theresa set the table. Theresa got salad dressing from the refrigerator. He also constantly describes what a character is wearing, as if that's a key to their personality (not to say costuming isn't important, but probably more so in a visual medium...like film). He actually wrote "For some reason Garret couldn't sleep well that night." as the last sentence of a chapter. For some reason, as if Sparks isn't the creator of everything going on in Garret's head. 

If I had read the book first, I likely would have been completely surprised at the casting of Kevin Costner for Garret. At the most basic level, he's too old to play Garret; Costner was 44 and in the book Garret is no more than 32. He's a young guy who got married young to the love of his life and lost her too soon. That is not Costner at all. However, since the film really only takes the bare bones story of Message in a Bottle, Costner's version works for the story told in the film. Mostly. He does seem a bit old to have a "young" wife just getting pregnant. But the rest of film-Garret works better than novel-Garret. 

In the novel, Garret is supposed to be clinging to his dead wife. So much that he can't progress in his relationship with Theresa. I don't ever really feel this. In the movie, we get great visuals of Catherine's things still being the house. In the novel, we're just told that Garret isn't over her. We also get a series of dreams, which made me roll my eyes because nowhere else other than novels and movies do characters have such exact, personal dreams. 

Truth be told, the tension in the novel is mostly how they each have lives and careers in different states. Neither can just up and move to the other's city without changing their whole world. In the book that feels like the real issue keeping Garret and Theresa apart, whereas in the movie it's definitely that Garret hasn't let go of Catherine. 

Sparks is also deeply into gender roles and a little bit sexist. He can't describe Theresa without mentioning her slim figure or the way her clothes "highlight her figure". She's basically described as a spinster divorcee who has given up on dating post-divorce because all the men are crap. Theresa also claims her son, Kevin, has no father figure even though he HAS a dad that he sees, a dad who takes him on trips and such. I don't know, that just bothered me. 

The novel's relationship is a bit longer and a bit more invested in by both parties. Theresa visits Garret several times, he comes up to Boston to see her several times. They talk about marriage. In the movie, the timeline is compacted - the trip where Theresa first meets Garret, then he visits her once in Boston, and then misunderstanding. But since the actors play the roles with deep emotion and chemistry, I completely believe that they yearn for one another and are meant to be, even with the short timeframe. 

There are several other minor changes, like Theresa's boss being a male in the movie adaptation, and Garret's dad having a noticeably bigger role (I mean, it's Paul Newman so of course). Theresa's son's age is a little bit younger, Garret restores and fixes boats but in the novel he owns a diving shop. None of these make any sort of difference, but for the story that is told in the movie they work. 

For Message in a Bottle, the story of Theresa and Garret feels more true when the actors bring it to life, elevating Sparks' mediocre dialogue to genuine emotion. In this case, I'd probably skip the book because it doesn't bring anything extra to the movie. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Message in a Bottle (movie)

Tagline: A story of love lost and found.

IMDb description: A woman discovers a tragic love letter in a bottle on the beach, and is determined to track down its author. 

Roger Ebert Review: two stars

Female protagonist: Theresa (Robin Wright Penn)

Male protagonist: Garret (Kevin Costner)

    in the novel it's spelled Garrett

Background: This was the first film adaption of a Nicholas Sparks novel. However, it wasn't Sparks' first novel. That was "The Notebook", which came out two years before. Message in a Bottle came out February 1999, less than a year after the novel was published. My guess is that, since Kevin Costner was a producer, he had optioned the book and had it in development well before the book was published (and that's why it came out before The Notebook).

Theresa (Robin Wright), a columnist for the Boston Globe, discovers a message in a bottle while she's on vacation in Cape Cod. She's recently-ish divorced (the movie starts with her dropping off her son to spend the summer with his dad, his new wife, and their baby). The words of a man writing to the woman he loves (his "one true north") speaks to her. After showing it to her coworkers and editor, the letter is published. The letter strikes a nerve, and Theresa receives lots of mail about the letter. There's even another letter discovered! Through some investigation (which now seems so quaint because the internet wasn't really a thing at this point in '99), aided by coworkers at the newspaper, she discovers the name of the letter-writer and where he lives. 

In no time she's on her way to his sleepy coastal town, and they have a somewhat meet-cute at the dock where Garret (Kevin Costner) is restoring a boat. Out of the blue (or is it fate?) he invites her to go sailing with him early in the morning. She leaves her jacket on the boat, he has to return it. So he shows up at her hotel and their interaction feels so real. He's awkward, she's awkward. These are two people that haven't dated in a long while, and even though they clearly have interest in one another they feel a bit unsure and scared of what it means. 

Costner plays Garret so well. He's aloof, but not in a bad, uninteresting way. He plays the hurt the audience knows he has quietly and subtly, and you can understand why he was probably interested in the role (however, spoiler alert, it is much different than the novel version of Garret which I will discuss when I compare/contrast). 

What I like about the relationship between Theresa and Garret is how adult it feels. Both are "older" (Costner was 44 and Wright was 33, which is very different from their ages in the book....will discuss later). These are two people that have experienced love, marriage, death, divorce and have their own well-established careers and lives that they're leading. I guess I just feel those struggles of dating as a 38 year old that I didn't when I was 16 and saw the movie in the theater. When Garret comes up to Boston to visit Theresa, he sleeps on the couch because she has her son with her that weekend. When the son leaves the next night and they are alone, Theresa says something about having to get used to someone else being in her home. 

The screenplay is very vague about what actually happened to Garret's wife, Catherine, and how she died. There's also some weird family drama between Garret and his former in-laws. They, along with the secret Theresa keeps of finding Garret's message in a bottle, provide the tension and conflict in the movie. The family drama does help fill in some of Garret's character and backstory, so I'll let it go. And thankfully Garret's discovery of Theresa having his messages and bottle meant for his dead wife is only a minor obstacle; it's honestly almost an afterthought most of the movie even though it propels the action. 

Paul Newman, playing Garret's dad, steals every scene he's in. The producers really lucked out in getting him. 

As a first foray into Nicholas Sparks adaptations, this sets a pretty good tone and fairly high bar. It also has all the standards that we've come to know from "A Nicholas Sparks Movie" - a coastal setting, attractive people falling in love, miscommunication, love, death, a single dad. What I like about the movie is how earnest it is; how naturally the relationship plays out. I recommend it. 

The Sparks Oeuvre

The past couple weeks I had conversations with two different groups of friends about Nicholas Sparks movies. I guess I'm somewhat of an apologist, because I have generally enjoyed some of the films. I go into the theater knowing what I'm going to get. At this point, more than a decade after the first movie adaption came out, "a Nicholas Sparks movie" is a type of short hand for a romantic and melodramatic movie (exclusively, at this point, about attractive and thin white people) that involves love, time, lost connections, and almost always death. Sometimes it's done and well and sometimes it's not, but my bar for judging them is always based on "for a Nicholas Sparks movie". 

Between one of the conversations with friends I watched The Lucky One. After I did what I normally do-- check to see if Roger Ebert had written a review of it. He HAD! Surprisingly (but also not surprisingly because Ebert was a very fair critic who loved film) he gave it a very decent review; he recognized it for what it was and judged it based on that. 

Nicholas Sparks has a good line in stories like this. They usually involve the triumph of love over adversity, are usually set in beautiful natural settings, usually involve such coincidences as finding a message in a bottle, and usually make me stir restlessly, because such escapism is shameless. Still, credit must be given to a film that delivers the goods, and if you've ever liked a Nicholas Sparks movie, you're likely to enjoy this one. I've seen him in interviews where he's better-looking than some of his leading men and comes across as sincere. I think he really does believe in his stories, and I think readers sense that.

After that, I ended up watching Message in a Bottle after the second conversation with friends. I decided to start at the beginning of the Nicholas Sparks oeuvre, and while I was watching I thought back to my freshman English class at Snow College. The theater department was putting on a staging of "Of Mice and Men" and the teacher had us read the John Steinbeck classic, watch the '92 film with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich AND watch the play and then write up a paper comparing and contrasting. 

So I decided to do that with Nicholas Sparks movies and novels. I was sure The Notebook had been first, but it was the first novel whereas Message in a Bottle was the first movie (The Notebook was the third film adaptation after A Walk to Remember). I'm going to go in order of the movies. I don't know if I'll watch the movie first then read the book, but that's currently the status for Message in a Bottle. I'll have a writeup of the movie and book when I finish. Follow along with #TheSparksOeuvre 

    

		Movie Release	Novel Release	Novel Order
1	Message in a Bottle	1999	April 1998	2
2	A Walk to Remember	2002	October 1999	3
3	The Notebook	2004	October 1996	1
4	Nights in Rodanthe	2008	September 2002	4
5	Dear John	2010	October 2006	5
6	The Last Song	2010	September 2009	8
7	The Lucky One	2012	September 2008	7
8	Safe Haven	2013	September 2010	9
9	The Best of Me	2014	October 2011	10
10	The Longest Ride	2015	September 2013	11
11	The Choice	2016	September 2007	6

2021 Oscars - Best Pic

I wrote a much longer post talking about each of the seven Best Picture films, so this will just be a quick rundown. While the Oscars is oftentimes incredibly unreflective of society, and overwhelmingly skews white and male, this year there are a lot of historic firsts. 

• TWO women nominated for Best Director
• First male of Asian descent EVER nominated for Best Actor
• A University of Utah Film Studies MFA graduate is nominated for Best Director! 

I am very happy that stories about women told by women are getting recognized. I know that in the grand scheme of representation and equity, the Oscars are small potatoes - they are a symptom of issues and change that needs to happy. Once women and people of color get more access at the beginning of the process - being hired as writers, directors, stars, DPs, producers - they would be more likely to end up in nominations. We aren't there yet, so we'll start with celebrating this first until they become second nature. 

Lots of interesting and diverse stories were told this year, and I LOVE that women were nominated in Lead and Supporting in roles that were more than just "the wife" or "the girlfriend". So often a film centers on a male protagonist, and the woman that is nominated (and wins, see: Jennifer Connolly, Alicia Vikander) has played a supporting role in his story. Or the woman is nominated, but their film is overlooked in the Best Pic category (see: Wild, Monster, Still Alice). 

I haven't done any prognosticating or read anything about odds on who will win, so here's my thoughts on what I want to win with absolutely no outside influence of who I think will win. 

Best Pic
The only one I actively dislike is Mank. I'd be okay if Minari, The Father, Nomdland, or Promising Young Woman won. I appreciated what was being said in The Trial of the Chicago 7, but I'd be surprised and a little displeased if it won. 

Best Actor - Leading
Honestly, anyone but Gary Oldman would be fine with me. My knowledge of the Academy and awarding posthumous awards has me thinking Chadwick Boseman will win. 

Best Actress
Oh I definitely want Carey Mulligan to win. I love her and it is a powerhouse performance. However, I'm concerned she might lose to Frances McDormand. And Frances is great in Nomadland, way better than her performance in Three Billboards that got her an Oscar a few years ago. 

Best Actor - Supporting
I'm definitely rooting for Daniel Kaluuya. I hope he and Lakeith Stanford don't split votes since they're in the same movie. 

Best Actress - Supporting
Olivia Colman was so great in The Father and it'd be great if she won, but also I'm pulling for Yuh-Jung Youn from Minari. 

Best Director
Y'all, I am conflicted with this category. I want Lee Isaac Chung because he's a U grad, but I also am pulling for Chloe Zhao and Emeral Fennel. I liked all their films so I guess I'd be okay with any of them winning. 

Oscars 2021

 I love going to the movies. I mean I love movies in general, but my joy is in the movie theater experience. Last year that was taken away and it was hard (please don't judge, everybody's hard is relative). I go to a movie for many reasons, including to feel better whenever I'm sad or anxious or feeling lonely or stressed. It is  a refuge, and when I was feeling ALL those things last year during lockdown and quarantine I couldn't do the one thing that makes me feel better. One Saturday night in March last year, I waited for the sun to go down, closed all my blinds, turned off the lights, put my phone on silent and in my bedroom, and made some popcorn to recreate the theater experience in my apartment to watch The Rise of Skywalker (y'all, I was obsessed with that movie last year and I can't even tell you how many times I saw it in a theater). While it sufficed for the world we were all living in, and it did help me in the moment, it was never going to be a permanent solution.

All that to say my relationship with movies has been very different this past year. Movie theaters reopened in Austin in August, but most studios were choosing to not release their films since the big markets of NY and LA were closed. New movies to see were not in the same amount as normal years, and while I was thankful for the new films that were released (yay Tenet and Wonder Woman 1984), it's just been a year where I've felt very disconnected from film and the film award world. 

And here we are at Oscar Sunday. Back when the nominations were announced I wasn't very excited about anything. I didn't really even follow or keep track of the other awards during the season. But then Cinemark announced their annual Oscar Week and I could catch up and see all the films and be ready for Oscar Sunday. So here's my take on the noms, most notably the eight Best Pic nominees (which I've seen all), and some (likely) annoying commentary. 

The Father
Wow, what a film to come out of left field for me. I saw this on Wednesday last week knowing nothing about it except the title and the stars. I had seen the ads for it online and immediately assumed it was some sad, treacly, sappy story of a dad and daughter in his final days; something akin to On Golden Pond. It definitely starts out that way, and then there is a huge change that made me wonder if I was watching a psychological thriller (helped along by the score and directing during the change).  And I guess it kind of is a psycholgogica thriller, as Anthony (Anthony Hopkins) is living with dementia and he can't actually remember who is who and what is happening. The film always kept me on my toes and made me even wonder what was going on. Living with dementia must be terrifying, and those  experiencing it through family members are also going through a lot. Both Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are great and I recommend this film. 

Judas and the Black Messiah
I saw this on a February afternoon at the beginning of some plumbing issues at my house. I really just wanted to escape and let go for a couple hours, and was so glad the theater in Denton was open and there was a new movie on the docket. Daniel Kaluuya gives a phenomenal performance as Chairman Fred Hampton, leader of the Black Panther in Illinois. Lakeith Stanfield gives an equally phenomenal performance as FBI informant Bill O'Neal, looking to get his conviction for stealing a car softened. The Black Panthers are incredibly misunderstood by (white) society and this film was a great intro into what they were really trying to do and the way the FBI (illegally) treated them. I intend to do more personal study of the Black Panthers. The ending had me crying at the brutality and illegality of the FBI murdering Fred Hampton.

Mank
When this film was announced I was pretty sure I was the target audience - directed by David Fincher (he directed one of my top-five favorite films, The Social Network) about the classic of classic-est movies, Citizen Kane (which I love). I even got to see it in a real movie theater (the S. Lamar Alamo in Austin). However, I found the movie to be incredibly boring even though I think billing for movies is incredibly fascinating. I didn't like Gary Oldman as Herman J. Mankiewicz (Mank, the guy who wrote Citizen Kane). I didn't really like anybody or anything, except for one very crackling scene at a crowded and somewhat fraught dinner party at the estate of Randolph Hearst. 

Minari
I was excited to watch this film because it is directed by Lee Isaac Chung, a guy who also graduated from the University of Utah Film Studies program (he was a grad student that finished in 2004, I was an undergrad that started in 2005). When I moved to NYC in September 2007, I reached out to the alumni network and was given the email for a fellow graduate that was also living in NYC - Isaac Chung. I contacted him and I actually helped on a film that his friend was directing and he was shooting in early 2008. I don't even remember what I did to what the short/film was about, and we never connected again (although we did friend each other on FB). All of that to say, I was excited that this film had Oscar buzz because of my very small connection to the director. When A24 sent me an email about virtual screenings, I immediately bought a ticket because I wasn't sure I'd be able to see it in theaters. However, the application used wouldn't let me cast from my phone, laptop, or chromebook to my tv, and the ticket was only good for a five hour window, so I ended up watching it on my phone. NOT ideal, especially when reading the subtitles. Anyway, I still found the story to be incredibly affecting and the performances all very moving. 

Nomadland
This was the first film I saw during Oscar Week, and I had no idea what it was about except that it had some scenes involving workers at an Amazon warehouse facility. It's a quietly affecting story of one woman's live after the death of her husband and the closing of the US Gypsum plant that employed her husband in Nevada. She lost her husband and her community, and she spends the movie as a nomad finding new community through work and solitude. It was melancholic and lovely. 

Promising Young Woman
I can imagine many a conservative white dude who believes women "call rape" frequently, watched the trailer (not even the film) and immediately dismissed it as 1) the Me Too movement run amok; 2) angry women revenge film; 3) just a feminist movie (these are all basically versions of the same thing). And maybe it IS those things....but it's also more nuanced than that. Anyone who thinks Cassie the heroine of this movie isn't paying enough attention. She is damaged and hurt and angry (all understandable and justifiable), but her outlet isn't healthy. Numerous people tell her that she needs to move on, and it's clear she's stopped progressing by choice - and that's not a good thing for her or her friend Nina. When she does move on, she's timid and careful, only for it to be taken from her. She reacts in the extreme. And maybe that's all she felt she could do. I'm not really here to judge her....but I am judging the men and other accomplices in the film for their own actions and choices. It is a dark, funny, irreverent, stylistic film with really wonderful music choices. I hope Carey Mulligan wins Best Actress.

Sound of Metal
I don't have a ton to say about this film. I watched it a couple weeks ago in my home on Amazon Prime. I really like Riz Ahmed, but this film didn't totally connect with me. It's not as if it's bad in anyway, I just didn't feel it. But I don't have any negative feelings toward it. 

The Trial of the Chicago 7
I watched this today instead of spending four hours at the theater watching the nominated Shorts. I like Sorkin as a writer (for the most part...I mean he wrote The Social Network which I love but he can definitely be overly speechy in his screenwriting), but don't particularly enjoy him as a director. He has a really all-star, stellar cast, that, in my opinion, helps him overcome some of his weaknesses as a director. But his dialogue oftentimes was annoying and to on-the-nose and it annoyed me. I don't know nearly enough about the actual events, but I feel like he dramatized a lot of the proceedings. The content of the film is extremely applicable to our current time, and it made me feel frustrated that we haven't really come all that far in equity and social justice. After living through this past summer and seeing so much police brutality and violence on Americans, I had anxiety watching the riot footage and had to turn away. The film definitely made me angry, frustrated with the ongoing white supremacy institutions that continue to perpetrate inequity, but that doesn't make it an overwhelming great film; telling a relevant, important story doesn't automatically bestow accolade. Additionally, I was troubled that Gary Seale, the Black Panther roped into the trial simply because he was black, was "saved" by the conscience of a respectable white man. That being said though, Joseph Gordon-Levitt gave a restrained performance that I really liked. 

Snowvid-21

 It started with snow on Valentine's Day. Despite the decent accumulation of snow on the roadways, I made the drive to Hannah's for planned brunch with my friend Lindsey. We both made it safely an

That night, Sunday, was cold. Monday morning came with fresh snow and lots of people didn't have power. I thankfully did, though. I logged into work but it was hard to concentrate as it was clear a lot was going on. Throughout the day I kept checking Facebook to get updates on my friends. I texted with close friends to check in on them. Turned my thermostat down to 65 to conserve energy and do my part. 

Evening came and I still had power, which I was feeling very lucky about. I couldn't believe that I'd get to watch The Bachelor, a piece of joy during this cold, crazy time. 

Then the power went out at 6:30 p.m. I was a bit lost on what to do, as I was feeling confident I wouldn't lose power. I found two good-smelling candles I had from Target, and also some tealight candles from Ikea, lit them and placed them on my nightstand. I brushed my teeth, opened up my faucets to dripping to prevent frozen pipes, gathered blankets and my cats on my bed and settled in. 

I sat there in the candlelight, wondering what I would do if the power was out all night. My mind couldn't handle that thought, so I just cuddled up with Biscuit and ignored the gnawing, overwhelming thoughts. 

Power came on about an hour after going off. I was giddy, and turned on The Bachelor. Sadly, power went out again at about 8:30, around an hour after being on. So I relit my candles and got back into my bed, cuddled with my cats and just laid there. 

I finally fell asleep, and the power went off and on in approximately one-hour increments until about three a.m. It woke me up sometimes, as my heater is kind of loud. Overall though, I was basically warm with all my blankets and layers of clothing (I slept with socks on and I never sleep with socks on). The power went off around 8 a.m., just in time for work to start. It came on an hour later and stayed on for the rest of the day. 

At this point, even though I was cold and mentally exhausted, I was still feeling lucky that I had power ALL DAY. I was, however, feeling concerned that I didn't have enough food to get me through the upcoming snow and cold that was coming Tuesday night; it seemed that Friday would be the next time that it'd be okay to leave (I went grocery shopping Saturday but I didn't get enough to make it through that long). My friend Steph came to my rescue, picking me up in her 4-wheel drive vehicle to get groceries. 

Getting groceries was an adventure. We bypassed Murder Kroger because the parking lot was jam packed. We decided to go to Albertsons farther down on University since its' generally, in normal times, not busy. It was closed. So we headed back towards down and stopped at Aldi's. It was moderately busy, but not overwhelmingly so. They still had a decent amount packaged food, but meat and other deli items were pretty much gone. This surprised me, as my goal was to get items that didn't need refrigeration. Before dropping me off, Steph stopped by her home to give me one of her flashlights. 

With a new food supply, I was feeling ready for whatever came. My power went off around 9 p.m. and was off/on all night in one hour increments until 9 a.m. The temp dropped to below zero over night. Despite that, and the heater being set to 63 and going off every hour, I kept warm in my bed. Power was on all day, except for a random half hour at 2 p.m. I also still had water as my pipes hadn't froze or burst. 

Power stayed on Wednesday evening and all through the night. The City asked all of us to not drip our faucets as the water supply was low. Did my best to conserve water (and electricity), however a boil water order was issued Thursday afternoon. Thankfully I had filled up some pots and containers with water on Monday, so I had some water I could use without having to boil. 

At this point it was just looking forward to Friday, when temps would finally rise above freezing. Friday has come and things are feeeling normal again. The sun came and the rising temp meant the ice and snow melted. Water boil order is still in place, but that's no so bad considering what we've all been through. 

I never lost water, my power only went out at night/overnight and the lowest the temp got in my home was 58. I had food and was checked in on by friends and family. I didn't have medical issues that required power. It was a trying week, though, and I was luckier than most.