1960s TV Today

Image source

With Pan Am premiering this past Sunday night, the amount of shows which depict 1960s American in a highly nostalgic and stylized manner is now at three.  Along with Mad Men and The Playboy Club, these shows nostalgize and simplify an era that was extremely complicated on a number of levels. Politically and socially the country was in a time of major upheaval.  If we were to go by pop culture from the past 40 years or so, the 1960s seem like such a fun time with limitless drinking, great fashions, and sexual revolutionaries!  What fun!  Women were finding their voices and asserting themselves in what they thought would be a soon-to-be formerly male dominated world. The world was idealistic and excited for how they would emerge from the post-war era with free love and youth culture abounding. 

In fact, the decade was fraught with violence and uncertainty.  People who lived through it know that that this time was in fact was full of contradictions. Yes, all of the above is true, but in addition, student radicals fought for academic and political freedoms, the hippies tuned in, turned on and dropped out, and the yippies sought general anarchy.  By the end of the decade three major political leaders had been assassinated in cold blood, the Vietnam War continued to rage on, and harder drugs were beginning to take hold.  By 1970, the innocent and exciting naiveté the decade opened with had all but disappeared.

Nevertheless, pop culture and general parlance has decided that the 1960s was a better time that should be relived and revered.  Currently, Pan Am, Mad Men and Playboy Club all assert what the 1960s were like to millions of people and neglecting so much else. There are some mentions of the outside culture.  Mad Men did an episode where they mentioned that JFK was assassinated and Pan Am hints to the fact that Maggie (Christina Ricci) is someone who has radical tendencies.  But rarely do these realities of the outside world permeate the general narrative of the shows.

Image source

What I find the most interesting common thread that weaves through all of these shows is how gender roles are structured. Namely, how women are objectified and men are asserted as dominant and in control.  They all highlight the abject inequality of the sexes. And the one woman who is the most active in transcending these roles is Peggy in Mad Men, and she's characterized as a lesbian or bisexual.  In Mad Men, the men are the business leaders and the women are the sexualized. Peggy is not sexy at all; to be assertive, after all, is not sexy and must mean you have homosexual tendencies.  In The Playboy Club, men are businessmen, politicians, or gangsters and women are sexualized. In Pan Am, the men are idolized and heroic pilots or law men and the women are sexualized.

Additionally, all the men of power assert themselves by sleeping around.  This makes them sexier. Don Draper (Jon Ham) sleeps with anything that moves, neglecting his family and his marriage for filling his libido's needs. Nick Dalton (Eddie Cibrian) as an ongoing relationship with the head bunny and the stewardesses of Pan Am fly around the world sleeping with men who they think will care for them, but only realize they are being taken for fools when they meet the wives of these sleaze-balls.  For the women in all of these shows, what excited them the most is sleeping with men of power.  It feels as though it gives them power by proxy or they are able to attain a certain status based on the men they bed.  Either way, it’s still the men who have the control and the women who only have their sexuality at their disposal.

Another interesting message that all of these shows send is that of the idealization of the "man's man". This was an era where men were men and women were women; gender roles were clear and the men were at top because they are strong, successful and deserved to be there.  Women are generally frivolous and don't deserve a status of power.

So then, are the networks sending the message that this was a better time when gender roles were clear and defined?  So much else seems so idealized that why wouldn't this message extend to that as well?  For instance, in Pan Am flying is an actually enjoyable experience where the passengers were treated with respect and the airlines actually seemed to appreciate their business.  By associating these "better times" with the way gender roles were laid out, the two ideals are thereby aligned.

Image source

Pan Am tries to send the message that the stewardesses are the precursors to feminists as they are enlightened, independent women who know there is more to life than the roles they've been assigned by their parents and society.  It even asserts that these stewardesses are a result of natural selection as they have escaped their otherwise eminent futures of wives and homemakers.  True, they do have jobs which pay well and in which they get to see the world.  Nevertheless, they are still objectified and subordinate to males and their passengers.  From the strict regimenting of their uniforms (where Maggie was grounded for not wearing her girdle) to serving their pilots, the women, no matter how upwardly mobile the show wants to think, are still second class citizens.

The episode closes on a young girl watching with awe at the beautiful women in their neatly pressed uniforms and you can almost hear her thinking, "Mommy, that's what I want to be when I grow up."  They have chosen this life to see the world, but is it really a freedom or independence?  That image of the little girl directly contrasts the show’s open where a little boy is similarly staring at a plane about to take off.  The difference, however, is that he gets a nod from a pilot and gets excited about his future as such.  These don't seem like parallel hopes and dreams for the future to me. It's borderline offensive to pretend that these two dreams for the future are equal.

In fact, in many ways, this could not be further from the truth. Men and women, mostly in the younger generation were experimenting in all sorts of ways. Granted not all of these characters fall into the category of "youth" but they depict a rather narrow perspective of the era and don’t truly offer an honest perspective of the times. If the networks were really so keen on showing "the 60s" perhaps they should actually do so.

Ultimately TV is a revenue machine.  If a show doesn’t get the ratings it gets canned, no matter how good it is.  Programming (especially on network TV or basic cable) is a lot more consumable and relatable if the content is made more accessible.  The 1960s was a time of great change in this country, and is definitely one of the most important decades in our recent history.  It’s important to remember it as the complicated era it was and not simply what looks good on TV.

Follow @TheReelReviewer

Newsies!

Image source

Last week The Paper Mill Playhouse premiered its new stage version of the beloved Disney musical Newsies!  Complete with new songs and revamped characters, this show remains true to the original version while making way for nuances which give it a fresh feel.  There are a few character changes, most notably, Bryan Denton (who was originally played by Bill Pullman) is now a female character, Katherine Plumber and a love interest in Jack.  They've trimmed some of the excessive characters out as well.  For instance, we no longer meet David's family.  (This also cuts out any reference to David being Jewish). 

Definitely go see it.  If you liked the movie, you will really enjoy this production.  Alan Menken and Jack Feldman, who did the music and lyrics, respectively, for the original movie have returned for production and created new numbers for the stage version.  Not all of the new songs are up to par with old ones, like there is no need for Pulitzer to keep on singing, and now it feels like there is one to many ballads.  That being said, I should also mention that I am also having a hard time remaining objective in regards to the music because I hold the old songs so close to my heart. 

What was particularly interesting was how much the message of the story holds true today.  Telling the story of how Jack Kelly (Jeremy Jordan, soon coming to Broadway in Bonnie and Clyde) as he rallies his fellow newsies to strike against the greed of Joseph Pulitzer (John Dosset, who is one of those actors you've seen in a million things).  As a group, the newsies have to learn to stand up for themselves and fight for what they believe in.  They are the "little man" going up against the power hungry corporate interests that seem to be willing to stop at nothing to improve their bottom line numbers.  Sound familiar?  It's definitely a narrative which holds strong through today.

The play, more than the movie, also hammers home the idea that it is the responsibility of the youth to stand up and make a difference in their worlds.  This is a theme and a message not uncommon to youth oriented message films since the 1950s.  It's interesting that it still needs to be mentioned over and over, as if the world hasn't gotten it.  On the other hand, it's important that each generation finds new ways to get the message across in a way that's relevant to them.

Originally choreographed by Kenny Ortega (recently of High School Musical fame), the movie offered an impressive array of talent.  The play is nothing less.  The dancing is impressive and it builds on the foundational ground that the movie did.  Now, choreographer Christopher Gattelli does a good job incorporating much of the original dance moves, but also expands upon it and lets the cast members' talents really shine through.  It's truly an impressive feat of ballet, acrobatics, and definitely coordination. 

One thing that cannot go unmentioned is the set design.  Incorporating video backdrops to depict the city and their living conditions and screens to highlight text that the characters are reading or writing on newspapers, it changes the visual landscape that one might expect from a play and further aesthetically connects it with the original film while forging its own identity at the same time. 

What was great about going to see this show in a venue such as it's in, was that you truly felt like you were surrounded by fans.  People were mouthing along to the lyrics and when new plot twists were introduced there were collective gasps from the audience.  The energy in the theater was electric, and I'm sure, intimidating for the boys on stage.  But they pulled it off.  The show on a whole is a little rough around the edges, last night's performance was only their 6th, so it's understandable.  There were a couple of almost flubbed lined and tossed props occasionally dropped in the wrong places, but I could look past it.  Judging by the standing ovation and deafening applause at the end, most of the audience felt the same.  But for this to make it to Broadway, and I really hope it does, it will definitely have to be retooled some, but for the most part it was a great nod to a great Disney film which has, and continues to, live in the hearts for so many.

Newsies! runs at the Paper Mill Playouse until October 16. 

You can buy tickets here:
http://www.papermill.org/

You can watch clips here:
http://www.papermill.org/photovideo-gallery/video-gallery.html

Here's the clip from when they recently performed on The View:

2011 Emmys!

I generally love award shows.  I love the pomp and circumstance.  I love the fashion - both terrible and awesome.  I love the acceptance speeches, especially when the winners cry/ramble/feign shock and awe.  But admittedly, they generally tend to be quite repetitive and follow pretty much the same formula year in and year out.  This year, I will say, was an exception.  The Emmy producers found innovative and interesting ways to keep the show feeling fresh.  Jane Lynch was a great host - there when you wanted her and gone when she wasn't needed.

It was also great seeing so many of my favorites win.  Modern Family with pretty much the sweep was so satisfying.  It's such a great show with clever writers and great characters.  Well deserved.  In the drama category, I LOVED that Kyle Chandler won for Friday Night Lights and I admit to shrieking just a bit when he did.  The little show that could also won for best writing, but unfortunately Connie Britton didn't score a win and Mad Men beat it for best drama, but hey, beggers can't be choosers.  (Although I will say the recent Matthew Weiner/AMC/Mad Men drama has soured the show a little bit for me and I would have liked to see the show lose to bring it down a few notches, ego-wise.)  Jon Stewart won everything in his category, which was not a surprise, and still deserved.  Even after 9 consecutive wins, his show stays fresh, interesting, and informative.

Below are some of my favorite moments.  Did you have any favorites?

The Opening:


I love how many shows got on board with participating.  The reference to Newton Minow's "Vast Wasteland" speech was excellent (which I'm sure was lost on most people watching the telecast).

 Best Actress, Comedy:


I wish I could find the announcement of the names, because honestly that was amazing, but this "beauty pageant" conceit was great.  I loved the sense of camaraderie on stage (which I'm sure speaks to their acting abilities) and when Melissa McCarthy won (which, lets be honest, was for Bridesmaids) she was so honestly taken by surprise and Amy Poehler's support was so genuine that it was one of the biggest highlights of the night.

Kyle Chandler's win for Best Actor, Drama:


The girls from the new Charlie's Angels along with Drew Barrymore presented this award.  I'd be willing to bet that this is the last time that show is going to be honored by the Academy in any way, but it was so nice seeing Lyla Garrity (aka Minka Kelly) get to present this award to Coach Taylor.  I only wish he had remembered to thank Tami before the mic went out...

Lonely Island Medly:


Why was this so much funnier than when it aired originally on SNL?  I love Michael Bolton's gravitas as though he is performing an important piece of art.  Chill dude.  The giant American Flag and general USA jingoism mockery was hilarious, especially coming off the recent CNN debates.  Oh, and thank you Emmys for finding a place for Uncle Jesse.  Hearts.

In Memoriam:


This is always my favorite part of any awards show.  Honoring  those who paved the way for today's television and  and appreciating those who came before us is so important.  I love that they continue to include it in the telecast when they are constantly making changes to encourage younger viewers.  The musical accompaniment was beautiful.  So tasteful and so poignant. 

Modern Family, Outstanding Writing in a Comedy:


Now I understand why this show is so brilliantly funny.  The hilarious comedic timing of Steve Levitan's wife!!  Loved this. 

Enough with the Remakes!

I get it, I really do. The Movies are a business.  While those of us purists and academics like to think of film as an art form, adhering to rules or style and aesthetics, I am savvy enough to also know that while those elements are involved, as an industry film is first and foremost a commodity and a business that needs to make money or else it will fail. 

The two schools of thought, art and business, have generally been able to coexist, making it a rather unique business model.  Hollywood has traditionally made the big budget movies and, largely beginning in the 1960s, the smaller Art House and Independent movies have been about the art form.  Nevertheless, to succeed they both have largely relied on story telling and the development of interesting characters.  However, with the recent downward trend of movie-going habits and an upsurge crappy movies it looks like the art form had been traded for pandering.  It seems that today for the medium to survive, the film industry is, for the vast majority, capitalizing merely on what they think will make the most money, forgoing all originality.  Have all stories been told? Is Pixar the only creative entity left in Hollywood?

What exactly am I referring to?  Well take last week's news that Hollywood, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided to remake Beetlejuice.  It was also recently announced that Dirty Dancing will be remade. Footloose 2.0 is about to hit theaters. And 2013 and 2014 will see remakes of Drop Dead Fred and The NeverEnding Story, respectively.  Please. How uninspired are they?  To me, it feels as though the 80s are under attack by a generation of imaginationless studio heads. The 1980s saw an upsurge in teen and adolescent-geared movies and they were hugely successful and immensely popular. The teen culture had, by the 1980s, become huge and its movies lived on in toys, promotional items and other franchises.  Today Hollywood seems to be desperately trying to recapture that magic.  They are hoping that the original audiences will return, and this time with their kids.  Movies are being greenlit by marketing executives who think in terms of demographics.  Hmm, they think, the original fans are now of child bearing age and they'll want to take their kids to this movie for the nostalgia factor.  That creates a whole new built in audience.

The sad thing to me is that rather than allowing the next generation to appreciate the original versions, they'll have a new shinier one, one which is probably overly sexualized and likely even more violent than the originals (Which, by the way, says a lot.  I had to cover my eyes for a lot of the scary scenes in the movies from when I was a kid.)  As a child of the 80s and 90s who grew up on all of those movies, I can tell you with utmost authority that these are all revered films and are in no need of revamping.  They might be a little dated with their special effects, but if we made movies just to update special effects and make it feel more modern we'd have Casablanca 2 and Rebel without a Cause 2 (Don't get any ideas, Hollywood). 

Point is, we don't need remakes of classic 80s movies.  Let this generation fall in love with Patrick Swayze as he dances at Kellermans.  Kids should be challenged to figure out what a Luck Dragon is.  Is it a dog? An actual dragon?  Let them marvel at Tim Burton's imaginative landscaping and storytelling with Beetlejuice.  But, and this is almost more important, let them have their own stories.  Let them see kids on screen who are dealing with the issues they are facing.  Movies so often reflect the culture from where they come so what does it say about our culture if no new ideas are being generated?  Telling stories from 30 years ago (ugh, has it really been that long?!) doesn't really add much to the zeitgeist.  The occasional remake is ok when it actually makes significant and interesting changes, such as landscape  (Like moving The Departed to Boston from a Chinese setting in Infernal Affairs) or when its commenting about where our culture has evolved to (note the two versions of Scarface) but so often they are terrible (Manchurian Candidate anyone?) and add nothing to the cinematic landscape (Like Gus Van Sant's shot for shot remake of Psycho).  Hollywood was once known as a Dream Factory.  These days it seems more like deja vue.

I also think these remakes talk to a bigger issue facing out culture, namely the disposable nature our society has come to value so much.  It fosters an idea of disregarding our past and only valuing the present: if there's a new one, that must mean the original is old and obsolete.  This might seem like a little dramatic, but I do think that these remakes do make a comment on our society that might be deeper than what it might initially seem.  Remaking 80s movies just to capitalize on nostalgia factors and to make a boatload of cash is an insult to our generation and a shame for the next one who won't have their own stories that reflect their lives and the times in which they are living.

Here are some of the original trailers, to remind you of a better time when Hollywood was generating new ideas and not just regurgitating old ones and trying to replicate what an entire generation already values.

The Space Between

Image Source

Today marks the 10^th anniversary of the September 11^th attacks.  This is an event which has never left the American parlance from the day it occurred.  The images are burned in our minds’ eye as something we will never forget.  Across New York, and the country, people are commemorating the horrific events in many different ways.  Some are choosing memorial services, private reflection, film screenings, and so-on.  Broadcast and cable television stations are also honoring the day with programming devoted to memorializing the events.  Something like this should be covered with grace and sensitivity, and I do believe that that’s what the networks would like to be doing.  However, for so much of it, watching the networks vie for eyeballs for their 9/11coverage feels like I’m watching a modern day land-grab.  With a finite number of viewers and what feels like an infinite number of watching options, each network is desperately trying to get the most viewers to tune into their coverage of the 9/11 tragedy’s 10^th anniversary.  At times it feels like this solemn event is being monetized and trivialized for rating points. 

There are some, however, which are using the best their medium has to offer to memorialize this day.   For many of the news stations it seems as though coverage will be, for the most part, interviews with survivors, first responders, politicians.  And some will be replaying footage from their original broadcasts 10 years ago.  The so-called 9/11 tapes have just been released and those will be sure to get a lot of air time.  Personally, I find a lot of it to be reliving trauma, and PTSD-inducing.  While it’s of course important to never forget, it’s also vital to move forward with the healing process and I’m not sure a constant barrage of graphic imagery, although familiar, is necessarily the best way to do that.  

USA Network has chosen a different route.  They have chosen to use artistry and storytelling to commemorate the attacks.  As part of their pro-social initiative, Characters Unite, a "public service campaign dedicated to combating prejudice, discrimination and intolerance while promoting understanding and acceptance,"  they will be showing the film The Space Between tonight at 9 pm. 

The Space Between, starring Oscar winner Melissa Leo, premiered at the 2010 Tribeca Film Festival and tells the story of Omar (Anthony Keyvan), a Pakistani-American boy who was on his way from New York to Los Angeles to attend an elite private Muslim school when the towers were hit.  His plane is grounded and he is stranded in a strange city with no family or friends around for miles. Having been left to care for him on the plane, Montine, an ornery and irritable flight attendant, agrees to take him back home to find his father, who worked in one of the towers.  As they journey back East, they learn about one another and about themselves during a time of national crisis.   

The film's plot plays a little cliché: an ill-tempered adult forced into a situation with an idealistic, innocent and somewhat precocious youngster.  The unlikely pair eventually learns to take the best the other has to offer to further their personal development and they help each other get through a particularly rough period in their lives.  Interestingly, it's almost reminiscent of 1969's Easy Rider.  While it might seem as though these two films have nothing in common, they share a link that might shed some insight into how cinema offers a look at our country in difficult times.  They are both about two unlikely heroes who travel from West to East, the opposite of the frontier exploration, and encountering what America and Americans are like in an unchartered era of unknown and fear of those who are different. Both Montine and Omar are outsiders looking for a place to fit in with society and their famlies.  They have both suffered great losses and are trying to navigate in a world where their place has been called into question.

There have been a number of films made about the attacks over the years, but none of them were particularly memorable or impressive.  Further, they generally have not tackled one of its most lasting social effects.  However, this film, made nearly 10 years after the horrific events, there is enough hindsight and even objectivity to understand and discern between Muslim extremists and the general Muslim community.  Omar’s father has taught him to be kind and generous with people and yet he is faced with prejudice and anti-Muslim sentiments time and again.  The implicit irony, of course, is that Omar is the peaceful character contrasted with Montine who instigates and incites fights pretty much wherever she goes.  This irony is a commentary on our society that perhaps the world was not ready to see (nor was Hollywood ready to make) until this time.  However, it offers an insight into our state of heightened prejudice and asks us to take a look at how we view others.  Its asks audiences to look at the whole person, not just their skin color or how they dress or any other external features, before passing judgement.

Ten years later we, as a nation, are still grappling with the questions of how something so terrible could have happened on our shores.  Our lawmakers, armed forces and all the others entrusted with our safety are trying desperately to ensure it does not happen again.  Still, we remain incredulous and unsure about what the future holds.  In this regard, Omar is our voice, the voice of the audience who is watching his story.  In one scene Omar asks Montine’s brother why God lets bad things happen.  It’s so innocent, yet at the same time, such a loaded question.  He is the voice of the audience as we are as naïve as he is, despite our attempts to understand and comprehend just how something so horrific could have happened. 

This film is an honest portrayal of two people’s stories.  It does not attempt to make any grand assumptions about the nation on a whole or how the world reacted.  It's not perfect,but it's quiet and quite gripping, and in a media landscape where everyone seems to be shouting this is the quiet whisper which actually has something to say and whose voice is worth listening to. 

Another Earth

Image source

Ever wonder what it would be like to know there was someone out there exactly like you, with the same experiences, emotions, and backgrounds you had? Someone who you could talk to and could relate exactly to you? On the one hand that would be so exciting to have someone who knows you as only you could. However, on the other hand what would that mean about your sense of self. This film asks, what is “the self” and how do you define yourself and your individual identity if there’s more than one of you?

Another Earth attempts to explore some of those issues. The story which surrounds this exploration involves Rhoda (Brit Marling), a 21 year old who was recently released from jail after driving drunk and killing a woman and her young son. Plagued with guilt, Rhoda tracks down the surviving husband to attempt to make amends. Unable to admit her misdeed to the bereaved father and widower, she makes up an excuse that she’s a housecleaner there to offer a free trial cleaning service. He accepts, and their lives once again become intertwined.

The night of Rhoda’s accident was also the night that Earth 2, as it was called, was discovered. This recently discovered planet seems to be very similar to “our” Earth, and becomes a point of instant fascination about what could be up there. By the time she is out of jail, Earth 2 has become both the target of scientific fascination as well as pop-culture interest. It has been discovered that Earth 2 is a mirror image of our Earth, with the same ecological and biological make-ups and as it turns out, another version of each human on Earth 1. An eccentric Australia millionaire (might as well have been Richard Branson) hosts a writing contest where one entrant will win a trip to Earth 2 to see exactly what's there. Initially hesitant, Rhoda eventually enters the contest to escape the world she’s in and find out if her “other self” has a better life up there.

At its heart, this film is about second chances and redemption. Rhoda is drawn to the man whose life she all but destroyed, doing her best to make amends while not having the ability to actually tell him why she’s there. John Burroughs (William Mapother), the beleaguered father, is trapped in his own misery unable to find a way out. The two are able to help one another, despite the heavy secret that lies between them.

Having only the best intentions, this film is stuffed with heavy themes ranging from the aforementioned identity and individuality to free will versus Divine Providence, being alone versus being lonely, and redemption and second chances. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have the chance to really flesh them out fully. Probably due to budget constraints as Another Earth was filmed on a shoestring budget and one of the most “indie” films I've ever seen, but it left me wanting more of a deeper exploration into these questions it brings up. Many of the issues are mentioned in passing and offered as something for the audience to think about, but the film itself doesn’t actually offer a thought or idea about them. Nevertheless, it did get me thinking about issues of identity and our place in this universe. Would there be a practical difference in our lives if another inhabitable planet was discovered with people on it who share our experiences? Is there another me out there who has managed to “do it” better than me and is more successful and happier even though she had been given the same opportunities as me?

Another issue that lies beneath the surface of the film and is never directly addressed is the issue of which Earth are these characters on? Are we egocentric enough to think they are on our planet? Or perhaps, the whole point of the movie is that we are in fact on Earth 2 and they are Earth 1. In one moment of the film Burroughs exclaims, “Do you think they are up there thinking they are Earth 2? No, they think they are Earth 1!” As humans we seem so captivated by the notion that there is life out there that we’re going to find. We assume we’re the smart, superior beings who will track others down. Maybe, however, and I think this film forces us to think about this, there are others who are looking for us and we aren’t the last word in existence. Overall, the film offers a lesson in humility and being humble despite whatever greatness you believe you deserve or are headed towards. Rhoda has been accepted to MIT the night of the crash. In the opening voice over she talks about how that night the world was hers for the taking and she could go anywhere she wanted to. Burroughs was a Yale professor and famous musician before the crash left him coma-ridden for years and unable to continue his work.

One’s world can change in an instant, and ultimately, the message that I felt that this film offered was to not take what you have for granted appreciate it and honor it. One can always ask the “what ifs” – what if I had done something differently? What if I hadn’t been offered certain opportunities? What if there was someone out there who really understood me that could help me through whatever it is I am going through? Maybe it doesn’t matter. Rhoda was so concerned about what was up there in the night sky when she crashed. Yes, she had been drinking, but she was also staring out the window at the newly discovered planet. Her mind was filled with the “what ifs” and that’s what literally caused her to veer off course and send her life into a whole new direction, lacking the promise she once had.

Beauty and the Beast "Bonjour" Spoof

Spoofs on existing media is all the rage these days, and for good reason, they can be really awesome.  The clip below is the latest video making its way around the interwebs.  Sounding a lot like Honey Badger, this one takes on the iconic opening song of Disney's Beauty and the Beast.

Check it out.



There are so many great lines in here, and while probably NSFW, I was LOLing at my desk.  She sings about her town of  "queens and homos" as they yell "Hey Girl!" to her.  "I can hear you bitches" to the women who call her peculiar.  My favorite?  When she tells the sheep who eats her book that she's going to make it into a sweater. This is just brilliant!

Each time I've watched it (I'm up to 3x) I find new gems which make me shake with laughter.   It's awesome, I love it.  Just watch.