CNN's "The Nineties" buries our gays

As someone fascinated by history, I got really into CNN's decade series.  I saw "The Sixties," "The Seventies," and "The Eighties," and looked forward to "The Nineties," if for no other reason than it was the first decade I could really remember.  The Soviet government fell when I was on winter break in fifth grade.  I saw the troops marching off to Iraq to battle Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Shield, and we had yellow ribbons in our classroom to support the troops.  I was glued to Law & Order and identified with Daria.  I was in ninth grade when the Alfred P. Murrah building was bombed and O.J. Simpson was acquitted.  I remember Waco, Bosnia, and Rwanda on the news.  My first year of college (don't try to do the math, it won't work), Bill Clinton was impeached.  I voted for the first time in the Democratic primary that nominated Al Gore.  And, yes, I probably danced the Macarena about a hundred times during the summer of 1996.
Which is why I found "The Nineties" so disappointing, mostly for what it left out.  Specifically, our country's extremely dynamic relationship with the gay community.  It was a time of great progress, but also a time of violence and hate crimes driven by homophobia.
By the early 1990s, the status of gays in America was changing.  People felt more comfortable "coming out," and no longer was AIDS the grisly threat it had been.  1994's pop psychology book Reviving Ophelia featured at least one lesbian teenager coming to terms with her identity.  Gay Americans were fighting in court for legal recognition of their partnerships and custody of their children.  Gay characters were shown in media, and the musical RENT featured a gay man, a lesbian, a bisexual woman, and Angel, whose identity (transgender or genderqueer) is still being debated by fans.  And Angel and Collins (the gay man) had the most loving, stable relationship of all the characters!  By the end of the decade, a few states had legalized same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships.
Unfortunately, progress is never linear.  Two well-publicized murders occurred during the 1990s in America's heartland.  Brandon Teena, a transgender man, was killed in 1993.  And, of course, Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in a hate crime in 1998 because he was gay.
None of this gets even a nod.  Sure, the television episode mentions Ellen DeGeneres coming out, and the show Will and Grace.  But nothing else gets a nod.  The episode on civil rights focuses on the O.J. Simpson trial (which wasn't really about civil rights) but neglects to mention Matthew Shepard.  Nothing was mentioned about the changing legal or cultural status of the gay community.  However, it was one of the features of the decade that I remember the most vividly.

Misogynistic dillweeds--a field guide

Recently, I heard about a breed of males called "Incels," or involuntary celibates.  In other words, a group of unpleasant man-children who couldn't get a woman to have sex with them if their lives depended on it.  They chalk up their unpopularity to women going for looks or money, not noticing that it's their attitude and unwillingness to own their behavior that women find off-putting.  (Not to mention the double standard--these men are also the first ones to insult a woman based on her appearance or weight.)
There are so many groups now of men like these, it's hard to keep track.  So, I've taken the liberty of preparing a field guide, based on my own experience and research on Reddit and We Hunted the Mammoth:
"Nice Guy": This man dates occasionally, but not often enough to suit his tastes.  The women he dates tend to lose interest quickly, and start to agree with him that he's not good enough.  Popularized the term "friendzone," and has fallen hard for the idea that if he just acts "Nice," the object of his desire will fall madly in love with him.  Frequently calls coupled men "assholes," as opposed to himself, as in the following: "Women just want to date assholes.  Why don't they ever go out with me?  I'm a Nice Guy."  (This same Nice Guy will castigate the object of his attention as a "bitch" or "slut" when she turns him down.)  Annoying, but relatively harmless.
Pick-Up Artist (PUA): To this man, women are objects to be won by charm.  If that doesn't work, there's always persuasion.  To these men, "no" means "I'm just being shy; keep trying."  Best not to deal with this one without backup.
Red Piller: This man is the Pick-Up Artist on 'roids.  Popularized the term "pump 'n dump."  Spends much time trying to establish himself as an Alpha, dominant over women.  Castigates men who treat women with respect as "betas" and "fuckboys."  To take the red pill means to treat feminism as a destructive force in society.  Avoid. 
Men's Rights Activist (MRA): This chap has either been through a divorce or knows someone who has.  Swears up and down that he treated his wife like a queen, but she may see it differently.  His ex-wife got tired of his bullshit and hired a competent divorce attorney, winning a greater than 50-50 share of time with the children (whom he didn't really pay any attention to until now because parenting is a woman's job, amirite?) plus child support and whatever maintenance the law allows.  Because he feels he owes his ex-wife nothing, he grouses about paying to anyone who will listen.  He will probably avoid women at this juncture, since in his mind, they're only after money.
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW): These boys don't have a girlfriend, and often don't have a job, either.  This is of course, due to Teh Evul Feminists, who insist that women can do anything men can.  Believe MRA and Red Pill statements about women, often due to an inability to relate to women as people.  Have chosen to remove themselves from the dating game altogether because they aren't Fortune 500 CEOs with a hot trophy wife.  What they fail to understand is that they aren't really missed.
Incels: From "involuntary celibacy."  Incels are manchildren who, again, can't get a date (do I detect a running theme here?).  So, to make up for it, they want to put all the "sluts" (read, women who don't have sex with them) into a subservient role.  Loudly deride women for not staying in their "place," and espouse a hatred of women.  Idolize Elliot Rodgers, the guy who shot six women.  Handle with caution.

Summer blockbuster season--survival of the tritest

Recently, I had the opportunity to see an incredible film about a woman who is a true American hero.  I am speaking, of course, about the biopic Megan Leavey. 
If you haven't seen this movie, I suggest you do.  Like right now.  It probably won't be in theaters much longer.  It opened eighth at the box office, despite an 82% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  One week after opening, it's down to a single screening per day.  The theater had less than 20 people in it.  But what do you expect for a film that was barely promoted and nobody's even heard about?  (I wouldn't have seen it either, but Thing 1 loves dogs.  And since the story was about a Marine and her bomb-sniffing dog--it was kind of required viewing.)
Why do certain movies end up in theaters for ages and others fade out or never even make it?  Why was a film based on the Roald Dahl classic The BFG only in theaters for a few weeks while Boss Baby lasts for months?  Why did the recent release of The Little Prince, an English dub of a French film based on the Saint Exupery story (one of my favorites, incidentally) not even make it to theaters at all?  One week before it was to open, Paramount pulled it, and sent it straight to Netflix.
My guess is we live in the land of the focus group.  Movie companies, competing with streaming services in a pinched economy (going to the movies for a family of four can easily cost $100 between tickets and concessions) will only put their marketing and distribution efforts into films with massive returns.  And right now, that seems to be mostly in big-budget action movies based on the interests of Gen-X and early Millennial males.  Transformers.  Fast and Furious car chase films.  DC and Marvel superheroes (not my brand of geekery, to be honest.)  Most of the previews and theater screens seem to betaken up with some variation on one of these themes. 
But at least there is some hope.  I eagerly anticipated the release of The Great Gilly Hopkins, a film that should have made it (cast included Kathy Bates, Glenn Close, Octavia Spencer and Julia Stiles--not exactly names to sneeze at.)  Other than a few sneak previews, the movie never saw the theaters.  However, to my delight, it turned up on Netflix.  So did The Little Prince.  So will a hundred other films you never heard of or paid much attention to when they were in theaters, but start to look better after you binge-watched the newest season of Orange is the New Black and are wondering what else is on.

Meet Julia--an imperfect introduction

Over the years, Sesame Street has been a model of inclusion.  They showed college-educated African-Americans in the 1960s, a Deaf main character in the 1970s, death and birth of characters in the 1980s, a Spanish-speaking muppet in the 1990s, and responses to natural disasters and crises in the 2000s.  On Monday, Sesame Street took another step into introducing kids to a diverse, imperfect world with the culmination of their "Be Amazing" initiative: a felt and wire muppet on the autism spectrum.  Julia is four years old, is able to speak (mostly echolalia, which is a legitimate form of communication), loves her stuffed rabbit Fluffster, and flaps and bounces when she is happy.

I'm not going to discuss the accuracy of her portrayal of autism.  There will always be autistic people who share some of her characteristics but not others.  (I'm using identity-first language here, as this is the choice of many autistic people.)  Instead, I'm going to go into the other characters reactions to her.  It's not all bad, but it's not perfect either.

The Good:

• Julia communicates in various ways, whether it's shuddering at the finger paint, using echolalic speech, covering her ears, and bouncing and flapping.  Alan, Abby and Elmo treat her communication methods as legitimate and respond appropriately.
• Alan explains Julia's differences to Big Bird in a way that shows that they are a part of her, and does not attempt to remove or suppress her differences at any time.
• Julia is shown to have talents of her own.  Her painting of Fluffster with wings is not only imaginative, but technically advanced for a four-year-old.
• When Julia starts bouncing during the game of tag, Abby joins in, not because she's "being nice to the disabled kid," but because it looks fun.
• When Julia shuts down due to the siren, almost no one gets angry or upset with her.

The Bad:

• Although most four-year-olds, autistic or not, are not the greatest self-advocates, it would have been nice for Julia to have been able to advocate for herself more without having someone else "translate."
• When Abby and Elmo explain Julia's differences to Big Bird, it comes off as being patronizing.  They sound as if they are saying, "yeah, Julia's weird, but we're her friends anyway."  This is particularly glaring to me because both characters are supposed to be a full year younger.  It makes Julia's differences stand out more.
• Big Bird comes off as kind of a dick in this episode, particularly during Julia's shutdown during the siren.  He's an 8' 2" yellow bird whose best friend is a furry, brown, earless elephant, and he can't deal with Julia because she has sensitive hearing?  His comment about the siren not being that loud comes off as dismissive.  (And autistic people are supposedly the ones who lack empathy...)
• After the intro segment, Julia is not seen or heard from again for the rest of the episode.  I'm hoping this is not the Very Special Episode about autism, and Julia is integrated more into the life of the Street as the series progresses.  I also hope that she has a part in storylines not related to her identity as an autistic muppet.

Overall, I'd give the episode a C+.  It was a fair, but not great beginning.  Let's hope that, as time passes, that Sesame Workshop is improves their portrayal, and Julia becomes a character in her own right. 

Thirteen Reasons Why--a review

Warning: Spoilers Ahead!
Last year, I read the young adult novel Thirteen Reasons Why.  Simple enough premise--Hannah Baker, a suicidal teenager, records a series of tapes before ending her life.  Her friend Clay Jensen receives the tapes, and some very simple instructions.  Listen to the tapes and then pass them on to the next person.  Stop passing them, and a third party will play the tapes for the entire school.  Oh, and if you received the tapes, you are one of the reasons that Hannah ended her life.  The recipients include the boy who was her first kiss (who spread rumors that they did so much more), catty girls who were "fake friends," a Peeping Tom photographer, the campus rapist, and a guidance counselor who didn't listen to her final cry for help, among other.  Clay?  Nice guy who had a crush on her, and who left her alone in a moment when she was in distress.
Netflix just turned it into a series.  Originally it was meant to be a movie, but instead, each of the tapes becomes its own episode.  The series begins after Hannah's suicide, and while the school puts on a public display of mourning, Hannah's parents are commencing a lawsuit against the school.  Clay receives the tapes, and is one of the last of the listed recipients, so most of the other people on the tapes have already heard them.  And here is where things get interesting.   Clay considered Hannah a close friend, and had a mild crush on her, so he wonders what he could have done to make her suicidal.  Instead, he goes after the other recipients.  Most of them are the "good" kids--athletes, student government leaders, cheerleaders, popular kids--and so they're more concerned about saving their own reputations than about considering the repercussions of their actions.  There is a hope that once someone is "gone," those who bullied and tormented that person, who made their lives a living hell, will feel remorse for what they did.  With few exceptions, none of them feel any remorse at all.  Instead, they try to paint Hannah as an unstable liar.  When that doesn't work, they go after Clay...
The moral is supposed to be that every action has consequences, and that what someone considers a "harmless" prank could inflict serious damage on another person.  However, this lesson seems lost on every recipient of the tapes, including Clay.  Many of them deny their involvement, and with good reason.  If those tapes come out, they could be in serious trouble.  Bryce committed two rapes.  Justin not only assisted Bryce with one (and of his girlfriend, no less), but spread a photo of Hannah with her skirt up.  Tyler stalked Hannah for weeks, and also spread a suggestive photograph.  Sherri knocked down a stop sign, causing an accident in which another student died.  Marcus felt her up against her will.  Ryan stole one of her poems and published it without her knowledge or consent.  So, just with a few people, we have rape, accomplice to rape, dissemination of child pornography (Hannah was a minor), leaving the scene of an accident, destruction of city property, sexual harassment, and theft of intellectual property.  And while the other people named on the tape may not have committed felonies, their actions do not place them in a very positive light either.  They bullied Hannah, spread rumors about her, hurt her as revenge on third parties, and played pranks.  And thought a few flowers and signs on her locker could make it all better.  (A rather amusing scene features Courtney, one of the recipients, and Hannah's mother.  Courtney tells Mrs. Baker that she and Hannah were good friends.  Mrs. Baker replies that if that were true, Courtney would never have used roses on Hannah's memorial, as Hannah hated roses.)  Meanwhile, few of them adjust their behavior after hearing the tapes.  The girl who knocked down the stop sign volunteered to help an old man injured in the accident, and eventually turned herself in.  Another boy eventually calls out all the recipients on the tape for caring more about their own skins.  But the others, including Clay, bully Tyler for being a Peeping Tom.  The athletes named on the tapes beat Clay up to keep him from talking, and Marcus plants drugs on Clay to discredit him.  Most of them throw Bryce and Justin under the bus.  And the sad part is, the school administration behaves no better than the kids, attempting to cover up their own involvement.  In the end, Clay reaches out to an unhappy classmate who has begun self-injury, and gives a digital copy of the tapes to Hannah's parents.
This series is a distressing look at the dynamics of human connections, or lack thereof.  It shows that, for all we think that we are "good" people, we have the capacity to do great harm.  That at our core, most of us are self-absorbed and cruel.

Blurring lines

CN: Strong language, references to sex acts
Last summer, a fun little romp of a song was all over the radio.  (I didn't hear it until the fall, since I keep my radio tuned to classic rock.)  The song was by Robin Thicke, T.I., and Pharrell, and was called "Blurred Lines."
Since I only listen to classic rock (on the radio at least--my Spotify playlists can be described as eclectic at a minimum, crossing both genres and centuries), I'm not sure if this song is even still being played.  Between the plagiarized melody and the creepy lyrics, I was happy to hear it a couple of times, roll my eyes, say "Yuck" and move on.
However, this song still has something of a shelf life.  According to this rather patronizing article, this song is still being played and still pissing us off.  Apparently, a campus pub was playing the song, a student complained that it was offensive, and the school took action, barring the song from the pub.  
For those of you who spent 2013 under a rock, here is the video:

 

For those of you not distracted by bright red hashtags and oversized dice, the message is pretty obvious.  The "blurred line" in question is between consensual and non-consensual sex.  Because any girl who goes to a club and dances with a guy after a drink or two wants to sleep with him.

Some have criticized the reaction as being overblown, including Cathy Young, whose article I linked to above.  But give a listen.  Really give a listen.  Besides "I know you want it," which has almost become a cliché in rape culture, the song talks about "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two" and "Do it like it hurt."  That sounds degrading on a good day.  But for me, the innocent opening lyrics really frame this.  "If you can't hear what I'm trying to say/...Maybe I'm going deaf."  Yes, you are.  A dance does not equal a proposition.  Even Internet music critic Todd in the Shadows said the song had a "rapey" vibe to it.  All three artists have deflected criticism by saying how much they respect women.  After all, they're married men!  And as we all know, married men never rape women...oh wait a minute.
Now, we do have a First Amendment, and artists should be free to express themselves as they please.  But it takes a discerning audience to distinguish good art from bad.  And I draw a very not blurry line at songs that degrade women, call them "animals"  and think that it's OK to "smack your ass and pull your hair like that."

Disney Princess 3G

Living in a house with two little girls, we are naturally bombarded with a great deal of Disney.  (Although the Wicked Queen has permanently put Thing 1 off Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.)  When Frozen came out on DVD, Queen Mom happily procured a copy for the Things, and now I get regaled with their adorable renditions of "Do You Want to Build a Snowman," "For the First Time in Forever," and the award-winning "Let it Go."
But as I watch these films, it occurs to me how much the Disney Princesses have changed over the last 67 years, and not in the "Snow White is positively corpulent by today's standards" sense.  I'm talking about their characters.
By 1937, The Walt Disney studios had been successfully creating animated shorts featuring music and talking animals when they decided to tackle a new project--a feature length film based on a classic fairy tale.  The result was Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, a film that is considered a classic even today, and launched the first of the Disney Princesses.  These original princesses (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora) were very beautiful, very passive--and not much else.  (Two of them spent the better part of their films comatose, and the third was hired help.)  Aurora from Sleeping Beauty had fewer lines than any other title character except the non-verbal Dumbo.  Admittedly, their love interests were not much better.  They were nameless "pretty boys" who "fell in love" after one song.  Sleeping Beauty was the first to name the prince and give them a chance to get to know each other a little--but since their marriage had been arranged sixteen years ago, it was pretty much a fait accompli.  And again, they share one dance, one kiss after she wakes up from a coma, and wedding bells.
After Sleeping Beauty, Disney returned to the "talking animal" characters and would not create another film with a princess for nearly thirty years.  The result was a rather unsuccessful little film called The Black Cauldron.  Here, we are introduced to the non-canon Princess Eilonwy.  This princess is younger than her predecessors, not quite pubescent, and scornful of the hero, who is not a Prince Charming, but a pig-keeper and wannabe hero.  However, she has actual dialogue, interaction with the other characters, and some action scenes.  She also does not marry Taran, although they do share a forced kiss.  Either because of her youth or the film's failure, she is not "officially" canon.  However, had the numbers gone differently, this would have been the first film of the Disney Renaissance.
The Disney Renaissance was truly the point in which the Princesses come into their own.  Although the most successful film of this period was a talking animal film (The Lion King), most of the Renaissance films that anyone remembers feature a princess.  These princess are not the beautiful cyphers interested only in True Love with the Handsome Prince.  They want more!  And they express their desires in song, usually in the first act.  They also spend a few days getting to know the Handsome Prince, instead of one song.  The Little Mermaid tentatively broke the mold in 1989, giving us a girl who wanted legs.  The "may-unn" was merely secondary.  And she rescued her prince long before he rescued her.  However, she was a bit more old-school than the others.  For one thing, the entire time that she was getting to know Prince Eric, she was mute.  A slight improvement over the girl marrying the first guy who kisses her while comatose, but the symbolism is pretty obvious.  The next princess was Beauty and the Beast.  Here we have a girl who refuses to marry the obnoxious town swain--only to wind up in the mother of all emotionally abusive relationships with an anger junkie who quite literally held her hostage.  Not to mention what a lovely message to abused women.  Just be perpetually pretty and sweet, and the abuser will become kind and loving.  With Aladdin, we have two departures.  The first is that Princess Jasmine is not the title character (although she also wants more!, she doesn't express this in song.)  The second is that we now have a princess who is not Caucasian.  She initially rejects Aladdin for being just another obnoxious prince wanting a pretty wife for the harem--until she sees his car flying carpet.  How very Quinn Morgendorfer.  Also, she doesn't marry him until the third installment.  But we still have pretty girls needing to get rescued.
After the first four films, the quality goes straight down.  Stories that had once been considered original had become predictable and formulaic.  This is pretty obvious in Pocahontas, which was so like its four predecessors that it had become almost a parody.  However, in this film, we have not only our first interracial love affair, but the first time that the princess rescues the hero without getting rescued herself.  Thus began an era of some experimentation where the actual hero who rescues the princess is not handsome (The Hunchback of Notre Dame); the princess and hero meet on the job while the girl is in drag (Mulan); the princess is the 8,000-year-old ruler in her own right of a lost kingdom (Kida in Atlantis: The Lost Empire); the "princess" is a working girl with no time for romance by choice (Tiana in The Princess and the Frog); and the "princess" is an anthropologist using her "prince" as a subject for study (Jane Porter in Tarzan).  However, in almost all instances, we still have Beautiful (if now spunky) Princess getting rescued by and falling in love with Handsome Prince. 
Tangled is another example of a transitional film.  As the quality of Disney films went into decline, the Pixar branch became more successful.  So, in 2010, Disney released Tangled, the first CGI film in the "princess" line.  Although stylistically, it is more like the later films I will call Disney Princess 3G, the story is similar to older ones.  Rapunzel is a shut-in emotionally abused by her not-mother (because we've never seen this before), who gets out with the help of Eugene.  Although the girl wields a mean frying pan and uses Eugene as a tour guide without thinking he's cute, he still rescues her, and they still marry in the end.  So, we're back to Beautiful Princess Getting Rescued.
Which brings me to the 3G stories.  For the first time, we have princesses who not only do not marry the prince, but end up rescuing themselves.  We also have less of a clear villain, or if we do have one, it's usually the prince himself.  In Brave, we actually have a princess who is her own worst enemy.  Instead of a mother figure who subjugates the princess for her own gain, we have a mother who tries to instill a sense of duty in her daughter against the girl's wishes.  It's only by appreciating her mother's wisdom that she grows as a character.  This is another departure.  While previous princess characters experienced no growth or even stagnated a little (I'm looking at you, Belle!), these princesses experienced character growth.   The next of these princesses was the video-game character Vanellope von Schweetz from Wreck-it Ralph.  Again, not canon due to youth.  A street-urchin "glitch," she lives to race but is thwarted by the other characters in her game, mostly the crazy, sugar-crazed villain King Candy.  Her first action is stealing the hard-won medal of game "bad guy" Ralph, and using it to enter a race with a homemade car.  Vanellope is voiced by profane comedian Sarah Silverman, and frequently calls Ralph a stinkbrain.  Although Ralph does eventually help her, she rescues herself be crossing the finish line on her own, thus resetting the game's code and revealing her princess status.  She and Ralph stay friends, but do not marry. 
Which bring me back to Frozen.  Here, we have two princesses, one who is an inadvertent "evil queen" due to ice powers she cannot control.  Although originally meant as the villain, Queen Elsa is as much a victim of her own powers as her subjects.  Her sister Anna is the hero in this story.  Although paired with two possible love interests, she does not marry in the end.  Also, she is under a curse that can only be broken by an act of true love.  Naturally, we all think Handsome Prince Hans will kiss her and break the spell.  Instead, he leaves her in a cold room to freeze to death.  The first entity to show her that act of love that puts his needs before his own is the snow golem Olaf.  (That really should have counted.  Seriously, he's a snowman building a fire to keep a friend from freezing to death!  How is that not putting someone else's needs before your own?)  In the end, the act of love that rescues Anna is her own sacrifice to save her sister, not the act of any man.
Over the past 67 years, the Disney Princesses have changed a great deal.  With this new era, let us hope that we keep getting dynamic characters.

Yentl vs. Yentl

When I was about eight years old, my grandmother gave me her copy of Isaac Bashevis Singer's "Yentl the Yeshiva Boy."  Being a prolific little reader, I read it with interest, although many of the references to Judaism, and all the references to "the marital relationship" flew right over my little head.  I also saw part of the movie, but fell asleep before the ending.  For some reason, I liked the short story, but could not stand the movie.  So, a little comparison.  For the record, the categories are for analytic purposes only, no score will be attached.
Yentl/Anshel:  Singer describes Yentl as having the "soul of a woman in the body of a man."  She has a prodigious talent for learning Talmud, but cannot handle basic domestic duties.  Even her appearance is masculine, such that she looks like a handsome young man in her father's clothes.  She is "tall, thin, bony, with small breasts and narrow hips."  Yentl wants as much as possible to be a man.  After her father's death, she cuts off her hair, dons her father's clothes, and leaves town secretly, going to the next town to find a yeshiva.  She (now styling herself as the male Anshel), meets Avigdor at the inn, and travels with him to the yeshiva at Bechev.
Yentl's inner conflict stems from her own quest for self-actualization.  Her father taught her in secret, and now she must disguise herself as a man to continue learning.  However, the deception takes its toll.  She has nightmares about being in both a man's body and a woman's body at the same time.  As she tells Avigdor, "I'm neither one nor the other."  She is in love with Avigdor, but married to his former fiancee, Hadass (the book implies that she finds other means to perform her duties as a husband.)  Although she is a woman, she finds Hadass desirable, at one point, thinking, "A pity I'm not a man."
Singer plays up Yentl's gender ambiguity, often using the feminine "she" when referring to the identity of Anshel.  Additionally, her behaviors towards Avigdor are described in very feminine terms before she reveals her identity (she buys him buckwheat cakes and sews buttons back on his coat), but very masculine afterwards (she uses the hand gestures associated with male yeshiva students, plucks at her missing beard, and even "seized Avigdor by the lapel and called him stupid")
Streisand's Yentl, however, is an active feminist.  Her conflict is not "Why was I born in a woman's body when I have the soul of a man?" but rather, "Why can't women learn the way men do?"  Unlike Singer's character, she is far less secretive with her activities.  She buys seforim from a vendor, and recites a passuk in the Mishnah while her father studies with a young boy.  After she's married, she teaches Hadass the Talmud, but avoids her advances.  At no time does Streisand feel any inner conflict over her identity.  In fact she sings about how she is a woman just before she reveals herself to Avigdor.  While Singer's Yentl is very masculine physically, the buxom Babs must work harder to downplay her femininity. 
Avigdor: Anshel's chavrusa and love interest, he was a promising Torah scholar with a melancholy streak.  He was engaged to Hadass before the news came out that his brother had committed suicide.  Afterwards, he was married off to the wealthy but mean-spirited widow Peshe.
Singer wrote Avigdor as Anshel's friend and mentor.  He respects Anshel's scholastic abilities, and the two begin spending all their time together.  At one point, Avigdor states that "my life is bound up in your life."    Avigdor compares favorably with the other men in yeshiva, to the point that after he left to get married, Anshel did not find a new chavrusa.  Avigdor is also the only person to whom Anshel revealed his (her) true identity.  However Avigdor's life is an unhappy one.  Peshe, his wife, was unattractive and neglected him.  She wanted him to give up his studies and go to work with her.  She would not feed him or give him clean clothing.
Mandy Patinkin's Avigdor came off as a chauvinist pig.  He frequently made comments about women's lack of ability to think, and, when the engagement was broken, cared more about not having sons than he did about losing Hadass.  While Singer's Avigdor truly loved Hadass, and would press Anshel for information about how she was doing, Patinkin's Avigdor really only thought of her in terms of function.  (Patinkin's character did not marry in the movie.)  Also, Singer's Avigdor reacted to Anshel's reveal with shock and disbelief, but continued to learn with him even afterwards.  Patinkin reacted with undisguised rage, then proposed marriage.  However, he made it clear that Yentl would have to give up learning to be with him.  (As he said, "I'll do the thinking for both of us!")
Hadass: A foil to Yentl, Hadass is the perfect woman--wealthy and beautiful.  Singer reports that she "ordered the servant girl around, was forever engrossed in storybooks, and changed her hairdo every week."  She is also in love with Avigdor, despite the broken engagement.  However, once she marries Anshel, she transfers all her affection to him.  Throughout the book, she only speaks twice--both times to Anshel.  Both times, she discusses Avigdor.  However, after the marriage, she clearly loves Anshel, and weeps when he divorces her.
Amy Irving's character of Hadass is far more involved.  She actively pursues a physical relationship with Anshel once they're married, despite Anshel trying to put her off.  She also studies Talmud under Anshel's guidance; although she chews him out for trying to teach her after she slaved over Shabbos preparations.  However, when it comes to romance, she seems content with either husband--at least we are not presented with her reaction to Anshel's departure and their subsequent divorce.
Themes: Each book approaches a different theme.  For Singer, the main theme seems to be the need for truth.  Yentl told a seemingly small lie for a noble purpose--to learn the Torah she loved.  As a result, she ended up losing Avigdor, and eventually losing herself.  Once she revealed herself to Avigdor, she sent Hadass a divorce and vanished.  Additionally, because of her subterfuge, she had to resort to some pretty conspicuous behavior (avoiding the mikveh and the river, leaving town and divorcing Hadass) which generated gossip about Anshel.  Some of the townspeople said that Anshel was a demon, or that he had gambled Hadass away to Avigdor on a spin of the dreidel.  Singer writes "when the grain of truth cannot be found, people will swallow great heaps of falsehood."  Singer also explores the effects of Yentl's lie on both Avigdor and Hadass.  True, after their respective divorces were finalized, they married each other.  However, Avigdor looked despondent at the wedding, and Hadass wept.  Anshel was never seen or heard from again.
In the Streisand movie, the theme was feminism and the woman's role in society.  Streisand's Yentl chafed at a world where she had to study in secret.  She was contemptuous of Hadass (the song "No Wonder He Loves Her" describes her obsequious fluttering to fulfill Avigdor's every whim), then taught her Talmud after they were married.  Although Singer mentions Yentl's study with her father behind closed curtains, he only does so once.  The Streisand movie mentions it three times--when Yentl studies with her father, when Anshel studies with Hadass, and when Avigdor proposes marriage (Anshel sarcastically asks if Avigdor will allow them to study with the curtains closed.)  In the movie, Hadass uses her Talmud study as a means to lure the recalcitrant Anshel to her bed, while the Singer book really avoids the subject of their marital relationship other than saying that the sheet was bloody.  Finally, Streisand's Yentl leaves for America, and corresponds with the happily married Avigdor and Hadass.  Her leaving is seen as a means to open every door which has previously been closed to her.
Final Thoughts: So, how do you turn a 58-page novella into a movie that runs over two hours long?  The same way Disney expands fairy tales--add music.  However, with the exception of "Papa Can You Hear Me," most of the songs are forgettable and do nothing to advance the plot.
I have to agree with Singer that the movie failed to capture the true spirit of Yentl.  I"ll close with Singer's own words from an interview about the movie:
"Was going to America Miss Streisand's idea of a happy ending for Yentl? What would Yentl have done in America? Worked in a sweatshop 12 hours a day where there is no time for learning? Would she try to marry a salesman in New York, move to the Bronx or to Brooklyn and rent an apartment with an ice box and a dumbwaiter? This kitsch ending summarizes all the faults of the adaptation. It was done without any kinship to Yentl's character, her ideals, her sacrifice, her great passion for spiritual achievement."

Happy birthday, Piano Man!

Today is Billy Joel's 63rd.  Happy birthday to one of the greatest lyricists of our time!

Mazel tov, Mike Logan!

When I was a teenager, I my favorite show was Law & Order.  (Actually, it still is--I'm saving up for the 20-season box set.)  And my favorite character, or at least the one I had the biggest crush on, was Mike Logan.  Handsome, tough--and perpetually very unattached!  Mike Logan then went on to bigger and better things, because the actor who played him, Chris Noth, went on to play one of the most famous single hotties in television--Mr. Big on S*x and the City.  Television has truly typecast him has the most desirable bachelor in his world.
Well, his single days are over.  Chris Noth is married.  Mazel tov to you and your new wife!  May you have many happy years together!  (I'm certainly very happy--it's not like I'm still holding on to an out-of-my-league crush from FIFTEEN YEARS AGO!)

Titanic: The Movie in ten words

Boy meets girl
Boy loves girl
Ship sinks
Boy drowns

I'm not wasting my money on movie tickets.  The ship's still gonna sink in 3-D