Friday, August 28, 2009
Circus, circus
Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey is in town and I've been debating for a long time if I should take my two year old to it. I finally gave in and bought tickets earlier this week, much to the recrimination of more principled friends. So I am trying desperately to justify going to the Circus... I know my munchkin will be amazed beyond belief to see elephants, horses and I think even a tiger, so why isn't that impending joy enough? I looked at their website and they had a page or a comment somewhere about how humanely they treat their animals... But then my conscience goes, it's like Philip Morris saying they donate money to lung cancer foundations, isn't it. Bah! Voice in my head, you're killing the fun of it.
Then I try to argue with the voice in my head, that the zoo is the same thing. They have animals on display and they have to deal with heckling kids all day - that's much more sad than the circus animals participating in shows for a few minutes/hours a day. But this is not the same, yells out my conscience. No one is deliberately demeaning you by trying to make you defy gravity, by having the horse or the dog walk on two legs or by having a majestic elephant do silly
anthropomorphic tricks. Or, even worse, no one uses corporal punishment in order to train you to do these things...
I get it - I understand the mistreatment, but in a way, I think, I'm going through the same thing. With the current job market (yes, it will always come back to this somehow), I feel like a circus animal myself in my job search - eager to please, displaying my profound and proficient talents, juggling if I have to, to make an impression, walking on one leg, or so it seems, most days... ;0) The one good thing is that I don't have a whip-happy trainer trying to get me to imbibe these seemingly fantastical skills. Yay! I'm a circus animal but I'm not mistreated. Sigh! Point is, I understand how they feel, with this weird, inexplicable analogy that I have created - the need to achieve something, the desire for applause, people flocking to you...
I don't ever want to be in this boat again, re-inventing myself, starting off at the bottom of the food chain and in a way, I don't think I ever will be. What I don't understand though is how an industry expects to get a skilled workforce if they are not invested in training that workforce or providing this workforce with opportunities and resources.
I'm sure there are many who say that this is just the market correcting itself to get rid of excesses, and they may be right, but it seems that the industry itself is caught unawares - with big law surreptitiously copying one another, with others waiting in the wings to see how the chips will fall, and with the rest of the bottom feeders now aspiring and getting what they couldn't earlier.
As far as I remember, there have been voices for changing the system - for changing the 6 minute "kaching" counter, for being more realistic with associate salaries, bonuses, etc, for having law schools be more responsive to the needs of the market, instead of burying them with theory and heavy coursebooks.
Why is it, that a system that has devised and designed a doctorate degree in three years of rigorous study, is so uncertain about the product it churns out that people are afraid of those who are below the magic number (what is that - the top third of the class?)? I am surprised by the judgment that your transcript inspires in people - not having seen such a phenomena with my other degrees.
Is it because the practice of law is so scripted and rigid that only the top third of the class can practice well? Or is it that the practice of law is so eclectic that those who did badly on one day, at the end of the semester/year, will be doomed to repent it the rest of their lives (dramatic, I know...)? Or is it just a system that has so badly spiralled out of being, that it is its own entity, where, the study of law in this country is now a law unto itself?
I know - I'm asking for the meaning of life and everything, but I digress... Where was I, yes, about the circus... yep "all the world is" indeed "a stage..."
Then I try to argue with the voice in my head, that the zoo is the same thing. They have animals on display and they have to deal with heckling kids all day - that's much more sad than the circus animals participating in shows for a few minutes/hours a day. But this is not the same, yells out my conscience. No one is deliberately demeaning you by trying to make you defy gravity, by having the horse or the dog walk on two legs or by having a majestic elephant do silly
anthropomorphic tricks. Or, even worse, no one uses corporal punishment in order to train you to do these things...
I get it - I understand the mistreatment, but in a way, I think, I'm going through the same thing. With the current job market (yes, it will always come back to this somehow), I feel like a circus animal myself in my job search - eager to please, displaying my profound and proficient talents, juggling if I have to, to make an impression, walking on one leg, or so it seems, most days... ;0) The one good thing is that I don't have a whip-happy trainer trying to get me to imbibe these seemingly fantastical skills. Yay! I'm a circus animal but I'm not mistreated. Sigh! Point is, I understand how they feel, with this weird, inexplicable analogy that I have created - the need to achieve something, the desire for applause, people flocking to you...
I don't ever want to be in this boat again, re-inventing myself, starting off at the bottom of the food chain and in a way, I don't think I ever will be. What I don't understand though is how an industry expects to get a skilled workforce if they are not invested in training that workforce or providing this workforce with opportunities and resources.
I'm sure there are many who say that this is just the market correcting itself to get rid of excesses, and they may be right, but it seems that the industry itself is caught unawares - with big law surreptitiously copying one another, with others waiting in the wings to see how the chips will fall, and with the rest of the bottom feeders now aspiring and getting what they couldn't earlier.
As far as I remember, there have been voices for changing the system - for changing the 6 minute "kaching" counter, for being more realistic with associate salaries, bonuses, etc, for having law schools be more responsive to the needs of the market, instead of burying them with theory and heavy coursebooks.
Why is it, that a system that has devised and designed a doctorate degree in three years of rigorous study, is so uncertain about the product it churns out that people are afraid of those who are below the magic number (what is that - the top third of the class?)? I am surprised by the judgment that your transcript inspires in people - not having seen such a phenomena with my other degrees.
Is it because the practice of law is so scripted and rigid that only the top third of the class can practice well? Or is it that the practice of law is so eclectic that those who did badly on one day, at the end of the semester/year, will be doomed to repent it the rest of their lives (dramatic, I know...)? Or is it just a system that has so badly spiralled out of being, that it is its own entity, where, the study of law in this country is now a law unto itself?
I know - I'm asking for the meaning of life and everything, but I digress... Where was I, yes, about the circus... yep "all the world is" indeed "a stage..."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why isn't my phone ringing off the hook with job offers?
Ok, so I'm not in the top 25% of my class (maybe from the bottom, hehe! ;0)), and my school is not in the top 25 law schools in the country, (it is in the top 25 in California, for sure! ;0)), but where are all the entry-level attorney jobs gone? The most depressing thing about all this is that I saw a job listing the other day for an experienced attorney, with 10-15 years of experience and, the listing said that the attorney should have graduated in the top 15% of their class, from a top tier law school. So what, the 10-15 years counts for jack? Crazy!!!
I swear it wasn't so bad last fall, while I was entering my final semester of law school, but all of a sudden, that well is dry. Yes, I know, the economy, stupid..., but what's going to happen to all the entry-level attorneys that law schools are churning out? Will the economy improve enough, that if for instance we were to do something totally different just to get a job, but wanted to change that once things opened up, will the improvement in the economy be so significant that we could? So, just for argument's sake, if I were to go into litigation, but had my heart set on corporate law or securities law, will I be able to work in securities law with 1 or 2 years of PI litigation or construction litigation under my belt?
Also, now, the BIG FIRM associates, the ones who secured all those fabulous jobs a year or two ago, and possibly just this past year, are vying with me, for the stable, not so glamorous other jobs. So, a hiring attorney, looking at this demi-God or demi-Goddess from the Big Firm with I don't know, let's say 2 years of experience of having worked with the best of the best and closed, what, 12 deals, with a market cap of 1 billion plus, (can you tell I'm pulling stuff out of the wazoo?), and looking at my resume, impressive as it is with a few internships, a mid-career change, and my stellar "passed the Cal Bar on the first go" record in Feb '09 with only a 33.5% pass rate, is going to choose whom?
Additionally, I was one among the many ignoramus who didn't realize that to qualify for a Federal Justice Dept job, your application deadline would be the fall of your third year or last semester. If you missed that, the only way to get a Federal Justice Dept job would be to have a few years under your belt.
What about the Cal AG's office you may ask? Well, they're hiring, apparently, but then again, they want you to pick up the ball and run with it on day 1, so they want experience also. It's like the old cliche - what came first, the chicken or the egg? How do you get a job or experience if no one wants to spend time mentoring/training you?
Law firms? Sure (ly not!), and don't forget the non-traditional route I took to law school along with my swinging GPA. I think I should use some inventive statistics & fine print items in my resume to state some of the facts - you know, like top 25% of the class (and in fine print - only among students with a GPA of 3.0 or below); best law school in the country for the IP program (and in fine print - well, technically among the top ten in the country or something like that & since I didn't take any IP coursework, so this is only an fyi); school finalist for an external Moot Court competition (and in fine print - we were the only team that volunteered for the competition), etc. So that is sure to get me in the door for a law firm interview, albeit in a better economy.
Another strategy, use so much legalese on my resume that I look like a legal genius on paper - so it would read something like; drafted a legal opinion on the right of illegal aliens with an illegal re-entry status in cases involving aggravated assault or felony-murder or something cool and lawyerly like that. Hmm - there's an idea. (Not!)
So, my options? Volunteer! Yay! And the loans and the car payments and the credit card bills - oh, yeah, those... This reminds me of the song - "Where have all the "good jobs" gone and where are all the ..."- yes, I'm ageing myself, but where are the jobs? The great state of California is hiring, but again, being inundated with those with experience, is probably offering jobs to the top 25% of the top 25% (pure speculation on my part). And, probably to those who are willing to accept an IOU instead of pay check, given the state's budget crisis. But with 10-12 paid holidays, plus benefits & retirement, I will take a 55K+ job anyday, even with the 15%-20% pay cut from the three furloughs a month, right off the bat. But, I've yet to hear from them...
So what next - keep trying, I say, and I hope to get a job before mid-end November, before another horde of lawyers pass the bar exam and are ready for work. I figure, I can make an argument sounding like this in an interview: "I am a well qualified professional with 6 years of work experience prior to law school, a graduate degree holder along with a J.D., and I passed the bar on my first attempt where the overall pass rate was 33.5%. I know how to work in an office environment, given my past work experience, I can manage my time efficiently, having had a baby after my second year of law school, and having taken just one extra semester to catch up and I have great interpersonal skills," although this will probably get me no where - so scratch the last one. So, have I made a convincing argument for you to hire me, or do I need more facts, or more reasoning and analyses, or, a better application of law (in this case achievements, I guess) to facts?
Drop me a line and let me know if you are faring any better...
Friday, May 15, 2009
It's official, unofficially. I made it...
Sunday, April 05, 2009
My experience with the February 2009 California Bar Exam
I graduated law school in December 2008. I took a non-traditional route to law school in that I already had a Masters degree and about six years work experience in advertising. I didn't see myself in advertising for the rest of my life and this was something that was always in the back of my mind, so I decided to go for it.I joined Santa Clara Law School, which I think is a great law school not only because of its flexibility (I think it's one of the few ABA law schools that has a part-time program), but also because of the close knit community of faculty and administrators and especially the students. I felt a genuine camaraderie with my classmates, okay fine, some of my classmates. Some of them were cliquish, but for the most part, they were very helpful. It’s funny how even the most self-proclaimed liberal will wall themselves off in the quest for the best grade, but that’s a whole other essay on human nature and the survival of the fittest, which I guess would relate well to law school, but another time perhaps. The focus of this essay is the 2009 Feb Bar exam, which I will get to eventually. Maybe the last two paragraphs. ;0)
I started off in the part-time program for various reasons, the first being that I couldn’t get into the full-time program. The school is very flexible though, and after a year, I switched to the full-time path, as I knew I wouldn’t last out four years in law school. In hind-sight, being in the part-time program was great. It gave me enough time to adjust to the vigorous demands of the law school curriculum, and having been out of school for so long, I wasn’t used to staring at pages and pages of legalese. Not that full-time students were, but a majority of them had just graduated, so I’m assuming it would have been an easier transition for them. Prior to the start of my second year, the Fall of 2006, I had a revelation. I started law school in my early 30s. I realized that by the time I would graduate, pass the bar and get a job, I would be in my mid-30s, three to four years later. I couldn't visualize myself as a first-time mom or even as a pregnant woman in the first year of my first job in this profession, so my hubby and I decided that it would be best to have a baby in law school. Brilliant idea, let me tell you, that, along with starting law school as a mid-life career change. Not!!! Ever heard of sucker for punishment? Yours truly will gladly take that honor. The spring semester of my second year, semester two, is when I was happily pregnant and I found out soon after the start of the year. Again, not!!! I was happy and pregnant for all of 2-3 days, when I realized what I got myself into. I had signed up for about 15 or 16 credits that semester. It was not fun studying or sitting in classes when you are constantly nauseous or with a growing waistline that meant you didn't fit into any of your clothes. That coupled with reading assignments, Honors Moot Court and other law school requirements... What was I thinking???
Oh, and I almost forgot to write that all this while, I was commuting on a weekly basis from Sacramento to Santa Clara for law school. Yeah, I know what you are thinking… Santa Clara allows you to visit away your third year, so my big plan was to finish the requirements, 56 credits by the end of the second year, to be able to visit away in the third year and to be closer to school.
Fast forward a few months. About a week or so before my finals, I found out there was a problem with my baby in utero and at that time, we didn’t know what happened or what the outcome would be. I’m surprised I passed, even with the smattering of C’s I received, which seemed to be no different than when I studied hard. Oh well!
I took the Fall semester, the start of my third year off, and after a string of emails back and forth, I joined UC Davis law as a visiting student for the Spring of 2008, the start of my third year. At that time, however, I didn’t realize that UC Davis has this antiquated rule that if you apply for the Spring, you can only visit that one semester, and I didn’t know about it. So when I re-applied for the Fall of 2008, I found out that I couldn’t go back to UC Davis’ Law School in the Fall and I had to apply to another law school nearby.
So I applied again to McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, my saving grace. I finished up the required coursework, and even got a good GPA, surprise, surprise!
Finally, I was ready for bar prep for the Winter Bar Exam, in February 2009. I realized when applying for the bar that the results are released with the well-timed synchronicity of a ballet performance. By the time the results and released, and worst-case, if you failed, you would have enough time to reapply for the July bar exam. Interesting, but let’s not dwell on that. I’m being positive about the bar exam. :0) And yes, I will update this space in mid-May, after I find out.
Going into bar prep, I would recommend that given a choice, take all the bar courses that are offered at your school during your law school years. I found that it helped me remember the material better when it came around to bar prep time.
More about Multi-state prep (MBE, not the MPRE silly! :0)
I signed up for PMBR’s 6-day, 3-day combo, and for Barbri. I found that most students don’t do both, which was surprising as I was told that was the way to go by some of the Bar grads I spoke to. I thought PMBR’s 6 day course was pretty good, and scary, because I performed so badly – almost as if I was taking the multiple choice questions for the first time, minus three+ years of law school.
The questions were good and the instructor review was also good. But I found that the multiple choice explanatory answers could have used some improvement, especially with regard to the incorrect choices. Usually, the explanatory answers would explain the correct answers and at the most one other answer choice, but, if you were like me where your answer choice didn’t necessarily reflect these two, you were second-guessing a solution that may not have been the right one.
Also, the PMBR outlines were very confusing. Unlike Barbri’s more simplified, or some would say simplistic outlines, PMBR was more of a collection of treatises. They are good in that they are accurate explanations of the law, but they are lengthy and in legalese, which means you have to work further to condense it yourself.
PMBR vs. Barbri
Many people I’ve spoken to differ in terms of which one they prefer. So, it’s a personal preference issue, perhaps. I thought that PMBR’s questions were better formulated than Barbri’s multiple choice questions. Although the tips in the lecture or the online video, in case you missed a lecture were similar to Barbri’s tips in approaching a subject.
Also, I thought that the extended practice questions by Barbri were more of the same, and didn’t seem to have as much breadth as PMBR’s extended practice questions did. So, if you did Barbri’s initial sets and the four sets per subject, the extra practice questions didn’t seem to have new areas within that subject. But, since this differs from person to person, this is my opinion regarding my experiences with both companies.
February 2009 MBE
I thought the actual MBE was tricky. They have condensed their fact patterns and on the February exam, the longest fact pattern was probably a tad bit more than half a page, but true to their word, according to PMBR and Barbri, they didn’t have any multiple question sequences – you know, the ones that say, questions 9-11 are from this fact pattern. But, as a result of this, the answer choices on the MBE were very concise and the wording was tricky. I ended up spending more time in the two choices I was able to get down to, and I made decisions based on a change in words, more than anything else.
The scariest part of the MBE is that I have no idea how I did. I don’t know if many of the others were able to tell. One of my friends thought he did really well. But personally, I can never tell with that much certainty when it comes to multiple choice.
The answers involve more mastery on the grey areas of the law and don’t be fooled into thinking that because a question is a few lines, it is an easy one. Some of the ones I was perplexed by were property questions that had one or two answer choices related to Wills. I figured this subject was under Property, at least per Barbri, which has a small section at the end of the Property Conviser review, if I remember correctly, but, it took me by surprise because I wasn’t prepared.
I think both PMBR and Barbri need to brush up their question banks significantly, to make their questions tighter/concise and to make their answer choices more challenging.
Barbri Essay & Performance Test Prep
I thought Barbri did a great job with their essay and performance test preparations. The best part of the Barbri program, the ones most worth the money/time/effort, were Professors Sakai and Honigsberg. They were absolutely phenomenal in their approach to the Essay and Performance Test Workshops.
The Conviser review was pretty straight-forward. Some of the Professors put me to sleep – I don’t want this to be a slam fest or a rating for Professors, so I’m not going into that aspect of it. But, I thought that this past February’s paced program (Barbri’s schedule and daily program that students follow along with) was extremely tight and could have used more free days at the end. The paced program ended on Feb 14, and the Bar exam started on Feb 24, which was less than 10 days of self-study.
For someone like me who could not keep up with the paced program’s schedule, it was very hard to catch up, since you get so short on time toward the end, where there are a million things to do. I would have liked an extra few days to be able to get on top of things, but given the vastness of the syllabi and the subjects, I doubt that is feasible…
I thought the predictions by the Barbri team were fairly accurate. They talked about Civ. Pro not being covered for a while, and sure enough, it was on the exam. Also, the first time that California Evidence was tested, was on the Feb 2009 exam. So that was interesting.
So, finally, moving on to the Tue/Wed/Thur, (Feb 24-26, 2009, the California Bar Exam), the results of which (out in mid-May) will determine whether or not I am fit to be a lawyer in California.
Before I proceed any further, I promise I am not making any money from this, and had I started taking it sooner, I would have been better off, but regardless, I must give a shout-out to Rescue Remedy for any test-taker, or someone who is stressed out. It is a Bach Flower remedy and while I had it all along, my sister recommended I take it after I told her about a yelling match my husband and I had while trying to find the bar exam location (I took it in Sacramento – Cal Expo) on the Saturday prior to the exam. It was wonderful. I kept it in the car and I would take a dose prior to the morning session, and one prior to the afternoon session. It really made a world of difference.
After tossing and turning all night (does anyone really sleep soundly Monday night, through Wednesday night?) I headed out to Cal Expo. No major hitches. I took cushions and a foot stool (they’re some of the few things allowed, so why ever not?). The exam actually started early, at 5 minutes to 9:00 a.m., which threw me off, as I thought they would wait and it messes up your calculation. So, be prepared for that. In fact, Wednesday and Thursday, we started at different times, always before 9:00 a.m., if I remember correctly. Also, there is a bit of paperwork to do, so don’t come strolling in a few minutes before the exam. If you are a lap-topper, (as people using the computer and Softest are called), then you have to be in extra early to set up your computer. My Softest started acting up the afternoon of the third day. It was slow and the words would show up a few seconds after typing. It was annoying, but thank God it did not crash!!! Also, make sure you set up Softest in advance and also download the mock test and upload the test answer to ensure everything is okay. I had one setup issue, which I spent a nervous half-hour on, a few days before the exam.
So, Tuesday morning, ready to start, the first exam is Professional Responsibility. The essay is about a lawyer that is helping a corporation owned by a single shareholder, or something like that, and if I remember correctly, she takes a portion of the company shares as her fee and also is signs on another client who is suing a second corporation set up by the same shareholder who sets up corporation 1. We were asked to answer under ABA and California law.
Essay 2 was Civ Pro. I kept looking to see if they would ask for California Civ Pro, but it was Federal Civ Pro, and like the Barbri Prof said, it was basic Civ Pro rules, regarding venue. Luckily this essay had parts that asked specific questions, so you didn’t need to go crazy issue-spotting unasked issues. It was about a plaintiff who was injured by a copy machine at a copy-shop, but she was suing the manufacturer.
Essay 3 was California Evidence. This is the first time this subject has been tested, so lucky us. :0) (Not). It was not in narrative fashion, but in a testimonial fashion, with the sentences numbered, and we were asked to raise the evidence issues presented and answer according to California law.
Tuesday’s Performance Test – I made sure I had a light lunch, but I still felt sleepy about an hour or so into the exam, perhaps the lack of sleep or something. For some reason, I can’t seem to recall the subject matter of this exam. If anyone does, please send me a note to jog my memory. All I can remember is that it was long.
I remember reading someone’s blog about the California Bar Exam and this person studied law outside California. He or she said something to the effect of the Cal. Perf. Test being easy, because it was 3 hrs, while theirs was hard because it was 1.5 hours. Hello! Three hours, means twice the amount of material. So, go figure… I wouldn’t say it was hard, but it was a challenge, given the amount of time and the amount of material you have to digest and prepare.
Wednesday – MBE day. This was the most disconcerting. I have no idea how I did. Hopefully, when I pass (note the “when” and not the “if”), I won’t need to know…
On Thursday, essay 1 was a Torts/Defamation/Con Law question. Seemed relatively easy after Barbri’s prep. Essay 2 was a Contracts question, and this one had a few parts and was long. Even had a remedies thrown into it. I went too long on this question and had to sacrifice the remedies part by reducing it to a few sentences. I left it feeling I didn’t do it justice. Essay 3 was a Corporations Essay! Why?!! I don’t think anyone was expecting this subject, out of all the subjects. Anyway, most of the question dealt with fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. There was one part to it that left a few of us confused – a question about how to remove an interested director. I don’t recall covering this indepth in Barbri, perhaps it was there, but I just didn’t pay attention. Oh well!
Thursday’s Performance Test – this one I remember pretty clearly. It was about a Housing discrimination suit, by a couple that have a child and are asked to vacate because they violate the number of occupants rule or something. This was also extremely lengthy as they asked us to cover a number of things – one main thing was the recommendation to the client – and they listed three options to review, and wanted us to ask if they needed any further information, etc. So, it was long to say the least.
And then, we were done. I have never felt a bigger sense of denouement. We wound up, took our stuff and left. Everyone was so exhausted, that while there were some whoops of joy, people were glad it was over.
Now, we wait and wait some more. Wishing all my fellow warriors good luck!
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Changeling
When I saw the movie, I wondered what the title meant. I thought it meant the obvious - something that changes. Or so I thought. Dictionary.com lists the word as meaning "a child surreptitiously or unintentionally substituted for another." How fascinating... Now I know how little I know about the English language.
I saw this movie on a flight -- a long flight en route to India -- which meant I had plenty of time and nothing to do. I saw the movie on the menu, but didn't want to see it first, because I heard about the story briefly and thought it was depressing. So I saw Twilight again (third time! why? no clue!), then I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still (why?), and then went on to Ms. Jolie.
This was based on a true story. What an incredible story it was. I completely and totally admire the tenacity of this woman, Christine Collins, played well by Ms. Jolie, in this sometimes sensationalized but unbelievable tale. I realized it was the late '20s, or else, leaving a child of nine years at home alone would result in child endangerment. And, I realize why we have laws that forbid you to do so, now, after watching the movie.
The movie has several themes that stayed with me for a long time. In fact, I was so perturbed after watching it that I couldn't fall asleep until several hours later. So, if you watch movies before bed, like me, I would advise you not to watch this one.
First and most significant is the role of the mother. Single mother raising a young son in Southern California. I don't remember if the movie talked about her being married or not, but I remember her telling her young son that his father didn't bother sticking around when she was pregnant with him. Not in so many words and definitely in a nicer way than I said it, though. I'm amazed at how stable and strong this woman was. Employed, with little family around to help, taking care of her son and struggling to be a good mother, while keeping up with the demands of work. Some of us have been there. I can relate to that. But, having to leave your child alone to go to work and coming back to find him missing... I cannot imagine the agony and the guilt that she went through. I thought A.J. did a good job in not being overly sentimental, because she conveyed more in the gravity of her appearance than any histrionical act would have.
I had to remind myself that this happend at a time when they had few resources to identify missing children - you know, like the age progression pictures that you see at the back of your Advo mailing packet, or some other direct mail brand postcard. So it was easy, or relatively so for the police to come up with a kid, who shared some of the physical characteristics of her missing son.
The police - the control, the power and the corruption - this was not news to me. I bet this hasn't changed in some countries - but to just hand over a random child to a mother who is half insane with worry - unbelievable. And, for her to realize and complain that this wasn't her son - again, the emotions I felt were hard to describe. What would Christine Collins have felt - doubt, self-loathing, guilt, anger, shame - at having realized that the child she was caring for was not her son, but also realizing that the child who willingly portrayed him obviously had some need to be where he was. To get a good meal perhaps, a home and a caring mother. Crazy!!
What really surprised me though, was the blatant Due Process violation that occurred when the police decide to pack her off to the mental asylum because she was raising a stink about her son still missing and that people were starting to notice. I was dumb-founded. They could do that in the '20s? Then I started thinking about women's rights - we weren't allowed to vote for the longest time; we were considered possessions (still are in some parts of the world) for the longest time; we were the "little women" - the housekeepers, the caregivers, the sex slaves of our masters, our owners; we were burnt at the stake; we were branded as bra-burning radicals for asserting our rights - so, in hind-sight, it shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was...
The hardest part of the movie, apart from feminist angst pouring out of my veins while I watched it, was with regard to the child-killer. Gordon something his name was. It's not important for me to remember his name - he doesn't deserve the recognition. But to think that such savagery existed then, and still continues to exist in those who prey on little children, made me very sad. The cycle of violence never seems to end, does it?
I know we have to raise our children in a way to warn them about these people - the ones who mean to do them harm, but how do we do it without taking away a part of their innocence?
Overall, this is absolutely a must-see. It is bitter-sweet, but just.
I saw this movie on a flight -- a long flight en route to India -- which meant I had plenty of time and nothing to do. I saw the movie on the menu, but didn't want to see it first, because I heard about the story briefly and thought it was depressing. So I saw Twilight again (third time! why? no clue!), then I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still (why?), and then went on to Ms. Jolie.
This was based on a true story. What an incredible story it was. I completely and totally admire the tenacity of this woman, Christine Collins, played well by Ms. Jolie, in this sometimes sensationalized but unbelievable tale. I realized it was the late '20s, or else, leaving a child of nine years at home alone would result in child endangerment. And, I realize why we have laws that forbid you to do so, now, after watching the movie.
The movie has several themes that stayed with me for a long time. In fact, I was so perturbed after watching it that I couldn't fall asleep until several hours later. So, if you watch movies before bed, like me, I would advise you not to watch this one.
First and most significant is the role of the mother. Single mother raising a young son in Southern California. I don't remember if the movie talked about her being married or not, but I remember her telling her young son that his father didn't bother sticking around when she was pregnant with him. Not in so many words and definitely in a nicer way than I said it, though. I'm amazed at how stable and strong this woman was. Employed, with little family around to help, taking care of her son and struggling to be a good mother, while keeping up with the demands of work. Some of us have been there. I can relate to that. But, having to leave your child alone to go to work and coming back to find him missing... I cannot imagine the agony and the guilt that she went through. I thought A.J. did a good job in not being overly sentimental, because she conveyed more in the gravity of her appearance than any histrionical act would have.
I had to remind myself that this happend at a time when they had few resources to identify missing children - you know, like the age progression pictures that you see at the back of your Advo mailing packet, or some other direct mail brand postcard. So it was easy, or relatively so for the police to come up with a kid, who shared some of the physical characteristics of her missing son.
The police - the control, the power and the corruption - this was not news to me. I bet this hasn't changed in some countries - but to just hand over a random child to a mother who is half insane with worry - unbelievable. And, for her to realize and complain that this wasn't her son - again, the emotions I felt were hard to describe. What would Christine Collins have felt - doubt, self-loathing, guilt, anger, shame - at having realized that the child she was caring for was not her son, but also realizing that the child who willingly portrayed him obviously had some need to be where he was. To get a good meal perhaps, a home and a caring mother. Crazy!!
What really surprised me though, was the blatant Due Process violation that occurred when the police decide to pack her off to the mental asylum because she was raising a stink about her son still missing and that people were starting to notice. I was dumb-founded. They could do that in the '20s? Then I started thinking about women's rights - we weren't allowed to vote for the longest time; we were considered possessions (still are in some parts of the world) for the longest time; we were the "little women" - the housekeepers, the caregivers, the sex slaves of our masters, our owners; we were burnt at the stake; we were branded as bra-burning radicals for asserting our rights - so, in hind-sight, it shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was...
The hardest part of the movie, apart from feminist angst pouring out of my veins while I watched it, was with regard to the child-killer. Gordon something his name was. It's not important for me to remember his name - he doesn't deserve the recognition. But to think that such savagery existed then, and still continues to exist in those who prey on little children, made me very sad. The cycle of violence never seems to end, does it?
I know we have to raise our children in a way to warn them about these people - the ones who mean to do them harm, but how do we do it without taking away a part of their innocence?
Overall, this is absolutely a must-see. It is bitter-sweet, but just.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
My first movie review - Twilight
I am compelled to write about Twilight. I haven't read the book yet, but after seeing the movie, I want to read the book(s). At first glance, the movie, is an average love story between cute boy (Cedric Diggory lives!!!) and cute girl with a twist. Set in a picturesque Washington town - towering pines, dewey light, moss covered hills and bejewelled lakes, the movie has this dream like quality to it. Even the brightest sunlight looks greyer than it normally would - softened from its harshness by the cast of love.
Love is everywhere. In the soft-spoken words between school-mates, the unspoken feelings between father and daughter, the transparent vibes between members of the Cullen family. So why does this seemingly average Hollywood movie capture the heart of this 30 something author? One - I don't get out much... Two - this movie took me back to a time and place where I was instantly reliving the raging hormones of my teenage years - not in lust, but in love. The idea of true love perpetuates every scene in this movie and took hold of my aching heart for two whole hours.
Ahh! True love, as true as the first time we love, as true as the first time we kissed and the first time we thought our hearts would drown under the weight of it all - the passion, the ecstacy, the build-up, the denouement. What I love most of all, is that this is portrayed as pristinely as possible, with no vulgarity or prominent sexuality that would have just transformed this movie into one of those raunchy teen flicks.
I love the pureness of her love (although I'm sure she'll tire of it soon! :0)). I love the need and urgency of his love - his desire to be something else for a change, something different from the dark reality of his life. I love the impossible unattainability of it all -- the hunter and the hunted as one, the lion and the lamb as one, the vampire and his prey as one.
As for someone who has not read the book(s) as yet, I hope the book(s) or any future sequels to come will not implode into an inferno of sex and gore- mindless titillations well accomplished by half the teen and adult movies out there. I hope they capture this magical, mindless moment in all its ethereal beauty without it fading or dimming into oblivion.
"What about me?" you may ask. I'm just glad that I'm not a teenager anymore, glad that I'm not going to bed with impossible dreams about wanting to marry Robert Pattinson or wanting to write to him or wishing to see him or tear off his shirt or get his autograph - like millions of teens out there may be thinking. I'm just glad that for two hours, I was a teenager again, wishing, hoping, feeling heartache, remembering when I was last like this with fond reminiscence, as I know, in the bright light of the day, I will not feel like this again - thankfully!
Love is everywhere. In the soft-spoken words between school-mates, the unspoken feelings between father and daughter, the transparent vibes between members of the Cullen family. So why does this seemingly average Hollywood movie capture the heart of this 30 something author? One - I don't get out much... Two - this movie took me back to a time and place where I was instantly reliving the raging hormones of my teenage years - not in lust, but in love. The idea of true love perpetuates every scene in this movie and took hold of my aching heart for two whole hours.
Ahh! True love, as true as the first time we love, as true as the first time we kissed and the first time we thought our hearts would drown under the weight of it all - the passion, the ecstacy, the build-up, the denouement. What I love most of all, is that this is portrayed as pristinely as possible, with no vulgarity or prominent sexuality that would have just transformed this movie into one of those raunchy teen flicks.
I love the pureness of her love (although I'm sure she'll tire of it soon! :0)). I love the need and urgency of his love - his desire to be something else for a change, something different from the dark reality of his life. I love the impossible unattainability of it all -- the hunter and the hunted as one, the lion and the lamb as one, the vampire and his prey as one.
As for someone who has not read the book(s) as yet, I hope the book(s) or any future sequels to come will not implode into an inferno of sex and gore- mindless titillations well accomplished by half the teen and adult movies out there. I hope they capture this magical, mindless moment in all its ethereal beauty without it fading or dimming into oblivion.
"What about me?" you may ask. I'm just glad that I'm not a teenager anymore, glad that I'm not going to bed with impossible dreams about wanting to marry Robert Pattinson or wanting to write to him or wishing to see him or tear off his shirt or get his autograph - like millions of teens out there may be thinking. I'm just glad that for two hours, I was a teenager again, wishing, hoping, feeling heartache, remembering when I was last like this with fond reminiscence, as I know, in the bright light of the day, I will not feel like this again - thankfully!
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Why can't women get along?
I've been thinking about this for a long time now. Why can't women support each other more? I feel that women, especially in a corporate setting or when establishing social mores or tradition, are anti-feminist. People have bandied about the phrase that women are each others' worst enemies. In some ways, I think it's true.
Let's take the corporate setting - do you see women interacting with each other the way men in an office do? Women are more likely to form cliques at the expense of other women. I may be wrong, but I didn't find that in my male counterparts. Women are also more competitive with each other, instead of being more competitive regardless of gender.
How many female managers out there think first of hiring a woman if a position opens up? How many female bosses are detested by their female underlings? I'm not saying men automatically do this, but I feel that we have so much to overcome (tradition, stereotype, etc) that we have to consciously think about doing this, or we lapse back into behavior that has been conditioned over generations.
In a social setting, many women lament every now and then about Indian social norms or traditions that are so antiquated and facially discriminatory against women. But few of us sit back and question them. Especially since most of these customs and traditions are enforced by older women in the family.
One of these stereotypes that I absolutely detest, but I can't seem to shake it off, is where the success or failure of a family or a relationship is attributed to the woman. Our mothers (older women, grandmothers, mothers-in-law, aunts, older cousins, etc) tell us that we should be the ones to adjust, we should accommodate, give in, keep quiet, not have an ego, not be controlling, etc... The list goes on and on.
But, has any one of our mothers (used loosely based on the list above) told us that they support our opinions, our independence, our ability to earn money, manage our lives and families with relative success, that we are great multi-taskers, we cook, we clean, we provide emotional support, create life, etc. Have any of our mothers said "hats off to you - you superwoman."
The short answer is no. They expect us to do this, because they did this. This is their worldview and they've raised us to be like them, and they've raised our men to be like our fathers - being waited on, served, respected, feared, etc.
Women who are aggressive, are called bitches. Men, are go-getters. Women who are controlling are seen as ice-queens or as anti-feminine. Men who are controlling are CEOs, patriachs of families. Surprisingly, most of the name calling comes from us. When it doesn't come from us, we are complacent. Some of us laugh, some squirm, but nobody reacts. We accept our place in society - second to men...
We do this to ourselves. We let ourselves be treated this way, we let ourselves be subservient to our better halves for various reasons, but we're letting ourselves down. I don't think it's great that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have risen so high in the political landscape. I think it's a shame that we didn't let them rise sooner. How many Hillaries have given up and gone home?
So what should we do? We can start by learning to see other women as friends, instead of adversaries. We can prevent our families and friends from using denigrating terms for other women. We can consciously support women in business, arts and politics. We can create forums for women to meet for fun, or for any other agenda. We can learn to put ourselves first. We can teach our daughters that they have no superiors, only equals. We can do so much. We already do so much. It's time to take a little credit for it...
