NoraLyn Blogs Norm's Thoughts

Is it possible that one day's encounter can fundamentally and favorably influence the lives of two quite dissimilar women? The answer from this movie is a laugh-inducing and heartwarming "yes."

The setting is London in September, 1938, where the atmosphere is very tense over Britain's confrontation with Hitler and Czechoslovakia. Miss Pettigrew, a 40ish spinster, is down on her luck. She has lost her nanny's position, apparently not the first time with a similar dismissal. Her employment agency tells her bluntly that they have absolutely no other position for her. By chance, she spots an open position as social secretary to a high-sounding Delysia Lafosse. She goes to the address and says the agency has sent her. Her references will be sent shortly.

Miss Pettigrew is amazed at the chaos in the apartment and life of Miss LaFosse. She is an aspiring singer and actress. Her luxurious digs are really the property of the nightclub owner where she works. Her bed is currently occupied by a hungover would-be show producer whom LaFosse hopes to seduce into starring her in his next production. To complicate things further, Delysia is really in love with a passionate piano player and singer, also employed at the same nightclub.

Thanks to Delysia's urging, and the credit account of the nightclub owner that Delysia is using, Miss Pettigrew also gets a bit of makeover. This makes her look at least more like a social secretary.

In the meantime, before teaming with LaFosse, Miss Pettigrew had stopped at a soup kitchen. In the alley, she had spotted a well dressed woman passionately kissing a man. Now, in Delysia's employ, she attends a function and sees the same woman. She meets the man whom the woman is engaged to. He does not know of the woman's affair, and she threatens Miss Pettigrew with exposure as a soup kitchen vagrant. At the same time, Miss Pettigrew and the man, a wealthy businessman, are taken with each other.

When Delysia goes to her night club, she finds out that the producer has doublecrossed her and has another lead. Her boss, the nightclub owner, is watching her with a jealous eye. Her passionate boyfriend changes the musical sequence so the next song for her is "If I Didn’t Care." Even if the Inkspots didn't popularize this until the 40s, the words fit in beautifully with the plot. Delysia sings it passionately so that her love for her piano player is obvious. Then, the boyfriend and the nightclub owner slug it out and the boyfriend wins.

In the midst of this brawl, a test air raid siren begins and the nightclub empties. Delysia has taken refuge under the piano, with Miss Pettigrew close by. When the young woman cries for advice, she confesses that she is not an aristocrat, but the daughter of a Pittsburgh steelworker. Miss Pettigrew opens her heart as well. Her one true love was killed in World War I, before they could be married. She urges Delysia (actually Sarah) that, even if stage roles and nightclub fame are glamorous, she shouldn't let true love (with the piano player) slip by.

Miss Pettigrew takes her own advice when she has the chance to sit and talk with the businessman. Their affection for each other is obvious. Then, the other woman breaks in and says she is going to expose Miss Pettigrew as a tramp, as revenge for her own affair being exposed. Miss Pettigrew runs off in despair. However, the businessman tells the woman that Pettigrew had said nothing of the affair (tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot).

The next morning, Pettigrew finds that Delysia has taken her advice and is going off with her true love, the piano player. He has secured employment for them on a transatlantic ocean liner as a combined act. The young man calls her, "Hurry up, Grub" (her real name), but it's an obvious call of affection.

Now, Miss Pettigrew is sitting in a railroad station. Presumably, she got a little money from Delysia. Where she'll go now and what she'll do are up in the air. But then the businessman finds her and says he has looked all night for her. He asks her to please stay in London and join him now for breakfast. Although Miss Pettigrew hasn't eaten in over 24 hours, it is obvious that her elation is from much more than mere dietary satisfaction.

I enjoyed this movie, considerably more than the Broadway and theater versions. Somehow, from the movie, I understood in a deeper sense the plot of the play.

I could emphasize with the Phantom, the poor disfigured creature and his hopeless love for the young Christine Daae. I could say, "Poor Phantom", while still not wanting him to get the girl.

Emmy Rossum, actually about 18 years old herself, played the 16 year old Christine beautifully, both in terms of acting and operatic voice.

The climax of the film was touching indeed. Her terminally ill husband lays flowers on her grave. He is struck by the flowers and ring, obviously deposited by the Phantom, still alive and still grieving himself for his lost love, Christine.

Although Phantom has been acclaimed for its music, I found the score so-so. It was the depth of the plot that got me. In another film, Billy Crystal expressed his disdain for the Phantom's live theater musical version, paraphrasing as follows: "This guy has a mask, covering his pizza for a face. The main melody of the play is a copycat version of 'School Days, School Days.'" Maybe it was plagiarized, but in the film version, I didn't mind one bit.

Rugby has never been well publicized in the US. Soccer, although not a ranking sport, receives far more publicity. Therefore, it was knowledge-expanding and stirring to observe the underdog South Africa team’s road to a 1995 Rugby cup victory.

The accompanying plot, of course, was the work of Nelson Mandela in using this victory and its team preparation to try to unify South Africa. From our own trip in 1994, when the country was just opening up, we had an idea that there was much unrest and volatility. The nation was still racially divided, although the Apartheid enforced by a distinct white minority had just ended.

Mandela has never received credit for the job he did in keeping South Africa’s peace, while trying to encourage foreign investment. He saw that merely seizing white-owned businesses and infrastructure would only be looting of a fixed amount of wealth. No growth could result from the types of activities that were occurring in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, where white minorities had been ousted from power.

As the new President of South Africa, representing an overwhelming black majority, Mandela took a long term view of what was needed. He alienated a considerable portion of his own party to implement his program of racial reconciliation.

The movie provides an exceptional, well integrated blend of sports and far-seeing political strategy.

Some critics have heaped praise on Invictus, claiming that this represents director Clint Eastwood’s work “at the top of his game.” Other critics have carped about what they see as “trite” dialog. Perhaps if Mandela had been ranting against his racist predecessors and, even more, against the US, they would have enjoyed the dialog more. One critic claimed that too much artistic license was taken in portraying actual events of Mandela’s interaction with the rugby team and its captain. These objections seem trivial.

Others have predicted that Morgan Freeman, in his role of Mandela, is a strong Oscar candidate. I hope that Invictus receives a potful of other rewards as well.

With all the negative, tragic outcomes of recent history and, of course, today’s events, it was refreshing and stirring to see the rugby success of the South Africa team. More to the point, it represented a hopeful outcome for the nation as a whole.

To me, this presidential election has represented dismal choices or lack of them. As the campaign wore on, Obama has tried in slick fashion to position himself as "mainstream" on issues such as gun control, terrorism, etc. This is despite the contradictions with his previous pronouncements, which had always been hard core "leftist." However, McCain has offered no meaningful difference from Obama. Now, his last ditch ads try to present him as an advocate of lower taxes and spending. This is despite that he, along with Obama, supported the incredible $700 billion bailout. He missed a golden opportunity to zero in on the bad accounting that contributed to a considerable extent, and, maybe even to a primary extent, to the current economic crisis. Also, McCain seems to support the same environmentalist proposals that would go a long way to shutting down American industry forever.

To be sure, McCain and his running mate have suffered from a disgraceful media distortion and bias. However, when I have heard some of his positions, my emotional reaction was that he "deserves" it.

The only possible reason for voting for McCain is terrorist concern. Obama's previous statements on foreign policy seem to express a very dangerous worldview and a feeling of moral neutrality between the US and terrorist, theocratic regimes. McCain's previous military and war record seem to give him (although, even here, we can't be sure) a likelihood of standing up to the thugs around the world.