All that Jazz: the real merry murderesses of 'Chicago'

The play “Chicago” has seen many forms: it started out as a 1926 play, was produced into a Bob Fosse-choreographed Broadway musical in 1975 and was made into a 2002 feature film with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger. But its real point of interest is that it was based on a real-life 1924 scandal.

Starring the characters Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, “Chicago” tells of the debauchery of the 1920s jazz age. The decade was marked by a rebellion that made it vastly different from the Victorian period, which had ended not long before. Women especially were letting loose. They became flappers—girls who love jazz, wore long skirts and had bob haircuts. They began to drink, smoke, and wear makeup.

Since there was no television, people were entertained by extensive trials, often murders. Lawyers and their clients became celebrities with extensive coverage from the newspapers and tabloids. The lady jazz killers were the most popular “celebrities,” who often got off scot-free by all-male courtroom juries.

Maurine Dallas Watkins, a reporter for the “Chicago Tribune,” covered many such trials. Watkins was a student playwright at Yale, but wanted to take time off to get some real-life experience. It was from her legendary reporting that she came up with the original concept for “Chicago” from the trials of two murderesses named Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner.

Beulah Annan was the inspiration for Roxie Hart. A Chicago flapper, Annan was married to a man named Albert. However, but she was unfaithful with a man named Harry Kalstedt. On the night of April 3, 1924, Annan shot Kalstedt in the back. Annan’s story changed many times. It was evident that she was drunk when the police arrived. She told police that she had shot Kalstedt in self-defense because he was trying to rape her. Other stories she gave included that they had a fight when she told him she was pregnant, and they both reached for the gun.

Roxie Hart’s portrayal in the movie was similar. Hart shot her lover, Fred Casely, and presented similar stories in court. After she told a crowded courtroom that she was pregnant (though she wasn’t, really), the judge wanted to delay her trial, but her lawyer, Billy Flynn (based off of real-life lawyer W.W. O’Brien), wanted to keep her in court, thinking that the jury would take pity on Hart’s pregnant state. The claim that “they both reached for the gun” was the inspiration for the musical number of the same name.

In the play, Roxie Hart was portrayed as a woman who wanted fame on the cabaret stage, but could not get past the chorus. In real life, Beulah Annan’s trial was a media circus, and she was frequently sent flowers and gifts while she was in Cook County prison. She even posed for photographs with fellow murderess Gaertner.

Gaertner, the inspiration for Velma Kelly, was a cabaret singer who in March of 1924 killed her married lover, Walter Law. (Velma Kelly killed her sister and her husband in the play.) Gaertner too was drunk when the police arrived, but was too intoxicated to remember what happened, even though she was found with blood stained clothes. Though the fact that Law had confessed to his co-worker before his death that Gaertner was an abusive alcoholic who had threatened him with a knife when he tried to leave her, and that he was ten years Gaertner’s junior, Gaertner was acquitted of murder in June of 1924. Her defense team (though it didn’t consist of W.W. O’Brien) convinced the jury that Gaertner was too drunk to remember what happened.

Annan died of tuberculosis in 1928 and Gaertner died of natural causes in 1965. The women’s trials were not the only jazz murder trials of the day, but they will always be legend, thanks to the career-making move by Watkins to capture their stories and put them on stage.

Sources:

Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner on Wikipedia

Chicago: The Origin from ladyjazzkilla.com

(pictures: top--cleavlandleader.com; middle and bottom--hubpages.com)

Subtitles in Film: To Read or Not to Read?

I usually avoid subtitled films, mostly because I think having to read the screen takes away from the beautiful visuals of a film. However, this school year, I have watched two foreign films. The first was an Israeli/Egyptian film called “The Band’s Visit,” released in 2007, and 2002’s “L’Auberge Espagnole.” These films were fitting for my cultural diversity and French classes, respectively, and I thought both were excellent and unique pieces of cinema, but I could not help but be distracted by having to read the English subtitles in order to understand the films.

I decided to do a Google search to see if there had been any studies done about people’s feelings toward subtitles in films. I mostly found blogs and forum discussions on the subject, and the results varied based on personal preference. Nonetheless, some shared my feelings. User “Achtung” from a British Digital Spy forum said, “I sometimes come across a foreign film which looks interesting, I really can't get into it because I don't know what they're saying. The subtitles really distract from the visuals because you're reading them and you can't at the same time take note of everything that's going on. Your eye is taken away from the action. Communication is not always in what is said (or what you're having to read in the case of subtitles) but it's in facial expressions, the mood etc.” Some commenters have even gone so far to say that they have seen people demand refunds for subtitled films. Not liking subtitles can be attributed to laziness. “Somathus” from Yahoo! Answers said, “[People] are watching the movie to relax and don’t want to be ‘bothered’ by having to read.”

On the flip side, “redfoxkid2” from Yahoo! Answers says that he doesn’t mind subtitles because “after about 10 minutes you start thinking that they are speaking English (or whatever language is being subbed).” “Carolus,” also from Yahoo!, says that she “[ puts] on the foreign audio just to work [her] brain a bit.” Quite a few users mention that they like subtitles because the actors’ voices are still present.

While the consensus about subtitles is still unclear—there seems to be an equality in favoring the use of it or not—many commenters and myself agree: filmgoers would rather see subtitles in foreign films than have a movie be dubbed in English. (Think those horrible Asian kung-fu movies in which the audio and the actors’ lips move at painfully different paces.) Digital Spy user “Mark A” even likens dubbing to the “[reduction] of a work of art into an episode of ‘Scooby Doo.’”

I enjoy a diverse group of film genres, so maybe I’ll rethink subtitled foreign films.

(Pictures: www.biosstars.com (L'Auberge) and thebandsvisit.com (The Band's Visit)

Issues in Film: 'Juno' and teen pregnancy

Teenage pregnancy has been an issue for the ages; all generations have seen it happen. Many people probably have stories to tell about the subject, whether they themselves were teen mothers, or that someone close to them is. While the issue is nothing new, our society has seen a so-called “glamorization” recently, especially with the release of the 2007 movie Juno. In it, a sixteen year old girl named Juno gets pregnant by her friend Paulie (whom she didn’t even consider to be her boyfriend). While the character of Juno was not ecstatic at being pregnant, other elements of the film, most especially the unique lingo that Juno and her friends use, made it a trendy film. The movie was also widely praised by critics and screenwriter Diablo Cody received an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

Around the time of Juno’s release, TV actress Jamie Lynn Spears, then sixteen, became pregnant by her eighteen year old boyfriend. Last year, seventeen students at a Gloucester, Massachusetts, school. After suspicion arose as to why so many girls were going to the school clinic to find out they were pregnant, school officials found out that the girls had formed a “pregnancy pact” to get pregnant at the same time and raise their babies together, according to a June 18 TIME magazine article by Kathleen Kingsbury. Most recently, it was revealed that Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s seventeen year old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant. Palin was just picked by Republican presidential hopeful John McCain to be his vice president.
With so much media coverage about teen pregnancies, it may be hard for parents to broach the subject with their teens in the best way. Here, in an excerpt from a September 2 article from the Houston Chronicle by Maggie Galehouse and Corilyn Shropshire, experts discuss how to have a “frank talk” about sex.

First, get over being mortified by the prospect of talking about the sex and just do it.

Parents should acknowledge that sex is a tough and embarrassing topic for everyone involved and move on, said Robert Sanborn, chief executive officer and president of Children At Risk, a nonprofit children's research and advocacy group.

Providing children with information about sex and its ramifications will help them make good decisions and go a long way toward preventing unwanted pregnancies, he said.

Frank talk about sex does not have to be political.

"What can we all agree on?" asked Rochelle Tafolla, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas. "Most people can agree that 17- or 15-year-old girls getting pregnant is not what anyone wants. We all know the things that can happen. We also know the outcomes for the child aren't very good. They're not as likely to finish school or earn as much."

The sex talk many parents dread should really be an ongoing conversation that starts when children are very young, Tafolla said.

"It begins with using the right words for anatomy," she said. "You don't say, 'That's your wee-wee or pee-pee.' You use the proper words for private areas, so that from a young age children are able to say 'This is my body. I know the right words for it. And I'm in charge of it.' You want to be talking about it when kids are 5, 7, 9. You don't wait until they're 15 or 17."

Films such as Juno and high-profile teen pregnancies — Spears, a Nickelodeon star and younger sister of pop singer Britney, sparked an intense national debate on the topic earlier this year — gave parents a perfect opportunity to talk about sex with their children.

A presidential campaign now provides another one.

"This is a teachable moment — use it," said Julie Crowe, manager of intervention services for Depelchin Children's Center in Houston.

Robert Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University, wonders if Americans — parents and nonparents alike — should also use this opportunity to take a hypocrisy test.

"How do you respond to the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and how do you respond to the pregnancy of this young woman?" asked Thompson. "One is a public figure; the other is the daughter of a politician. Did you judge those two on a different basis?"

Individually, parents should be prepared to define their own values and expectations to their kids, Tafolla said. Parents should ask themselves: What are my personal values? What is the value system of our family? Is it based on faith? Is my expectation that my child will remain abstinent until marriage or abstinent for as long as he or she can?

Bristol Palin's pregnancy also gives parents an opportunity to pose questions to their children, said Cindy Hearne, a Houston psychologist in private practice. Parents should ask their children how they think pregnancy happens and then ask what their life would be like if it were to happen to them."

It's important to emphasize that they should feel free to come back and talk about it later," said Hearne, preferably before they become sexually active or become pregnant.

(thanks to movieposterdb.com for the picture)

Next Up: Catch Me if You Can's real Frank Abagnale

Issues in Film: 'Mona Lisa Smile' and the 1950s image

Release year: 2003
Director: Mike Newell
Main characters: Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts)
Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst)

Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles)
Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal)
Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin)

Bill Dunbar (Dominic West)

Runtime: 2 hours, 5 minutes

Rated: PG- 13 for sexual content and thematic issues

The setting is 1953. Art history teacher Katherine Watson (Roberts) heads from California to Wellesley College (an all-girls school) to begin teaching in a position she fought hard to obtain. While she believes that she will be inspired by her fellow women who choose to go on to higher education, she is more than surprised at their lack of progressiveness. Boston Globe columnist Wesley Morris sums up Katharine’s dilemma perfectly: “she arrives from UC Berkeley thoroughly modern and every inch the movie star. In her eyes and the movie's, the Wellesley of yesteryear has a student body whose unofficial major appears to be housewifery.” She is baffled by the students, who seem so future oriented (especially Joan Brandwyn (Stiles), who has a hefty résumé, is pre-law, and and at one time has aspirations to get into Yale), want only to be married right out of school. And then? “And then, I’ll be married,” Joan says, when her boyfriend, Tommy, proposes to her.
This film is one of many in my DVD collection, and I have seen it five times. While I can identify with the courage these Wellesley girls have in being able to attend college, when just a few years ago from the movie’s setting it would have been inconceivable to do so, I am increasingly frustrated with each viewing at their refusal to do anything post-college than get married.

But was "Mona Lisa Smile" really what it was like for the women at Wellesley College 55 years ago? Claudia Puig of USA Today agrees that young audiences will find it hard to understand that “the notion that family and career were mutually exclusive propositions only 50 years ago.” And overachiever Joan Brandwyn, Puig says, “is somewhere in between, a girl who dreams of going to law school but succumbs to the pull of marriage and motherhood. But, for some reason, we're supposed to believe that her wifely motivations are purer and more admirable than those of the other conventional coeds.”

According to Chicago Tribune critic Michael Wilmington, the film’s writers, Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal, “were inspired to make ‘Mona,’ they say, by the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton attended Wellesley in the '60s and their writing here is often as slick, melodramatic and self-convinced as the average political ad. …. You might assume that the fact ‘Mona Lisa Smile’ was based on Hillary Clinton's Wellesley years might mean that the authors intended Katherine as a kind of Hillary surrogate.”

In the end, Katherine’s progressive feminism seems to get through to the girls about aspiring to have their own goals, not just their husband’s. This is especially true for Betty Warren (Dunst) who had talked about her idea of marital bliss ad nauseum until her husband cheated on her. Sadly, though, what is most embarrassing about Katherine’s liberal rants is that she realizes she must bite her tongue. Feminism, after all, is about choosing, and though it may not seem so, some girls do choose to be homemakers.

Even though the story behind "Mona Lisa Smile" may be a tad skewed in its representations, I still enjoy this movie, because in the end all of the women find out who they are truly meant to be.

To read the full featured reviews:

* In a Compelling Class Portrait, 'Smile' Explores '50s Feminism

* Movie Review: 'Mona Lisa Smile'

* 'Mona Lisa' Wears a Crooked Smile

(thanks to photobucket.com for the picture.)

Next up: Movie of the Week: Forgetting Sarah Marshall