Fairy Tales

O the stuff fairy tales are made of. Like many children, especially little girls, I grew up on stories of princesses being rescued by knights in shinning armor. The two would ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after. As a child, I never put much thought into exactly what that happily ever after might be. It’s interesting to see how Hollywood has portrayed the lives of princesses and how historical figures have been dealt with.

The film Marie Antoinette, starring Kirsten Dunst, is a good example of happily ever after – almost. Marie’s life was certainly one of opulence, parties, friends, and generally having a good time. Of course there were a few small difficulties associated with being the Queen of France – the traditions of morning dressing for instance at Versailles, or her troubles consummating her marriage with Louis XVI. Her life goes along fairly well in this movie, until of course the French Revolution takes place. Then things go down hill. But for a while, it looked like those fairy tales of my childhood might have actually taken place in history according to Hollywood.

Recently I watched Keira Knightley in The Duchess, and while her character Georgiana isn’t a princess, her lifestyle is certainly close enough. As the movie started, it was somewhat clear that Georgiana would later fall for a male character, Charles Gray, introduced in the opening sequences. At the same time, though, she was thrilled to become the Duchess of Devonshire and didn’t pout to her mother that she wanted to marry Gray instead. The film quickly devolves from the typical fairy tale to almost a horror story. Obviously there isn’t a monster or something after Georgiana, but her marriage quickly turns out to be a bit of a sham. Her husband isn’t overly interested in sexual activity, at least with her. He seems to have several mistresses, until he takes Georgiana’s best friend as his live-in mistress. Her joy for life quickly dissolves from there.

I don’t recall anything spectacular in the special features of the Marie Antoinette that dealt with the historical accuracy (or inaccuracies as the case may be) of the film. Meanwhile, I was pleasantly surprised by the special features for The Duchess.

Part of the special features was obviously devoted to costume development, but another section was an interview with Amanda Foreman, the author of Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire. In this interview, Foreman discusses the collection of Georgiana’s letters that are available in the archives at the Cavendish family home in Chatsworth. In talking about these letters, Foreman reveals to the viewer the maturation of Georgiana – visible in her hand writing and in the topics she discusses. It’s also interesting, as Georgiana’s letters were censored by her friend (and her husband’s mistress) Bess Foster. Bess either scratched out or ripped out certain parts of letters and apparently only left select letters for future generations.

I was thoroughly impressed to see this section in the special features. It was a somewhat shameless plug for tourists to go to Chatsworth, but at the same time, it made archival history interesting and relevant to a movie viewer. How often do you really think about the evolution of a person through their handwriting and the subject matter of their letters?

Check out the movie if you’ve got a chance. It’s not too bad. Typical in many ways, but still a pretty good flick. If nothing else, the costumes are great!

Modern Soviet Dance?

I stumbled across this so-called modern Soviet dance video tonight.

It's an old recording of a group of Soviet dancers, likely propaganda of its time. What it amounts to, with the mix of more modern music, is basically a Soviet break dancing circle.

What an amazing way to mix old and new technologies, and keep the heritage of this Russian dancing alive.

Enjoy - There are some truly amazing dance moves!

Interactivity

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I stayed with my sister and her family in Kanata. Given the proximity to Ottawa and Carp, my boyfriend Karl and I decided to take in a couple of tourist attractions while we were there.

On Saturday we visited in the War Museum. Wow. What a place! It's incredibly huge. We spent about 4.5 hours in there and still didn't see everything. I was impressed by the number of interactive activities available. Everything from being able to zoom in on models of First Nation's villages to understand the various roles of the members, to walking through a mock First World War trench and being able to see no man's land. Lots of computer activities and even some interaction with some artifacts, or at least reproduction artifacts.

My first encounter with the reproduced artifact was a man with a musket teaching mainly children about things like cleaning it and how to carry it. He did a really good job changing his message depending on his audience.
The 2nd encounter was a medical kit. This one made me a little nervous, as children were allowed to pick up items, including sharp, potentially poke-your-eye out type items. Despite that nervous factor (risk management anyone?) it again was pretty cool to have someone there to explain to patrons exactly what each item might be used for.

Along with all of these interactive displays, there were lots of static exhibits, but because of how much interaction was possible, I didn't see any kids running around or pounding on artifacts. The only area that didn’t have interactive exhibits was the room full of tanks, artillery pieces, and other vehicles. This room certainly lacked the child friendly atmosphere of the rest of the museum, but there still weren't any kids playing with the artifacts.

Sunday we decided to tackle the Diefenbunker. Again, I can say 'wow' but certainly not with the same connotations as before...

Our visit was basically a 90 minute guided tour. We were welcome to explore once the tour was over, but there was no map provided, nor were there any directional signs to help you find your way around. Plus, the air quality was TERRIBLE. I couldn't wait to get out.
Unlike the War Museum, there weren’t any exhibits with interaction. As a result, I saw children pound on artifacts to make their own fun. I certainly can't say I blame them, as there isn't much to see or do at the Diefenbunker. Trust me, the concept makes it sound really neat-o, but I was rather disappointed with what I saw and heard.

Our tour guide couldn't understand why the federal government wouldn't leave all of their materials behind when the bunker was decommissioned in the 1990s. She seemed absolutely surprised that they wouldn't consider leaving desks, beds, paperwork, etc. behind for the museum to use. Honestly, I think the Diefenbunker museum is lucky that the government didn't fill in the bunker with cement like they did with so many others. How can individuals honestly expect the government to leave all of their materials and equipment behind when they move? I can understand where my guide was coming from - certainly it would have been much easier to create a museum had all of the necessary artifacts been left behind. But at the same time, it doesn't make good sense for an operating government department to leave its equipment behind for the potential use in a museum. The public would certainly not have stood for this.

The key lesson learned from visiting these two very different museums was that the ability to interact with exhibits dramatically effects the behaviour of visitors. People instinctively want to touch and feel things, to be truly involved in the learning process - this is especially true with children. If a museum fails (like the Diefenbunker) to allow the opportunity for interaction, patrons will inevitably find a way to play with artifacts and potentially destroy physical history for all those who follow.

Plagiarize much?

Using the wonders of Google, Skyline Inc. has just released it’s plagiarism-detector 8.0. It can check Word documents, PDFs, and power point presentations, among others, against any published source on the internet, using Google’s search algorithms. Sounds like a much better source than Turnitin.com – and it also looks like it would be one heck of a lot cheaper! Anyone concerned with the originality of their work can now easily run a plagiarism search from home.

Spellcheck much?

I just completed yet another round of marking (and, of course, was treated to some interesting words) when I came across this blog about trusting one's spellchecker. Take a look - it's certainly a useful tool when you're a terrible speller like me, but to blindly accept changes? Yikes!

Family History = Boats

For several generations, my family has been involved in commercial fishing. I spent many an early morning out on Lake Huron with my brothers, sisters, father, and uncles – until of course my eldest brother John forced me to pick up a half-dead fish, which at the age of 5 was slightly traumatizing. I’ll be honest, I went out for the junk food, and rarely went out again after that day.

Growing up the most complete photo albums were those that contained the numerous fish tugs owned and operated by the LaBlance family at one point or another. I was also treated to numerous stories including: the American ancestors who spent a fortune to outfit a tug in order to be rum runners, only to have prohibition lifted shortly there after; the time my father and his brothers were asked to help in the rescue operations of the Edmund Fitzgerald, and while they were unable to help due to weather, they were able to recover artifacts from the sunken vessel (which were accordingly handed over to the authorities); or the various life saving efforts my family has participated in, whether through the Southampton Water Rescue team, or simply due to the fact that they were in the right place at the right time.

My father is particularly interested in boats – little wonder given that from the time he was a wee one to about the age of 55 he spent almost every day on the boat, weather permitting. It was to my delight then, when I ran across a project put together by Bowling Green State University called the Great Lakes Vessels Online Database. It’s a database that offers information on numerous types of vessels – sailboats through freighters – as well as corresponding pictures. (For anyone interested in checking out the database, look up the La Blance – owned by the LaBlance family from 1947 until 1965.) My dad has spent hours going through this database, loving every minute, but of course finding errors as he goes. He also spends numerous hours on boatnerd.com.

One of my brothers is also keen on boats, and after the family was no longer able to fish, he began a contracting company. Part of that company, Willy’s Contracting, is dredging – which of course requires tugs. He recently had one of his boats, the Priderebuilt from a fishing tug to a steamboat tug. The Pride has recently been featured on boatnerd, which of course has my dad absolutely thrilled. I got an email and a phone call yesterday to be sure to check it out.

The heritage of my family lives on… if not through the people in it, then through their boats!

Broken Heart?

Imagine an exhibit dedicated to lost love. Imagine some of the things that might be in it – say fuzzy handcuffs, an axe, a pair of underwear, or the iconic ‘I love you’ plush bear. Stop imagining, because that exhibit exists.
The ‘Museum of Broken Relationships’ is a digital, as well as traveling, exhibit that showcases artifacts from failed romances.
Each artifact found within the digital exhibit comes with a story. Like that axe: it was used to chop up an ex-lover’s furniture. Or a cell phone that was given from a man to a woman so that she couldn’t call him anymore. (Clever way to get your point across that’s for sure!)
Currently the exhibit is in Singapore and will next be displayed in San Francisco, just in time for Valentines, the most overrated Hallmark holiday there is!
Check out the digital exhibit – it’s a short exhibit, but humourous in its own sad way.