The Truth About Grief

In December 2010, I lost two beloved Grandparents. Without going in to unnecessary detail, it was an understandably trying time for our family. My siblings and I lost our Grandma. My Mum lost her mother. My siblings and I lost our Poppy. My Nanny lost her husband. Christmas was solemn and the New Year celebrations seemed cruel.

One year later, I'll let you in on a little secret. The heartache of losing a loved one never really goes away. The grieving process progresses and at times you think you're 'moving on' and surviving the worst emotional experience you could ever imagine.

I've noticed in the past six months that while my broken heart has mended a little, it doesn't take very much to break me any more. The slightest things can make my heart completely sink and usually, an enormous lump will form in my throat. The circumstances don't even have to be sad or aggressive.

A touching story will have me faking to my friends that I am lost for words simply because I am trying hard to hold back the tears and shoo away the frog in my throat.

While watching movies, happy endings don't just make me a little teary. They make me bawl... loudly (I'm looking at you, Walt Disney. The Little Mermaid is merciless).

Grieving can make you look at your loved ones in a different way. It doesn't just make you appreciate them more than you once did. That would be a pleasantly useful way to work through the grieving process. Rather, I sometimes wonder "Two grandparents passed away, 8 days apart from each other... who is next?" and "How the hell will I cope when *loved one* passes away?".

Sometimes it might feel like your memory is ever so slightly affected. Most of the time, I'll automatically accept that the loved ones we lost are no longer with us. However, sometimes I'll have a lapse of memory, perhaps reverting to childhood memories and happier times, where I will see a marching band on TV and instinctively run to the phone to call my Poppy. Or I'll achieve something that I know my Grandma would be so proud of so I'll make a mental note to call her in the evening. When you realise you can no longer do these things, your heart breaks all over again.

Besides the heartbreak, there is definitely a sense of dissatisfaction that occurs a few months on. Sometimes all you want to do is hug your loved one, hold their hand, kiss their cheek, laugh with them, stay up late talking to them, tell them everything will be alright... and yet you know that you'll never do those things again.

People who grieve are not ok for the first six months at the very least. They may lead you to believe that everything is fine, but underneath the surface, they're completely broken and struggling to get up in the morning. Furthermore, grieving may lie dormant for years and when one little memory is triggered, you're a mess again.

If you know somebody who has recently lost someone they love, don't do the following:

• Brush it off: "Ah, grief sucks, but without it we would never appreciate the good in life". Even if you mean well, it's infuriating.
• Over-sympathise: "Awwwww you poor thiiiiing!" It's condescending.
• Ignore it completely, assuming that the person doesn't want to talk about it. It can be seen as unsympathetic and disrespectful.
• Send a text with your 'deepest condolences' and then ask a favour. That's just uncouth.

Sometimes there is no right answer on how to behave around people who are grieving. When I lost my Grandparents, I appreciated my friends' concern and support via text message for the first few days. When I went back to work, it was always best when my fellow team members worked my loss into conversation, opening with a tough situation they were facings and then acknowledging my loss by saying "You've had a pretty tough time, too..." and continuing from there.

Thirteen months later, I am more than just existing day to day, and I can see that gradual improvement in my family members as well. However, four years later I've made little emotional progress since I first posted this blog. The above human experiences still occur daily, often uninvited, and the haunting feeling of denial still threatens to harm my sanity with considerations such as "If I go to Grandma's home today, maybe she will answer the door and I'll realise it was all one big hoax". However, reality then rears its ugly head and reveals itself to be a cruel and unrelenting beast.

My siblings and I may no longer have our Grandparents with us in the flesh, but we can certainly carry on their legacies; celebrate their birthdays; reminisce while looking at photos and focus on creating wonderful new memories with our widowed Nanny, orphaned mother and fatherless father. It won't be easy but in dedication of their time spent with us, I'll endure the everlasting emotional trauma that their deaths have caused and honour my loved ones until the day I die.

The A-Z of Hugo: a Woeful Film Adaptation

I recently bought a book called The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. It is so wonderful that it earned the 2008 Caldecott Medal, was a National Book Award Finalist, named #1 New York Times Bestseller and won the title of New York Times Best Illustrated Book of 2007.

The story is told through both words and detailed sketches. The pictures do not act as visual aids, but rather, take over telling the story throughout most of the book. This technique precious, incredible and absolutely awe-inspiring for any book lover, regardless of age. (Click on the link for a cover to cover look at the book)

Even more recently, however, Martin Scorcese brought the book to life with a film adaptation simply titled Hugo, which earned the director an award at this year's Golden Globes. Happy at the time that a seasoned director earned an award for a film based on a book that I loved, I was deeply disappointed when no less than five minutes into watching the movie, significant details from the book had already been scrapped to make way for new and useless information.

Scorcese's Hugo was Angels and Demons all over again. I am both a book lover and a movie-goer, so I have an appreciation for the processes and demands that a filmmaker must face before an adaptation of a novel can make it to the big screen. However, in the case of Hugo, the writers made nonsensical changes which made for an inconsistent and dissatisfying 126 minutes.

Here are 26 reasons why Hugo failed to become the much-loved film adaptation of the magically touching book:

A) Note to the filmmaker: there is no need to write out an integral character just to make room for a new (and pointless) character in the film. Scorcese, the Station Guard did not have a girlfriend in the book, nor did he need one.

B) Hugo, when looking out of the huge clock at the train station, looks out of the number '5' in the book - not the number '4'!

C) Isabelle didn't break her leg and Hugo didn't break his hand. Furthermore, Isabelle was so annoying in this film that I passionately wanted her to break her leg.

D) Hugo and Isabelle do not flirt or have feelings for each other in the book! Why then do they hold hands so early on in the film and why does Hugo look at her long

ingly when they are at the cinema?

E) Isabelle does not narrate the final page of the book, so why then does her narration suddenly take over the final seconds of the film? The film is called HUGO, not Isabelle! She didn't narrate anywhere else in the film so this just makes no sense whatsoever.

F) Hugo does not have a dream that he is an automaton!

G) While dreaming, when Hugo finds a mysterious key on the train tracks (which, of course, does not occur in the book), a close up shows us that the key is par

tially covered by gravel. In the very next shot, it is sitting on the wooden track. Whoops!

H) Hugo never risks his life by hanging off the giant clock hand. This is just ridiculous. Clearly, the writers thought it would be clever to pay tribute to the black and white film 'Safety Last' which is mentioned and depicted in the book. On film? It just doesn't work.

I) Way too much time was spent developing a painful new addition to the story. The Station Guard's little war story and why his leg brace squeaked was a time killer and his crush on the young lady who sells the flowers was unnecessary. Such time

should have been spent mastering Hugo Cabret's onscreen persona. Hugo is troubled and doesn't trust others. Why then is he suddenly holding hands with an irritating girl he just met and sharing his painstakingly private secrets with her?

J) Hugo's father died in the museum attic when the fire broke out, yes. But the automaton was with him during the fire, not at home with Hugo! Hugo later sal

vages the tattered automaton from the wreckage of the fire that had been sitting there, untouched for a long time. His discovery of the automaton was a magical moment in the book. Why wasn't this displayed in the film?

K) The Station Guard was NOT comical in the book. Sacha Baron Cohen, I'm sure just following direction, was silly and distracting as said character.

L) Mama Jeanne never gave Isabelle the love heart key. Isabelle stole it from her, which is integral to how she and Hugo continue to develop their friendship.

M) Hugo stole the love heart key from Isabelle while she was wearing it, hugging her as a distraction while he stole the necklace. She did not offer her necklace in order for the automaton to work.

N) In the book, Etienne is a handsome young man with an intrigu

ing eye patch who is kind to the children. He is integral in solving the mystery of Papa Georges' past time and the role of the automaton. He does not appear at all in the film.

O) Hugo does not willingly show Isabelle his automaton. She invites herself in, demands he let her see what he is doing, will not leave, and then gets a

ngry when the automaton signs Papa Georges' name as she thinks that Hugo stole it from him!

P) In the book, Hugo is often found rubbing the cover of his father's diary or rubbing the buttons on his jacket (kind of like a security blanket or seeking comfort, almost like a nervous twitch). I didn't notice this at all in the film.

Q) Hugo does not pick the l

ock of the jail cell that he is placed in after the Station Guard catches him. The Guards open the cell and Hugo quickly pushes through, escaping and running for h

is life! Another mistake in the movie.

R) In the book, Etienne gives Hugo a coin (from behind his eye patch) to pay for the book he was about to steal. It is called Practical Manual of Card Magic and Illusions, not Robin Hood! Honestly, who writes these screenplays??!!

S) Madame Emile and Monsieur Frick are overheard by Hugo in the train station talking about his Uncle's suspicious death. Hugo then drops the bottle of milk he is holding, exposing him and thus getting him caught by the Station Guard. In the movie, however, the Station Guard's dog spots him while his owner tells his newfound crush about Hugo's uncle's body being discovered on the river bank.

T) Madame Emile and Monsieur Frick do not have a romance in the book! This is just awkward, pointless and confusing on film. Also, neither should have dogs.

U) In the book, Papa Georges explains to Isabelle that her moth

er and father worked for him and were dear friends of his, which is one reason he couldn't look at pictures and film reels from his past without feeling deep guilt, sadness and despair. This wasn't touched upon in the film, though given the chance.

V) The sound of shoe heels clicking isn't focussed on at all in the film, though it is an important factor in the book which hints towards an important explanation later on.

W) Papa Georges does not teach Hugo card tricks while they work in the toy booth. Hugo only ever watches Papa Georges out of facination and feels as if he wants Hugo to see them. They never interact like a father and son in the book, though they do in t

he film (and rather quickly, mind you)!

X) In the book, Papa Georges gives Hugo a magician's name: Professor Alcofrisbas. This part is skipped in the film. Hugo is seen playing one card trick in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it panning shot, before the camera quickly turns to Isabelle, who narrates the final scene. Weird.

Y) In the book, when Madame Emile and Monsieur Frick discuss Hug

o's uncle's death, they wonder how the clocks continue to work in the Train Station, speculating that it is his ghost that continues to manage the clocks (unaware that it is actually Hugo). This doesn't happen in the film and the fact that he has been left with the responsibility of running all the clocks in the Station isn't entirely clear.

Z) The term 'ghosts' wasn't used to intrigue and mystify as it was in the book. It was used once by Papa Georges when he first sees Hugo's notebook, and is then forgotten about for the remainder of the film.

I suppose the movie poster should have given me an indication of how little the film adaptation would respect the events within the book...

One thing I will say that I liked about this film was the climatic scene, where we see film reels projecting scenes from Papa Georges' original fantasy films, as well as real news footage from the war. I would much rather have sat through one of those old 'silent film' style movies than this abomination of a novel-to-film adaptation. Discovering how they would have created the stunts and special effects back in the days when film was a brand new novelty was interesting and enlightening.

In terms of the original story, we cannot forget that The Invention Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick is a fictional tale in terms of the characters, yet highly based on facts surrounding the first films ever made. Selznick did his homework and endeavored to write (and draw) a book that paid homage to the first filmmakers in Europe, an

d respectfully cites the film images or titles used in his masterpiece of a storybook at the very end, like a well-written essay would list its own references.

For book and film lovers, this book is an absolute treasure. How Martin Scorcese managed to stuff it up is beyond me.

Please, if you enjoyed the film, leave a comment and give your point of view. Likewise, if you agree that the movie did not live up to your expectations, tell me why. Thanks for reading!

Thoughts on Reality: A Collection of Tweets

Having stayed up way past my bed time to watch two episodes of The Walking Dead and in desperate need of a comical distraction before my nightmarish slumber, I resorted to visiting everyone's favourite 140-characters-or-less social network, Twitter.

Soon I was deliriously playing around with the title of the classic television show 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air' and giggling to myself in the dark as I looked at what I had come up with on the glowing screen of my iPhone. Then I started to wonder, had anyone created a hashtag topic on Twitter, sharing their alternate Fresh Prince titles?

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, my few sleepy and nonsensical tweets inspired a midnight collaboration with my good friend Elyse. A collaboration that promised to shake up Australian television and challenge everything viewers thought they knew about reality TV...

Bel

The Fresh Mince of a Bear.

#AlternateFreshPrinceTitles

Bel

The Flesh Prints of (Fred) Astaire.

#WhenBonesmeetsDancingWithTheStars

#AlternateFreshPrinceTitles

Bel

The Fresh Rinse of Bel's Hair. #IfIHadARealityShow

#AlternateFreshPrinceTitles

Elyse

@Bel Your reality show intrigues me... So, I imagine that it is a show where people compete at washing your hair.

Bel

@Elyse in this season, yes!

Elyse

I am currently picturing the eliminations. The dramatic music, all the contestants lined up,"I'm sorry, you've been rinsed out"

Bel

Yes! "Jacques, you have been rinsed out. Tune in next week: who will be our Rinsing Winner? Francois or Marylou-Genevieve?"

Elyse

I can not believe that Jean-Pierre was eliminated in the first round! His scalp massage technique was perfect!

Bel

"It's so controversial, Lady Gaga wouldn't poke it with a hat pin." -TV Week #IfIHadARealityShow

Elyse

Why are all the contestants French?

Bel

Because they are hair artists, darrrling!

Elyse

Correction, Hair Artistes! Message from the prop department- MORE BERETS!

Bel

Whoops! Now the drama really begins where I inadvertently insult the entire bevy of contestants and a mutiny begins!

Elyse

Dude, it's reality TV. It is built on the tears of it's contestants. If they aren't crying, no one is watching.

Elyse

I have no idea why they aren't letting us making TV shows. We'd be amazing at it. McPearce Productions would kill it!

Bel

McDonalds would be more than happy to endorse, for obvious naming reasons. We've got this, Elyse.

Bel

Off to sleep now, to dream of what McPearce Productions could achieve given half the chance... Oh the possibilities... @Elyse