We got TBoBB from Netflix last week. It was a powerful movie, it made some great points about the overuse of interventions. I laughed mightily at the pompous obstetricians interviewed who went on and on about the myths of homebirth and midwifery as if they were fact, but then went on to admit that they didn't know what went on in a homebirth. Then there was the group of three OB's (residents?) who stated that they "rarely, hardly ever" saw completely normal birth. The segment on "pitting" moms (using pitocin to induce/augment labor) was particularly eye opening, I'm sure (though I wasn't surprised, as I would see it regularly at work).

What was missing was more of the medical risk/benefit angle, I thought. It did a great job showing normal birth, and everything that was done in the hospital to molest normal birth. However, other than the pit segment, it didn't really talk much about the other interventions that go on routinely in the hospital such as monitoring, IV's, artificial rupture of membranes, pushing positions (though it did touch on this one), NPO status, and the frequency of C-sections due to "CPD" or "FTP". Those last ones would be Cephalo-Pelvic Disproportion, aka "My Babies Won't Fit Out Of My Pelvis, Thank Gawd I Was In The Hospital Or My Baby And I Would Have DIED!" (which, by the way, have been shown to happen more right before dinner time - around 4PM, and right before bedtime - about 10-MN, coincidence? I think not), and Failure To Progress, aka "You Haven't Dilated By Our One Centimeter An Hour Rule, Therefore Your Body Is Broken And You Will NEVER Dilate, So You Can Sit Like This All Day And End Up WIth An Emergency C-Section When Your Baby Goes Into Distress [playing the bad-mommy card], Or We Can Just Do It Now And Save You From Your Broken Body". So in the end, to me, the movie felt a little incomplete. However, I think it might have been a tad overzealous if it had taken that approach, maybe? And the way they produced it was more population-friendly.

All in all, well worth the watch.

PBS's Masterpiece Theater has been running the recently released BBC productions of Jane Austen's works. We enjoyed all of them, some more than others - Phil and I differing in our opinion of which were our favorites (I'm liking Northanger Abbey, and he liked Persuasion an awful lot). But the one we agree upon as the crowning work, thusfar, is the three part Pride and Prejudice. We are still awaiting Emma and Sense and Sensibility.

Jane Austen's novels are "romance", but they aren't. Sure, it's about a girl, and a guy, and in the end, they do come together. However, all the character development, and witty interactions between ALL the characters is what has stood out to us as we've watched all of these movies. Pride and Prejudice has some of the funniest characters we've seen in a long time. And the depth of them (not as individuals, but as in the development of some of the most peripheral characters), all the way down to the husband of the sister of the guy that the sister of the main heroine loves, who has, perhaps three lines in the whole thing - and yet, he's in every scene which Mr. Darcy, and Bingleys come together, usually passed out in the background from all the wine he consumed. Further, this movie was perfectly cast, everyone did an amazing job playing their character to the hilt. I think my favorite character (in this case that I loved to hate) in this movie was the slimy cousin, Mr. Collins. He was a man who was due to inherit the Bennett's home in the case of the passing of Mr. Bennett (since they had no sons), but he took this so far as to assume that meant that he was also entitled to one of the Bennett daughters as well. The way he wiggled and wormed his way through this movie was pure genius.

Phil is now reading the book (for the first time?), as Piper got him the full Jane Austen works for his birthday. I will have to reread it. It has been a very long time. However, he is saying that the movies really are true to the book, and mostly what he's gaining is depth of thought.