Jake and I went to see Chocolat last night. I'd read the book during Christmas and knew it would make a good Valentine movie.

When I saw Shine a few years ago I thought the very same thing that I thought last night. It's a shame parents feel the need to impose their choices onto their children. Both extremes of this need bother me. One, as the case was last night, is when the mother feels uncomfortable and decides it's time to move on regardless of the child's feelings about the matter. The other, which is sometimes more severe in my opinion, is when the parents live vicariously through their children. Take a mother who wanted to be a ballerina as a child but somehow never got to fulfill that dream, and you can be sure she's making her kid take ballet classes.

I just hope that when I have children, I will be more considerate of their feelings. I know there are times when things are unavoidable and I know that most parents don’t consciously hurt their children, but I just hope that I will be more aware. Maybe that's one of the reasons I work hard at not having regrets. I really hope I can raise my kids by paying attention to their own personalities and wants and needs.

The other interesting detail I noticed in the movie was a major change they added into the screenplay version. The Count, who is the mayor of the town in the movie, is the parish priest in the novel. In the book, he's the only character associated with the church (directly that is, all the other characters do go to church). In the movie version, there is a young parish priest and, if I'm not mistaken the Count helps him out but is not the religious figure himself (the Count is quite religious, but he's not the priest in the movie). Without giving away too much of the story I'll say that this young priest is totally different in personality that the Count.

The reason this made such a strong impact on me is that when I read the book, I got a very negative impression of the church and religion in general. Since the Count was the only one (actually in the book, his father plays a much bigger role in this matter as well) who represented the church, his negative personality and anger reflected upon religion, in a way making religious people seem close-minded and hateful. In the movie version, the young priest's existence took away the relationship between negative personality and religion. I assume the distinction was made consciously and, even though I'm not particularly religious, I applaud the change. I can't be sure if the writer has anything against the church itself, but I'm confident that some readers could have easily interpreted her book that way.

I don't appreciate sweeping generalizations of any kind. To say all gypsies are bad is the same as saying all conservative people are narrow-minded. Until you meet every single person in a "category" you can not make judgements a group of people. Every single human being is different and should be given credit as such.

All that from a movie about Chocolate.

Previously? Damn Sheep.