I haven't posted in a very long time because I have been tremendously busy with school. Still am, in fact, and I won't be finished with all my schoolwork until I literally graduate in about a month. I cannot believe it's just around the corner. I still feel like a junior since I'd spent my third year with second-year British kids in England.
In general I am overwhelmed, also, with finding a job since the graduate school thing didn't work out. Oh, thanks, but it's OK. I've gotten over it. I'd wanted to actually post about the rush of feelings I had once I learned the news about three weeks ago, but I never got around to it. I've resolved to apply to different kinds of programs--programs--to start in fall 2009. In the meantime, I hope to do something worthwhile, something I am interested in, something that will make my application so much more appealing. I just don't know what that something is.
Anyway, I am really looking forward to graduation because it will mean that I have finished my thesis (it fascinates me but it is oh-so-tedious), completed all the other work I need to do for my two other classes, and it will mean I can relax. I've thought about this some, and I wanted to give a list of fun, leisurely things I want to do, starting as soon as I graduate. Because you know I hate to be idle.
Now, what I need to do:
1.) Go to NYC for a few days with Stephanie. Have fun. Take pictures.
2.) Read books you've wanted to read for a long time. This includes finishing The Story of French. Start with that and then move on to reading more of those transgender studies books. Also, read some art books so you can participate in lively discussions with Dad. Start with The Private Lives of the Impressionists, the book that instigated his quest to learn more about art.
3.) Use your intermediate-to-advanced French workbook to refresh. One of your lifetime goals is to be as fluent as possible in a language. Start here.
4.) Go to the movies! Determine whether or not you want to keep your Netflix account. You don't go through your queue very quickly, and you probably won't even once you finish school because hopefully you will find a job to occupy your time. You could just rent from the library for cheap.
5.) Blog! And create a separate blog that is only about movies. This way, you can show this to people for writing samples of your work about film.
6.) Edit your thesis and turn it into a book with self-publishing software.
7.) Try to meet people. You need friends, man.
I hope I haven't put too much pressure on myself.
Showing posts with label lists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lists. Show all posts
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
these "spirits" are even showier!
I only saw the second half of the Independent Spirit Awards last night, but I have a few observations I would like to share nonetheless.
1.) When Dustin Hoffman presented the award for Best Feature Film, was he on crack? Not only was he barely coherent, he made some ridiculous comments. For instance, before he got going with announcing the nominees, he stated that he fucked Javier Bardem and that Philip Seymour Hoffman was the product of that union. "Metaphorically speaking, of course." Everyone was howling with laughter, which made me feel so out of the loop. Is that funny, really? Even if it were possible for two men to make a baby, it wouldn't have been possible in this case. I mean, Javier's younger than Philip.
Dusty also said a vaguely anti-Semitic remark. Well, maybe it wasn't so vague. He wanted to point out something on the wall behind him that resembled, for him at least, the Star of David. He said something to the effect of: "That's there to remind us that not only do the Jews run Hollywood, they also run the Independent Spirit Awards. I'm not speaking metaphorically, either." Again, the crowd howled with laughter. Since I already dislike her, it was especially painful for me to watch Cate Blanchett laugh. Anyway, just imagine if a non-Jew had said that. Right?
2.) There was something about the first Robert Altman Award, which is handed out to the director, cast, and casting director of an exemplary ensemble piece, that struck me in a bad way. It was awarded to I'm Not There (2007). I agree that casting and this award is important, but I guess seeing the Blanchett standing behind director Todd Haynes, who was talking about independent film and casting, was a bit weird. I mean, of course big stars can transcend mainstream film and star in independent features (look at Angelina Jolie, for one, in A Mighty Heart [2007]), but the cast is filled with Richard Gere and Batman himself: Christian Bale. Just didn't sit right in my stomach.
3.) Speaking of A Mighty Heart, I absolutely hated how the Master of Ceremonies Rainn "Dwight" Wilson made fun of Michael Winterbottom's name. How lame can he get? (The film was nominated for Best Feature film and lost to the juggernaut called Juno [2007]).
4.) That leads me onto something else: the Ellen Page lovefest. More specifically, the waves of affection going back and forth between Page and director Jason Reitman. At one point, she even said, "I'm Ellen Page and I'm in love with Jason Reitman." I'm waiting to watch the story about their running off into the sunset together emerge in the headlines sometime soon. Keep your eyes pealed.
5.) Oh, and another thing that pissed me off about that Rainn guy. He wrapped up the show and then threatened Philip Seymour Hoffman with violence. He went into the crowd as soon as his "professional" duties were over and done with. Unfortunately for him, this gave Hoffman enough time to defend himself with his chair legs. Hoffman basically pummeled him, and I got to see the distinguished actor's plumber butt. I thought, "What is this? Some old Almost Famous (2000) rivalry?" (Remember, Wilson worked for Rolling Stone, and Hoffman was Lester Bangs of Creem Magazine.)
6.) Finally, Julian Schnabel, in case you did not know, is really weird. Awful acceptance speech, but at least it was entertaining. He won for Best Director, and his former lead actor Javier Bardem presented it to him. They hugged. Julian even thanked him, along with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's (2007) screenwriter Ronald Harwood and producer Kathleen Kennedy. No thanking of anyone else, especially not Mathieu Amalric. Sorry, but as a fan of his work, I feel cut by all of the gliding over of his contribution to the work. Contrary to popular belief, his role was not all voiceover. There was a fair bit of discomfort, I imagine. Hell, even his voice work had to convey a lot about Jean-Do's sense of humor, personal struggle, depression, imagination, and uplift. And I think even his body--and by that, I mean Mathieu's--did a lot for that.
OK. I am done ranting.
1.) When Dustin Hoffman presented the award for Best Feature Film, was he on crack? Not only was he barely coherent, he made some ridiculous comments. For instance, before he got going with announcing the nominees, he stated that he fucked Javier Bardem and that Philip Seymour Hoffman was the product of that union. "Metaphorically speaking, of course." Everyone was howling with laughter, which made me feel so out of the loop. Is that funny, really? Even if it were possible for two men to make a baby, it wouldn't have been possible in this case. I mean, Javier's younger than Philip.
Dusty also said a vaguely anti-Semitic remark. Well, maybe it wasn't so vague. He wanted to point out something on the wall behind him that resembled, for him at least, the Star of David. He said something to the effect of: "That's there to remind us that not only do the Jews run Hollywood, they also run the Independent Spirit Awards. I'm not speaking metaphorically, either." Again, the crowd howled with laughter. Since I already dislike her, it was especially painful for me to watch Cate Blanchett laugh. Anyway, just imagine if a non-Jew had said that. Right?
2.) There was something about the first Robert Altman Award, which is handed out to the director, cast, and casting director of an exemplary ensemble piece, that struck me in a bad way. It was awarded to I'm Not There (2007). I agree that casting and this award is important, but I guess seeing the Blanchett standing behind director Todd Haynes, who was talking about independent film and casting, was a bit weird. I mean, of course big stars can transcend mainstream film and star in independent features (look at Angelina Jolie, for one, in A Mighty Heart [2007]), but the cast is filled with Richard Gere and Batman himself: Christian Bale. Just didn't sit right in my stomach.
3.) Speaking of A Mighty Heart, I absolutely hated how the Master of Ceremonies Rainn "Dwight" Wilson made fun of Michael Winterbottom's name. How lame can he get? (The film was nominated for Best Feature film and lost to the juggernaut called Juno [2007]).
4.) That leads me onto something else: the Ellen Page lovefest. More specifically, the waves of affection going back and forth between Page and director Jason Reitman. At one point, she even said, "I'm Ellen Page and I'm in love with Jason Reitman." I'm waiting to watch the story about their running off into the sunset together emerge in the headlines sometime soon. Keep your eyes pealed.
5.) Oh, and another thing that pissed me off about that Rainn guy. He wrapped up the show and then threatened Philip Seymour Hoffman with violence. He went into the crowd as soon as his "professional" duties were over and done with. Unfortunately for him, this gave Hoffman enough time to defend himself with his chair legs. Hoffman basically pummeled him, and I got to see the distinguished actor's plumber butt. I thought, "What is this? Some old Almost Famous (2000) rivalry?" (Remember, Wilson worked for Rolling Stone, and Hoffman was Lester Bangs of Creem Magazine.)
6.) Finally, Julian Schnabel, in case you did not know, is really weird. Awful acceptance speech, but at least it was entertaining. He won for Best Director, and his former lead actor Javier Bardem presented it to him. They hugged. Julian even thanked him, along with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's (2007) screenwriter Ronald Harwood and producer Kathleen Kennedy. No thanking of anyone else, especially not Mathieu Amalric. Sorry, but as a fan of his work, I feel cut by all of the gliding over of his contribution to the work. Contrary to popular belief, his role was not all voiceover. There was a fair bit of discomfort, I imagine. Hell, even his voice work had to convey a lot about Jean-Do's sense of humor, personal struggle, depression, imagination, and uplift. And I think even his body--and by that, I mean Mathieu's--did a lot for that.
OK. I am done ranting.
Monday, January 21, 2008
and the nominees might be...
Tomorrow morning, they will announce the nominees for the Academy Awards. And we still don't know if the show will go on. At least, we don't know in which form they may happen. Anyway, I thought I would predict the nominees for the "major" categories and choose the likely winners from my hypotheses. Below, I've also included some wishful thinking. (I'd wanted to predict the winners of the Golden Globes, but I only had the craving to post about that 30 minutes prior to the start of the glossy "press conference," which I didn't even watch. I favored Masterpiece Classic's airing of Persuasion [2007] instead. But that is neither here nor there.)
Best Adapted Screenplay:
1.) There Will Be Blood (2007) by Paul Thomas Anderson
2.) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) by Ronald Harwood
3.) No Country for Old Men (2007) by Joel and Ethan Coen
4.) Atonement (2007) by Christopher Hampton
5.) Into the Wild (2007) by Sean Penn
The Likely Winner: I think this category is a toss-up, really. I was not exactly impressed when the Brothers Coen won the Globe. I was expecting Atonement to win because it fabulously translated the "un-filmable" Ian McEwan novel to the screen. I think Atonement has a shot in this race despite the previous Old Men win(s). Would, however, like to see The Diving Bell win because it was my favorite film of the year (not that I saw so many movies this year) and, not to mention, it was apparently Harwood's idea that the film be shot largely from Jean-Do's point-of-view, to help the audience empathize with him for having the condition called "locked-in syndrome" following his stroke.
By the way, I debated a bit about who would fill the final slot: American Gangster (2007) or Into the Wild. I chose the latter because supposedly the fact that almost everything in American Gangster was fabricated for dramatic effect and bears almost no resemblance to the story of Frank Lucas, voters will not favor it. This is sort of stupid, because who says that the film story must be close to the actual story? A story is a story. Anyway, I figured Into the Wild would get it over Gangster because don't they love Sean Penn and American bestsellers?
Best Original Screenplay:
1.) Juno (2007) by Diablo Cody
2.) Michael Clayton (2007) by Tony Gilroy
3.) Ratatouille (2007) by Brad Bird
4.) The Savages (2007) by Tamara Jenkins
5.) Lars and the Real Girl (2007) by Nancy Oliver
The Likely Winner: Before I "announce" the Likely Winner, it's interesting to me that women dominate in this category. (Of course this means nothing since these are only my predictions.) Unfortunately, Juno seems like the most likely winner, but perhaps all that buzz will kill it stone dead. Clayton seems likely to be at least nominated because it was a "smart" movie for the thinking "grown-ups" among audiences. Plus it's a political thriller that hearkens back to some of the classics. Having said all this, I would like to see, among these nominees I've selected, Ratatouille win because that film is art all around, anchored by a fantastic script. The script itself elevates the animated film to a much higher level.
By the way, I should say that this category is much more difficult to predict than Adapted Screenplay because it seems like all the darlings of this award season are based on previously published material. This pretty much explains my choices for the fourth and fifth spots.
Best Supporting Actress:
1.) Amy Ryan for Gone Baby Gone (2007)
2.) Cate Blanchett for I'm Not There (2007)
3.) Saoirse Ronan for Atonement
4.) Vanessa Redgrave for Atonement
5.) Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton
The Likely Winner: It's probably between Numbers 1 and 2. Would be extremely distressful (for me, at least) if Blanchett won because that would mean she has two Oscars for IMPERSONATING HISTORICAL FIGURES. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, that is not acting. Of course she does not always impersonate people, but she would go down in history as nothing but an impressionist. I don't think that it is likely she will win an Oscar for Best Actress ever, really. There, I said it. (Can you tell I am not exactly a fan of hers, either? I admit to some extreme bias.) I think perhaps both Ronan and Redgrave will be nominated. Choosing Redgrave, you may be thinking, is ridiculous, but Judi Dench won for what? 13 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love (1998)? It's entirely possible. Plus, don't they love nominating the old and the ridiculously young? I don't have a personal choice to win. I'd be happy with anyone but Blanchett.
Best Supporting Actor:
1.) Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men
2.) Tom Wilkinson for Michael Clayton
3.) Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4.) Hal Holbrook for Into the Wild
5.) Philip Seymour Hoffman for Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
The Likely Winner: Do I even need to say this? I bet it will be Javier. He's one of my favorite actors, and even though it's a "supporting role," it's definitely a good, meaty one to win for. In fact, I don't think there's a leading role in this film. It's very much an ensemble piece, which is why none are nominated for leading roles. His is possibly the biggest and the most important. It's practically because of Anton that everything else takes place.
Also, I want to add that this category is tough to pin down because I think Paul Dano could easily get nominated for his work in There Will Be Blood, but I don't know who he would knock off if he got nominated: Affleck, Wilkinson, Holbrook, or Hoffman (who will be nominated, I think, because he apparently stole the movie from Hanks).
Best Actress:
1.) Julie Christie for Away From Her (2007)
2.) Marion Cotillard for La Vie en rose (2007)
3.) Ellen Page for Juno
4.) Angelina Jolie for A Mighty Heart (2007)
5.) Keira Knightley for Atonement
The Likely Winner: Between Numbers 1 and 2, but I think the gong will go to Christie. That is, if she's actually nominated. (Ha!) I listed this set from the actress most likely to win to the actress least likely. Knightley is the dark horse in this race because I do not think her role was meaty enough to be classified as a leading role, but it was definitely meatier than a supporting one. In other words, Atonement is very much James McAvoy's film. Angelina Jolie will get the nomination, I think, over Blanchett's reprisal of Elizabeth I simply because Blanchett merely yelled out of frustration and modeled fancy sixteenth century dresses. Jolie at least sank into her role, taking it very seriously, and I think it paid off. Whatever. It doesn't matter because Christie will win.
Best Actor:
1.) Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood
2.) George Clooney for Michael Clayton
3.) James McAvoy for Atonement
4.) Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises (2007)
5.) Emile Hirsch for Into the Wild
The Likely Winner: Day-Lewis.
Best Director:
1.) Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men
2.) Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
3.) Joe Wright for Atonement
4.) Sean Penn for Into the Wild
5.) Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood
The Likely Winner: I think it's between Numbers 1 and 2, but maybe even Number 3 can edge his way in there. He should be able to because Atonement oozes in his style. Would prefer it if Wright or Schnabel won, honestly. Then again, I think it would be cool if Brad Bird were nominated for Ratatouille. Again, this nomination would demonstrate that some animated films are capable of rising above that "animated" stigma.
Best Picture:
1.) No Country for Old Men
2.) Atonement
3.) There Will Be Blood
4.) Michael Clayton
5.) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Likely Winner: I've decided against predicting the winner among these five simply because I don't want to get my hopes up. And I don't even know which hopes I should be concerned about. I would love to see The Diving Bell win, but the truth is it's probably the dark horse among them. Yes, its recent nomination over at the Producers Guild of America Awards helps it. Since it cannot be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (and France's pick Persepolis [2007] didn't even make the shortlist), this is its best shot.
Fingers crossed, yeah.
Best Adapted Screenplay:
1.) There Will Be Blood (2007) by Paul Thomas Anderson
2.) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) by Ronald Harwood
3.) No Country for Old Men (2007) by Joel and Ethan Coen
4.) Atonement (2007) by Christopher Hampton
5.) Into the Wild (2007) by Sean Penn
The Likely Winner: I think this category is a toss-up, really. I was not exactly impressed when the Brothers Coen won the Globe. I was expecting Atonement to win because it fabulously translated the "un-filmable" Ian McEwan novel to the screen. I think Atonement has a shot in this race despite the previous Old Men win(s). Would, however, like to see The Diving Bell win because it was my favorite film of the year (not that I saw so many movies this year) and, not to mention, it was apparently Harwood's idea that the film be shot largely from Jean-Do's point-of-view, to help the audience empathize with him for having the condition called "locked-in syndrome" following his stroke.
By the way, I debated a bit about who would fill the final slot: American Gangster (2007) or Into the Wild. I chose the latter because supposedly the fact that almost everything in American Gangster was fabricated for dramatic effect and bears almost no resemblance to the story of Frank Lucas, voters will not favor it. This is sort of stupid, because who says that the film story must be close to the actual story? A story is a story. Anyway, I figured Into the Wild would get it over Gangster because don't they love Sean Penn and American bestsellers?
Best Original Screenplay:
1.) Juno (2007) by Diablo Cody
2.) Michael Clayton (2007) by Tony Gilroy
3.) Ratatouille (2007) by Brad Bird
4.) The Savages (2007) by Tamara Jenkins
5.) Lars and the Real Girl (2007) by Nancy Oliver
The Likely Winner: Before I "announce" the Likely Winner, it's interesting to me that women dominate in this category. (Of course this means nothing since these are only my predictions.) Unfortunately, Juno seems like the most likely winner, but perhaps all that buzz will kill it stone dead. Clayton seems likely to be at least nominated because it was a "smart" movie for the thinking "grown-ups" among audiences. Plus it's a political thriller that hearkens back to some of the classics. Having said all this, I would like to see, among these nominees I've selected, Ratatouille win because that film is art all around, anchored by a fantastic script. The script itself elevates the animated film to a much higher level.
By the way, I should say that this category is much more difficult to predict than Adapted Screenplay because it seems like all the darlings of this award season are based on previously published material. This pretty much explains my choices for the fourth and fifth spots.
Best Supporting Actress:
1.) Amy Ryan for Gone Baby Gone (2007)
2.) Cate Blanchett for I'm Not There (2007)
3.) Saoirse Ronan for Atonement
4.) Vanessa Redgrave for Atonement
5.) Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton
The Likely Winner: It's probably between Numbers 1 and 2. Would be extremely distressful (for me, at least) if Blanchett won because that would mean she has two Oscars for IMPERSONATING HISTORICAL FIGURES. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, that is not acting. Of course she does not always impersonate people, but she would go down in history as nothing but an impressionist. I don't think that it is likely she will win an Oscar for Best Actress ever, really. There, I said it. (Can you tell I am not exactly a fan of hers, either? I admit to some extreme bias.) I think perhaps both Ronan and Redgrave will be nominated. Choosing Redgrave, you may be thinking, is ridiculous, but Judi Dench won for what? 13 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love (1998)? It's entirely possible. Plus, don't they love nominating the old and the ridiculously young? I don't have a personal choice to win. I'd be happy with anyone but Blanchett.
Best Supporting Actor:
1.) Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men
2.) Tom Wilkinson for Michael Clayton
3.) Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4.) Hal Holbrook for Into the Wild
5.) Philip Seymour Hoffman for Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
The Likely Winner: Do I even need to say this? I bet it will be Javier. He's one of my favorite actors, and even though it's a "supporting role," it's definitely a good, meaty one to win for. In fact, I don't think there's a leading role in this film. It's very much an ensemble piece, which is why none are nominated for leading roles. His is possibly the biggest and the most important. It's practically because of Anton that everything else takes place.
Also, I want to add that this category is tough to pin down because I think Paul Dano could easily get nominated for his work in There Will Be Blood, but I don't know who he would knock off if he got nominated: Affleck, Wilkinson, Holbrook, or Hoffman (who will be nominated, I think, because he apparently stole the movie from Hanks).
Best Actress:
1.) Julie Christie for Away From Her (2007)
2.) Marion Cotillard for La Vie en rose (2007)
3.) Ellen Page for Juno
4.) Angelina Jolie for A Mighty Heart (2007)
5.) Keira Knightley for Atonement
The Likely Winner: Between Numbers 1 and 2, but I think the gong will go to Christie. That is, if she's actually nominated. (Ha!) I listed this set from the actress most likely to win to the actress least likely. Knightley is the dark horse in this race because I do not think her role was meaty enough to be classified as a leading role, but it was definitely meatier than a supporting one. In other words, Atonement is very much James McAvoy's film. Angelina Jolie will get the nomination, I think, over Blanchett's reprisal of Elizabeth I simply because Blanchett merely yelled out of frustration and modeled fancy sixteenth century dresses. Jolie at least sank into her role, taking it very seriously, and I think it paid off. Whatever. It doesn't matter because Christie will win.
Best Actor:
1.) Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood
2.) George Clooney for Michael Clayton
3.) James McAvoy for Atonement
4.) Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises (2007)
5.) Emile Hirsch for Into the Wild
The Likely Winner: Day-Lewis.
Best Director:
1.) Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men
2.) Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
3.) Joe Wright for Atonement
4.) Sean Penn for Into the Wild
5.) Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood
The Likely Winner: I think it's between Numbers 1 and 2, but maybe even Number 3 can edge his way in there. He should be able to because Atonement oozes in his style. Would prefer it if Wright or Schnabel won, honestly. Then again, I think it would be cool if Brad Bird were nominated for Ratatouille. Again, this nomination would demonstrate that some animated films are capable of rising above that "animated" stigma.
Best Picture:
1.) No Country for Old Men
2.) Atonement
3.) There Will Be Blood
4.) Michael Clayton
5.) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Likely Winner: I've decided against predicting the winner among these five simply because I don't want to get my hopes up. And I don't even know which hopes I should be concerned about. I would love to see The Diving Bell win, but the truth is it's probably the dark horse among them. Yes, its recent nomination over at the Producers Guild of America Awards helps it. Since it cannot be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (and France's pick Persepolis [2007] didn't even make the shortlist), this is its best shot.
Fingers crossed, yeah.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
the subversion of an institution
The story I have to tell that justifies this post isn't easy. And I'm not sure it even makes sense. I'm looking down at the blue post-it on my desk that serves as a note-to-self: "post about new Secretary discovery." I wrote that nights ago, after I had already gotten in bed to go to sleep. So, I had already been lying in bed for at least a couple of minutes when this "new" "discovery" about Secretary (2002) hit me. It's very strange, since I haven't seen the film in a long while. I really cannot explain why I was thinking about Secretary at that moment, whenever it was.
But I do remember what I meant by "new Secretary discovery." After all, in parentheses, I scribbled a reminder of what that "discovery" is: "perversion of marriage." But I am getting too ahead of myself. And if you don't want the film to be spoiled for you if you haven't yet seen it, please find something else to read. Spoilers lie below.
Secretary is the story of Lee Holloway, a young woman who has just been released from a mental institution. She mutilates herself for autoerotic pleasure, and pretty much everyone, especially her family, misunderstands her: they think she's suicidal. Anyway, Lee gets a job as the newest in a long line of unceremoniously fired secretaries for the eccentric lawyer E. Edward Grey. To cut a long story short, their already sexually tense relationship eventually develops so that they enjoy a sadomasochistic one during regular business hours. Lee wants more. He freezes up, fires her, but she is still devoted to him, convinced that she has found some sort of soul mate, someone who understands her, etc. etc. It's an unconventional love story. But in the end, they marry.
For the longest time, I absolutely hated this ending. For the record, most of the time I hate it in films whenever the story ends with a wedding. In these cases, the wedding/marriage is completely unnecessary. Apparently, films end with this kind of event as a way to show to the audience that the love between the characters is legitimate and long-lasting. That's a pretty stupid reason, isn't it? Considering the divorce rate in this country is almost 50 percent, if it isn't already 50 percent.
Anyway, I especially hated the capping of the story with the marriage of Lee and Edward. By all accounts, they're perverted (but toward the end, her family and friends attempt to understand her desire for her former boss). Why do they want to conform to heteronormativity all of a sudden? I just didn't understand why.
And then it hit me, a couple of nights ago. This is probably really obvious to most of you, but it took me so long to understand that their union perverts the institution of marriage. And it all begins with Lee's wedding dress.
Right before the lovers are reunited, Lee has accepted the marriage proposal of her boyfriend, Peter. Simply because she has no idea what to do with herself. Trying on her soon-to-be mother-in-law's wedding dress, Lee realizes she doesn't want Peter, that she wants Edward. She rushes over to Edward's office, passing by the new secretary. In short, she plops herself down behind his desk, and at his request, doesn't lift her hands from the surface until he returns (days later!). A media circus ensues, and Lee reluctantly receives visitors.
Now, about that perversion of marriage: Since Lee doesn't get up, she pees in the dress. Take that, sanctity of marriage! The scene that follows Edward's return further subverts marriage. He carries her over the marital threshold to the loft upstairs, which resembles the Garden of Eden... if Martha Stewart had designed it. She's wearing a wedding dress, but this is not their wedding night. And the Garden of Eden motif recalls the notion of Original Sin, which they ignore. As we viewers have already witnessed, neither Lee nor Edward are prudes, so it is not a shock that they have pre-marital sex.
But it doesn't end here. Because when they finally do get married, they wipe out the religious connotations, electing to be married by a Justice of the Peace. But I should say this is all related through Lee's voiceover. We do not see the ceremony itself. In this way, the filmmakers further subvert the institution of marriage, but also the institution that cinematic romances must end with a wedding because we do not see it. Moreover, Lee is decked out in something that resembles a wedding dress in every way, except for the fact that its color is black. You'd think she were marrying Dracula or Beetlejuice. Not only that, the scene in which we glimpse the dress features Edward and Lee fucking, her wrists tied around the trunk of a tree. No threshold here, just good, dark, sadomasochistic love.
Following this, Lee talks about their marital bliss. They're "just like any other couple you'd see." Unfortunately, the independence Lee enjoyed with a job does not continue, for as Edward rolls out of the driveway, off to work, she stays home. We assume she eagerly anticipates his return. After all, she has dropped a dead cockroach on their immaculate bed. Edward's going to come home and spank her.
Yeah, so a couple of nights ago, I realized that Secretary makes fun of the romantic comedy/drama's formulaic ending: that the characters should not only fall in love and remain together as a couple, they should also get married. While Secretary conforms to the model, I think it says a lot about the formula itself. The film points out how there can be a happily ever after for sadist and the masochist. (See The Piano Teacher [2001] for a comparison.) However, having said all this, I still lament that Lee does not exactly maintain her complete feminist figure status. I wish she didn't become a housewife, really.
By the way, there was actually a second discovery that I made about Secretary. It made me think about all those films that are named for a character's profession. Other films of this ilk are: Waitress (2007), Hitman (2007), Actrices (2007), and Rock Star (2001). Closely related are those films who fit the category, but have a definite article to accompany them. They include: Le Valet (2006), Il Postino (1994), The Piano Teacher/La Pianiste, and The Pianist (2002). Can you think of any others?
But I do remember what I meant by "new Secretary discovery." After all, in parentheses, I scribbled a reminder of what that "discovery" is: "perversion of marriage." But I am getting too ahead of myself. And if you don't want the film to be spoiled for you if you haven't yet seen it, please find something else to read. Spoilers lie below.
Secretary is the story of Lee Holloway, a young woman who has just been released from a mental institution. She mutilates herself for autoerotic pleasure, and pretty much everyone, especially her family, misunderstands her: they think she's suicidal. Anyway, Lee gets a job as the newest in a long line of unceremoniously fired secretaries for the eccentric lawyer E. Edward Grey. To cut a long story short, their already sexually tense relationship eventually develops so that they enjoy a sadomasochistic one during regular business hours. Lee wants more. He freezes up, fires her, but she is still devoted to him, convinced that she has found some sort of soul mate, someone who understands her, etc. etc. It's an unconventional love story. But in the end, they marry.
For the longest time, I absolutely hated this ending. For the record, most of the time I hate it in films whenever the story ends with a wedding. In these cases, the wedding/marriage is completely unnecessary. Apparently, films end with this kind of event as a way to show to the audience that the love between the characters is legitimate and long-lasting. That's a pretty stupid reason, isn't it? Considering the divorce rate in this country is almost 50 percent, if it isn't already 50 percent.
Anyway, I especially hated the capping of the story with the marriage of Lee and Edward. By all accounts, they're perverted (but toward the end, her family and friends attempt to understand her desire for her former boss). Why do they want to conform to heteronormativity all of a sudden? I just didn't understand why.
And then it hit me, a couple of nights ago. This is probably really obvious to most of you, but it took me so long to understand that their union perverts the institution of marriage. And it all begins with Lee's wedding dress.
Right before the lovers are reunited, Lee has accepted the marriage proposal of her boyfriend, Peter. Simply because she has no idea what to do with herself. Trying on her soon-to-be mother-in-law's wedding dress, Lee realizes she doesn't want Peter, that she wants Edward. She rushes over to Edward's office, passing by the new secretary. In short, she plops herself down behind his desk, and at his request, doesn't lift her hands from the surface until he returns (days later!). A media circus ensues, and Lee reluctantly receives visitors.
Now, about that perversion of marriage: Since Lee doesn't get up, she pees in the dress. Take that, sanctity of marriage! The scene that follows Edward's return further subverts marriage. He carries her over the marital threshold to the loft upstairs, which resembles the Garden of Eden... if Martha Stewart had designed it. She's wearing a wedding dress, but this is not their wedding night. And the Garden of Eden motif recalls the notion of Original Sin, which they ignore. As we viewers have already witnessed, neither Lee nor Edward are prudes, so it is not a shock that they have pre-marital sex.
But it doesn't end here. Because when they finally do get married, they wipe out the religious connotations, electing to be married by a Justice of the Peace. But I should say this is all related through Lee's voiceover. We do not see the ceremony itself. In this way, the filmmakers further subvert the institution of marriage, but also the institution that cinematic romances must end with a wedding because we do not see it. Moreover, Lee is decked out in something that resembles a wedding dress in every way, except for the fact that its color is black. You'd think she were marrying Dracula or Beetlejuice. Not only that, the scene in which we glimpse the dress features Edward and Lee fucking, her wrists tied around the trunk of a tree. No threshold here, just good, dark, sadomasochistic love.
Following this, Lee talks about their marital bliss. They're "just like any other couple you'd see." Unfortunately, the independence Lee enjoyed with a job does not continue, for as Edward rolls out of the driveway, off to work, she stays home. We assume she eagerly anticipates his return. After all, she has dropped a dead cockroach on their immaculate bed. Edward's going to come home and spank her.
Yeah, so a couple of nights ago, I realized that Secretary makes fun of the romantic comedy/drama's formulaic ending: that the characters should not only fall in love and remain together as a couple, they should also get married. While Secretary conforms to the model, I think it says a lot about the formula itself. The film points out how there can be a happily ever after for sadist and the masochist. (See The Piano Teacher [2001] for a comparison.) However, having said all this, I still lament that Lee does not exactly maintain her complete feminist figure status. I wish she didn't become a housewife, really.
By the way, there was actually a second discovery that I made about Secretary. It made me think about all those films that are named for a character's profession. Other films of this ilk are: Waitress (2007), Hitman (2007), Actrices (2007), and Rock Star (2001). Closely related are those films who fit the category, but have a definite article to accompany them. They include: Le Valet (2006), Il Postino (1994), The Piano Teacher/La Pianiste, and The Pianist (2002). Can you think of any others?
Friday, October 19, 2007
up-to-date randomity
1.) Anyone else think The Primitives "Crash" should have played throughout the end credits of Crash (2004)? It'd have been funny, and perhaps we'd like something about the movie then.
2.) I just recognized there aren't many words with three Us in them. Isn't that unusual?
3.) Anyone else underwhelmed by the films currently out? Will the movie season get any better? Eh. I'm eagerly anticipating I'm Not There (2007) because you know how I hate the conventional biopic; Control (2007) because it's about Joy Division and I want to see how it compares to 24 Hour Party People (2002); and Atonement (2007) because... well, for obvious reasons.
4.) I came out as queer to a class I was teaching, about the diversity of LGBT people, cultures, and issues. My fellow Q&A panelists weren't expecting it, but I don't think they were shocked.
5.) I don't want to wait till next fuckin' summer for the second season of "Mad Men" (2007-present). Tuesday means the season finale of the other show I have been committed to watching since its premiere: "Damages" (2007-present). 'Bout time. It's a bit too drawn out. But I like it.
6.) "Pushing Daisies" (2007-present) is too cute for words. I want the complete series of "Wonderfalls" (2004) on DVD. Right now.
2.) I just recognized there aren't many words with three Us in them. Isn't that unusual?
3.) Anyone else underwhelmed by the films currently out? Will the movie season get any better? Eh. I'm eagerly anticipating I'm Not There (2007) because you know how I hate the conventional biopic; Control (2007) because it's about Joy Division and I want to see how it compares to 24 Hour Party People (2002); and Atonement (2007) because... well, for obvious reasons.
4.) I came out as queer to a class I was teaching, about the diversity of LGBT people, cultures, and issues. My fellow Q&A panelists weren't expecting it, but I don't think they were shocked.
5.) I don't want to wait till next fuckin' summer for the second season of "Mad Men" (2007-present). Tuesday means the season finale of the other show I have been committed to watching since its premiere: "Damages" (2007-present). 'Bout time. It's a bit too drawn out. But I like it.
6.) "Pushing Daisies" (2007-present) is too cute for words. I want the complete series of "Wonderfalls" (2004) on DVD. Right now.
Monday, October 1, 2007
it ain't no chick flick
I understand it's been about four months since it hit theatres, but I finally saw Knocked Up (2007). In general, I liked it. It was very funny and made me feel warm and fuzzy. I do not think it is as hilarious as everyone (read: Stephanie) has told me. I really didn't like Judd Apatow's most recent effort as writer-director: The 40-Year-Old Virgin. But Knocked Up, I agree, is a whole lot better. It's believable, where Steve Carell as a virgin is not. But that is neither here nor there.
I wanted to post about Knocked Up because I appreciated its attempts to reinvent the romantic comedy genre. While I find it very successful in the ways which I will soon point out below, I still must refer to them as "attempts" because the film did not work to completely overhaul the genre. Not since Shakespeare in Love (1998) has there been a clever reworking of the romantic comedy.
These are what I picked out as nice little spices to the formula:
1.) The PREMISE itself. There have been some movies about one-night stands. Better Than Sex (2000) comes to mind. But I mean even more generally there is a very important plot point in films where a one-night stand figures prominently, as in: the guy finds out he's a dad sometime during the film. Such as Big Daddy (1999).
Anyway, this film starts with a drunken night of sex, an awkward morning-after, and then the decision to raise a kid together. After they've ruled out abortion, they go one step further in their plans: they figure they've seven months (at that point) to get to know each other. So that neither is raising the baby with a complete stranger. And they unexpectedly fall in love. I understand this "they unexpectedly fall in love" makes it sound like Pride & Prejudice (see any version), but I think using that wonderful convention and twisting it a bit because of the premise (an unwanted pregnancy) is very clever.
2.) There's NO CHASE. You know how much I hate those damn things. With less than five minutes left of the screentime, the guy or girl realizes he or she wants to be with the other so much they literally race against the clock--whether it's through traffic in downtown Manhattan or London or on the highway on a bridge--to get to his or her beloved. It's unrealistic, especially the ones where weddings are crashed. I especially hate the ones where they have to race to the airport before the lover boards a plane, usually out of the country! But I digress.
Knocked Up conforms to the formula in that they have a fight in the middle of their relationship. Seth Rogen as slacker-stoner Ben Stone doesn't chase after Katherine Heigl's TV-reporter Alison Scott. He just waits for them both to cool off a bit and then goes to her niece's birthday party with the hope of explaining himself to Alison. She rejects him again, but eventually they get together, when their baby comes.
3.) There's NO REAL LADYFRIEND SIDEKICK. At first I found it really strange and interesting that Alison, a successful young woman with her head on her shoulders, wasn't spending most of her on-screen time away from Ben with a group of girlfriends a la "Sex and the City" (1998-2004). You know, getting advice and talking about vibrators. Whatever. The usually multiracial circle of ladyfriends is really tired, and it is such an old convention that the ladyfriends really feel like a waste of time and energy, like they're always just standing in the background. None--aside from the show previously mentioned--are as well developed as the leading lady.
I know what you're thinking: what about Debbie (Leslie Mann), Alison's sister? Well, yes, she is Alison's friend and source of guidance, but she's got her own storyline, which is sometimes humorous and sometimes a bit heartbreaking. What is not advertised for the film is the meaty subplot revolving around Debbie's marriage to Pete (sexy Paul Rudd; wait till you see him in a suit!). Alison (and sometimes Ben) are often Debbie's sidekicks when she deals with her problems. There are reciprocities in their relationships that you don't often see between the leads and the supporting characters in romantic comedies. For that, Knocked Up gets some brownie points, especially since it made me like Leslie Mann (for more info, see: Big Daddy [1999] and The Cable Guy [1996]).
I'm sure there are other things, but I can't think of any others right now. I'm opening it up and asking for your observations: how does Knocked Up try to reinvent the romantic comedy?
But here are some of the bits I didn't like:
1.) Ben's slackerdom and slacker friends. I didn't find his roommates very funny. Crude humor isn't my thing, really, so I found other bits much more entertaining. Ben's being a pothead didn't endear me to him either. I sort of wish he hadn't been a stoner-slacker. Perhaps it would have been funnier if he actually had a job (not white collar) and fewer roommates who try to steal the attention with their crude jokes.
2.) It's really dated. There are so many references to very current pop culture (such as Spider-Man 3 [2007]) that Knocked Up will forever be placed in that 2007 time capsule of pop culture, in the context of the rise of the Apatow comedy entourage. However, I should say I LOVED the Back to the Future (1985) reference, especially since Alison didn't get it at the time.
3.) Its length. Is it really necessary to have a semi-gross out comedy that runs over two hours? Then again, perhaps this subverts the (romantic) comedy genre, too. I should note that Apatow is not the first to do this. The Brothers Farrelly did it first.
I wanted to post about Knocked Up because I appreciated its attempts to reinvent the romantic comedy genre. While I find it very successful in the ways which I will soon point out below, I still must refer to them as "attempts" because the film did not work to completely overhaul the genre. Not since Shakespeare in Love (1998) has there been a clever reworking of the romantic comedy.
These are what I picked out as nice little spices to the formula:
1.) The PREMISE itself. There have been some movies about one-night stands. Better Than Sex (2000) comes to mind. But I mean even more generally there is a very important plot point in films where a one-night stand figures prominently, as in: the guy finds out he's a dad sometime during the film. Such as Big Daddy (1999).
Anyway, this film starts with a drunken night of sex, an awkward morning-after, and then the decision to raise a kid together. After they've ruled out abortion, they go one step further in their plans: they figure they've seven months (at that point) to get to know each other. So that neither is raising the baby with a complete stranger. And they unexpectedly fall in love. I understand this "they unexpectedly fall in love" makes it sound like Pride & Prejudice (see any version), but I think using that wonderful convention and twisting it a bit because of the premise (an unwanted pregnancy) is very clever.
2.) There's NO CHASE. You know how much I hate those damn things. With less than five minutes left of the screentime, the guy or girl realizes he or she wants to be with the other so much they literally race against the clock--whether it's through traffic in downtown Manhattan or London or on the highway on a bridge--to get to his or her beloved. It's unrealistic, especially the ones where weddings are crashed. I especially hate the ones where they have to race to the airport before the lover boards a plane, usually out of the country! But I digress.
Knocked Up conforms to the formula in that they have a fight in the middle of their relationship. Seth Rogen as slacker-stoner Ben Stone doesn't chase after Katherine Heigl's TV-reporter Alison Scott. He just waits for them both to cool off a bit and then goes to her niece's birthday party with the hope of explaining himself to Alison. She rejects him again, but eventually they get together, when their baby comes.
3.) There's NO REAL LADYFRIEND SIDEKICK. At first I found it really strange and interesting that Alison, a successful young woman with her head on her shoulders, wasn't spending most of her on-screen time away from Ben with a group of girlfriends a la "Sex and the City" (1998-2004). You know, getting advice and talking about vibrators. Whatever. The usually multiracial circle of ladyfriends is really tired, and it is such an old convention that the ladyfriends really feel like a waste of time and energy, like they're always just standing in the background. None--aside from the show previously mentioned--are as well developed as the leading lady.
I know what you're thinking: what about Debbie (Leslie Mann), Alison's sister? Well, yes, she is Alison's friend and source of guidance, but she's got her own storyline, which is sometimes humorous and sometimes a bit heartbreaking. What is not advertised for the film is the meaty subplot revolving around Debbie's marriage to Pete (sexy Paul Rudd; wait till you see him in a suit!). Alison (and sometimes Ben) are often Debbie's sidekicks when she deals with her problems. There are reciprocities in their relationships that you don't often see between the leads and the supporting characters in romantic comedies. For that, Knocked Up gets some brownie points, especially since it made me like Leslie Mann (for more info, see: Big Daddy [1999] and The Cable Guy [1996]).
I'm sure there are other things, but I can't think of any others right now. I'm opening it up and asking for your observations: how does Knocked Up try to reinvent the romantic comedy?
But here are some of the bits I didn't like:
1.) Ben's slackerdom and slacker friends. I didn't find his roommates very funny. Crude humor isn't my thing, really, so I found other bits much more entertaining. Ben's being a pothead didn't endear me to him either. I sort of wish he hadn't been a stoner-slacker. Perhaps it would have been funnier if he actually had a job (not white collar) and fewer roommates who try to steal the attention with their crude jokes.
2.) It's really dated. There are so many references to very current pop culture (such as Spider-Man 3 [2007]) that Knocked Up will forever be placed in that 2007 time capsule of pop culture, in the context of the rise of the Apatow comedy entourage. However, I should say I LOVED the Back to the Future (1985) reference, especially since Alison didn't get it at the time.
3.) Its length. Is it really necessary to have a semi-gross out comedy that runs over two hours? Then again, perhaps this subverts the (romantic) comedy genre, too. I should note that Apatow is not the first to do this. The Brothers Farrelly did it first.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
if i were a number, what number would i be?
Stephanie took the Enneagram test by OkCupid, so I thought, why not I? This test, which Stephanie found was spot on when it called her an EIGHT (aka "The Asserter"), proves that we are not exactly the same. I'm most of what this says a FOUR is. But I don't know why we're called romantics. I'm not romantic. Just because I like Jane Austen doesn't make me romantic, does it? By the way, I comment on my results in italics.
My score on The Quick & Painless ENNEAGRAM Test: 4 - the Individualist
My Enneagram type is FOUR (aka "The Romantic")
"I am unique"
Romantics have sensitive feelings and are warm and perceptive.
How to Get Along with Me
* Give me plenty of compliments. They mean a lot to me. Only when I deserve them, please. And yes, they do mean a lot to me. So much so that I won't forget even the littlest one.
* Be a supportive friend or partner. Help me to learn to love and value myself. Please.
* Respect me for my special gifts of intuition and vision. I guess this could refer to my hyper-observance?
* Though I don't always want to be cheered up when I'm feeling melancholy, I sometimes like to have someone lighten me up a little. True dat. I much rather laugh than cry, I think. I mean, I cry a lot. Whether it's because of a movie or just because I'm thinking about sad things.
* Don't tell me I'm too sensitive or that I'm overreacting! Why? Because I already know this.
What I Like About Being a FOUR
* My ability to find meaning in life and to experience feeling at a deep level. Uh, I haven't found the meaning of life. 42 didn't work out.
* My ability to establish warm connections with people. There's only a few.
* Admiring what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. I dunno if I do that.
* My creativity, intuition, and sense of humor. I don't consider myself creative or intuitive. I don't think I am funny, but I get things.
* Being unique and being seen as unique by others. I have to admit, this is pretty important to me.
* Having aesthetic sensibilities. I do like the aesthetics of things. I do.
* Being able to easily pick up the feelings of people around me. I'm not very intuitive, but I think I can tell when someone's feeling happy or shitty. Or uncomfortable.
What's Hard About Being a FOUR
* Experiencing dark moods of emptiness and despair. This is the worst of it all.
* Feelings of self-hatred and shame; believing I don't deserve to be loved. Or maybe this is the worst.
* Feeling guilty when I disappoint people. I do, yeah.
* Feeling hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands me. No. It's the other way round. I feel misunderstood when someone hurts or attacks me.
* Expecting too much from myself and life. I think this is how people close to me see me.
* Fearing being abandoned. Yeah, but I don't freak out too much when it happens. I get over it. Eventually. I'm used to it by now. But I still hate it when it happens.
* Obsessing over resentments. I obsess over everything.
* Longing for what I don't have. Not materialistically. And not spiritually. I just want to be happy.
FOURs as Children Often
* Have active imaginations: play creatively alone or organize playmates in original games. This is a tricky one. I don't think I had a particularly active imagination as a kid. Except I did and still do pretend my life is a movie. This, however, did remind me that I invented a stupid game based round a large circle with numbers 1-30 in it painted on the asphalt at my elementary school's playground. There was nothing we could do with it, so I invented a game. That almost no one played with me.
* Are very sensitive. True dat.
* Feel that they don't fit in. Uh-huh. Still feel this way. Probably always will.
* Believe they are missing something that other people have. I'm not a particularly jealous person.
* Attach themselves to idealized teachers, heroes, artists, etc. I don't hero worship.
* Become antiauthoritarian or rebellious when criticized or not understood. I dunno.
* Feel lonely or abandoned (perhaps as a result of a death or their parents' divorce). Yeah.
FOURs as Parents (If and when I become a parent...)
* Help their children become who they really are. Definitely.
* Support their children's creativity and originality. Absolutely.
* Are good at helping their children get in touch with their feelings. Always.
* Are sometimes overly critical or overly protective. Probably.
* Are usually very good with children if not too self-absorbed. Jury's still out.
From:
Renee Baron & Elizabeth Wagele
The Enneagram Made Easy
Discover the 9 Types of People
Harper
San Francisco, 1994, 161 pages
My score on The Quick & Painless ENNEAGRAM Test: 4 - the Individualist
My Enneagram type is FOUR (aka "The Romantic")
"I am unique"
Romantics have sensitive feelings and are warm and perceptive.
How to Get Along with Me
* Give me plenty of compliments. They mean a lot to me. Only when I deserve them, please. And yes, they do mean a lot to me. So much so that I won't forget even the littlest one.
* Be a supportive friend or partner. Help me to learn to love and value myself. Please.
* Respect me for my special gifts of intuition and vision. I guess this could refer to my hyper-observance?
* Though I don't always want to be cheered up when I'm feeling melancholy, I sometimes like to have someone lighten me up a little. True dat. I much rather laugh than cry, I think. I mean, I cry a lot. Whether it's because of a movie or just because I'm thinking about sad things.
* Don't tell me I'm too sensitive or that I'm overreacting! Why? Because I already know this.
What I Like About Being a FOUR
* My ability to find meaning in life and to experience feeling at a deep level. Uh, I haven't found the meaning of life. 42 didn't work out.
* My ability to establish warm connections with people. There's only a few.
* Admiring what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. I dunno if I do that.
* My creativity, intuition, and sense of humor. I don't consider myself creative or intuitive. I don't think I am funny, but I get things.
* Being unique and being seen as unique by others. I have to admit, this is pretty important to me.
* Having aesthetic sensibilities. I do like the aesthetics of things. I do.
* Being able to easily pick up the feelings of people around me. I'm not very intuitive, but I think I can tell when someone's feeling happy or shitty. Or uncomfortable.
What's Hard About Being a FOUR
* Experiencing dark moods of emptiness and despair. This is the worst of it all.
* Feelings of self-hatred and shame; believing I don't deserve to be loved. Or maybe this is the worst.
* Feeling guilty when I disappoint people. I do, yeah.
* Feeling hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands me. No. It's the other way round. I feel misunderstood when someone hurts or attacks me.
* Expecting too much from myself and life. I think this is how people close to me see me.
* Fearing being abandoned. Yeah, but I don't freak out too much when it happens. I get over it. Eventually. I'm used to it by now. But I still hate it when it happens.
* Obsessing over resentments. I obsess over everything.
* Longing for what I don't have. Not materialistically. And not spiritually. I just want to be happy.
FOURs as Children Often
* Have active imaginations: play creatively alone or organize playmates in original games. This is a tricky one. I don't think I had a particularly active imagination as a kid. Except I did and still do pretend my life is a movie. This, however, did remind me that I invented a stupid game based round a large circle with numbers 1-30 in it painted on the asphalt at my elementary school's playground. There was nothing we could do with it, so I invented a game. That almost no one played with me.
* Are very sensitive. True dat.
* Feel that they don't fit in. Uh-huh. Still feel this way. Probably always will.
* Believe they are missing something that other people have. I'm not a particularly jealous person.
* Attach themselves to idealized teachers, heroes, artists, etc. I don't hero worship.
* Become antiauthoritarian or rebellious when criticized or not understood. I dunno.
* Feel lonely or abandoned (perhaps as a result of a death or their parents' divorce). Yeah.
FOURs as Parents (If and when I become a parent...)
* Help their children become who they really are. Definitely.
* Support their children's creativity and originality. Absolutely.
* Are good at helping their children get in touch with their feelings. Always.
* Are sometimes overly critical or overly protective. Probably.
* Are usually very good with children if not too self-absorbed. Jury's still out.
From:
Renee Baron & Elizabeth Wagele
The Enneagram Made Easy
Discover the 9 Types of People
Harper
San Francisco, 1994, 161 pages
Thursday, July 12, 2007
wild movies i have known
Well, since it appears I have not seen many movies recently, I thought I should directly address this discrepancy. In fact, I have seen quite a few, and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about (most of) the movies I've seen since returning to the States, in chronological order of my viewing them.
Abridged from my film journal:
1.) Factory Girl (2006): Quick-moving like Edie Sedgwick's life, so kudos for recreating that cinematically. Still, there was something lacking. I didn't care about any of the characters. Very flat despite the fullness of those dynamic relationships. (Actually, I saw this one on the plane from the UK.)
2.) Ocean's Thirteen (2007): Long and a bit boring, but at least they make fun of themselves, which is all you can (or should) expect from these films. Not enough George Clooney.
3.) La vie en rose (2007): Weaving three time periods of tragic French singer Edith Piaf's life does not mask the fact that you, Olivier Dahan, made a rather formulaic biopic about an artist/musician. Can we please see a movie about a famous person who got almost everything right, who didn't dapple in drugs and let fame go to his or her head?
4.) Two Days (2003): Never heard of it before Stephanie rented it from Netflix while she was here. Rather liked it. Funny and tragic, which gives it a rather uneven tone, but when the main guy is Paul Rudd, I won't complain too much. (Though, have you seen The Shape of Things [2003]?)
5.) Frida (2002): Had a craving to see this one since the end of my tenure in England. I still think it's too by-the-book.
6.) Matilda (1996): So sweet it made me cry.
7.) Tea and Sympathy (1956): Wasn't expecting a movie from this era to be completely about a "sissy," a boy who exhibits behavior way too feminine for his friends to feel comfortable with their own gender and sexuality. Lovely how it skirts round his ambiguous sexuality and in the end gives him heterosexuality, although the whole time he seemed so asexual to me.
8.) A Mighty Heart (2007): Everything you'd expect from a film based on "true events" as previously represented in a book by the real-life main character. And those events took place within the last five and a half years.
9.) The Mustache (2005): Funny and strange French thriller. Not enough Mathieu Amalric.
10.) A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006): Almost completely uncinematic. Just 100 minutes of some new writer-director (Dito Montiel) blowing himself. Even Robert Downey Jr. can't make it interesting.
11.) Don't Move (2004): Misogyny as only the Italians can do, but still utterly gorgeous, well-written and well-acted. Despite the major flaw (why would a repeated rape yield a love affair?!) I really enjoyed everything else about this one.
12.) Ratatouille (2007): It's as awesome as everyone's been saying but not without its flaws.
13.) Keane (2004): Another tour-de-force performance overlooked. Still, the claustrophobic camera technique does not a movie make.
14.) Conversations With Other Women (2005): There's more than just the split-screen gimmick! I swear!
15.) A tout de suite (2004): Get over the French New Wave already!
16.) Yossi & Jagger (2002): In a word: hokey.
17.) 13 Tzameti (2005): A French thriller that actually thrills. Fantastic: it's to be remade in America. I thought it already was very American.
18.) Borat (2006): Grossly anti-Semitic and very gay. Dangerous because its wild popularity probably gives almost everyone who saw it the OK to make fun of anyone and everyone.
19.) Mysterious Skin (2004): "Uncomfortable" comes to mind, but it's so well-done in almost every way (especially since it tackles some very serious issues such as pedophilia, prostitution, and gay sex during the 1980s) it demands to be seen.
20.) Kings & Queen (2004): A lot going on. Very sad but also very funny. Another plus? It's got Mathieu Amalric.
21.) Jaws (1975): I know, I'd never seen it before. Second half (their hunt for the shark) drags. Don't understand how it could yield sequels. Who would sign up to see it? Isn't everything that can be done with shark attacks been covered by this one? By the way, I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" premise because it in effect tries to defeat nature. Sharks eat. Just stay away. It's nature. It's simple.
22.) Live Free or Die Hard (2007): "Firesale!" Compelling old school action movie. Probably why I liked it on the whole.
Abridged from my film journal:
1.) Factory Girl (2006): Quick-moving like Edie Sedgwick's life, so kudos for recreating that cinematically. Still, there was something lacking. I didn't care about any of the characters. Very flat despite the fullness of those dynamic relationships. (Actually, I saw this one on the plane from the UK.)
2.) Ocean's Thirteen (2007): Long and a bit boring, but at least they make fun of themselves, which is all you can (or should) expect from these films. Not enough George Clooney.
3.) La vie en rose (2007): Weaving three time periods of tragic French singer Edith Piaf's life does not mask the fact that you, Olivier Dahan, made a rather formulaic biopic about an artist/musician. Can we please see a movie about a famous person who got almost everything right, who didn't dapple in drugs and let fame go to his or her head?
4.) Two Days (2003): Never heard of it before Stephanie rented it from Netflix while she was here. Rather liked it. Funny and tragic, which gives it a rather uneven tone, but when the main guy is Paul Rudd, I won't complain too much. (Though, have you seen The Shape of Things [2003]?)
5.) Frida (2002): Had a craving to see this one since the end of my tenure in England. I still think it's too by-the-book.
6.) Matilda (1996): So sweet it made me cry.
7.) Tea and Sympathy (1956): Wasn't expecting a movie from this era to be completely about a "sissy," a boy who exhibits behavior way too feminine for his friends to feel comfortable with their own gender and sexuality. Lovely how it skirts round his ambiguous sexuality and in the end gives him heterosexuality, although the whole time he seemed so asexual to me.
8.) A Mighty Heart (2007): Everything you'd expect from a film based on "true events" as previously represented in a book by the real-life main character. And those events took place within the last five and a half years.
9.) The Mustache (2005): Funny and strange French thriller. Not enough Mathieu Amalric.
10.) A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006): Almost completely uncinematic. Just 100 minutes of some new writer-director (Dito Montiel) blowing himself. Even Robert Downey Jr. can't make it interesting.
11.) Don't Move (2004): Misogyny as only the Italians can do, but still utterly gorgeous, well-written and well-acted. Despite the major flaw (why would a repeated rape yield a love affair?!) I really enjoyed everything else about this one.
12.) Ratatouille (2007): It's as awesome as everyone's been saying but not without its flaws.
13.) Keane (2004): Another tour-de-force performance overlooked. Still, the claustrophobic camera technique does not a movie make.
14.) Conversations With Other Women (2005): There's more than just the split-screen gimmick! I swear!
15.) A tout de suite (2004): Get over the French New Wave already!
16.) Yossi & Jagger (2002): In a word: hokey.
17.) 13 Tzameti (2005): A French thriller that actually thrills. Fantastic: it's to be remade in America. I thought it already was very American.
18.) Borat (2006): Grossly anti-Semitic and very gay. Dangerous because its wild popularity probably gives almost everyone who saw it the OK to make fun of anyone and everyone.
19.) Mysterious Skin (2004): "Uncomfortable" comes to mind, but it's so well-done in almost every way (especially since it tackles some very serious issues such as pedophilia, prostitution, and gay sex during the 1980s) it demands to be seen.
20.) Kings & Queen (2004): A lot going on. Very sad but also very funny. Another plus? It's got Mathieu Amalric.
21.) Jaws (1975): I know, I'd never seen it before. Second half (their hunt for the shark) drags. Don't understand how it could yield sequels. Who would sign up to see it? Isn't everything that can be done with shark attacks been covered by this one? By the way, I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" premise because it in effect tries to defeat nature. Sharks eat. Just stay away. It's nature. It's simple.
22.) Live Free or Die Hard (2007): "Firesale!" Compelling old school action movie. Probably why I liked it on the whole.
Friday, June 29, 2007
writhing
I am in pain. Here's a list of the parts of my body that hurt. I'm interested in seeing how many there are, too.
1.) My head. Apparently because of a sinus headache because after Stephanie left, my cold really kicked in. I take Motrin to relieve the pain. Shame it doesn't really work on the other parts.
2.) My knees. I swear yesterday my left knee hurt more. Today it is the right. It is so difficult and painful to walk. I wish I had a wheelchair. I think it has something to do with my lying in bed all the time. Due to pain and boredom. In addition, I think my legs hurt because this chair I am sitting on at my desk has the most awkward seat. It is raised in the front, and with my short legs my feet do not lay flat against the ground. By the way, it hurts to go up and down stairs.
3.) My heels. I can't really explain this one, but I think it has something to do with my sandals that I wear everywhere. I know what you're thinking, just stop wearing the sandals. But the damage is done.
4.) My left wrist. It hurts the most whenever I wake up. What do I do in my sleep?
That might be it.
1.) My head. Apparently because of a sinus headache because after Stephanie left, my cold really kicked in. I take Motrin to relieve the pain. Shame it doesn't really work on the other parts.
2.) My knees. I swear yesterday my left knee hurt more. Today it is the right. It is so difficult and painful to walk. I wish I had a wheelchair. I think it has something to do with my lying in bed all the time. Due to pain and boredom. In addition, I think my legs hurt because this chair I am sitting on at my desk has the most awkward seat. It is raised in the front, and with my short legs my feet do not lay flat against the ground. By the way, it hurts to go up and down stairs.
3.) My heels. I can't really explain this one, but I think it has something to do with my sandals that I wear everywhere. I know what you're thinking, just stop wearing the sandals. But the damage is done.
4.) My left wrist. It hurts the most whenever I wake up. What do I do in my sleep?
That might be it.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
i don't wanna stop living like this
Here are three more things I am going to miss:
1.) Taking long showers. Because my rent doesn't break down exactly what I am paying for in terms of what we collectively call the "utilities," I can take hot showers for as long as I like. I never see how much they're costing me. And it's not like my rent would be adjusted to how much water I use anyway.
At home, I can't really get away with that. I know my dad hates it when I am in there too long. The problem is I don't know how to take a shorter shower.
2.) Sleeping naked. That's right. I sleep in the nude. But I won't be able to at home because we do not lock our doors at night. And I can't allow the possibility of my father or brother walking in on me while I'm au naturale. It'd be too embarrassing. Like something out of a movie. But I wouldn't want to be in that movie.
3.) Reading the nutritional information pie charts/"traffic lights" on in-store products at Sainsbury's. On the front of the packaging, they always tell you how much fat, saturated fat, and salt and how many sugars and calories there are per serving. It's color-coded, too. Red means high (obviously), orange medium, and green low. It's easy to read and thus saves a lot of time.
But when I go home, I'm going to have to pick up the box and search for the nutritional information each and every time. It won't be staring me in the face anymore, calling attention to my health, and making me leave the product whose fat portion in the pie chart is red.
That's all I have for now. There will be more.
1.) Taking long showers. Because my rent doesn't break down exactly what I am paying for in terms of what we collectively call the "utilities," I can take hot showers for as long as I like. I never see how much they're costing me. And it's not like my rent would be adjusted to how much water I use anyway.
At home, I can't really get away with that. I know my dad hates it when I am in there too long. The problem is I don't know how to take a shorter shower.
2.) Sleeping naked. That's right. I sleep in the nude. But I won't be able to at home because we do not lock our doors at night. And I can't allow the possibility of my father or brother walking in on me while I'm au naturale. It'd be too embarrassing. Like something out of a movie. But I wouldn't want to be in that movie.
3.) Reading the nutritional information pie charts/"traffic lights" on in-store products at Sainsbury's. On the front of the packaging, they always tell you how much fat, saturated fat, and salt and how many sugars and calories there are per serving. It's color-coded, too. Red means high (obviously), orange medium, and green low. It's easy to read and thus saves a lot of time.
But when I go home, I'm going to have to pick up the box and search for the nutritional information each and every time. It won't be staring me in the face anymore, calling attention to my health, and making me leave the product whose fat portion in the pie chart is red.
That's all I have for now. There will be more.
Friday, June 1, 2007
it's the little things in life
I was just thinking of some things that will be difficult for me to change once I return to the States in nine days (that includes the day I leave because I will spend most of it in the UK or in the air). Here's a preliminary list:
1.) It's instinctual now for me to walk on the left. Might bump into people more often than usual.
2.) Writing the date. Have to reprogram myself to write the month first, the day second. I think the US should just adopt this other way I have grown more than accustomed to. Everyone else in the world writes the date with the day first, the month second. Having said this, when I read a date I have to remind myself that in the US they mean November 6th, not June 11th by "11/06."
3.) I say "at the weekend" now instead of "over the weekend." Neither one makes any literal sense, but I like the sound of something occurring "at the weekend" in the past. Does it go over the weekend? Having said this, I do not use "fortnight." That's just stupid.
4.) I haven't seen American money in eight months. Because all the bills are the same color and size, I will have to pay extra attention when paying for anything in cash. Would hate to give 'em a twenty when I only mean to give a dollar. Having said this, I miss the quarter.
5.) When I see the prices of things, I have to remind myself NOT to double the number. That is the price. It will no longer be worth twice as much to me. Having said this, I will miss that the VAT is included in prices. I will no longer be able to go up to the register with the exact change unless I calculate and add the tax beforehand, which is not likely to happen. Ever.
I'm sure there is more. I'll keep 'em coming.
1.) It's instinctual now for me to walk on the left. Might bump into people more often than usual.
2.) Writing the date. Have to reprogram myself to write the month first, the day second. I think the US should just adopt this other way I have grown more than accustomed to. Everyone else in the world writes the date with the day first, the month second. Having said this, when I read a date I have to remind myself that in the US they mean November 6th, not June 11th by "11/06."
3.) I say "at the weekend" now instead of "over the weekend." Neither one makes any literal sense, but I like the sound of something occurring "at the weekend" in the past. Does it go over the weekend? Having said this, I do not use "fortnight." That's just stupid.
4.) I haven't seen American money in eight months. Because all the bills are the same color and size, I will have to pay extra attention when paying for anything in cash. Would hate to give 'em a twenty when I only mean to give a dollar. Having said this, I miss the quarter.
5.) When I see the prices of things, I have to remind myself NOT to double the number. That is the price. It will no longer be worth twice as much to me. Having said this, I will miss that the VAT is included in prices. I will no longer be able to go up to the register with the exact change unless I calculate and add the tax beforehand, which is not likely to happen. Ever.
I'm sure there is more. I'll keep 'em coming.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
seeing, smelling, feeling
Men make me giggle. Here are some examples of why they do:
1.) At the cafe yesterday where I enjoyed some Earl Grey and a white chocolate fudge-covered biscuit, the Turkish man behind the counter asked which size I wanted for the tea: large or small. I asked to see them both to gauge the difference.
"This is large."
"OK. And what is small?"
And then he smiled, "Me." I immediately thought, he's not advertising himself well. English is not his first language I am guessing, but I would think in every language a man would rather be large.
2.) I smell like men's perfume. Some call it cologne. But let's face it, the guys who do not spray Axe/Lynx all over their bodies but spray something on them nevertheless like to smell pretty. I wouldn't call it musk.
Anyway, the guy next to me on the bus smelled a bit fruity. And just a half hour ago, a neighbor who is leaving today hugged me (shocker!) and basically smeared it all over me. I smell like him now. What a souvenir.
3.) On an episode of "Rome" (2005-2007) that I watched last night, Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) was complaining to friend Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson) about how his wife won't let him "couple" with her. Is she just angry at him? Is she not satisfied? To summarize, Titus suggested Lucius find the g-spot. But, as this is ca. 50 BC, there wasn't an exact word for it.
What is the best bit is the look Lucius gives Titus. "How do you know this about my wife?"
"Chill, Lucius, all women have them. Trust me."
1.) At the cafe yesterday where I enjoyed some Earl Grey and a white chocolate fudge-covered biscuit, the Turkish man behind the counter asked which size I wanted for the tea: large or small. I asked to see them both to gauge the difference.
"This is large."
"OK. And what is small?"
And then he smiled, "Me." I immediately thought, he's not advertising himself well. English is not his first language I am guessing, but I would think in every language a man would rather be large.
2.) I smell like men's perfume. Some call it cologne. But let's face it, the guys who do not spray Axe/Lynx all over their bodies but spray something on them nevertheless like to smell pretty. I wouldn't call it musk.
Anyway, the guy next to me on the bus smelled a bit fruity. And just a half hour ago, a neighbor who is leaving today hugged me (shocker!) and basically smeared it all over me. I smell like him now. What a souvenir.
3.) On an episode of "Rome" (2005-2007) that I watched last night, Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) was complaining to friend Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson) about how his wife won't let him "couple" with her. Is she just angry at him? Is she not satisfied? To summarize, Titus suggested Lucius find the g-spot. But, as this is ca. 50 BC, there wasn't an exact word for it.
What is the best bit is the look Lucius gives Titus. "How do you know this about my wife?"
"Chill, Lucius, all women have them. Trust me."
Saturday, May 26, 2007
what happens when you spend your saturday sitting an exam?
I literally just got back from my French film exam. I have done three silly things today and it is not even noon. And I'm not too proud to tell you about them here, in chronological order:
1.) It was so crowded in the hallway outside the examination room that I didn't even think to make sure that I was entering the correct restroom. Yes, in other words, I first went into the men's room. Seeing urinals, I thought, "Shit, I could have sworn the women's was on the left." I have no idea if other people noticed. If not, good. If they did, there were probably a lot. So many people were standing near the toilets.
2.) How about some irony? I rewatched five films to prepare for the exam: Subway (1985), Lacombe Lucien (1974), Les 400 Coups (1959), A Bout de souffle (1960), and Diva (1981). I anticipated that I would have to write two essays on the different groupings of the films (i.e. New Wave, cinema du look, etc.), so that's why I did this. But I ended up just writing an essay on Les Amants du Pont-Neuf (1991). I didn't rewatch it because I thought I remembered it well enough, but I dreaded the moment I actually had to name the main character. I think it's Alex. I hope so. That's what I wrote throughout the essay. I admit it wasn't very structured and that it was half-assed. But then I found myself reenergized for the second essay. Read on.
3.) The second essay, which was considerably a lot longer because I had so much more to say, was about how A Bout de souffle is the "most radically innovative film," "in cinematic terms," that I have studied on the course. Why is this funny other than the fact that I hate watching the film? I wrote a fuckin' killer essay. It is so good in fact that I wish I could get a copy of it. I love it because it was an essay that came together organically, really. There was never a point at which I stopped and realized I might be on the track toward contradicting myself. What a relief!
(In case you're interested, I wrote about how Godard uses innovative technology, editing methods, and storytelling techniques to illustrate his ideology that cinema is just an illusion of reality. In other words, he's acknowledging that there's not much of a story to A Bout de souffle. Instead, he's just manipulating the medium to show how constructed a medium it is.)
Five down. Three to go!
1.) It was so crowded in the hallway outside the examination room that I didn't even think to make sure that I was entering the correct restroom. Yes, in other words, I first went into the men's room. Seeing urinals, I thought, "Shit, I could have sworn the women's was on the left." I have no idea if other people noticed. If not, good. If they did, there were probably a lot. So many people were standing near the toilets.
2.) How about some irony? I rewatched five films to prepare for the exam: Subway (1985), Lacombe Lucien (1974), Les 400 Coups (1959), A Bout de souffle (1960), and Diva (1981). I anticipated that I would have to write two essays on the different groupings of the films (i.e. New Wave, cinema du look, etc.), so that's why I did this. But I ended up just writing an essay on Les Amants du Pont-Neuf (1991). I didn't rewatch it because I thought I remembered it well enough, but I dreaded the moment I actually had to name the main character. I think it's Alex. I hope so. That's what I wrote throughout the essay. I admit it wasn't very structured and that it was half-assed. But then I found myself reenergized for the second essay. Read on.
3.) The second essay, which was considerably a lot longer because I had so much more to say, was about how A Bout de souffle is the "most radically innovative film," "in cinematic terms," that I have studied on the course. Why is this funny other than the fact that I hate watching the film? I wrote a fuckin' killer essay. It is so good in fact that I wish I could get a copy of it. I love it because it was an essay that came together organically, really. There was never a point at which I stopped and realized I might be on the track toward contradicting myself. What a relief!
(In case you're interested, I wrote about how Godard uses innovative technology, editing methods, and storytelling techniques to illustrate his ideology that cinema is just an illusion of reality. In other words, he's acknowledging that there's not much of a story to A Bout de souffle. Instead, he's just manipulating the medium to show how constructed a medium it is.)
Five down. Three to go!
Friday, May 18, 2007
german randomity
1.) The flight from Manchester to Cologne only took one hour and five minutes. On the way back, with the whole jet stream thing not working in my favor, it took an hour and ten minutes. That's approximately 700 km.
2.) I took out 100 euros from a bank on the border with the Netherlands, thinking I would want to buy more than just postcards and chocolate for the relatives back home. I have 51.89 euro left.
3.) I almost had a marijuana muffin in Maastricht from one of those "coffeeshops" whose specialty is not coffee. Why didn't I have it? I honestly forgot to get it before leaving and moving on to Aachen that day.
4.) Very nearly went to Liege, Belgium. Very nearly.
5.) None of my neighbors noticed that I was gone for four and a half days. I was really looking forward to answering the question, "I haven't seen you in a while. Where have you been?!" with "Germany." Damnit.
6.) One of the highlights was catching a glimpse of the driver of an SUV that advertised a business promoting American Indian culture and line dancing--with an emblem that reminded me of the Redskins. He was dressed all in black, wearing a black cowboy hat. Channeling Garth Brooks ca. 1995, perhaps?
7.) I only saw one German flag. I know what you're thinking, but they just express their nationalism differently.
2.) I took out 100 euros from a bank on the border with the Netherlands, thinking I would want to buy more than just postcards and chocolate for the relatives back home. I have 51.89 euro left.
3.) I almost had a marijuana muffin in Maastricht from one of those "coffeeshops" whose specialty is not coffee. Why didn't I have it? I honestly forgot to get it before leaving and moving on to Aachen that day.
4.) Very nearly went to Liege, Belgium. Very nearly.
5.) None of my neighbors noticed that I was gone for four and a half days. I was really looking forward to answering the question, "I haven't seen you in a while. Where have you been?!" with "Germany." Damnit.
6.) One of the highlights was catching a glimpse of the driver of an SUV that advertised a business promoting American Indian culture and line dancing--with an emblem that reminded me of the Redskins. He was dressed all in black, wearing a black cowboy hat. Channeling Garth Brooks ca. 1995, perhaps?
7.) I only saw one German flag. I know what you're thinking, but they just express their nationalism differently.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
i was the lead in a german comedy-drama
I got back last night from Germany at approximately 11.10 pm. I did a lot in four days, but I didn't make it to Cologne because we were too tired. I apologize that I will not be able to report on Cologne. Actually, I apologize in general because I do not have enough hindsight to really reflect on the experience just yet. It was different because I couldn't read or speak the language but somehow also familiar because the city landscapes weren't exactly what I had imagined. But the country sort of was, with wind farms everywhere.
In the meantime, while I wait to truly reflect on my trips to Hueckelhoven, Herne, Maastricht, Aachen, and Duessledorf, I want to list a few things. Oh, how I love lists.
1.) My listening comprehension of German has certainly improved, almost by leaps and bounds. Before, I could only ever understand my friend Denise when she speaks German because I am more familiar with her voice, speech pattern, and sense of humor to get the message even if I don't understand all of the words. But listening to her speak German with other people, I was able to understand them, too. More and more each day. It even got to the point that while watching The Constant Gardener (2005) in English, everyone, especially Danny Huston, sounded like he was speaking German. I was too used to hearing German.
2.) Having said this, whenever I couldn't understand what was going on or just wasn't paying attention, I felt like I was in a German movie without subtitles. Every conversation was in German except for private ones with Denise and two others, one with a woman who was willing to speak with me at a party and another with an English family friend of Denise's. Generally speaking, whenever I said something to someone other than Denise, she would translate because ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch.
3.) I now understand why all the Germans I know here miss German bread. It is hard to describe, but it is truly wonderful. Crispy, savory, fresh. Besides the bread, all the food is good, especially the ham.
4.) Speaking of food, I have had more German (and Dutch) food in four days than I have had English food in the seven and a half months I've spent living in England. I've had pork schnitzel, bratwurst, printen, apfelschorle, bowle, some Dutch cheese thing, Black Forest ham, some Belgian ham, etc. etc. Go to Germany for the food alone, the cheapest in Europe.
5.) The Autobahn. When I first heard that when there are speed limits installed, the highest is usually 120 km/h and that Denise has gone upwards of 140 km/h, I thought, "Wow!" Being in the car when she was going that fast didn't feel like, say, 120 mph. I think 120 km/h converts to 75 mph. Will say that I only ever felt like we were going very fast when I first arrived, in the black of night. Also when cars would pass. Even in the rain, people drive very fast, but I never felt unsafe. Germans may have the Autobahn and the Dutch may have stricter limits and give tickets more easily (Dutch drivers are slow in comparison), but they're no Italians or Parisians. They do not drive like maniacs. I repeat, they do not drive like maniacs.
I think that's all for now.
In the meantime, while I wait to truly reflect on my trips to Hueckelhoven, Herne, Maastricht, Aachen, and Duessledorf, I want to list a few things. Oh, how I love lists.
1.) My listening comprehension of German has certainly improved, almost by leaps and bounds. Before, I could only ever understand my friend Denise when she speaks German because I am more familiar with her voice, speech pattern, and sense of humor to get the message even if I don't understand all of the words. But listening to her speak German with other people, I was able to understand them, too. More and more each day. It even got to the point that while watching The Constant Gardener (2005) in English, everyone, especially Danny Huston, sounded like he was speaking German. I was too used to hearing German.
2.) Having said this, whenever I couldn't understand what was going on or just wasn't paying attention, I felt like I was in a German movie without subtitles. Every conversation was in German except for private ones with Denise and two others, one with a woman who was willing to speak with me at a party and another with an English family friend of Denise's. Generally speaking, whenever I said something to someone other than Denise, she would translate because ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch.
3.) I now understand why all the Germans I know here miss German bread. It is hard to describe, but it is truly wonderful. Crispy, savory, fresh. Besides the bread, all the food is good, especially the ham.
4.) Speaking of food, I have had more German (and Dutch) food in four days than I have had English food in the seven and a half months I've spent living in England. I've had pork schnitzel, bratwurst, printen, apfelschorle, bowle, some Dutch cheese thing, Black Forest ham, some Belgian ham, etc. etc. Go to Germany for the food alone, the cheapest in Europe.
5.) The Autobahn. When I first heard that when there are speed limits installed, the highest is usually 120 km/h and that Denise has gone upwards of 140 km/h, I thought, "Wow!" Being in the car when she was going that fast didn't feel like, say, 120 mph. I think 120 km/h converts to 75 mph. Will say that I only ever felt like we were going very fast when I first arrived, in the black of night. Also when cars would pass. Even in the rain, people drive very fast, but I never felt unsafe. Germans may have the Autobahn and the Dutch may have stricter limits and give tickets more easily (Dutch drivers are slow in comparison), but they're no Italians or Parisians. They do not drive like maniacs. I repeat, they do not drive like maniacs.
I think that's all for now.
Monday, May 7, 2007
notes on a shamble
I think I just lied. Something suddenly came over me and inspired me to write another post when I didn't think I had the energy. (See this for more information.)
Anyway, I have some randomity to discuss:
1.) I am really hungry, but I cannot go into my kitchen and put food into the oven and then walk out while everyone else is celebrating Cinco de Mayo (on the seventh) with pinatas and burritos. According to the invitational flyer sent via Facebook, "It's a Mexican holiday that we celebrate in the States." That is very true, but who is this "we" they speak of? None of these kids organizing the event are Mexican. They, like me, have only celebrated it in Spanish language classes. It's an excuse--a very good one, I might add--to just throw another impermissible party and eat Mexican food. But I'm not in the mood for socializing my way into eating a taco.
2.) It seems to me that I have a thing for pedophilia. Wait. That came out wrong. What I mean to say is that recently, I have watched films and TV shows that deal with the seriousness of pedophilia and sexual misconduct with children.
Last night, I watched Notes on a Scandal (2006). I didn't like it.
I was excited that it was only about 90 minutes long, but I think character development (with the exception of The Dench) suffered because of this apparently short amount of time to tell a story. Oh, and speaking of telling a story, I couldn't help thinking, upon leaving the theatre, "What is the point? Who cares?" While it might not have been boring because it moved so quickly (too quickly, maybe), I'm conflicted. Sounds like I would have preferred them to use more time to develop the characters, but I didn't want it to be any longer because I didn't think the story was all that interesting once I started watching it unfold on screen. Good thing it was over and done with in 90 minutes, eh?
Other problems: The thought processes of Judi Dench's Barbara Covett may have been psychotic and obsessive, but that shouldn't leave room for the thought processes of Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) to be sometimes just downright stupid. And how could she honestly fall into a sexual affair with a fifteen-year-old who's practically unintelligible and reminds me of a younger Jonathan Rhys Meyers? What else? No one is sympathetic but Bill Nighy as Sheba's husband Richard. He didn't get enough screen time. If he had been fleshed out more, then they'd have made me care. (Uh, yeah, I may as well admit that I have a crush on him. I have a crush on Bill Nighy.)
Just realized it looks like I've contradicted myself. When I say I wish Richard had been fleshed out more, yes, I admit that the film would have to be longer, but if it suddenly became about Richard, it wouldn't work either. He just should have been in there more from the beginning, thereby making me more interested in the story because he was not a bad or unloving husband. That should settle that paradox I set up.
Disappointing, to say the least, but at least it's a film with two female co-leads. Can you name another film? Oh! I got one: Death Becomes Her (1992).
Then I watched the first two episodes of Six Feet Under's fifth and final season (2001-2005). Yeah, I know I am behind. In the second episode, Nate Fisher (Peter Krause) ends up in a bar, chatting with an old high school buddy he met at the funeral of another high school buddy. Nate's former friend (I don't think he'll be seeing him again) confesses to looking at the friends of his thirteen-year-old daughter. Not sexually, apparently, after Nate reprimands him. The girl supposedly reminds Tom of how invincible he thought he was when he was younger, exploring sex. He's turning 40 soon.
Yeah, so, middle-aged men and women lust after teenagers and children. Any new insights?
3.) I didn't notice Judi Dench's stubby legs, but I did notice how badly coiffed (read: ugly overall) they made her. And how queer! No, no. Couldn't miss that.
Anyway, I have some randomity to discuss:
1.) I am really hungry, but I cannot go into my kitchen and put food into the oven and then walk out while everyone else is celebrating Cinco de Mayo (on the seventh) with pinatas and burritos. According to the invitational flyer sent via Facebook, "It's a Mexican holiday that we celebrate in the States." That is very true, but who is this "we" they speak of? None of these kids organizing the event are Mexican. They, like me, have only celebrated it in Spanish language classes. It's an excuse--a very good one, I might add--to just throw another impermissible party and eat Mexican food. But I'm not in the mood for socializing my way into eating a taco.
2.) It seems to me that I have a thing for pedophilia. Wait. That came out wrong. What I mean to say is that recently, I have watched films and TV shows that deal with the seriousness of pedophilia and sexual misconduct with children.
Last night, I watched Notes on a Scandal (2006). I didn't like it.
I was excited that it was only about 90 minutes long, but I think character development (with the exception of The Dench) suffered because of this apparently short amount of time to tell a story. Oh, and speaking of telling a story, I couldn't help thinking, upon leaving the theatre, "What is the point? Who cares?" While it might not have been boring because it moved so quickly (too quickly, maybe), I'm conflicted. Sounds like I would have preferred them to use more time to develop the characters, but I didn't want it to be any longer because I didn't think the story was all that interesting once I started watching it unfold on screen. Good thing it was over and done with in 90 minutes, eh?
Other problems: The thought processes of Judi Dench's Barbara Covett may have been psychotic and obsessive, but that shouldn't leave room for the thought processes of Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) to be sometimes just downright stupid. And how could she honestly fall into a sexual affair with a fifteen-year-old who's practically unintelligible and reminds me of a younger Jonathan Rhys Meyers? What else? No one is sympathetic but Bill Nighy as Sheba's husband Richard. He didn't get enough screen time. If he had been fleshed out more, then they'd have made me care. (Uh, yeah, I may as well admit that I have a crush on him. I have a crush on Bill Nighy.)
Just realized it looks like I've contradicted myself. When I say I wish Richard had been fleshed out more, yes, I admit that the film would have to be longer, but if it suddenly became about Richard, it wouldn't work either. He just should have been in there more from the beginning, thereby making me more interested in the story because he was not a bad or unloving husband. That should settle that paradox I set up.
Disappointing, to say the least, but at least it's a film with two female co-leads. Can you name another film? Oh! I got one: Death Becomes Her (1992).
Then I watched the first two episodes of Six Feet Under's fifth and final season (2001-2005). Yeah, I know I am behind. In the second episode, Nate Fisher (Peter Krause) ends up in a bar, chatting with an old high school buddy he met at the funeral of another high school buddy. Nate's former friend (I don't think he'll be seeing him again) confesses to looking at the friends of his thirteen-year-old daughter. Not sexually, apparently, after Nate reprimands him. The girl supposedly reminds Tom of how invincible he thought he was when he was younger, exploring sex. He's turning 40 soon.
Yeah, so, middle-aged men and women lust after teenagers and children. Any new insights?
3.) I didn't notice Judi Dench's stubby legs, but I did notice how badly coiffed (read: ugly overall) they made her. And how queer! No, no. Couldn't miss that.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
randomity
Did you know?
1.) I want to work in a modern or contemporary art museum someday. And not in the gift shop. But somewhere behind the scenes or as a docent.
2.) Cate Blanchett is Nicholas Angel's (Simon Pegg) girlfriend in Hot Fuzz (2007). And the guy she is leaving him for is Peter Jackson. I learned this from Edgar Wright himself, who said that they felt pressured by studio bosses or producers to put bigger names in their second film. Oh, they're in there, but you can't see their faces. Brilliant!
3.) One of my simplest pleasures: stomping on paper and plastic cartons--whether they'd previously contained orange juice or lemonade--in order to flatten them for recycling. Can you tell I just watched Amelie (2001)?
4.) I just won a SoundPass to all the channels of RadioIO. I think it's something like a $50 value. Each station has been giving away one a day for a month. This means for a whole year I can listen without commercials and with less talk. Yippee!
5.) I wish I could be paid to watch movies. There's not much else I know how to do.
6.) I like to make up words. Hence the title of this blog, which roughly means "the collection of random things" or "the condition of being a collection of random things." Other notable words: to wiki (to look something up on Wikipedia, as in to google) and collectionist (displaying tendencies to obsessively collect and catalogue things).
7.) I had my first bloody nose in England this morning.
1.) I want to work in a modern or contemporary art museum someday. And not in the gift shop. But somewhere behind the scenes or as a docent.
2.) Cate Blanchett is Nicholas Angel's (Simon Pegg) girlfriend in Hot Fuzz (2007). And the guy she is leaving him for is Peter Jackson. I learned this from Edgar Wright himself, who said that they felt pressured by studio bosses or producers to put bigger names in their second film. Oh, they're in there, but you can't see their faces. Brilliant!
3.) One of my simplest pleasures: stomping on paper and plastic cartons--whether they'd previously contained orange juice or lemonade--in order to flatten them for recycling. Can you tell I just watched Amelie (2001)?
4.) I just won a SoundPass to all the channels of RadioIO. I think it's something like a $50 value. Each station has been giving away one a day for a month. This means for a whole year I can listen without commercials and with less talk. Yippee!
5.) I wish I could be paid to watch movies. There's not much else I know how to do.
6.) I like to make up words. Hence the title of this blog, which roughly means "the collection of random things" or "the condition of being a collection of random things." Other notable words: to wiki (to look something up on Wikipedia, as in to google) and collectionist (displaying tendencies to obsessively collect and catalogue things).
7.) I had my first bloody nose in England this morning.
Monday, April 30, 2007
hello, my name is rob gordon
Right now, my top five 80s songs:
1.) Electronic: "Getting Away With It" (1989)
2.) The Go-Betweens: "Cattle and Cane" (1983)
3.) U2: "I Will Follow" (1980)
4.) Haircut 100: "Love Plus One" (1982)
5.) Squeeze: "If I Didn't Love You" (1980)
Honorable Mentions:
6.) The Smiths: "Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others" (1986)
7.) Duran Duran: "My Own Way" (1981)
8.) The Clash: "Train in Vain" (1979; yeah, right on the cusp)
1.) Electronic: "Getting Away With It" (1989)
2.) The Go-Betweens: "Cattle and Cane" (1983)
3.) U2: "I Will Follow" (1980)
4.) Haircut 100: "Love Plus One" (1982)
5.) Squeeze: "If I Didn't Love You" (1980)
Honorable Mentions:
6.) The Smiths: "Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others" (1986)
7.) Duran Duran: "My Own Way" (1981)
8.) The Clash: "Train in Vain" (1979; yeah, right on the cusp)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
having a nice day
I've had a great day today and here's why (you know how I love lists):
1.) I've seen so many people while walking around, everyone from Lisa to neighbors, Claudia the nice Sicilian girl whose friend likes my accent, a girl in my modernist literature class I'd chitchat with from time to time (hope her foot gets better fast!), and even a girl from my history in film class last term. I do know people after all!
2.) That Fanta was good.
3.) I paid my rent for the Easter holiday break and the summer term. No, I'm not happy to part with over £800 all in one go, but I am relieved I don't owe the university any more money! Yesss!
4.) Even though many people didn't show up to my 1960s class seminar today, I think we had a very good wrapping up session. Yes, we talked about the academic essay due after the holiday and the exam, but we also discussed the topics of our creative essays. (I turned mine on Joe Colombo in today.) And in my response to someone else's topic, I even shared something she "might add" to the paper. That's what we're all here for: to learn from each other. It was a very good meeting.
5.) After feeling bad for refusing a flyer-giver even after we (meaning the flyer-giver and I) chuckled at how the girl ahead of me refused him, I took a flyer from a friendly-looking girl. I glanced down and read: "Is Jesus the son of God?" I immediately crumpled it up. Then, later on my journey home, I read the entire flyer. The organization sponsoring the event was not completely religious. "The Source: thinking seriously about life's big issues." But the event IS hosted by the Christian Union and is for "open-minded people." Shit. I'm not one of them, I guess. There goes me, ignoring my Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes.
Unfortunately, I am tired and want to nap. My mouth is certainly tired after shoving all those cheese curls in. I keep procrastinating from reading/looking at this book on Jean-Jacques Beineix, director of Diva (1981). It's been recalled and it's due tomorrow, but I'm sure a nap right now will not keep me from EVER looking at it before tomorrow night at 10 pm.
1.) I've seen so many people while walking around, everyone from Lisa to neighbors, Claudia the nice Sicilian girl whose friend likes my accent, a girl in my modernist literature class I'd chitchat with from time to time (hope her foot gets better fast!), and even a girl from my history in film class last term. I do know people after all!
2.) That Fanta was good.
3.) I paid my rent for the Easter holiday break and the summer term. No, I'm not happy to part with over £800 all in one go, but I am relieved I don't owe the university any more money! Yesss!
4.) Even though many people didn't show up to my 1960s class seminar today, I think we had a very good wrapping up session. Yes, we talked about the academic essay due after the holiday and the exam, but we also discussed the topics of our creative essays. (I turned mine on Joe Colombo in today.) And in my response to someone else's topic, I even shared something she "might add" to the paper. That's what we're all here for: to learn from each other. It was a very good meeting.
5.) After feeling bad for refusing a flyer-giver even after we (meaning the flyer-giver and I) chuckled at how the girl ahead of me refused him, I took a flyer from a friendly-looking girl. I glanced down and read: "Is Jesus the son of God?" I immediately crumpled it up. Then, later on my journey home, I read the entire flyer. The organization sponsoring the event was not completely religious. "The Source: thinking seriously about life's big issues." But the event IS hosted by the Christian Union and is for "open-minded people." Shit. I'm not one of them, I guess. There goes me, ignoring my Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes.
Unfortunately, I am tired and want to nap. My mouth is certainly tired after shoving all those cheese curls in. I keep procrastinating from reading/looking at this book on Jean-Jacques Beineix, director of Diva (1981). It's been recalled and it's due tomorrow, but I'm sure a nap right now will not keep me from EVER looking at it before tomorrow night at 10 pm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
