Category Archives: books
15 Characters Who Struck a Chord
There’s a meme going around that encourages folks to think of 15 characters off the top of their heads who influenced them & will always stick with them, with the caveat that this task should take no more than 15 minutes.
I grabbed pen and paper, got to about five and then got stuck. The task ended up taking a bit longer than 15 minutes because I tend to overthink these things (as evidenced by the fact that I’ve chosen to add explanations as to why I’ve picked these characters, which is NOT part of the meme). But hey, that’s just how I do things. Anyway here’s my list.
- Dana Scully (from The X-Files) – Wanted to be her when I was a teen. Appreciated her paradox of science coupled with faith.
- Fox Mulder (from The X-Files) – While I idolized Scully in a lot of ways, Mulder’s insistence on the existence of the fantastical always hit home with me.
- Professor John Keating (from DEAD POETS SOCIETY) – “Carpe diem! Seize the day, boys! Make your lives extraordinary.” More on my love for Keating & this movie here.
- Monsieur Bienvenue (from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables) – The man who teaches Jean Valjean the meaning of grace, mercy & the purpose of faith. Worth noting that this character more or less ruined organized religion for me, as I’ve never been to a church that has Bienvenue’s heart for mankind, both as a whole and as individuals.
- Jean Valjean (from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables) – After his encounter with M. Bienvenue, he transforms his life and becomes “an upright man,” to the point that he’s willing to sacrifice himself for a petty criminal who isn’t even lucid enough to be aware of his punishment. What I learned from him: he values of determination and dedication to self and to those you love.
- Dorian Gray (from Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray) – A brilliant study in the value of beauty, experience & the human soul. Few characters (especially outside of school) have inspired such in-depth analysis & meditation for me.
- Little Bee (from Chris Cleave’s Little Bee/The Other Hand) – Few modern literary characters have touched me in the way Little Bee did. Just one example of this character’s wisdom here.
- Elwood (from HARVEY) – In short, Elwood’s just plain cool with being himself, even though he knows everyone thinks he’s a little nutty. Doesn’t bother him. He’s happy, and he’s got no desire to be unpleasant to anyone else. Pretty good philosophy.
- The Unicorn (from THE LAST UNICORN) – It’s hard to wrap up how this character has influenced me, but it was probably the first time for me as a child that I experienced through a character the feelings of isolation and loneliness that come from being different. It’s about recognizing your own magic in a lot of ways, whatever consequences that might bring.
- Esmeralda (from Disney’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) – Short of Pocahontas, she’s kind of the most kick-ass Disney heroine, isn’t she? She’s strong, confident, passionate, and compassionate. Love her. Kind of want to be her.
- Belle (from Disney’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST) – Belle’s pretty awesome, too. Another strong female who marches to the beat of her own drum and won’t back down for anyone, even if it would make things easier to sacrifice some of her dreams and values.
- Lilo (from LILO & STITCH) – I’m a lot like Lilo. Stubborn, weird, kooky, etc. Love her because she looks at the world a little differently, and she knows there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.
- Larita (from EASY VIRTUE) – Larita, like all the characters in this movie, is flawed. She probably doesn’t try hard enough to get along with people, and she very often says the wrong thing. But she knows who she is, and she knows what she can and can’t deal with. In the end, she knows she has to choose between essentially sacrificing a part of herself or severing the ties that are holding her down, despite the pain it’ll cause. Her story resonated with me in a very personal way, and I imagine it always will.
- The Little Prince (from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s The Little Prince) – A constant reminder to always look for whimsy and to never grow up.
- Drew & Claire (from ELIZABETHTOWN) – I’m a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to myself. When I set my mind to something, I almost always finish the job, and, on the rare occasion I’ve faced failure, it has, in short, been very difficult to deal with. Claire is a manic pixie dream girl for me just as much as for Drew, and seeing him learn from her, and also seeing her learn to give herself a little more credit, is something I benefit from every time I watch this movie.
So, there you have it. My 15 picks. I’d love to see what you have to say, too, so link up in the comments or, if you want, just leave your list there. Whatever works. 
On Twilight: An Explanation
[WARNING: Non-specific spoilers throughout.]
I have a confession to make: I get it.
You know. The whole Twi-hard thing. Sometimes I like to pretend I’m cool enough not to, but, in reality, I totally get it. And I’m going to do my best to explain it to those of you who don’t. Here goes.
If you have ever been in a very serious relationship between the ages of 17 and 20, then this might not require explanation. There’s something about that age, on the cusp of adulthood, that makes people think that a certain type of love relationship will last forever. Sometimes it does. Often it doesn’t. But my point here is that, at that age, love is an addiction stronger than heroin.
Not all teens are susceptible to this particular drug, and it is these people who cannot fathom what others see in all this TWILIGHT hysteria. But for anyone who has ever considered themselves in a fated relationship, become so wrapped up in another person that the thought of losing them is like having their soul ripped away from their bodies, or for anyone who has ever hoped for that sort of thing, TWILIGHT is like a mirror that shows the best possible version of that sort of relationship. It is the ideal. Yes, there are problems, but nothing really bad ever actually happens. Sure, lots of bad stuff almost happens, but the obstacles are always overcome (and most with relative ease).
It’s easy to make fun because, as adults, we know rationally that any sort of relationship that is that intense, that desperate, and at that young of an age, is probably not healthy. When Bella fights off depression and struggles with self-harm in NEW MOON, we want to tell her to grow up, snap out of it, and go see a psychologist if necessary. We want to tell her that life goes on, and she’ll survive and be all the better for it. And we want to smack her for treating her friends like, well, shit.
But, at least for me, in the back of my mind, a little voice says, “Hey, remember when you felt that way, too? Remember when you felt like death would be a more acceptable outcome than losing the one you loved? Remember how physical pain was somehow easier to deal with than emotional pain? Remember how you felt like no one else could possibly understand what you were going through? Remember the absolute relief of escaping a break-up? Don’t judge Bella (or Edward or Jacob) too harshly.”
And while now I realize that those thoughts were irrational and at times even harmful, I remember exactly how intense they were. I get it.
I want to note that this is not a defense of TWILIGHT or NEW MOON. I take major issue with a number of the themes in the books, most notably that this sort of co-dependent, irrational, unhealthy relationship is so heavily glorified. If I had come across these books and movies nearly a decade ago (ouch, has it really been that long?), I would have held them up as something to aspire to. Everything is magnified and amped up when you’re 18.
And it’s because these books are a direct reflection of that intensity that they are so popular. For people who are going through it, and for people who have gone through it, and for people who desperately want to go through it, this story speaks to them. So, while I may not agree with what I think the message of these books/movies is, and while my adult, rational, survivor-of-heartbreak self sees them as teen emotion porn, I have to admit that I do, in fact, understand the appeal. I wish I didn’t, but I do.
Ruminations on À Rebours
Where to start? As Oscar Wilde muses in Chapter 10 of The Picture of Dorian Gray
[Mild spoilers for À Rebours follow.]
À Rebours (or Against the Grain or Against Nature, depending on the translation) follows a middle-aged man by the name of Des Esseintes, who has experienced everything he believes life has to offer and is simply sick of it. He retreats to a home outside Paris and designs his life there so that he only has to have minimal interaction with his two servants.
Des Esseintes is fascinated with falsehood and the ways in which man has learned to imitate nature and, in his opinion often exceed it — from flowers to scents to jewels to colors. At one point, he decides he is in need of a trip to London, and after spending only an evening, decides that he’s had his fill, that his imagination had served up these images and experiences just as well if not better than the real thing, and he finds himself content to never leave his home away from civilization again.
Sadly for him, it comes to pass that his doctor (and numerous other specialists in nervous disorders, whom he consults when he is unhappy with his doctor’s prescription) insists that he move back to Paris and find a way to enjoy the company of others. Even this is anti-climactic. As distasteful as he finds the idea, he is deathly afraid of, well, death and illness. Thus he would rather be psychologically miserable than physically so.
This reaction to a life of excess, to having experienced everything he believes there is to experience, leads him to a life where he wants to experience nothing. He wants to ruminate, to remember, to analyze, but never to experience. In the most severe bouts of his illness, he even goes so far as to prefer nourishment via enema and is disappointed when his doctor prescribes a return to food.
[Spoilers for The Picture of Dorian Gray follow.]
Knowing the relation of the two novels (À Rebours is the unnamed novel delivered to Dorian Gray by Lord Henry Wotton, a novel Dorian himself calls poisonous), it’s practically impossible not to compare and contrast Des Esseintes and Dorian Gray. Dorian, of course, experiences none of the ravaging effects of the excessive lifestyle that Des Esseintes does. Even so, he does become bored and introverted and tired of society, though he never wishes to escape it in the way that Des Esseintes does.
Nonetheless, both men do tire of exploring the sin of gluttony, and, when they do, they take decidedly different paths. Dorian decides he wants to be a good person. He breaks off the affair he’s having with a young woman before it gets too serious for her to end up another Sibyl Vane. (It’s worth noting that, shortly after his shunning of Sibyl, he does in fact profess to want to become a good person. However, this is done out of fear and duty more than anything else. After all, at that point in Dorian’s life, there were still plenty of other, more immediately satisfying sensations to be had, and he was easily convinced to leave that conviction by the wayside.) Des Esseintes, it seems, never had much interest in becoming virtuous. Once he’d experienced everything he felt there was to experience, he gave way to sloth and apathy.
Their reactions to this aspect of their lives are telling. The gluttony of experience for Des Esseintes was a mere academic study. Dorian, on the other hand, was devoted to beauty and pleasure. Des Esseintes was a bored academic; Dorian was, essentially, a constantly fascinated hedonist.
The Effect of Beauty on Personality
Des Esseintes was a sickly child, but not uncared for. He received appropriate and above-standard care at the Jesuit school he attended as a youth. Because the emphasis for his success in life was always put on his intellect, he spent his efforts developing it. Despite his skepticism regarding the religious beliefs of his professors, he was very well respected for his mind and encouraged to think and explore for himself. Because of that, he was also resistant to influence. A man like Henry Wotton would likely have been an interesting companion for a time (before Des Esseintes bored of him), but he would never have had the influence on Des Esseintes that he was able to have on Dorian.
Dorian was beautiful, but unloved. It is not until he met Basil that he experienced any sort of adoration. Wotton only serves to further this emphasis on Dorian’s beauty (and youth) as his only perceived worth. Dorian is, in essence, a sort of cypher. He is a blank slate for other people’s philosophies and interests. Basil and Wotton praise his youth and beauty; he comes to believe he must treasure these things above all else. As a young man, very much a boy in so many ways, to have his first experiences with love and encouragement and being wanted be based on his looks, it is no wonder he makes the flippant oath that he does. After all, having known what is like to be without those feelings, it’s truly horrific for him, especially in his emotionally immature state, to imagine being without them once his youth and beauty fade.
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Pride
Throughout the course of his life, Des Esseintes has to deal with illness and the failure of his body to comply with his desires. This culminates in what could have been a final blow to his pride: impotence. Even then, Des Esseintes takes no responsibility for his ails — neither physical nor social — instead choosing to blame genetics and the intellectual failings of others. There is never a moment where he wavers in his pride; instead, he retreats to a place where his pride will meet no challenges. He abandons the world because it doesn’t meet his standards. He sees his own intelligence as so far above the masses that he can’t bear even the smallest interaction. He simply recoils from anything that would challenge his pride. For a man so interested in questioning everything else, he never bothers to question himself, an act which makes him interesting but entirely unsympathetic.
Dorian, however, has no such refuge. In his own portrait, he sees how each of his actions should affect him, and he has to live with the knowledge that it hasn’t. This phenomenon is alternatingly horrifying and fascinating to him. In essence, he lives with the theoretical responsibility of his actions, but he has no physical or (for a very long time at least) social consequences. Because of this, there is a constant psychological tug of war going on in Dorian’s mind between the proof that his actions are depraved and the fact that he doesn’t have to suffer for them. Having never had any intrinsic pride instilled in him as a youth, as Des Esseintes had, he found his pride in extrinisic things: in others’ reactions to him, in his acquisition of beautiful things, and in the change of the painting. He is both massively proud of his ability to get away with the things he does (via the painting, not his own doing) and terribly ashamed of those same actions and behaviors. The final blow to his already tenuous pride, the thing that pushes him over the brink, is Wotton’s flippant assertion that he is, essentially, a lost cause. To hear from his mentor, the architect of so much of his psyche, his constant source of encouragement, that there is no hope for him or his soul? It’s the last push over the edge for a mind that had always been unsure, emotional, impetuous, and desperate for approval.
It’s likely Des Esseintes would have found Dorian to be rather simpering, too emotional, and, frankly, annoying. Dorian is sort of like the little brother, trying very hard to be like his older sibling, but never quite succeeding. However, it’s for those very reasons that I connected so strongly with Dorian’s story. I was intrigued by Des Esseintes, but there was no emotional connection to the man. He was interesting but entirely unlikeable. Sure, I could understand some of his views; I even agreed with some of them. We see him struggle against his health, against others, but he never looks inside himself. He was an interesting man, but I didn’t care for him. In that way, Dorian is his inverse. I was invested in Dorian; I wanted him to rise above his influences. Watching his descent was difficult enough, but my heart broke when Wotton crushed his last hope. In the end, though, they both died (or at least it can be assumed in Des Esseintes’ case) as they lived: Des Esseintes, bitterly and stubbornly misanthropic in the only company he could tolerate — his own; and Dorian, passionately, impetuously, and tragically yearning for something he could never obtain.
Ruminations on A Doll’s House
There are certain things I miss about school. One is the opportunity to truly delve into an analysis of literature. It’s something that’s hard to do in a vacuum and without guidance. Outside of school, there are few places of which I’m aware in which to discuss literature at an academic level and fewer places where any sort of essay would find an audience.
However, since I have neither the time nor the money to go back to school for a master’s in English literature at the moment, and since I have this little blog here that’s all my own, I’m going to start posting a bit of literary analysis from time to time. I welcome anyone and everyone to weigh in on the concepts, whether you’ve read the work in question or not. Of course, there will likely be spoilers in all of these Literary Analysis posts, so proceed with caution if you care.
There are stories that retain a sort of permanence of themes and reactions in my life, and then there’s Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. I’ve now read this play three times: first in high school, again in college, and just recently after my 18-year-old sister raved about it. Her reaction was entirely different than my own at that age, so I figured I owed it another shot.
In high school, I hated Nora for her lack of independence, feeling she’d brought her troubles upon herself. You teach people how to treat you, after all.
In college, I hated Nora for her lack of moral values. Her seemingly flippant and selfish abandonment of her husband and children was practically blasphemous to me.
Now, I offer you this.
In Defense of Nora Helmer
A Doll’s House is an exploration in how identity influences the way we relate to people. Nora’s upbringing is a little murky, but it’s clear she grew up in a household with problems. Her father apparently had legal or financial issues that Torvald was able to ameliorate, more or less in exchange for Nora’s hand in marriage. As a child and a young woman, she was never encouraged to think for herself, and she never really sought to. Life was prettier and easier on the surface; let someone else deal with the dark underbelly. Nora’s strength was in her heart, not her mind. Her actions at the end of the play might lead a casual reader to believe otherwise, but Nora is a warning in what happens when a person focuses all devotion and care on others without ever learning to know oneself.
Without the drama of life with her father, Nora settles into a comfortable but entirely superficial existence. Her relationship with Torvald is superficial: she’s an entertainment to him, not a companion. Her relationship with her children is superficial: she’s a playmate, not a caretaker. Her relationship with Dr. Rank is superficial: she’s an object to him, not a friend. Her life is all show and no substance — until Torvald is taken ill, that is.
She jumps at the chance to do something real, something with consequence, something that is completely and utterly her own doing. However, because she does not have the savvy to do the research (she’s never had to do such a thing before), she forges a signature to procure a loan, not realizing how serious a grievance that is. Still, there’s something of a delight for her in having a deep, dark secret. It gives her roots. There’s nothing superificial about owing creditors and having to sneak money from one’s husband, and she thrives on it. She also takes great pride in and credit for having sacrificed to save her husband’s life.
Even so, Nora is never truly in danger until Krogstad arrives. The feeling of actual danger, of being able to do nothing to keep one’s life from being ripped away, throws her into a frenzy unlike anything she’s ever experienced. The little deception isn’t fun anymore. She doesn’t understand why no one is playing along. It is through this that she begins to understand that, not only is there a world outside of her little life, but that she has no idea how it works. And that realization causes her to see the cracks in the foundation of her own house.
Through most of the third act, we are led to believe that Nora is considering suicide because she is afraid to face up to the consequences. Something I missed in my first two read-throughs, or at least something that didn’t hit quite like it did in my third, is that she was doing it for Torvald, not for herself. She was throwing herself on the pyre to save Torvald’s reputation. She was willing to sacrifice her life as a final act of devotion to Torvald. She fully expected him to still love her, to still want her, perhaps even more so for what she’d done and what she’d been through. She was certain he would protect her. And because of her faith in Torvald’s love, she was willing to put forth the ultimate sacrifice to save him.
But when it comes down to it, Torvald lets her down — and in the worst possible way. In the moments between when he reads Krogstad’s first letter of demands and when he sees Krogstad’s second letter recalling the first, Torvald essentially shuns Nora, says his love for her is gone, but they’ll have to stay together to keep up appearances. To add insult to injury, he tells her she won’t be able to see her children, that she’s not fit to raise them. There is no concern for her whatsoever; he is only interested in damage control. That he could turn on her so quickly and then turn back with a snap of his fingers is all the proof Nora needs to prove that she knows nothing about anything at all. The thing of which she was most sure in the world — Torvald’s love — was nothing but a sham.
Knowing this, she chooses to move forward with eyes open. She realizes she knows nothing, and she’s not content with that. She chooses to stand on her own, to think, to question, to learn. In short, she chooses to become a full person, and an adult one at that. There is no sin in this. The only real criticism that can be leveled at Nora is the manner in which she chooses to pursue these goals.
Throughout the play, Nora is shown to be rather impulsive, whether its her proclivity for sneaking macaroons or her quick-changing emotions. In the final moments of the play, she is no different. She takes little time to think about the consequences of her actions on others, perhaps for fear that she would talk herself out of leaving. She dashes any hope for reconciliation and essentially declines the opportunity for Torvald to make any amends whatsoever. Her words toward Torvald border on cruel, but they are no worse than what he inflicted on her only moments earlier. He shattered her world, and, while her coldness toward him is not exactly virtuous, it’s certainly understandable.
Personally, my only real, unresolvable qualm is her abandonment of her children. Without the benefit of knowing the basics of child psychology, it’s understandable how she justifies this. It’s my hope that, in the fictional world of life beyond the last pages of A Doll’s House, Nora comes to realize that her children do need to know her and that she does have something to offer them, and that something is worked out to that end.
Having significantly more life experience under my belt than the last time I read it, and, frankly, quite a different worldview, I was much more able to identify with Nora. The choice to give up the life you imagined for yourself is never an easy one, no matter how right it is. Seeing the cracks in the façade is painful, and realizing they stem from the foundation itself is downright heartbreaking. Patches can be applied to hide the damage, but things can only get worse until the entire house begins to crumble. Nora realizes she can either die as the home collapses upon her, or she can get out and rebuild. She makes the brave and difficult choice. She doesn’t do it perfectly, but she does it the best she can. And I can no longer fault her for that.
Recap: 27 July 2009
My quasi-vacation from writing concluded on Friday, and I got back in the saddle Saturday morning. I managed to read through my first draft of TDPU in one sitting, which struck me as a good sign. It usually takes me a few sittings to get through a script, even when it’s my own, mostly because my brain skews a tiny bit ADD. It felt less jumbled reading it than it did whilst writing it, so that was a nice surprise. Anyway, the first round of edits is going pretty smoothly so far, but I haven’t gotten to the parts where I actually have to add some things. Still, I’m hoping to have a new draft to send out to my alpha readers by this weekend.
In other news, I’ve come to the conclusion that I should probably write a treatment for MUTE. I’ve never written a treatment before, though I think I have a handle on the concept/purpose. My main qualm with this task is it means I actually need to read MUTE again. And, frankly, that sort of freaks me right on out. That script is the most personal thing I’ve ever written; it’s not autobiographical in any way shape or form, but that script overtook my brain and heart for the better part of a year. So, the thought of opening it back up again and trying to get inside it again scares me because I don’t want to lose focus on my other projects. I also don’t want to read it again and have the epiphany that it’s total and complete dreck. But it has to be done, so I think I’ll tackle it while TDPU is in the hands of my benevolent friends/readers. So that’s the bent my writerly angst is taking these days.
Now, onto something more fun! Movies!
What I Watched
- The Apartment (3½ stars): This 1960 classic drama, starring Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacClaine, tackles some pretty dark and controversial material. Basically, it’s about a guy trying to move up the corporate ladder who gets ahead by letting the higher-ups use his apartment for affairs. It starts out sort of screwball, so I was surprised when it took a turn toward the dark side in Act Two. It’s a compelling story, and the performances are great (Lemmon & MacClaine were both Oscar-nommed), but the film as a whole never truly grabbed me in a memorable way. I have a hard time on first viewing with films that walk the line between comedy and drama tonally (Exhibit 1: In Bruges, which I now adore), so I may warm up to it later.
- Sixteen Candles (3 stars): Can I be honest? I was really disappointed in this one. After being so delighted by the lesser-known Some Kind of Wonderful, I was expecting something really special from another John Hughes offering. It wasn’t bad, mind you. There were some charming moments, some funny ones, etc. It just didn’t have as much heart as some of his other works from the ’80s.
- Wife vs Secretary (3½ stars): Clark Gable, Myrna Loy and Jean Harlow: hard to go wrong, right? Add in Jimmy Stewart in one of his first roles? Come on. While it veers a little toward overly serious at the end, I still had a great time watching. There’s not a whole lot to say about this, to be honest. It’s a story of a wife who mistakenly thinks her husband is having an affair with his secretary. It’s funny, and it’s sad, and it’s hopeful, and, in a lot of ways, it’s very real.
- New Shoes [short] (3½ stars): This was a quirky little musical on the Wife vs. Secretary DVD about two people falling in love from the point of view of their shoes. It was overly long, but the music was so catchy that I went to iTunes to try and find it afterwards. Sadly, no luck. Anywho, I usually find these things sort of boring, but I actually thought this one was pretty fun. So, if you happen to rent the DVD, check this out, too.
- Sleepless in Seattle (3½ stars): I hadn’t seen this rom-com classic in a lot of years, and it had sort of become a little meh in my memory. But I was charmed by it (or really by Tom Hanks, if I’m being honest) upon viewing again. It’s a sweet movie, and it knows what it is and makes fun of itself a bit. The scene where Tom Hanks and Victor Garber make fun of Rita Wilson for dissolving into a gibbering ball of tears while trying to explain why An Affair to Remember is so great is probably my favorite of the entire movie. You could probably argue that this is not a “good film,” but honestly, who cares? It’s enjoyable, and it made me feel happy, and sometimes that’s all you need.
- O’Horten (3½ stars): I think I will really enjoy this film at a later stage in life. It’s the story of a career train conductor who has no idea what to do with himself after retirement. It meanders through various misadventures, all of which have the effect of buoying him and then going drolly wrong. It’s a Norwegian film, so I’m chalking up some of the things I didn’t get to cultural differences (e.g., finding a guy sleeping on the sidewalk, engaging him in conversation, buying him a cab to take him home, and then going with him and hanging out with him). The humor is also very, very, very dry for the most part. Still, I could tell that it was a charming movie, and I’m already feeling warmer toward it. I’ll have to give it another shot in 5 or 10 years and see how it affects me then.
- Last Chance Harvey (3½ stars): I will watch anything with Dustin Hoffman, and I will watch anything with Emma Thompson. My sister and I actually tried to catch this in theatres twice only to have it sold out both times. It was worth the wait, though. It’s a very simple story about two people who are sort of lost and stagnant, but, somehow, they click and are able to make each other feel less lost and more able to move again. The performances are as lovely as you would expect from these two, and they work very well together on screen. This is the sort of movie I’d like to sit down with on a cold day in November with a cup of hot chocolate, perhaps when I’m feeling sort of depressed about life, knowing that 93 minutes later I’d feel warm and hopeful in a realistic sort of way.
Oh, and I also finished reading both The Sugar Queen
And that’s it. This week’s word of advice: Look up or out or sideways and see what’s there. Have a good one, folks!
Recap: 16 June 2009 + Good news!
Wow, has it really been two-plus weeks since I’ve done a post? Sorry about that! I’ve been on vacation the past eight days, but now I’m back in the saddle (literally starting Sunday).
What I Watched
- The Hangover (4 stars): This movie is, in my opinion, what Pineapple Express should have been. It was hilarious and outrageous, and my sister and I both had a fantastic time. It’s surprisingly tame as far as sex and nudity goes until the closing credits. What really makes the movie work beyond the gags and jokes and shock-value moments is the fact that the movie has heart. In the end, it’s really a story of four guys who care a lot about one another; it’s just wrapped in the most ridiculous and loud package ever.
- His Girl Friday (3½ stars): This movie starts as a fairly typical screwball comedy but evolves into something that tackles some fairly serious subject matter before ending up back in screwball. And it works pretty well. Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant shine, as would be expected. This was apparently one of the first movies where actors talked over one another in order to better mimic natural speech. The technique might have been used a little excessively, but watching Russell and Grant spar was still fun.
- I Love You to Death (3 stars): This is a dark comedy starring Kevin Kline as a philandering Italian husband who finally gets caught cheating by his wife. His wife proceeds to try to kill him, but things do not go according to plan. This wasn’t a fantastic movie, but Kevin Kline as an over-the-top first-gen Italian New Yorker was pretty hilarious. Worth checking out if you’re in the mood for something silly and/or Kevin Kline.
- Benny & Joon (5 stars): I adore this movie. Seriously. So, so, so much. Sweet, funny, heartwrenching at times, and, ultimately, completely and utterly heartwarming. Johnny Depp, per usual, is fantastic, and Mary Stuart Masterson and Aidan Quinn are also great. I can’t believe this has a below-7 rating on IMDB. Highly, highly underrated, and equally recommended by me.
- December Boys (3 stars): Full disclosure: I watched this on a smaller-than-I’m-used-to TV with mediocre-at-best sound in a condo with plenty of distractions. That being said, the movie didn’t really do much to keep my attention. The exception being when Daniel Radcliffe was on screen, and I don’t mean that in a cradle-robbing sort of way. The kid gives a very good performance, and his character struck me as by far the most interesting. I think the main problem was that there were just too many different storylines to keep track of in the movie; perhaps it would have made a better miniseries.
What I Read
I finished The Romance Readers’ Book Club
I left American Gods
The Good News
Last night, after trying very hard all day not to think (i.e., worry) about the BlueCat quarterfinalists being posted, I finally allowed myself to pull up the Web site around 10:15 p.m. only to find that the results had not been posted. My muse at that point started laughing at me because I was supposed to be touching up my outline for the screenplay I’m starting today.
So, I trudged back to my outline and did a few lines, but, about 15 minutes later, I could take it no longer and pulled up the site again. This time, the results were up. In reaction, I immediately tensed, and then I told myself it didn’t matter whether I was on that list or not because it doesn’t change what I do next, which is keep working.
So, after several nervous, catch-my-breath pauses whilst scrolling down the list, I finally came to the Ms, and then to the Mos, and then to the Mus. I took a deep breath, and then I moved my scroll wheel one more click. There it was! “Mute by Elizabeth Ditty.”
After jumping around (and removing the last bit of water from my ear from swimming laps earlier), I called my family and told them the news, to which they replied, “We didn’t understand you. Less squealy.” So I told them again, and they were pleased for me. So, that’s the good news. And, in case you couldn’t tell, I’m pretty excited about it.
Recap: 31 May 2009
In this entry:
- Movies: Hooray!
- Writing: Blurg + a small hooray!
- Reading: I
- Dreams Do Come True
1. What I Watched
- Night at the Museum 2 (2½ stars): There are certainly worse ways to spend a couple of hours in a movie theatre, but the sequel to 2006′s surprisingly amusing NatM was a pretty big letdown. I wasn’t expecting much, but it seemed like every single joke went on about 5 to 10 seconds too long. There is one exchange between Ben Stiller and Hank Azaria that is absolutely hilarious, but that’s about it. It’s not terrible, and kids will like it, but, overall, kind of disappointing.
- YPF (4 stars): I first read about this movie over at Roger Ebert’s blog last year, and so, when it showed up on Netflix’s Instant Player, I decided to give it a shot. Full disclosure (no pun intended): Y stands for Young, and P stands for People, and I’ll let you infer the F from there. The movie follows several couples through the act of, well, coupling. What transpires is at times hilarious, at other times heartbreaking, and pretty much all emotions in between. It’s also worth noting that, despite it being a movie about sex, it’s surprisingly chaste. Sure, there are boobs and butts, but they’re very rarely gratuitous (only The Roomates toes the line, in my opinion). So, if you’re open-minded, check it out. I, like Ebert, was pleasantly surprised.
- [Guilty Pleasure Movie Night] Kingdom of Heaven [director's cut] (4 stars): If you’ve only ever seen the theatrical version of this movie, you haven’t seen the movie. There’s so much that makes absolutely no sense in the theatrical release because they cut out HUGE chunks of character development. Seriously huge. The director’s cut is definitely epic at 3 hours and 19 minutes, but it’s totally worth it.
- Harold & Maude (3½ stars): It took me a while to get into this movie because I didn’t like Harold. Normally in a movie, even when the protag isn’t a very good person, there’s still some clue given to the audience that you’re supposed to root for him. I didn’t see that. But eventually Maude won me over, kind of like she won Harold over. Five adjectives for this film: quirky, dark, funny, heartbreaking, heartwarming. There you go.
- Up (5 stars): Best Movie of the Year (so far). I doubt anything’s going to beat it, frankly. I was in substantial tears twice (thanks in part to the fact that protag Carl looks a lot like my grandpa), and was laughing heartily throughout. Truly fantastic. Disney-Pixar continues to raise the bar. In my opinion, this is their best yet.
- Duck Soup (2 stars): I know this is supposed to be a classic movie and all, but I just didn’t get it. I thought it was lazy. The comedy didn’t mesh at all with the few threads of a story. It should have been either a simple sketch comedy show, or they should have worked a lot harder on creating an actual story in which the comedy could be organic. As it was, it was like the opposite of synergy.
- Cassandra’s Dream (3 stars): Another foray into Woody Allen territory. Frankly, this 2007 thriller didn’t strike me as his best work, despite fine performances by Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell. It took a very long time to actually get started, but, once it did, it trotted along nicely enough. I think it’s a movie that will grow on me in hindsight, thanks to my sister pointing out the theme (when is loyalty right?). Still, it’s not as slick as some of his other thrillers, like Match Point.
- Mostly Martha (4 stars): I loved this movie. It was remade in 2007 as a Catherine Zeta-Jones vehicle called No Reservations. I haven’t seen that version, but I imagine it’d be hard to beat this one. It’s the story of a Type A, German chef who’s life is disrupted when her niece comes to live with her after her sister’s sudden death in a car accident. Throw in an Italian chef who comes to work in her restaurant? Lots of fun, and maybe the best “leaves you wanting more” scene I’ve seen in years. (Bit of trivia: the Italian chef is played by Sergio Castellitto, who also played Mraz in Prince Caspian; he was much nicer in this.)
2. What I Read
A week ago, I found myself absolutely compelled to read The Picture of Dorian Gray again. Couldn’t help myself. I read it slowly this time: trying to absorb every word, attempting to wrap my head around each of Lord Henry’s epigrams, letting the imagery and the feelings sink in. And I still devoured it in a week’s time. It was exactly what I needed for the emotions I’ve been dealing with lately, and I’ve now admitted to myself that it’s become my favorite novel of all time, usurping the position that was held by Les Misérables since 1996.
I’m also reading a fluffy little novel called The Romance Readers’ Book Club. Not really my usual type of stuff, but the back cover and the title intrigued me, and it was on clearance at Borders.
3. What I’m Writing
Ugh. Do we have to talk about this? OK, fine. I’m still muddling through The Sound of Silence. It’s like pulling teeth, and it’s still coming out way too short this time around. So annoying.
I’ve also started outlining hardcore for the rewrite of my Doppelgänger script. I’m going back to basics on this one, doing the 40-scene with the conflict and emotion change factors, hoping to break out of my screenwriting rut.
The silver lining is I wrote a short story last week that got a lot of very nice feedback on twitter. Being compared to both The Twilight Zone and Neil Gaiman was definitely a writing career highlight. It was also one of those rare occurrences when you’re writing and suddenly things just click, with no effort of your own. True magic, I think: rare and to be savored when it happens.
Speaking of Neil Gaiman…
4. My Conversation with Neil Gaiman
The scene: Twitter
The time: The afternoon of May 22nd
Me: Had dream that @neilhimself tweeted at me, which caused me to let forth a joyful yawp, which woke me up. But at least I woke up smiling.
And then:
That’s right, people. Neil Gaiman makes dreams come true. Literally. How awesome is that? I still get a little thrill of excitement thinking about that moment, which did indeed include a yawp of joy and also a little dance and lots of jumping around a bit of screaming and a phone call to my mother in which she became concerned that her eldest daughter had finally dropped off the deep end. All of which seems like a completely reasonable reaction to having a conversation (yes, I’m calling it a conversation!) with Neil Freaking Gaiman.
Recap: 1 March 2009
Was a bit blogged out after churning out my Oscar predictions, but I’m back now (for the two or three of you who may have missed me).
What I Watched
- Changeling (4 stars): I think it’s easy for a lot of people to forget exactly how talented an actress Angelina Jolie is. She’s the rare sort of person who actually suffers from being strikingly beautiful. While the woman she plays in Changeling is just as beautiful, she’s so different (in the beginning) from the type of woman I consider Jolie to be: she’s timid, oppressed, plays by the rules, etc. And Jolie is utterly convincing. Her Oscar nomination for this role was well-deserved. The rest of the movie holds up well, too, so it’s worth seeing even if you’re not generally an Angelina fan.
- An Ideal Husband (3 stars): Not as good as director Oliver Parker’s adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest, but still generally amusing. I’d recommend reading the play over seeing the movie, though.
- Frozen River (3½ stars): This is the story of a woman willing to do just about anything to provide for her family. Melissa Leo was nominated for an Oscar for her performance and understandably so. The film was an eye-opening look at both immigration and Native American territories and their relationship with the U.S. law enforcement. It’s not an issues movie, but it does open your eyes to some issues without preaching, all through the lens of two women trying to make the best of the cards dealt them.
- La Maison en petits cubes (4 stars): This year’s Oscar winner for Best Animated Short. Melancholy story with a sweet ending. Creative animation. Viewable online, too: Part 1 and Part 2.
- Oktapodi (3 stars): An Oscar nominee for Best Animated Short. It’s a cute story about two octopi fighting for their love, more or less. I actually enjoyed this more than “La Maison,” but it’s not groundbreaking. View it here.
- Lavatory Lovestory (3 stars): Another Oscar nominee for Best Animated Short. Simple but sweet story of a woman trying to find out who her secret admirer is. View it here.
- The Professional (5 stars): Fantastic movie, written and directed by Luc Besson, starring a very young and exceptionally adorable Natalie Portman. The story of a hitman who takes on a girl whose family is murdered by corrupt law enforcement officers. Sounds a bit dreary, I know, but it’s actually quite amusing throughout. Highly recommended.
- Dumplings (3 stars): Part of “Three… Extremes,” a compilation of three short films by different Asian directors. Not really my thing, but my friend Matt said it reminded him vaguely of the script I’m working on, so I checked it out. It was certainly interesting, especially from a film studies perspective in the manner of how different cultures communicate. Definitely not for the faint of heart, though.
- Starz Inside: Fantastic Flesh (4 stars): Really interesting documentary on film make-up interviewing some of the pioneers and best known artists in the field. It covered range of films, from classic horror to modern fantasy.
- Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (3 stars): Not nearly as good as the first one, but still enjoyable. The story was a little bit more out there, which took away from the movie, I think, but that’s OK. It’s Colin Firth and Hugh Grant. I’m not going to complain.
- That Funny Feeling (2½ stars): Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee star in this fairly typical rom-com. If you’re in the mood for Bobby & Sandra, I’d go with If a Man Answers instead. This had some laughs but was otherwise pretty weak.
- Sita Sings the Blues (4 stars): I’ve been hearing about this for what seems like ages, and it’s now available to view in its entirety here. I’m not even sure how to begin describing this animated film. It tells the story of both Sita and Nina, one a goddess separated from her Lord and husband, the other an modern-day animator shunned by her husband via e-mail. It’s narrated off the cuff by three shadow puppets. And on top of all this, Sita sings out her emotions in the voice of ’20s jazz singer Annette Hanshaw. It really shouldn’t work, but somehow, it all manages to come together to create something pretty charming.
- When Did You Last See Your Father? (3½ stars): The story of a man seeking to reconcile his feelings about his dying father. Great performances and a touching story about how neither life nor people are perfect.
What I Read
I finished reading Persepolis
I also made it through Good in a Room
What I’m Writing
And finally, I’ve decided to give up on EARNEST for now. It just wasn’t working, and I’m not a fan of beating my head against a wall. I’ll save the idea for the future when I’m better equipped to tackle it.
So, that means I’m moving on to a rewrite of the screenplay I wrote last year during ScriptFrenzy, TEA. It’s already been through one rewrite, but I’ve learned a lot since then. I realized my main character had no flaw, which makes it hard for him to have any meaningful arc. So, that’s what I’m working on. It’s reading better so far, and there’s still a lot of work to do, but it should keep me busy until it’s time to start planning for this year’s Screnzy in a couple of weeks.
Whew, that was a lot of movies. That’s it for now. Hope everyone’s March is off to a good start!
Recap: 15 February 2009
Missed my recap last week due to the lack of a weekend thanks to work. But it definitely made me appreciate finally getting a break this weekend!
What I Watched
- He’s Just Not That Into You (3½ stars): A cut above your typical romantic comedy, but it doesn’t hit the bar set by Love, Actually. Still, I really enjoyed this one, and it strikes me as pretty guy-friendly. This one’s taken a lot of critical flack because it plays up stereotypes while proclaiming to knock them down, but, frankly, I just didn’t care. I had fun, the crowd had fun, and that’s really all I was looking for.
- A Life Less Ordinary (3 stars): This is exactly the sort of romantic comedy I would expect from Danny Boyle. Funny, sweet and weird.
- Confessions of a Shopaholic (2 stars): I didn’t go into this movie wishing for me than a mildly fun time, but I didn’t even get that. It’s really too bad because the cast was excellent, but they just couldn’t do anything with the story they were provided. I still have no idea why I was supposed to root for the main character, let alone root against the debt collector who was just trying to do his job.
- Scoop (3 stars): My third venture into Woody Allen territory. I was mildly amused but not blown away. Better than Manhattan but not as good as Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
- Oliver Twist (3 stars): This is the 1997 TV version that ran on ABC. I had semi-fond memories of it, mostly due to the fact that it aired during the height of my crush on Elijah Wood. It didn’t quite live up to my memories of it, but it was still fun and a fairly solid depiction of the classic Dickens story.
- Neverwhere (2½ stars): I read Neil Gaiman’s novel several months prior to taking in the 1996 BBC miniseries, and I’m glad I did it in the order I did (despite the series coming to life before the book). There are some stories that need a big budget, and this is one of them. I’d still love to see Neverwhere on the big screen some day because I think it’s a really cinematic story, but it just didn’t work on the small screen with the tools they had to make it.
- Coraline (3½ stars): This was one creepy movie. Seriously. Don’t let the cute trailers fool you. That being said, the first half was a little slow, but once things got rolling in the second half I was pretty entranced. The third act felt a little too easy, but this is certainly one of the better films out right now. As for 3D vs. 2D, I would have preferred to have seen it in 2D, but Neil Gaiman himself says see it in 3D since it’ll be available forever in 2D and not in 3D. So there you have it. FYI, it won’t be in theatres in 3D much longer thanks to the ubiquitous Jonas Brothers.
I should also mention I saw Lee’s Summit West High School’s production of Footloose on Saturday. Despite some issues with the sound system (something you get accustomed to seeing in high school productions), the kids put on a great show. The choreography was impressive, and the two leads especially did a stellar job. If you’ve got high school or even college productions happening in your area, make sure you go out and support them when you can. It’s amazing how much work goes into a production like that, and the arts programs deserve the support of the community they’re trying to entertain.
What I Read
I finally finished Breaking Dawn
I also read through JK Rowling’s The Tales of Beedle the Bard
What I’m Writing
EARNEST is doing better this week. I’d been feeling really frustrated by it and by the writing process in general. And then three things happened.
- Screenwriter Kevin Lehane (along with several others, but I saw his first) posted a link on twitter to this wonderful TED talk by Elizabeth Gilbert (author of Eat, Pray, Love). It really struck a chord, and I’ve felt much less pressure ever since.
- I listened to a Creative Screenwriting podcast with Robin Swicord, screenwriter of The Jane Austen Book Club, among other adapatations (including screen story for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). She shared some practical tips for adapting novels into screenplays, and I feel much more comfortable attempting the feat now.
- I listened to another Creative Screenwriting podcast with Luc Besson, who gave the simple advice of listening to the same music for the entirety of a project. I’ve heard and employed this before, but I’d sort of forgotten it for whatever reason. I’d been listening to Sondre Lerche on and off throughout my struggle with EARNEST, and it occurred to me that my less hair-pulling nights have been whilst listening. So now, the earbuds go in as the fingers hit the keyboard.
That’s it for now. Look for the rest of my Oscar predictions this week as we gear up for the big show on Sunday. Have a lovely week, all!
Recap: 25 January 2009
Where did January go? I’m barely able to comprehend that it’s 2009, let alone almost February 2009. Sheesh.
What I Watched
- Revolutionary Road (3½ stars): Any movie that makes you think is probably worth seeing, and this one certainly falls into that category. That being said, I didn’t think this film was as effectively put together as, say, American Beauty (also directed by Sam Mendes). That being said, I’m astounded that it got Oscar-snubbed and am suspicious that perhaps they got The Reader and Revolutionary Road mixed up.
- Inkheart (3 stars): This one just barely eked out a third star. The more of them I see, the more I believe that epic fantasies need to be at least two hours long*, and this one falls 14 minutes short. My reasoning here is that it’s integral to give your audience both a footing in the fantasy world and an understanding of the characters (who they are, what they want, why they’re doing things the way they are). And that’s where Inkheart falls short. It becomes a movie where you witness a bunch of events without ever really connecting with any of the characters. It has some strong elements: Paul Bettany as Dustfinger is especially great, and his banter with Farid (who fell out of Arabian Nights) is amusing. Still, as one of my most anticipated movies of 2009, I was pretty disappointed.
- Like Water for Chocolate (3½ stars): This wasn’t quite as good as I wanted it to be, but it was still solid. It tells the story of a woman who is forbidden to marry her true love because it is family tradition for the youngest daughter to care for the mother until her death. This particular woman finds that she can transfer emotions into the food she cooks. I was hoping for a bit more overt magic or at least whimsy, à la Chocolat, to be honest, but it was still a romantic and moving little story worth seeing.
- Holiday (4 stars): While I wouldn’t call this 1938 film “heavy” by any means, the Katharine Hepburn-Cary Grant rom-com certainly carried a little more weight than I was expecting. In some ways, it tackled some of the same themes as Revolutionary Road but with a lighter, more hopeful touch. I’d put it in the rare category of classic films that hold up over the years.
What I Read
Well, I finished Eclipse
What I Wrote
Remember how my goal was to hit 25 pages in EARNEST? Well, I did. And then I promptly deleted 23 pages and started over. It occurred to me that I was having to try way too hard to make the setting work, so I adjusted it, and now it’s working much better. I’m back up to 13 pages total, and I might even try to scrounge up a couple more before the night’s done. Either way, I’m pleased despite the drop in page count. Sadly, I have made zero progress on Fairytale Redux this week.
Quick Oscar Thoughts
I’m going to do a more thorough post on this pre-ceremony, but I was more or less unsurprised by the nominations. I was happy that Frost/Nixon got a best pic nod, but The Reader? There are some films that get Oscar buzz that I don’t like but can at least understand (I’m looking at you, There Will Be Blood). The Reader is not one of them. I also think Michael Sheen deserved a best actor nod far and above over Brad Pitt (who was perfectly fine in Benjamin Button, but didn’t exactly have to really do much beyond the expected).
Also, the nominations have confirmed my status as a movie junkie. Excepting documentaries, foreign films, and shorts, I’ve seen or will see everything except Milk, Rachel Getting Married, Frozen River, Happy-Go-Lucky, and Defiance before the ceremony on Feb. 22. And you know what? I’m OK with that.
* What I consider the best epic fantasy films of the past five-ish years have all come in at two-plus hours: Stardust (2 hours, 7 minutes); Prince Caspian (2 hours, 30 minutes); and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2 hours, 23 minutes). Another epic fantasy novel adaptation with great potential that turned out pretty dismally, Eragon, clocked in at just 1 hour, 44 minutes.
