Thursday, September 1, 2011

Films I Want to See in (the Rest of) 2011

Right, so I take back my previous bemoaning of zero quality movies coming out this year. Goodness gracious, am I stupid. It's probably the second or third year that I've complained that there aren't any exciting or stellar movies coming out, and now my list is swollen with unexpected releases and I'm back to complaining that they'll probably release all of the good movies in a five-week period.

Anyhoo my list, with its main selling points beneath each title:


Martha Marcy May Marlene (Oct 7)

- Fine, I want to see what all the fuss about Elizabeth Olsen is, ok? Also the movie is supposed to be an excellent mind-fucker.

The Skin I Live In (Oct 14)

- Almodovar duhhhh

The Rum Diary (Oct 28)

- was not enthusiastic about this at all, but the trailer kind of won me over.

Like Crazy (Oct 28)

- See rhapsodizing in prior blog posts. Get ready to fall in love.

Melancholia (Nov 11)

- Kirsten Dunst's possibly Oscar-worthy role

- Lars Von Trier being anti Terrence Malick.

A Dangerous Method (Nov 23)

- Everything about it. Hell, I'm even incredibly fond of Keira Knightley for being in this movie, and the last time I liked her was in 2003.

Coriolanus (Dec 2)

- Ralph Fiennes is acting and directing. There's also Jessica Chastain and Vanessa Redgrave. I'm dying to see it just so I can know if Ralph Fiennes can finally get another Oscar nod after 15 friggin' years, and totally cheated out of two for The Constant Gardener and The Duchess.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Dec 25)

- Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara

- David Fincher <3

- Have you SEEN the trailer?

War Horse (Dec 28)

- Spielberg being sentimental. C'mon, you know you want to.

Drive (?)

- Ryan Gosling, continuing his "suave, awesome" phase, which we must hasten to catch before he gets moody again.

- Heard that the movie is freaking awesome.


Almost Sold On:

The Ides of March (Oct 7)

My Week With Marilyn (Nov 4)

W.E. (Dec 9)

The Iron Lady (Dec 16)


Of course, that's 11 movies that I "must" see, 15 overall, and the reality is that I'll probably catch less than half of these movies. Reviews can make or break my enthusiasm. But for once, my movie "to-see" calendar is spread EXCELLENTLY throughout the calendar, unlike last year. Maybe the movie biz learned something from Oscar Season 10-11, where about half of the Best Picture contenders were summer/early fall releases. If people really like a movie, they won't forget about it. Ok, they'll nominate you more if you release during awards season and their enthusiasm is shiny and new (True Grit) but they still have two months to realize that they don't like it THAT much (True Grit).

Friday, August 26, 2011

Richard Dawkins Takes on Gov. Rick Perry and the Republican Party

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

…The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.

…a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.

RICHARD DAWKINS IS THE SEXIEST MAN IN THE WORLD. IT IS KNOWN.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Dear Anti-Abortionist on Tumblr

I read your abortion argument from several months ago.

"You might have lost the best actor ever seen, the next president, to one who found the cure for cancer, the one who would have revolutionized the whole world, the one who’d invented the time machine, the next Steve Jobs, but, now we’ll never know"

Hey. You know where these presidents and scientists and revolutionaries usually come from? You know what pretty much 99% of them have in common? Let me give you a hint. OH THAT"S RIGHT, 99% OF THEM COME FROM PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY EDUCATED BACKGROUNDS. What, you think that geniuses and presidents just arbitrarily pop up like sunspots? Let me give you this analogy. You're given a choice to plant a garden of flowers. You have two soil beds to choose from; one in the Saraha, devoid of water, with far too much sun. The other is a lush, moist, fertile plot of soil in say, fucking Maine. Which one would you choose? The one with the most resources, or the one where your flowers will wilt and die, with the one-in-a-million chance that perhaps one flower will survive?

We have smart criminals. We have dumb rich people. Usually the primary difference between the two is the availability of resources in their upbringing and background. That's why I say that 99% of these scientists and revolutionaries aren't actually arbitrary poofs of genius, but usually products of upbringing. JFK came from a family of millionaires. Ghandi and Einstein and Che Guevera came from highly educated and relatively successful families. That is not to say that only wealthy people can produce exceptional children, though they have an definite advantage; you'll read stories like Barack Obama who was, although poor growing up, also received the benefit of a great education, and could tell anecdotes later about his mother like the one where she would stay up late with him, night after night, to make sure her son was learning diligently. You'll have stories from famous actors who nearly break into tears when they talk about how much their mothers/fathers taught them and cared for them. And that's where parenting comes in. Behind almost every success story, you'll find that there's some kind of wonderful mentor, inspiration or parent involved.

And often the opposite is true - I'll read up on infamous killers or deranged cult members out of curiosity, and often I'll see the same goddamn heartbreaking story over and over again - tales of broken families, severe childhood abuse, appalling neglect and so much deliberate hurt and damage beyond belief.

You'll probably have children some day, and they'll probably turn out well. And that'll have something to do with genetics, but it will probably have more to do with the fact that you will probably love them, cherish them, care for them and teach them with all your heart. Judging by the fact that you consider yourself a writer, you'll probably ensure that they're well-educated. And that's why you need to stop talking about abortion like it's arbitrary. Few abortions are truly arbitrary, just like few "geniuses" and success stories are truly arbitrary. For many, the simple facts of love, care, and devotion are enough to dictate their choices, and make them decide whether they're ready to give the fragile being inside them the love and care it deserves. Because that's what being a mother is really about.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Like Crazy and Other Thoughts

I've neglected this blog ever since I've joined Tumblr, and it's likely that I'll move there full-time, but I think I'll keep this for awhile since it's still good for nice, long rants that I won't subject my Tumblr followers to (there I have real friends following me, this blog is more of a secret). Another reason for not coming back here is mostly because I haven't had anything fashion or film related to rant about for the past few months. Everything's been politics or Harry Potter, and for that, there's Tumblr - I'm just madly in love with so many of the tumblrs I've found. I've found my online idol in STFUSexists, a feminist (duh) tumblr that's run by this wonderfully smart college grad with an often scathing and irreverent sense of humor. I'm so glad I'm on her side, because reading her takedowns of the various misogynists and all-around idiots unlucky enough to cross her blog (and wrath) is terrible and awesome to behold. The girl can fucking school.

But in this case, I'm just talking a bit about a movie that's zoomed up to the top of my must-watch list ever since the poster and trailers were simultaneously released:

One, I had heard about this movie already, since it had won Best Picture at Sundance, but I was completely disinterested. It didn't help that its female star Felicity Jones was already being compared to Carey Mulligan. By then I'd just had it with all the annual mandatory Sundance It girls. To be honest, they all seemed more irritating than the last. It took me a long time to warm up to Carey Mulligan, and by the time it happened, Jennifer Lawrence was starting to get on my nerves, which was weird because I was a fan of her performance in Winter's Bone, but she irritated me all throughout awards season (why, I honestly can't tell), and her performance in X-Men was just grating. Have you ever just disliked a particular actor irrationally, just because they seem obnoxious, although there's no definite proof of it? Yeah, that's pretty much me and Jennifer Lawrence. Anyhoo, I was losing track of all of THIS year's Sundance It Girls - Elizabeth Olsen and that girl who wrote and starred in Another Earth and then Felicity Jones - yawnnn.

A couple days ago the promotion for "Like Crazy" started, and I was struck by the poster immediately. A wistfully nostalgic, sun-lit image of an ideal young couple, and the I WANT YOU I NEED YOU I LOVE YOU I MISS YOU in the Eat Pray Love font that's becoming so popular for movie posters across the board. I just stared at the poster for about a full twenty seconds, mentally swooning. A tale of nostalgia (it seemed), missed chances, unfulfilled, uncompromising and all-absorbing love.

It's funny, because I've read comments over the past few days that describes "Like Crazy" as a split between "Blue Valentine" and "500 Days of Summer", presumably because it's about two young, idealistic lovers who struggle along the way (imagine that), but the poster was so appealing because it seemed like neither movie. Not "500 Days" practically drowning in its own self-conscious post-romance hipness, or the confining grimness of "Blue Valentine". I totally fell in love, right there and then. To hell with unconvincing quirk and bitter realism! Give me epic, sweet, struggling, yearning, all-encompassing love. I just want to watch a couple fall in love in screen convincingly and not have to roll my eyes. Please. That's what anyone really wants, actually.

Then I saw the first trailer, and found the second a few days later. I posted both here, and the second one is more explanatory, but I love the first one because it's made in the vein of my favorite kind of trailers - kind of unfocused and vague, more of a video essay than a plot summary.



Judging from the trailers, I have a good idea of how it'll probably end (or maybe it'll surprise me), but I'm glad that I don't care. I just hope it's a worthwhile love story. And Felicity Jones (who also won Best Actress at Sundance), you look awesome in this. Incredibly freaking radiant and not in a contrived way (which brings to mind Carey Mulligan again - I, like everyone else, enjoyed her performance in "An Education", but I found the random mugging - just brief shots where she would smile for no reason or glance directly at the camera with a charmingly flirtatious look - somewhat arbitrary and inexplicable). And Felicity Jones is so pretty in this, it hurts.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Quick Thoughts: I Capture The Castle

I can't believe this book is out of print. It belongs in that canon of delightful romantic girl heroine-narratives that include Anne Shirley and Ella of "Ella Enchanted" and Elizabeth Bennett and all the rest. If I were an writer, this is the kind of story I would have wanted to write. I may train myself to read Paradise Lost and the Economist and endlessly repetitive sociology papers, but books like "I Capture the Castle" will always draw out my core and be as addictive as crack. I could hardly believe it when I started reading it - it was practically manufactured just for me or: Further Proof That Period Romance Is Better.

Precocious, winning, and feisty heroine - check off with Cassandra Mortmain. Interesting side characters like the devoted diva-ish stepmother Topaz or the awesome little brother with maddeningly blunt observations - check. Angst. Entanglements. Beautiful rambling countryside and ruined castles. Dramatic plot devices that manage to downplay their dreariness while keeping you fully invested, though that owes mainly to Cassandra's delightful POV. Also........really hot intelligent romantic foils, twists, and surprisingly intellectual whiffs. That last one is new; I wish I had read this when I was younger.

As soon as I finished the book, I remembered that there had been some sort of movie adaptation, and god it would be thrilling to see it onscreen. It was on Youtube, thank the lord, but it was DREADFUL. Stale and angsty and uneven acting, though it had guilty-pleasure potential. "This isn't how I imagined the book to be" is an annoying and lame complaint, I find, but in this case, I thought that they really had not done justice to the book's wit and charm. The book is still primarily a comedy, albeit with some very serious moments, but the movie was trying soooo hard to be a romantic drama. Actually, scratch that. It had no idea what it wanted to be. Coming-of-age quirky comedy or wistful loss of innocence. There was some serious tonal contradiction.

I wasn't a fan of the casting either, though geez, Henry Cavill was fine as fuck. It was the first time I ever sat back and thought, "Oh. God. This guy's looks are truly ridiculous. There is no way anyone mortal looks like this. No wonder he keeps getting comparisons to Greek gods." And I know that Romola Garai is the go-to girl for Spirited & Precocious (she was brilliant in the 2009 "Emma" in what was in my opinion the best embodiment of an Austen novel ever) but I think that all the characters were slightly off-kilter in this one. I guess I'll just have to wait for PBS to inevitably re-make this.


Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Missing Mad Men

My summer tv will be so uneventful. Game of Thrones will soon end (alas! two more episodes! I can barely hold my excitement for them - the shit is about to go down harrrrd), and afterwards there will be luscious frustrating True Blood. But I'm still mourning that there will be no Mad Men this summer. Ugh. I miss it a lot and I don't know, summer always seemed the perfect time to watch it. Maybe it's the same simmering slow quality they both share. I'm going to have to start watching Doctor Who or Parks and Recreation, or something.

Last year, Mad Men surpassed True Blood on my can't-wait-for-Sunday-night list, and all I can say, shame on you, Alan Ball. Yes, I actually prefer watching 50s ad executives and their Kennedy wives drown their non-problems in booze and cigarettes over x-rated vampire porn.

But no, it'll be nine more months before I can see Don Draper and John Slattery and the weird transition from 60s outfits to the 70s, and Cristina Hendricks and our favorite preteen psychotic Sally Draper, and all the rest.

Season 4 just hit the jackpot. It was just so unbelievably human and funny and tense - watching the characters reel off the precipices and caring enough about them to mentally beg them not to. You can read them like a book, and it doesn't lessen their complexity. Even the most surprising revelations made absolute sense, because the development was so organic. For instance, I loved that everyone on the blogs had the same eerie feeling that Don was going to propose to Megan, though it was so subliminal that most didn't confess until after it happened, and when it did, I actually shouted at the screen, "No! Don, don't you dare, you bastard!" When Boardwalk Empire premiered, everyone predicted that would be the next rising of the Sopranos, but in my opinion, Mad Men has emerged as the real, unlikely successor. (It still makes sense, seeing as the creators of both shows are ex-Sopranos writers) Mad Men explores the same theme "can people ever truly change?", and with the same psychological astuteness and subtlety (as well as a lot more grace and humor). And unlike the other two, Mad Men portrays some of the most fascinating and dynamic inter-female relationships on tv right now (whereas both the Sopranos and BE fail[ed] the Bechdel Test quite often and miserably).

God, it seems so unfair that Boardwalk Empire is just winning all the TV awards by default, just by virtue of being a novel, first season prestige show with all those fancy names attached. I'm sure it will only get better, just as Mad Men did, but its time hasn't come yet, and its first season did not even remotely COMPARE to Mad Men's season 4. I'll never forget how nuts everyone would go over every single episode (was there even a weak one?), especially for "The Suitcase". The aftershow blogs and discussions just made it ten times more interesting. And discussing Mad Men was really half the fun.

Well, until it comes back, I guess I can just spend the countdown wait speculating about January Jones' baby daddy. I wonder if the father is actually someone from the set of X-Men: First Class, as the rumor mill suggests. Also just putting it out there: James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender (aka Tom LeFroy and Mr. Rochester) are totally the Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield of 2011. Bromance forever.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Random Observations from A Tale of Ice And Fire

Observations on A Song of Ice and Fire - massive, careless spoilers. As in literally, I just talk liberally about all four books, so yeah, stay away if you haven't read the books.

#1. Is Arya a "psychotic?" (No)

"'Is there gold in the village?' she shouted as she drove the blade up through his back. 'Is there silver? Gems?' She stabbed twice more. 'Is there food? Where is Lord Beric?' She was on top of him by then, still stabbing. 'Where did he go? How many men were with him? How many knights? How many bowmen? How many? How many? How many? How many? How many? How many? Is there gold in the village?'" - A Storm of Swords

Weirdly enough, I always connect Arya's journey to two Christian Bale movies: Empire of the Sun and Batman Begins.

Arya is a hardened, devastated, bitter, vengeful 11-year-old girl who has killed more people than most people twice her age, but she's not a psychopath; psychopathic tendencies are mostly innate, but she's purely a product of her environment. She isn't Sansa, who's coping with her best attributes - charm, tractability, meekness - she's discovered the power of brute force, and she's made the journey from willful little girl to a brutal, realistic war survivor. Complete with John Malkovich character.

And as someone whose world has been destroyed through murder and injustice - her father executed with a lie, her mother and brother slaughtered without honor or mercy - she's the classic self-appointed vigilante who regards the world around her as a place without honor or justice. The justice system is broken in her eyes, and it can no longer be relied on after failing her and her family so utterly. Naturally, she pursues her own unique brand of justice instead. She still has honor, certainly, but it fits the dog-eat-dog style of her environment, more anarchic than the genteel form of honor that undid her family. She learns this lesson much more quickly than Cat, who if you notice, also turns to a ruthless style of justice after her world collapses. In fact, Catelyn has arguably further gone than Arya, considering the fact that Catelyn is a fully-grown woman and has rejected a lifetime of principles. Arya can also be compared to Sansa, who is also learning to survive the hard way, albeit with different skills suited to her environment. Arya's irrevocably changed by her experiences, as any war survivor may be, perhaps damaged, but she isn't lost, by a long shot. I can't wait to see how her story turns out.


#2: Why are all the Tully children so inept?

Catelyn is a well-intentioned and intelligent, but she is the mother of all trainwrecks, being truly her husband's wife. She seizes Tyrion Lannister on the road without giving a modicum to the thought that it's not the best idea to kidnap the son of the oh, MOST POWERFUL HOUSE in the seven kingdoms. I know you're pissed off about your son, but how about a little consulting or even restraining oneself from making spur-of-the-moment decisions that will obviously have powerful reverberations? Ultimately, Catelyn does everything out of love for her children, but these acts have a habit of having a worse effect on her family than anything else. Also frees her worst enemy, Jaime Lannister, during a moment of extreme vulnerability, which is the dumbest fucking idea in the entire world, even for a woman who is mourning for her murdered sons. Did she honestly, honestly believe that he would even have it in his power to return her girls to her? I respect Catelyn and her late fate in the books is kind of awesome, but she is such a naive and reckless dumbass. Seriously.

Lysa is in plain terms, utterly batshit. She's a simpering, inept, deluded weakling who is arguably much to blame for the War of the Five Kings, and all for a man who has clearly only loved her sister, and does not give a flying fuck for her. Lysa's many notable acts, all of them crazier than the last, include, 1) being infatuated with said man and persisting in the facade of his love, though she has always known that he doesn't care for her. Evidence: When Robert Baratheon accidentally uttered the name of his true love "Lyanna" while lying with Cersei, it killed any possibility of love or affection in their relationship. The same thing happened to Lysa, more or less, only it had the opposite effect. 2) poisoning her husband on the command of her lover, and pinning the blame on others, planting suspicions that trigger a freaking war 3) continuing to breastfeed her child even though he's already EIGHT FUCKING YEARS OLD 4) refusing to aid her own family despite the immense resources and arsenal at her command, for pretty much no reason at all. This one pissed me off the most, because it doesn't really matter what deranged crap she gets up to in her home, but this had the most dire impact. It is really not okay to stay neutral and stay lalalalala when your only sister's children are lost, missing, captured or dead, and the rest of your family is getting massacred and their cause going the same way. What the fuck do you do in your spare time, anyway? Oh yeah, 5) stalking your loveless husband and trying to push your 13-year-old niece, who is as far as you know, possibly the only remaining blood relative you have in the world - off a castle because you saw your husband give her a kiss in the garden.

Edmure Tully

Also a royal screw-up. A screwup in the battlefield (you know you can't do anything right when you end up apologizing to your sixteen-year-old nephew and promising to make amends), whines entirely way too much in a period of warfare (nobody gives a shit who you marry), complains about everyone else, makes inept threats (next time for starters, try NOT being in a bathtub when you threaten to kill a dude), falls for Jamie Lannister's entirely raw deal. Edmure, do you really think that your worthless life is worth your family's ancient stronghold and the sacrifice of your badass uncle, who is one of the greatest characters in the series as well as the only Tully that's not a complete inept fool? Use your brains. They can't kill your unborn child because it's half-Frey and the only heir to a powerful house, and it would serve the Freys better off alive than dead, and you'll have to spend the rest of your life as a Lannister servant anyway. YOU WITLESS COWARD. Even some of the things he does that's entirely not his fault - like bedding your new bride while her brothers are butchering your relatives downstairs - is indicative of his general cluelessness and futility.

So Edmure is more or less slave to his greatest enemy, Catelyn is undead, Lysa is murdered by her own husband, and justifiably so. Brindyn "Blackfish" Tully, their aged, formidable uncle who is possibly the only character in the series that possesses both deadly good sense and unshakeable loyalty and honor, is on the run thanks to his useless nephew.

Forget it. I was all for the Starks/Tullys but the latter house really doesn't deserve to survive, to an extent. There's the good-hearted loveable fool, like an 11-year-old Neville Longbottom, and then there's the really really exasperatingly stupid gobsmacking incompetent fool of questionable morality that makes you go, "eh, probably would be more beneficial to evolution if they're just all wiped out, anyway."

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire

I've seen all episodes so far in Game of Thrones and I've read three of the books and spoiled all of them beforehand on Wikipedia. I couldn't resist.

I love it. It's everything I've always loved in big, sprawling epics; the political intrigue and machinery and intricate plotting and ruthless scheming, huge battles without the boring details, exhilarating twists and breathless tension and a mad, mad pace.

I read somewhere that George RR Martin used to be a tv writer, and it certainly seems like that in his books - he's no Tolkien, whose painstaking and near-obsessive attention to detail has so far derailed me from finishing the The Two Towers (I promised myself to read all three LOTR books this summer, but it's just....difficult to get through without my eyes glazing over, to be perfectly honest). The suspense and building up of scenes are perfect, and though the writing is occasionally cheesy and inelegant, it's just such a good story.

Martin based the stories off the War of Roses (Lancasters and Yorks = Lannisters and Starks, though the similarities mostly end there) and other major feuds in English history. And it certainly feels like it. The absolutely fascinating dynamics between the different noble houses and the scheming towards the throne is uncannily representative of medieval English politics - the persistent threat of rebellion and chaos always hanging overhead; the (at times literal) backstabbing and allegiances switching in the blink of an eye, an entire war ended by a single sword or orchestrated by a few letters, the power struggles, the greed and inevitable desperation - I just love it.

And the characters! I wouldn't say that the characters are especially outstanding - sometimes they seem to meld with one another - but the humanity is so present and the drama so compelling that you're glued to the characters at all times. I became emotionally invested in most of the characters' fates - and boy, are there many of them - it took me a long time to actually put everything together and remember everyone's names, even - and the emotional stakes feel real and utterly convincing. The backstories and flashbacks are as fascinating as the present, and everything intertwines - weaving past, present, characters a thousand leagues apart to predecessors a century before - beautifully. Even reading the thing on Wikipedia was enthralling and exhilarating.

And Christ, is Martin BRUTAL with them. This isn't Harry Potter or LOTR or Narnia, where aside from a few token minor characters' death, everyone else's safety is pretty much guaranteed and you basically have to root for them. It's a war, plain and simple, and a POV character may be wiped out ruthlessly without warning. They're the source of most of the WTF moments in the books, and have simultaneously pushed away and attracted readers. One of my favorite bloggers stopped halfway through the third book after one after reading one particularly infamous chapter, claiming that said part was nothing short of a "violent act against the reader". It's pretty incredible testament to Martin's emotional efficiency, though, to have readers to be so affected by a fictional character's fate that countless readers have either set aside the books or at least paused, either because they needed to recover from the emotional toll or were disenchanted. No death is senseless or gratuitous, in my opinion. You always, always see the core of it - you can trace the origin of the character's downfall, you see cause and consequence reverberate and the clues are right there, mapped out in the chapters. You understand why this person died, and how it will impact others or shift the course of the game. It's brilliant, really.

Me, I'm a sucker for anything that draws me emotionally, and it's most impressive of all when it can hurt me. This is particularly hard with fantasy. Not even the deaths in Harry Potter affected me or surprised me; I loved all the characters, but they were still so removed. Usually, when a major character is wiped out, I actually don't care that much, but Martin is so vivid and sick that I consider it a great privilege to actually feel so much over a character's death.

But IMO, I think the first thing to understand in the books is that death is one of the major characters in the book. I think Martin effectively conjures up the atmosphere of the Middle Ages - why the fleeting chance of glory is so sweet, why anyone would welcome the chance to go to war to certain death. Death is always around the corner for every character, whether it's a peasant boy senselessly executed for no purpose at all, a musician who becomes a nobleman's scapegoat, a king's throat slit. The knowledge that "winter is coming" - the grim, endlessly repeated motto of the Starks - is a given. Living in constant fear is the only rational state of being. Whenever my mind drifted away from the books (and that happened very rarely), all I could think of was Hobbes' "life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". That's the essence of this cold, cruel, epic world of Martin's. You can't figure out what's worse, battling the wild elements in the bleak and solitary, ice-strewn land of the North, or caught in the political webs of the South. Each is just as unpredictable and unfeeling, and murderous as the other.

Still, I got to the certain part where my blogger stopped reading, though, and I almost cried. I had known about it beforehand, but when I read it, I was so affected that I actually fell into a deep melancholic state afterwards. The nature of the tragedy echoed the deaths of other historical characters that had possessed me as a kid, like the story of Lady Jane Grey or Richard III - the themes and details of their downfalls were beyond the average deaths; the way they died, and why, is simply unforgettable. I couldn't get it out of my mind, and it broke my heart. I'll talk about it in some other post. Oh, and the rest of the time I was just consumed with the desire for all-out revenge for certain characters.

The fifth book comes on July 12th. Can't wait.

Oh, and the series are badass too. The actors are sublime and everything feels in-place and nothing cheesy. Tasteful - not emotionally absent like Boardwalk Empire or silly and exasperating like True Blood. Unlike True Blood, GOT actually reveals answers (Martin's also great at that - the answers are often unexpected and surprise you, but you actually get real, concrete answers to the plots and whodunnits. No existential angst here). Speaking of which, I'll probably start watching True Blood again, but if someone asked me what had happened in the last three seasons, I'd have to admit that I don't have a fucking clue. That show is SO incoherent.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Summer Movie Schedule

First, two notes: 1) it is my female and cinephilic duty to go see Bridesmaids. Am already behind. 2) I am boycotting Pirates 4 and Transformers 3.

May 20 - Midnight in Paris (Even more behind!)

May 27 - The Tree of Life (#omygawedddddabahahahaazomggfuckyeah)

June 3 - X-Men: First Class. (Wait. Realistically speaking, I'll probably end up catching it online.)

June 10 - Super 8

June 21 + 28 - I got tickets to see the extended versions of Lord of the Rings (The Two Towers and Return of the King, respectively) in theaters this summer! booyah

July 15 - CANNOT. DEAL.


......And then, um, I don't see anything particularly interesting until October. That's ok. The summer's more interesting than I initially imagined, even with all the unspeakable sequels.

No Oscar predictions on the horizon. Last year continually surprised everyone with the onslaught of pretty good/great movies that started in summer (The Kids Are All Right, Inceptions), but it feels like slim pickings this year. The movies that have dominated the conversation aren't the usual Oscar fare. And the releases of November/December (peak Oscar season) are somewhat worrying, as they're all family adventures or thrillers (Tintin, Happy Feet 2, Mission Impossible, the Muppets movie). Hopefully the announcement of more releases will assuage these concerns.

Alexander McQueen Exhibit at the Met

Mesmerizing, humbling, transporting, spooky.

See it.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Critics are agonizing

......over the Tree of Life and I love it. Well, not really flipping out, but the reactions are extremely divided (oh, like no one was expecting that….). The movie premiered early Monday morning in Cannes and ended to dramatic boos and scattered applause, and while there’s a general consensus that why yes, this movie is a visual orgasm because did you not realize that this is Terrence Malick and there are dinosaurs and visions of primordial Earth and God knows what else in the movie, everyone seems to either hate it or worship it in equal measure.

Weirdly enough, the initial frenzy of Tweets sent immediately after the screening succinctly summed up the gist of the polarized reactions:

“As beautiful as TREE OF LIFE is, it’s pretentious drivel of the worst Cannes kind.”

“Tree of Life is naive, pretentious, hypnotic, enthralling and absolutely unmissable.”

“Utterly mesmerising first hour, slightly listless second, generally unmissable”

“visually breathtaking and technically masterful, but excruciatingly drawn out and annoyingly pretentious”

“A glorified perfume ad” Ow.

Tree of Life just ended, and it’s a very sad and beautiful…wank? The ultimate refutation of narrative? An interminable tone poem?”

“Tree of Life is a prayer.”

and my favorite:

“….sad to report that Samuel L. Jackson does not show up after the credits. Unclear as to how Tree of Life fits into The Avengers.”

A month to goooooo.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Authenticity in Acting

Taking a break from my English paper for some rambling thoughts on authenticity and experience. It must be the caffeine in my blood - I'm not a big coffee drinker.

Where was I? Oh yes. Just thinking about what kind of movies I like and it somehow progressed to an internal monologue on actors, as always. I was thinking about the difference between the movies that romanticize and the movies that stir far deeper emotions. Generally, the movies deemed the greatest (Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.) have a tendency to leave an romantic impact that leaves the viewer mostly unharmed. Movies are fake, of course, but they can make a genuine and personal connection to the viewer, but the ones that mine the deepest are usually too strange or subjective to be universally praised. All the movies I've truly loved - Bright Star, a random Korean war movie, something else - have left me deeply hurt or vulnerable. And I don't mean "general crying and sorrowful emotions for the character", though that occasionally is the case - but rather something that settles in me and feels much stranger and stronger than conventional reactions. A couple of Jane Campion's movies, for instance, unearths this intangible longing, some sense of beauty and loss that - as strange as it sounds, and I'm not a particularly religious person - brings me closer to something like holiness, and I become so unbearably and inexplicably sad that I have to go distract myself. Other moments from movies of mixed quality stay with me over time and wound me in a way I can't even acknowledge. And most of the time I end up scolding myself, but I feel like I can be so easily seduced by cheaply romantic moments. That's why I love movies so much, and aren't we all? But I think that these rarer moments can count as authentic ones, because they always pass and I can't get quite the same feeling again from watching the movie. Or is that a contradiction? Ugh, it's frustrating.

That was the first part of my thought. Then in a bizarre way, I started transitioning from thinking about authenticity in movies to authenticity in actors. Take Kristen Stewart. She and a host of other young, precocious actors are undeniably good and sensitive, but they seem incapable of mining any deeper force of emotion. And though it's all about "good acting", I truly think that great acting has always been able to draw on genuine experience and emotion. All the great actors - from Brando to Dustin Hoffman and Greta Garbo to Meryl Streep - have in common slightly fucked-up early lives that surely lent authenticity to their performances. And I started thinking about Kristen Stewart's constant moping and angst in movies - and how strange, because isn't angst an emotion that's natural but insubstantial, and in our modern culture, mocked for being increasingly fetishized? She may be a smart, sensitive individual who's generally in tune with her emotions, but my theory is that she doesn't have the requisite pain of true experience. She's had too much of a good life insofar. As much as she defines herself as apart from the celebrity sphere, she's still part of the lifestyle and the inevitable complacency and coddling that irons out any surface-level angst pretty quickly. She, like other child performers, may have experienced a taste of pain and open emotions during childhood, but child emotions are just fundamentally different in expression than adult emotions. That's why, in my opinion, so many child actors are inferior adult actors, even if they are successful. Wisdom can't be cultivated through contrivance, and what was originally deemed precocity becomes a static quality that drags you down if it isn't expanded through natural progress. In my opinion, Anna Paquin has given the same exact "precocious" and child-like performance for the past fifteen years or so, I have a feeling that Dakota Fanning will head the same way.

Well, that was an exquisitely unorganized thought process - I was basically shitting my brains out onto the internet, but oh well, that's what a personal blog is for.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Caroline's Sweater


The NYtimes did a profile on the knitter behind the miraculous mini-garments featured in Coraline. Not sure why, but it was certainly enjoyable. The sea-themed sweater at 1:19 blows my mind.


Sigh......Coraline, what an outstanding movie. One of my best friends and I love that movie so much, and we especially love Coraline's rocking star-spangled sweater. Evil Mother sure has good taste. I've even desperately scoured the internet to find a life-size version of it - surely a knitter somewhere saw the movie and decided to capitalize on it????


But no luck. But I love my friend and the sweater enough that I've decided that sometime in the future, I'm going to get that sweater custom-made, and give it to her as a gift. She'd be absolutely bonkers about it.


Saturday, March 26, 2011

Older = Sentimental?

Saw Jane Eyre for the second time today and it was thankfully quiet the whole way through, though I did miss the raucous enthusiasm of the first screening. No one burst into applause or cheering when Jane and Rochester kissed, and no one said "YOU GO GIRL!" A bit disappointing, I must admit.

There were a lot of elderly couples here, and I noticed after the screening that about a third of them remained in their seats, and I was intensely curious to find out what they were thinking. Did they just usually sit there because they usually liked to ponder the movie they had just watched, or had the movie touched them so intensely that that they were having some serious flashbacks and rushes of sentimentalism?

I'm growing more sentimental as I'm getting older, and it's worrying me a lot. And not just "more sensitive to the cares of the world" or anything productive. I'm listening to the Phantom of the Opera, something I once couldn't abide for its unbearable cheesiness, a LOT recently. I can't stop feeling touched when I listen to "That's All I Ask of You" or "The Music of the Night". I sigh when Christine sings "Say you love me" and Raoul passionately bellows (but tenderly!) "you know I do.....". I cried the other night when I re-read Wuthering Heights. I'm afraid that I'm becoming an incurable romantic, something I disdained from my younger days as a tomboy to high school, when I advised my English class to pick husbands that could provide them with alimony. I think I need help.



Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Most Anticipated Performances of 2011


Viggo Mortensen and Michael Fassbender in a "A Dangerous Method"




Michelle Williams in "My Week With Marilyn"

Rooney Mara in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"


Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia" (just the thought of Dunst paired with Lars Von Trier is so surreal. I gotta see what happens)


Jessica Chastain in "The Tree of Life"

Marion Cotillard and Rachel McAdams in "Midnight in Paris"

Greta Gerwig in "Arthur"

Remembering A Beloved Class






Sometimes I look back at my AP Art History class and miss it like crazy. I love college and this semester's classes are great, but there are 2-3 certain classes I took in high school that were simply unmatched in their brilliance and vibrancy. AP Art History was one of them. I may not have always enjoyed (okay, mostly I resented) memorizing fifty pieces of art in one night for a test the next day, but how wonderful the discussions were, how amazing it was to literally see your perspective of an art piece morph before your eyes as the teacher described its qualities and altered the way you saw art forever. I actually even enjoyed taking the AP test *cough nerd*.

It's amazing how much I still reference the lessons and the art pieces we learned. My psych professor talked about modern art in our last lecture, and I brought up the Venus of Willendorf to make a point about culture in my english seminar the other day. A very close friend and fellow art-lover (we sat in AP Art History together) is coming in April and the first thing we shall do, certainly, is hit up some art museums and argue about Rococo (she adores it, I find it nauseating) and obsess over our old art history teacher. Can't wait.

From top to bottom: "Mrs Fiske Warren and Her Daughter'", John Singer Sargent. "Venus of Willendorf", unknown. "Nighthawks", Edward Hopper. "Judith Slaying Holofernes, Artemisia Gentileshi

*For instance, my teacher would be absolutely ashamed by the fact that I've cited the paintings without their full information, something I always got points off in our tests. I just can't do dates for art, okay?

But everyone should take an art history class at one point in their lives or another. It's one of the best things you can do.