Not On the Ground, Not To the Sky, But What's In Front of Me

I can't stand it. Why am I a moderate? Because people gravitate to the extremes, too much of the time. We're either inspecting the wrinkles in our leather shoes or gazing sadly into the murky, unknown, tantalizing depths of the Milky Wa - oh, get over it. 

Now is the time for college essays, and everyone's telling me about how they're writing about religion or science or the "potential link between neuroscience and religion as the key to our souls", and I'm just like "good for you! fuck that shit." I went through a self-aggrandizing, intellectual phase in freshman and sophomore year, and I am THROUGH with it. I am the not the first to think those through, nor am I the last. Billions of people, most of them smarter of me, have asked and probed the same questions. We want to think that we're special for thinking these recycled, tired thoughts that have will not get us very far. Well guess what? What we want is not the same as what we need.

We need to find that intersection between the past, present, and future. To look straight ahead while walking. Look at the flowers that mean more to us than our futile words can ever express, accept the candy from Halloween, pick up the person who is lying in the street, crippled. Be active and healthy, dreamy and appreciative. Fucking READ those health articles in the Reader's Digest so everyone can stop getting cancer and heart attacks. It's much more preventable than you think it is. And please, stop talking so much. Recently I've gone through a phase where I've heard endless speakers give their spiel, all the while thinking, "I could have taken your half-hour speech and condensed it into five-sentence bullet points. Unless you're a ridiculously eloquent speaker whom we pay for the pleasure of listening, jaw-dropped, catching each word like a goddamn gold nugget, BE EFFICIENT. Be efficient, be happy. Dily-dally over good food, good music, plants, the beauties of life, help each other to do the same, and don't shit over who you're going to sit on the bus with or the psychobabble of religion. That is all.

Woman, FEED ME!

Well, now I know what I'm going as for Halloween. 

*Also realized, while looking at the first pic, how many similarities there were between this movie and Marie Antoinette, by none other than Jonze's ex, Sofia Coppola. Slight empahsis  on Converses, for instance. 

IMDB Profile Archive

Because I'm continually updating my IMDB account profile, I thought I would save some of the old ones to my blog.

One posted a few weeks ago:

"Recently discovered what having a favorite movie really meant. Not necessarily one that you would love to rewatch 298492x, but one that from a first-time viewing, immediately speaks to you. Analysis comes easy, as if there was a SparkNotes mapped out in your brain when you saw the movie, and you feel that you could understand the director's every intent, every decision, every why and how, every instinct in tune with your own. How nice it is to have favorite movies!"

That was after I saw Bright Star. It amazed me afterwards to see how much people misunderstood its intentions or some of the moments in the movie. I kept saying to myself "but how could you NOT understand it?" Then it dawned on me that it was as if the film had been assembled from bits of myself. Schmaltzy but true. It boils down to the differences we all have. You can't expect other people to walk away feeling the same thing you felt.

My profile note as of now (also a response to a blog question):

"I've seen 20 of Christian Bale's movies (some of them accidentally. I mean, we've all seen Pocahontas). And I've gone out of my way to see about 12 of them. Then I lost interest. But he will always hold a special place in my heart for having introduced me to IMDB, Hayao Miyazaki, American Psycho, and Ben Whishaw (his successor as my actor-obsession du jour)"

:) :) :)

:( :( :(

I no longer think that Christian Bale is a great actor. But he is still one of the most fascinating. I will never understand how he can be so perfect in some movies and numbingly bad in others. He's constantly surprising me, which is a rare trait in an actor, at least. But it was his inconsistencies and unconventional acting that really made me fall in love with movies and acting. He's not great, but he tries stupendously hard (though goddamn it, sometime I'll have to make a rant post about how severe weight loss/gain is absolutely useless to an actor) and that's gotten him pretty far: in retrospect, the second highest grossing movie of all time (inflation aside), a hoard of unbelievably vicious fans, and relative respect as an actor until his little Terminator spiel and the shit hit the fan. So you see, hard work does get you somewhere! But typical me to espouse the rewards of hard work while I'm procrastinating for my AP hw. Toodles.

Funny Frances

As weird it may be, I've decided what I might - must, actually - give any future daughter as a middle name.

Frances - in allusion to four great female characters in literature/movies that I've identified with or enjoyed.

Fanny Price - Mansfield Park

 

Francie Nolan - A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

Franny Glass - Franny and Zooey 

Fanny Brawne - Bright Star (alright, I can't identify with her, I'm nowhere as ballsy or pretty or fashionable as Fanny, and and I've never had a Romantic poet fall in love with me. But you may have deduced from my 3948194 posts on Bright Star that the movie meant a lot to me).

So there you have it. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn was one the best novels I read in middle school, and it's almost impossible for any young female reader not to identify with Francie Nolan's dreamy detachment, her earnest love for writing and reading, and her cliched, but still frankly depicted loneliness. 

I've only read Mansfield Park a few months ago, but I liked Fanny, unlike most people I know. I like that she's kind of sweet and priggish and sly. P&P is an absolute favorite, so the Austen reference would be appropriate. 

Franny and Zooey - firstly, favorite book. Plus, Franny is a blast. Most people would call Franny whiny, but I think there's a difference between whining for the sake of whining ("I have two essays due tomorrow, fuck my life") or the agonizing of a young girl genuinely confused about the age-old dynamic between idealism and normalcy. 

But as fascinating and flawed as their owners are, the names Franny, Francie, or Fanny are simply not suited to 21st century girls, not even as middle names. Can you imagine "Lauren Franny", or "Alexandra Fanny"? Eh. All the poignant, doe-eyed heroines in the world couldn't save it. The name is pretty much equivalent to Maude or Barbara. There's a certain century it needs to stay in.  

Frances, on the other hand, is a little charmingly old-fashioned but in sort of timeless, girlish fashion, and uncommon. Not to mention I've always wanted to learn French....that's five references.

**Postscript: My friend argued with me as to why I would pick these girls. Specifically? Pluck, presence, an eye for beauty, a love for learning, introspection, good sense, and a big heart. That's all the traits a girl needs in life. Oh, and a wicked sense of humor, so I think I'll need to find a fifth Frances that embodies that trait. Maybe I'll name my future possible daughter "______ Frances Tina Fey Yossarian" (did Yossarian from Catch-22 have a last name?).

Do We Really Need to Define "Rape" In This Day and Age?

I agree, parts of the Polanski rape case are murky. But that's up for the judge to decide.

What has been killing, killing, killing me over the past few days, is how some people have been trying to justify the rape. I saw a post on IMDB so offensive, I'll need to reprint it here.

"People Who Think Polanski Should Be in Prison is Under-Educated..."

The 13-year old girl was no child, but a teenager.

She had already had sex on numerous ocassions.

Polanski was un-aware of her age.

The girl was the kind who looked she could have been anywhere from 15-25.

Polanski OFFERED her alchohal, which she accepted, understandably to seem "hip". She never said "I'm under-aged". She didn't say anything.

She was not UNDER THE INFLUENCE when she had sex. This is a complete misnomer. She drank one glass.

She said "no" casually a few times. She didn't struggle, raise her voice, push him away or anything- she gave the impression she was fine with it. To him, "no" could mean "I don't think of you this way".

JESUS MARY AND JOSEPH. That is all I have to say. Particularly the last one. It doesn't matter if she said no through miming, dance interpretation, or a raised middle finger. NO MEANS NO. This is how rape happens - the guy isn't taking the girl seriously. Well, too bad for him.

Besides, whether she said "no" or not is completely irrelevant. She is thirteen. She could have thrown herself at Polanski or stripped down to a pink thong, and it would still be irrelevant. It's his responsibility, as a 44-year-old adult, to restrain himself.

Another justification I've heard is that Polanski has already been through too much. I feel terrible about his wife. I blogged about it just last week. But seriously, going through the Holocaust and having a loved one murdered by Charles Manson does not give a "free rape" pass in life. In fact, it's even more shameful that someone who has experienced so much tragedy and oppression in life would inflict the same on someone else. He of all people should know the lifelong emotional repercussions of a single devastating event.

The ugly, subtly sexist sides this controversy has brought out in people is appalling. I can't believe that in this day and age, people only have a vague idea of what rape is. There is no "rape-rape", regardless of what Whoopi Goldbery says. Some rapes are more brutal than others, but it is still rape nevertheless. The rapist doesn't have to be a pervert. A boyfriend may rape a girlfriend, while she's drunk and unable to express her refusal. It may occur through miscommunication, when the guy thinks the girl was "asking for it". Like Joan on Mad Men, a rape can be quiet affair, with the woman silently suffering because she doesn't know what else she can do. Nevertheless, it is never the victim's fault. The people who think that Samantha Geimer is at fault have seriously twisted, fucked up logic.

I'm no radical feminist, but this troublingly flippant attitude towards rape is a woman's issue. After all, it is very difficult for women to actually rape men. But oh lord, just read the comments on the Huffington Post, or listen to the goddmann French writers advocating on behalf on Polanski, and they'll have you know that it's not always the man's fault when he rapes a woman, and by the way, Samantha Geimer is Delilah, Angelina Jolie, Lolita, all rolled into one, a minx, a harpy, and a conniving temptress in little girl's clothes.

Even in our sophisticated educational system, little attention is given to rape education, judging by the massive numbers of victims. A speaker once asked members of my school to stand up if they knew anyone who had been raped. Most of the students are from affluent, quiet suburbs, but two-thirds of the body stood up.

A few weeks ago, a 16-year-old girl in South Carolina was gang-raped for two hours by a dozen teenage boys after the homecoming dance, watched by at least twenty spectators. Later, I saw a Twitter remark - from a woman, yes - that I think personified the amazing progress we've made on promoting women's rights and realizing the barbaric nature of rape - "There are people getting murdered everyday, why is everyone making a big deal of this supposed "gang rape"?"

Why Girls Like Twilight

Twilight = Emotional Porn. That's the simplest way to describe it. 

 Come on - most girls imagine themselves to be the secret object of worship by really hot guys who can see through them like an x-ray for the deep, mature, beautiful creatures that they really are under this sad teenage skin. (Think scene in "Juno" where a jock makes fun of Juno but Juno asserts that he secretly has a crush on her but can't resist the status quo. Really, Diablo Cody? Really?)

And a super hot guy who saves you all the time and won't look at a single other girl? Oh, baby! We girls have been fed this sh!t since Cinderella in preschool.

 

 

(sidenote: If I have any daughters, I am so making them watch "Mulan" and "The Lion King", no princess movies, period. I think it's ironic that we have these "safe" ratings for family movies, when I'm pretty sure that a violent, sexual movie of *intelligent* thematic depth and development is a hell lot safer than "clean", IQ-obliterating kiddie crap like Transformers or Hannah Montana.)  

I read some Bright Star reviews followed up by reader comments like "If only men were more romantic like Keats, the world would be a better place." Hell, why don't we WOMEN ever try to be the romantic one? We oppress ourselves by expecting the knight-on-a-steed treatment from every guy we meet, expecting chocolate and roses, yet these gestures are rarely reciprocated, except maybe some dirty stuff in bed, which hardly equalizes the relationship. Maybe by complaining less and doing more, they could open up a romantic portal in men that they themselves didn't expect. 

Coming back to "Bright Star", I think one of the most romantic parts of the movies is whenever Fanny shows Keats a romantic gesture - sewing his brother a pillowcase of exquisite artistic detail, slipping Keats a goodnight note under his door. Result: Keats is utterly beholden to her. Leave it to Campion to have the dynamic women to rule every relationship.

I have to credit Nathaniel R from FilmExperience for pointing out that the poster is a welcome deviation from classic love posters - every kind of woman I know loves to bark out for prominent rights, but it's these little details, impressed since childhood, that really imposes sexist barriers. 

 (shh, Bella, don't cry. Daddy's here!)

And what makes me so vitriolic about Twilight is that this kind of "male domination" poster is going AGAINST the trend of modern romantic movie posters. It legitimizes what I've been yelling about for the past three years; that Twilight is the most backwards, anti-feminist book aimed towards teenagers that I've ever seen. 

Consider: after a quick google search for "romantic movie posters".....

(Becoming Jane, above, was an unexpected surprise. Really enjoyed the treatment of relationships in that one)

Note their poses in relationship to each other. 

Thoughts on Bright Star

Is is better to have loved and lost than have never loved at all?



That's something I'd like to ask Fanny Brawne, who managed to move on after Keats' death and have her own family without him. The end notes would have you believing that Fanny, like Arwen from LOTR, wandered the frozen woods in eternal sorrow while draped in black and muttering lines from his poems. In a way, Jane Campion's new movie is a very idealistic view at love. But my severity aside, it's still a rapturous, beautiful ode to first love, quite different and similar from "The Piano" in many ways. There are certain elements in common, like the funny little girl, or the relationship between the characters founded in a weird mutual attraction/revulsion and moving on to quiet devotion. Keats tries to teach Fanny poetry and though her attempt are genuine, you feel that, like Harvey Keitel, she's more interested in the teacher than the lesson.

But whereas The Piano was harrowing, shocking, raw, Bright Star is a very chaste affair. In the hands of lesser performances, the love affair could have felt sterilized, but the chemistry is palpable between Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw. 

The movie's slow, luxurious pace is explained in a single line by Keats, who says that one does not dive into a lake "for the purpose of getting to the other side, but rather absorbing all the sensations". So I basked in the lush images, though after awhile the endless reptoire of flower fields got a bit tiring. 

But the ending is an emotional punch to the stomach. Cornish's crying scene is one of the best I've ever seen. It's not just one where the viewer merely watches and admires the mechanics of it (cough like I do for Leo Dicaprio), but I'm right there in her shoes, sobbing along with her as she cries for her mother. I actually turned away because it became too painful - I felt like I was Fanny.

And sure enough, just as she swept up the sad remains of Fanny's impulsive butterfly collection, just as she has done all her life, Mrs. Brawne comes to help her daughter back up again. 

I found a review that just made me smile, because in many ways it reflects my post-viewing feelings immediately, when I walked around the streets of New York, with a spring in my step and a glow in my eyes. Like Keats, I was dazzled, aware - my senses were sharper, both happy and devastated. I was shocked when I saw my reflection in a window; my hair was wavier, my eyes were brighter, my cheeks were pinker - I looked prettier. Never thought a movie could be a secret beauty sponge. 

From http://tgeorge12345.blogspot.com/2009/10/bright-star-review.html:

"When I walked out of the theatre, I felt other than before. Autumn cool, ground wet but not raining, and overcast, there was a certain lightness of mind, of decluttering, a scrubbing. Each step seemed a thing in and of itself, like the riding of a horse, a palpable sense of separation between the walking and the walker. Also the looking, as if through different eyes; occasioned of an equanimity tinged in fear, of something good, right, justified yet fleeting. Breath, too, the breath of morning in midday, a gentle rising and falling to match the gait. 

How does one describe the indescribable. To be changed and to know of the changing, a realignment, a tectonic shifting of soul and mind and even body--a lightness such as the unshouldering of a heavy coat, where everything, every step, lifts again in peaceful joy, neither frown nor smile burdened. And above all, a calm, the kind after a long, hard cry, when resistance gives way, is released into the wind, carried somewhere, away. 

I could write of the movie, the score, the acting, the cinematography. But everything I would say would pale the art as words always dilute their object. But I will say this, there are moments, devastating moments, when what is real and what is affected become confused, where one loses the sense of stage and in its place, a witnessing. Of what, I'm not sure. Yet, one knows upon the moment, of something other. "

The most common praise I've heard for this film is that it's "beautiful." And it is, in every sense of the world (funny when you consider that the movie actually has very muted tones). It's not just pretty in the sense of lavish costumes and glossy superrealism - it's like staring into a spring day or a single flower. The beauty fills your mind, your heart, the body with joy until the very soul is moved. You don't just watch it, you breathe it. 

State of the Union:

TV:

- Gossip Girl is back on, and is still a nice source of escapism, but now that the spark is gone between Leighton Meester and Ed Westwick, there's not much else appealing about the show.

- When is 30 Rock coming back on? "Best of Liz Lemon" is officially one of my favorite videos on YouTube.

Movies I Saw Recently and Loved:

- The Wind That Shakes the Barley (history teacher's already recommended me a book on the Irish Revolution. Just powerful, powerful stuff. Cillian Murphy's brilliant in it)

- Memento (what surprised me was how funny it was. "I must be chasing this guy" *gets shot at* "wait, no, he's chasing me." I never suspected Nolan of having a sense of humor.)

- The Piano (the kind that changes your perception of movies forever. I have never seen a bolder depiction of female longing, but it's also a contemplation on female selfishness - Ada teases her husband mercilessly, Flora ends up as her mother's betrayer. It's definitely more of a woman's movie - all the men on IMDB seem to hate it, and it has a lower rating in guys' demographics)

Books:

Read "Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Mansfield Park". Latter's surprisingly racy for Jane Austen, but not gonna lie, it's pretty refreshing. I lament that I prefer old novels over contemporary ones, but they're so well written. It feels like every current novel I've picked up lately has been a contemplation on adultery. Snooze. Will be starting teacher's book of Irish-Revolution tales soon. I also read a picture book written by Jackie Kennedy's sister Lee, about the summer after their graduations (high school for Lee, college for Jackie) they spent in Europe, traveling and looking at art. Good lord, am I jealous. I started reading up about the Kennedys and got melancholy about Bobby Kennedy. I think that had he become president, he would have totally outshone his brother's reign (which is completely overrated, anyway). 

Other Pop Culture Bits:

- Tsunamis are shitty but I can't see anyone willing to donate at a time of such fiscal uncertainty. 

- Roman Polanski case got me reading up on murder of his wife Sharon Tate, and it was one of these moments where I hoped Hell existed just so the people who stabbed Tate, who was two weeks away from giving birth, SIXTEEN TIMES, in addition to hanging her body and using her blood to scrawl "Pig" on the front door, could burn there for eternity. Then I discovered that one of her murderers just died less than a week ago, isn't that odd? I then Youtubed a recent video and was disconcerted on how composed, soft-spoken and well, remorseful her killer was. There was a great sadness that emanated from her, and then I started feeling bad again because she probably came from a cracked-up background. I was right - it turned out that her father was an alcoholic, her mother was crazy, she had faced abuse, foster homes, alienation, etc. as a kid, and was consequently fucked since the day she was born. 

- BTW, I have to admit I don't care very much if Polanski gets away with it, though I prefer conviction. I mean, pay your dues. C'mon.

Is Conviction a Good Thing?

"Think critically and flexibly. Never defend your scrap of reality to the death, because no one knows the whole picture."

This is what a wonderful teacher from my summer course said. I took these literature courses this summer, taught by two teachers: one professor nearly bored me to tears with his droning and desire to explicate on the "symbolism of the Brooklyn Bridge". I yearned to throw my books right in his "intellectually deep", stupid face. 

(Btw, anyone who describes themselves as "deep" is surely not)

The other teacher was MY kind of teacher. Smart, introspective, yet deeply practical. I loved hearing her rants because afterwards I would write down these little snippets of wisdom that burst spontaneously from her brain. The one above is the most important, I think. 

Personally, I think it's frustrating that for most people, 12+ years of edjamacation will not teach them the importance of said quotation. They will learn a little piece of observation or opinion. They will agree with it. Then they will use it to define their ideology, and by proxy, every single issue in the world. Fuck other viewpoints or ideas, I'm clearly right because that's the only thing I can see in my very limited scope! 

I think back to when I was a child, and saw everything through a strict Disneyfied glass: everything was categorized as "evil" or "good". But the point is, part of growing up is to recognize the gray areas of life. Ambiguity becomes frustrating and awful, but it's a responsibility. It seems to me that some of the most learned, eloquent people I've met are also some of the most childish and narrow people I have ever met.  

The reason why I bring this up is because the other day in Economics, someone treaded upon the topic of health care. A girl spoke up. "I don't understand why we don't have govt. health care. I mean, I have RELATIVES who don't have health care." I despised her, but I'll also admit that she's truly one of the smartest and quick-thinking people I've ever met.  The discussion quickly turned into "why are people against health care so dumb?", self-aggrandizing roast. Meanwhile, I was steaming under the table. 

I don't consider myself affiliated with any party, but I do have aunts and uncles in the medical community, who have completely contrasting views on health care. I like to listen to them, and learn more because I KNOW I don't know enough about the issue to establish a legit opinion. And here were these sixteen/seventeen year old girls throwing hissy fits about health care because it didn't feel logical in their narrow little viewpoints. Hey darlings! How about you read up some articles, do a little research, and try and understand why the other side feels that way? 

Learning isn't about what you know. It's about recognizing that you don't know every little thing.

 I see classmates and friends on the ivory tower, complaining about how intolerant their parents are of race/sexuality, unaware that they're heading to the same deadlocked wall. At a certain age, I think people start to cancel out the possibility that they can be wrong. About themselves, about issues, everything. 

So now I remain in doubt. 

But back to the title of my post - is even DOUBT a good thing? See, now I'm doubting the ideology of doubt. It's driving me crazy. (I hate these little quasi philosophical circles - I feel safer when I'm rooted in practical ground) But after all, convictions is what gets things done. How often was something accomplished just because of ONE person's cocksure, absolute assurance that he/she was right? To what extremes should we stop doubting ourselves and just dive nose-first, at the risk of diving into a pool of shit?

Going to sleep now. Getting up in four hours to study......sigh. 

Trailer Love #1

Two things on my mind....two absolutely mesmerizing trailers. 

One day I'd like to see a history on movie trailers; starting with the utterly campy narrated ones in the 30's to the bombastic ones of the present. 

That said, the latest trend in trailers is a music video-like montage of images played to a single soundtrack. A variation on this is to stick an occasional bit of dialogue in it. 

I'm not sure where this trend came from. The first noticeable one Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" teaser. Pretty, but also incoherent (like an actual music video) and not incredibly well executed. 

Then came Watchmen. Mindblowing stuff set to the nihilistic feel of the Smashing Pumpkins' "The Beginning Is the End Is the Beginning". It may have been the one to have popularized this music-video trailer thing, because then we got "Where the Wild Things Are" trailer and more. 

Anyways, who has a problem with it? Not me. I've seen probably a dozen music videos or so in my life, and excuse me for saying so, but most of them are so boring (I'm talking to you, yes you, Lady Gaga, Pink, Taylor Swift, etc), and its indie music relatives just vaguely disturbing. I've never understood the appeal of pop stars in candy-colored stripper clothing showing off their bedtime capabilities. These videos usually feel like strictly male fantasies, and the ones who cater to girl-empowerment are incredibly cliched and forced (Taylor Swift, you can don the dorkiest glasses in the world; I do not believe for one moment you had a hard time getting guys in high school). 

I digress. Anyways, I'm a montage freak. Half the videos on my Youtube favorites will be these little montages the Oscars show each year. And the latest to my little collection are these two incredibly sensual, ravishing trailers that one user aptly described as "win".

A Single Man (Tom Ford's film debut. It's hard to go through the trailer without how noticing how some images play off like a fashion spread in Vogue. From the trailer, I was afraid that the movie itself would favor style over substance, but I've read some reviews and apparently it's not so. Plus there's buzz about a future Oscar nod for Colin Firth, finally abandoning his awkward-but-endearing romantic lead (if you think about it, he's like the English adult Michael Cera, or rather, Michael Cera is the American teen version if him). 

Bright Star (again, am dying to see Jane Campion's latest) 

The only problem, I think, is the possibility of the films not living up to their trailers (speaking of which do they give out awards for trailers? I think they should. These are mini-gems). Did you like the contrast and similarities between the trailers (ugh, English teacher osmosis alert!)? Of course, A Single Man is more edgy and surreal, befitting the director's style, while Bright Star has a more organic feel to it, with most shots taken in natural sunlight or by fire. And that one shot of Ginnifer Goodwin in A Single Man nearly ruined it for me. Anyone else hate her cute-ditzy-girl shtick? Darling, Audrey Hepburn/Marilyn Monroe/Anna Faris you are not. She's that girl you know in everyday life who you want to smack just for being too artificially upbeat. Okay, I'm being mean now. Anyways, enjoy the trailers....

You Know How To Whistle, Don't You Steve? You Just Put Your Lips Together and Blow

The above is a classic line from "To Have or Have Not", a film that starred Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart together. It's the kind of movie where you feel bad for the filmmakers, because no one remembers shit about the actual film, but remembers it just for "that movie where Bogie and Bacall met".  Their union, scandalous yet seductive and totally fitting to the standards of Hollywood (she was 20 at the time and he was in his forties) was one of the hot things going on at the time. 

 WOW.

Sadly, he died about a decade after they got married, but Lauren Bacall is still alive and kicking. I've ALWAYS wondered about how old-time stars feel about the current movie era. How does this time of raw, provocative small films + smashing blockbusters compare to to "Old Hollywood", a once upon of time when stars were larger-than-life, US Weekly didn't exist, and all the films were glittery and happy? 

Well, you either go the "in the old days," path like Olivia de Havilland (yes, she's also alive at the ripe age of 93 and is apparently writing some book about 1930's Hollywood), or you go the Liz Taylor route. She joined Twitter, befriended Michael Jackson, and happily embraced the zeitgeists of each decade (am I using that word correctly?).

Bacall is happily a contemporary dame as well. She just joined Twitter, and though her press occasions are rare, I have seen her attending premieres of artsy fare like "I'm Not There" and "Milk". She proclaims herself a huge Hayao Miyazaki fan, which I also find impressive. Her Tweets are littered with movie references - she said she was thrilled about the trailer for "Nine", was furious with her granddaughter for showing her "Twilight" and resisting the impulse to whack her head with shoe lest a "Grannie Dearest" be written upon her death, gave her teenybopper granddaughter a copy of "Nosferatu" instead, calling it a real vampire movie. You go, grandma.

I wonder if she still secretly laments the end of classic Hollywood, though. I just can't separate the two images in my head, one of Bacall, almost ethereal in her old-film beauty, flirting with Bogart (the title quote was about as racy as Hollywood got those days) and the present Bacall whose last onscreen performance I can remember was as herself on "The Sopranos", cursing (and getting punched) as she tussled with Michael Imperioli.

Her tweets are overall pretty entertaining. She is shamelessly self-promoting, listing her autobiography and three of her movies in her description title, but all I can say, what a great, sassy, old-school broad. She also mentioned that she would like to be in a Quentin Tarantino movie. It's nice to see that she's simply a genuine movie lover after all. I admittedly twittered her, asking her what her favorite TV shows are. She definitely goes for the edgy, so it tickles me with wonder to think that she'd watch anything as raunchy as True Blood. 

Godric Can Snap You Like a Twig and Don't You Forget It

I don't think True Blood is as great as everyone claims to be, but it's definitely addictive and in any regards, owns Twilight, so the more people who watch it and end up thinking "this is the shit! Twilight sucks!" the happier I am. 

Since the first season was nothing special, it wasn't until last night when I thought I'd give the second season another try, especially after hearing that things between Sookie and Eric were heating up (judge me if you will). And in looking for that sexy dollar, I found Godric the goldmine.

He's sweet and badass at the same time, not to mention fucking AWESOME. Bill is a bit too uptight and Eric is a bit too rascally. You sense that he's be fun for a romp but NOT good for long-term relationships. But Godric. I could marry Godric. 

He looks no more than a mere kid, but he - great kudos to the actor Allan Hyde - projects an air of worldly-weariness that makes him both stately and gentle-looking. He waxes philosophical, forgives his enemies, and coolly resolves conflicts. If he were ruler of the earth everyone would be making love and singing "Kumbayah". 

Don't let his soft-spoken tones indicate him of a pussy, however. In short, Godric is the vampire version of Chuck Norris. The only reason you're alive right now is because he wants you to be. He is extraordinarily good at snapping necks and moving at the speed of light, and frankly, everyone is kind of scared shitless at the sight of him. 

"Jesus will protect me!" squawks an anti-vampire preacher, prostate with fear/secret awe when confronted by Godric.

"I am actually older than your Jesus. I wish I could have met him, but I missed it."

That's right fuckers! Older than Jesus - In fact, I feel like in the series he's a bit of an allegory for Jesus himself - I may be over-reading things, but "God" in his name, the all-white ensemble he wears for most of the last episode, the pose above, and the departure - where he chooses to die of his own will, one of the most glorious vampire deaths you'll ever see. He explains it's to atone for his sins, and because two thousand years is enough. He's gotten to the zenith of existence, all love and forgiveness (except to Sookie's would-be rapist) to the point where he just transcends everything else. 

Oh, and the scene where he transforms Eric is just pure classic Godric badassery. 

Again, Allan Hyde (only 19!) is a wonderful actor. There's an obvious difference between the 1,000 year old Godric and the present day Godric, not only in the clothes and haircut, but also in the way he portrays him, down to facial expression:

Hyde plays Godric's evolution beautifully. The first time we see him,  he's a vicious vampire who casually dispatches two men because they're not worthy of immortality. His naked torso and Roman tattoos were indicative of his savage nature. But with his Chuck Bass-like smirk, bloody pout, and delicately illuminated cheekbones, I found him by far the sexiest thing that had appeared on True Blood so far, eclipsing Eric himself. There was something Puckish about him, the way he crouched and his eyes glinted, as if he was trying best to contain his laughter. Very devilish. Very sexy. 

A thousand years later, he's a considerably sadder, sobered vampire. I think that, in the hands of a lesser actor, Godric might have been the cliched, maniac leader who struts through his mansion and speaks haughtily to everyone else. But Allan Hyde shows the wear of a millennium through Godric's reserved, almost childlike pose. A thousand years earlier, he might have sat in his throne-chair like THIS,

eager to play off the role of the aristocratic vampire. But he sits almost shyly, his hands folded demurely in his lap as he listens to people rattle off their petty grievances. But nothing perturbs him, not the people kissing his ass or a traitor groveling before him. Super hot. 

This is probably the weirdest comparison yet, but Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books, and Mr. Rochester is always describing the weird quality of Jane's movements that fascinates him so - and his description is exactly like the one I think for Godric. Both are quiet, composed and speak softly, but move with an unearthly grace and look at people with penetrating, shrewd eyes, as if to say "is that all you have to say?" I love how some of the people talk to Godric, and upon receiving that look instead an actual reply, have no other choice than to walk awkwardly away.

The part where he lectures Lorena is fantastic. I've read a few articles where people criticized him for being "dull", and I disagree. Some people are under the impression that "Charismatic and Commanding" equates to just being loud and flamboyant, the way Eric is. There are all kinds. In Godric's case, he's an effortless leader. 

"I can snap you like a twig, but I haven't. Now why is that?"

Actually, he was pretty much the only useful character on True Blood, which I suppose is why they killed him off. Not too much drama if Godric keeps running around saving people and bringing about peace. RIP!!!! I really hope they bring him back in the future for some nice flashbacks. Half-naked Godric going all Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon on people, PLUS Viking Eric? Need I say more?

Well, I think Godric might be one of my favorite fictional characters of all time. Def. in the top five? What about you guys? (not that I'm certain anyone's ever looked at the blog, but I think I'm obligated to ask. Who's YOUR favorite fictional male characters?

Actor Obsession #1: Ben Whishaw

So I will be introducing the honorary Actor Obsession file, which will be a long blog post dedicated to - obviously - the actor I am currently infatuated with. The criteria is based off the following:

1) His talent

2) His persona (deduced from various quotes, what his costars and workers say about him, and interviews)

3) His looks (call me shallow, but I am still a heterosexual girl and need to satisfy my cravings for eye-candy)

I've had various obsessions in the past, and I may bring them up again, but the current nominee is Ben Whishaw.

Where to start?

Ben Whishaw:

Born: October 14, 1980, in England

Current Age: 28

Notable traits: His chameleon abilities, waif-like stature, ethereal delicacy

Notable trivia: Has a twin brother

Ben's a graduate of RADA (The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, one of the most well-known acting institutions in the UK. It accepts only 28 students each year, and past alumni include Kenneth Branagh, Peter O'Toole, Michael Caine, Ralph Fiennes, Imelda Staunton and Vivien Leigh).

From an early age, Ben started burning up the stage in various production like Hamlet and If This Is A Man. He earned rave reviews for Hamlet, which I think very impressive considering that that role has been inhabited by nearly every illustrious actor in the UK.

And to be honest, I'm not terribly interested in every chronological step in Ben's life after that. I just know know that he's a young and talented actor. Wow. How many of these do we have right now? Ryan Gosling (can someone please tell me where that man's disappeared off too?) and Heath Ledger (sigh.....) That's IT.

No major awards yet, but he did get a nomination for Orange Rising Star Award at the 2007 BAFTAS, losing out to a well-deserved Eva Green:

So let's begin!

Layer Cake (2004):

Ben had a very brief performance in Layer Cake, as a bumbling nephew of a gangster who ends up whacking Daniel Craig in an unexpected twist. It's amusing to think that I watched the movie a couple years ago without any previous knowledge about Ben. I think he pulled off that desperate I-think-I'm-so-cool role very well. The part where he pathetically bobs his head to the music is hilarious:

I'm Not There (2007)

The first movie I saw Ben in was I'm Not There, the

fittingly bizarre biopic about Bob Dylan, and as

you might remember, where Cate Blanchett was one

of six actors (including Ben!) to play Bob.

Another excerpt from "I'm Not There"

At the time I was watching the movie for Cate Blanchett's much ballyhooed performance. I thought him impressive but was slightly irritated, because he looked like the kind of actor who equated "intense, coked-out" to great acting. But obviously I was quite wrong as he has never repeated the same performance.

"I do think Dylan's incredible.I sort of fell in love with him. I became obsessed. But I've moved on now. I always do."

The role that most people, if they've heard of him, seemed to know him for:

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006):

He plays Jean Baptiste-Grenouille, this sort of asexual, animal-like young man with an exceptional sense of smell, and embarks on this homicidal journey to find the perfect scent - out of the bodies of beautiful young woman. You can tell a lot from an actor's first leading-role film debut. Whishaw was mesmerizing in this and though he impressed me with his characterization, I feel like he didn't bring a lot of empathy to the role, something I fear will dodge his future performances.

Most of all, the off-screen relationship between him and Dustin Hoffman (who plays a perfumer who briefly employs Grenouille) fascinated me the most. A young intense British actor in his first major role, against a light-hearted American legend like Dustin Hoffman. I think out of any of the actors in his generation, Dustin Hoffman has been the most generous to younger actors. Unlike his fellow screen titans like Deniro and Nicholson, he's forgone the leading-man status to act in quirkier, independent character films, boosting the young actors with small jewels of performances while Nicholson and Pacino insist on roaring and tearing through the scenery in leading-man, conventional high salary (and boring) flicks.

Apparently Hoffman gave Whishaw some advice about spontaneity:

"In the very first day that I shot with [Dustin Hoffman], I was totally freaking out because it was the first time that I was seeing him in his full regalia. I couldn’t get something and I was getting really frustrated [and] Tom [Tykwer] is directions at me. I, sort of, started to lose it and then, sort of, quite and dropped the ball and he said “Cut!” and Dustin said, “In that moment, you really came alive, but it went wrong. You should have kept going! It’s about the accidents, Ben, it's all about the accidents."

"I didn't really get much [paparazzi]. I was with all these beautiful girls who I've murdered, all looking gorgeous, and I was the spare prick at the wedding." - About the Perfume premiere in Germany

Brideshead Revisited (2008):

Anyhoo, the role from Ben that really won me over was his gay-as-a-rainbow, charismatic dandy in

the adaptation of Brideshead Revisited.

He plays Sebastian, who comes from a wealthy family and has a bit of a drinking problem due to the pressures from his domineering religious-fanatic of a mother, played beautifully by Emma Thompson.

The movie itself isn't all that great, but Whishaw was an absolute scene stealer in this.

Ironically, this was the movie in which I noticed how good-looking Whishaw was. Without the usual grime or unfortunate facial fuzz that Whishaw seemed to acquire for all his other roles, he was just incredibly good-looking with a clean shaven face. His costars on Brideshead Revisited seem to agree. I read that Emma Thompson occasionally flirted with him and Matthew Goode onset (oh, Emma!) but when asked about it, Ben said he rarely noticed when other people flirted with him. That's just adorable.

As mentioned above in "notable traits", Ben's delicate good looks and intangible presence have been mentioned in a lot of his articles, so I thought it was good to note it. It's funny because he's certainly not handsome in your conventional tall, ripped, Ryan Reynolds/Brad Pitt fashion, but everyone who's met him seems to have fallen head over heels. Read the following:

Jane Campion: 'And then, when he came to do a reading, I opened the door and there was this beautiful, fragile boy; he had that magical quality that people who have written about Keats say he had. There is a fragility about Ben that is inspiring."

*There was another quote I read from Hayley Atwell, in which she called Ben absolutely physically beautiful, but I couldn't find it....:(

And my favorite:
Matthew Goode: "They gave [the role of Sebastian] to Ben because when the camera settles on him you gasp at his beauty. I mean I have a girlfriend and all but still…"


Love Hate (2009)

A short twenty-minute film with him and Hayley Atwell. It will premiere at the Edinburgh Film Festival and I'm sorry I won't be able to see this. He and Hayley have great chemistry and both seem hilarious in this:
Love Hate:http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/whats-on/2009/uk-shorts-1/full-details

You'll have to scroll down and click the trailer, but it's well worth it.
Speaking of which, I wish he would just go out with Hayley Atwell. They clearly adore each other (platonically) but they look ridiculously good-looking next to each other. That is, if it weren't for some of the online rumors that Ben doesn't roll that way..... :(

Bright Star (2009):
And finally, the film that I am just desperate, desperate to see. It premiered at Cannes earlier this year and was hailed as the return of Jane Campion. It's none other than Bright Star, about the real-life romance between the poet John Keats and his neighbor Fanny Brawne. I admit I don't know shit about Keats but since I kind of drool for Campion and Whishaw, this is currently #2 on my Must-Watch Movies list.

Doesn't it look ravishing? There's Oscar buzz for Abbie Cornish, none for Whishaw sadly. Nathaniel from The Film Experience blog commented that Oscar rarely notices men in sensitiveroles as Whishaw will be playing, which is true if you think about it. But some critics weren't raving about him either, and I think it sort of comes back to the empathy thing. I suspect that the whole tortured-poet aspect will go a little overboard. But I'm still dying to watch this.

"I sort of fell in love with Dylan and Keats. But I've moved on. I always do."

I Could Spot That From Anywhere...

A "look". That's something that every girl in the world becomes obsessed with sooner or later. A signature look, one that symbolizes "me", that somehow explicates your personality to the rest of the world.

We draw on all sorts of influences, but I for one wish that I could just invent my own signature look and not think "my god, I want that exact look" and copy every awesome look I see. It's something we all fall prey too.

But it's a tricky and often misguided process. I've lost county of the number of times I want to headbutt a wall after seeing a starlet (cough Lindsay Lohan) dress up as Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn, or seeing an overweight girl squeeze her poor butt into Spandex or leggings, unaware that the result is just painful to see. Cmon, guys. The iconic picture of Audrey Hepburn in her slinky little black dress isn't iconic because it was the most gorgeous dress ever made. It was because of Audrey. Sure, you can look good, but it's the dash of je ne se quois that makes a look special. That charismatic, aloof quality, of relaxed elegance and comfort is what we're actually striving for. That's the difference between true style and fashion. Be inspired, don't imitate, is all I'm saying, I guess.

Either way, here are some of my favorite movie looks:

Gwyneth Paltrow as Margot Tenenbaum from "The Royal Tenenbaums", my favorite Wes Andersen movie:

Her signature look...

I'm not a huge fan of Gwyneth Paltrow (why is my font purple all of a sudden?) but watching her in this movie, I just wanted to be her. Screw Holly Golightly! Margot's a burnout playwright, smokes like a chimney, is secretly in love with her adopted brother, and is also missing half a finger, but she's just so freaking cool.

The contrast in her signature look is really what makes it so great. She's elegant and edgy and simplistic all at once. I swear, if more people watched The Royal Tenenbaums, Margot would go down in movie style history.

Since she's one of my favorite movie characters, I'll just have to show a video as well:

After watching this movie, I immediately thought about purchasing a fur coat, applying more eyeliner, and cutting my hair. Alas, negative for the three: my vegetarian friends would freak on the coat, I hate putting on makeup, and I actually used to have my hair exactly like Margot's - complete with barrette - but it made my face look fat and me 10 years old. Oh, Margot!

The ladies of "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"

By this entry, you can probably begin to realize that I'm not a fussy dresser. I like fashion but I'm too lazy or too tired most of the time to strap on endless belts, layers, skirts, and pantyhose. But I *loved* what Scarlett Johannssen and Rebecca Hall wore in this movie - earthy-bright cardigans and linen blouses, very crisp and relaxed, and perfect for summer and spring. I've always subscribed to the idea that clothes should be the supporting characters of the picture, not the leading actors.

(love Javier's shirt!)

But twist! It's not the usual grandma cardigan twinset look. There's something sensual in their outfits, and it's not just because they're both gorgeous women. It's the details - the slim tailoring and miniscule ruffles of Scarlett's jacket, and primly rolled sleeves of Rebecca's ordinary cardigan contrasted with a sensual v-neck (picture later disappeared, sorry). Oh, and their hair too. It always comes back to the hair. Seriously, you barely noticed their clothes, right? And yet they look incredibly good. It's in the modesty, the simplicity.

As Coco Chanel said (along the lines of), "if you walk into a room and people say your dress looks good, then you have dressed badly. If you walk into a room and people say you look good, you have dressed well."

Seriously, have you ever seen anyone pull off a hat the way Penelope does in this movie? Her style was terrific in the movie as well, but she doesn't count as a style muse because when you have a body and face like Penelope Cruz, you look good in a damn potato sack.

Keira Knightley as Cecilia Tallis in "Atonement"

To be honest, Keira Knightley gets on my nerves most of the time, but her wardrobe in "Atonement" is probably the first one in years to come close to achieving the "iconic" status. I'm referring to of course, the magical emerald gown that completely seduced James McAvoy (and hence brought on unending years of grief and heartache) but my favorite look was probably the one that she wore in the fountain scene.

The green dress

the fountain outfit

She looked ethereal in the green dress, but it was so perfect it was practically boring. But in this outfit, there are some many things going on. Again, details. Firstly, what color is it!? Is it fawn? Palest purple? Colorless? And check out the patterns. I love the little silk flowers on her blouse, the way its knotted at the waist and that little piece hanging out on her waist that completes the sensual quality of the outfit.

I think a hat (ooh, font back to normal) would have just reduced her image in this one to a cliched '40's outfit (the ones you see in countless period films trying to imitate Ingrid Bergman in the last scene of Casablanca). But you see, a single piece of elegant clothing can do it all!

Finally, no movie style entry would be complete without mentioning the ubiquitous Audrey Hepburn. She dresses like herself in all of her movies, so I don't feel obligated to name just one. Audrey reminds you it isn't just the clothes that makes someone beautiful, that beauty stems from an inner glow. Capris, flats, button-down shirts, Givenchy dresses would have been just that without her sparkling eyes and sly innocence......But for those with similar body types to Audrey, it's great to look upon her as a reference. Classic, chic, timeless...effortlessly Audrey.

working for UNICEF in the 80's - still got it!

So first question - what are YOUR favorite movie styles?