10 November 2007
07 November 2007
06 November 2007
Post 38
So. I started The Catcher in the Rye today; I went to the library, checked it out, and started reading it as I walked home. I had every intention of swallowing it whole as I have done with so many other books, but now I'm right about halfway through it and may be done with it. It's just too long. When I picked it up, I was happy to see that it was barely over 200 pages--a nice, short volume, I thought--and when I started reading, I immediately liked the narrative style; I expected those 214 pages to fly by.
One of my very most favorite books is Goodbye, Mr. Chips. As far as plot goes, it really doesn't have much going for it, and if you're looking for an engaging read, forget it. If I was only allowed one word to describe Goodbye, Mr. Chips, I'm afraid the only honest description I could give would be "Boring," but were I allowed two words, I would describe it as "Frickin' AMAZING." The two descriptions may strike you as irreconcilable, but they aren't really. The reason I love Goodbye, Mr. Chips is because it's a good, down-to-earth, human story. You want a look at the human condition, if you want to know what it means to be human, Goodbye, Mr. Chips is about as good as it gets--in my limited experience, at least; I've never read, say, Stranger in a Strange Land. But because Mr. Chips is a fairly normal man who lives a fairly normal life, it's not very exciting; honestly, had I not been in an RV on a long road trip, I probably wouldn't've ever read the book because it is, as I said, boring. But I was fascinated that, even though the whole time I read it I was thinking, "This really isn't very exciting," when I was done with it, I thought, "Hm. That was--really quite good."
After getting a few chapters into The Catcher in the Rye, I kinda got the impression that it was going to be a similar kind of read--not a whole lot of story, just a whole lot of--erm--human interaction stuff. I could be wrong; the first 100 pages have felt like--I dunno-- something's gonna happen--eventually, but--freak! I'm a hundred pages into this book! If there's gonna be a plot, it should've started developing a long time ago; if there isn't going to be a plot, the book should've ended by now (Mr. Chips was 115 pages long, but it had several illustrations; I don't imagine it has more than, like, 90 pages of actual text).
Then again, I had a bit of a revelation as I was reading today: books like The Catcher in the Rye weren't written to be studied or even swallowed whole; they were meant to be enjoyed. Author's don't write classics; readers make them classics. I had this idea that by binging on important works of fiction, I'd somehow strengthen my intellect and make myself a better, wiser, higher quality sort of human being, but the truth is that a lot of these books--especially Catcher in the Rye--weren't created to that end; what I thought was actually meat and potatoes is really just highly acclaimed junk food. Sure, a milk shake has calcium in it, but focusing your entire diet around them is no guarantee of good health, probably isn't even a respectable means of fighting off osteoporosis.
Well, I've been reduced to silly, off-the-cuff metaphors, so it's time to end this post. Bye.
One of my very most favorite books is Goodbye, Mr. Chips. As far as plot goes, it really doesn't have much going for it, and if you're looking for an engaging read, forget it. If I was only allowed one word to describe Goodbye, Mr. Chips, I'm afraid the only honest description I could give would be "Boring," but were I allowed two words, I would describe it as "Frickin' AMAZING." The two descriptions may strike you as irreconcilable, but they aren't really. The reason I love Goodbye, Mr. Chips is because it's a good, down-to-earth, human story. You want a look at the human condition, if you want to know what it means to be human, Goodbye, Mr. Chips is about as good as it gets--in my limited experience, at least; I've never read, say, Stranger in a Strange Land. But because Mr. Chips is a fairly normal man who lives a fairly normal life, it's not very exciting; honestly, had I not been in an RV on a long road trip, I probably wouldn't've ever read the book because it is, as I said, boring. But I was fascinated that, even though the whole time I read it I was thinking, "This really isn't very exciting," when I was done with it, I thought, "Hm. That was--really quite good."
After getting a few chapters into The Catcher in the Rye, I kinda got the impression that it was going to be a similar kind of read--not a whole lot of story, just a whole lot of--erm--human interaction stuff. I could be wrong; the first 100 pages have felt like--I dunno-- something's gonna happen--eventually, but--freak! I'm a hundred pages into this book! If there's gonna be a plot, it should've started developing a long time ago; if there isn't going to be a plot, the book should've ended by now (Mr. Chips was 115 pages long, but it had several illustrations; I don't imagine it has more than, like, 90 pages of actual text).
Then again, I had a bit of a revelation as I was reading today: books like The Catcher in the Rye weren't written to be studied or even swallowed whole; they were meant to be enjoyed. Author's don't write classics; readers make them classics. I had this idea that by binging on important works of fiction, I'd somehow strengthen my intellect and make myself a better, wiser, higher quality sort of human being, but the truth is that a lot of these books--especially Catcher in the Rye--weren't created to that end; what I thought was actually meat and potatoes is really just highly acclaimed junk food. Sure, a milk shake has calcium in it, but focusing your entire diet around them is no guarantee of good health, probably isn't even a respectable means of fighting off osteoporosis.
Well, I've been reduced to silly, off-the-cuff metaphors, so it's time to end this post. Bye.
Post 37
I changed my mind.
In Post 35, I said that Stardust "was like nothing I've ever seen in a way that nothing I've ever seen was like nothing I've ever seen." While that was true at the time, I've recently decided to recant that statement because it was unlike anything else in the way most things are not like anything else: in that it used unique combinations of archetypes in unique ways.
No. If you want a movie that is like nothing you've ever seen in a way that nothing you've ever seen is like nothing you've ever seen, allow me to recommend to you The Fountain.
I had never heard of it until I noticed it on a shelf in my living room; I figured it was an obscure movie, but perhaps I just missed it because it came out while I was on my mission. Anyway, I watched it yesterday, and it's a trip, man. I really don't know what to say about it other than that. If you're looking to have a "What just happened?" kind of moment, this is the movie for you. I have a sneaking suspicion that the writers knew what was going on (sometimes I think people write stuff that appears to have some rich undertone without having any inkling as to what it might be, which I think is--stupid, frankly), but I'm not sure it was quite as artistic as it tried to be. I dunno. I like it in that, if you watch it with the right group, I bet you could sit around for quite a while after the movie ended and speculate about what you think this or that meant or whether certain things were metaphorical or literal, and most especially argue over whether it's deep or just nonsensically artsy-fartsy.
In Post 35, I said that Stardust "was like nothing I've ever seen in a way that nothing I've ever seen was like nothing I've ever seen." While that was true at the time, I've recently decided to recant that statement because it was unlike anything else in the way most things are not like anything else: in that it used unique combinations of archetypes in unique ways.
No. If you want a movie that is like nothing you've ever seen in a way that nothing you've ever seen is like nothing you've ever seen, allow me to recommend to you The Fountain.
I had never heard of it until I noticed it on a shelf in my living room; I figured it was an obscure movie, but perhaps I just missed it because it came out while I was on my mission. Anyway, I watched it yesterday, and it's a trip, man. I really don't know what to say about it other than that. If you're looking to have a "What just happened?" kind of moment, this is the movie for you. I have a sneaking suspicion that the writers knew what was going on (sometimes I think people write stuff that appears to have some rich undertone without having any inkling as to what it might be, which I think is--stupid, frankly), but I'm not sure it was quite as artistic as it tried to be. I dunno. I like it in that, if you watch it with the right group, I bet you could sit around for quite a while after the movie ended and speculate about what you think this or that meant or whether certain things were metaphorical or literal, and most especially argue over whether it's deep or just nonsensically artsy-fartsy.
05 November 2007
Post 36
Time for another movie review. Today's subject: Finding Forrester.
This is a high quality flick; I was quite impressed. I didn't see it straight through--I got through the first hour, 33 minutes, and nine seconds in the first sitting and then watched the remainder a couple days later (not by my choice but because of circumstantial necessities)--so I'm unable to really give a good, thorough opinion as to how consistent the whole thing was, but overall I thought the movie fulfilled its purpose very well.
The way the basketball championship scene played out made me very happy--no taking the easy way out on this one; no sir! Also, the scene where William is reading that thing toward the end, I felt a mixture of amusement and awe as I realized that movies, too, can artistically break good ole "show don't tell," though I think the music could have been more poignant in that scene; I was very impressed with the music throughout the movie, but there it didn't quite do its job, I didn't think.
All in all, though, I really did enjoy the movie and would highly recommend it to anyone.
This is a high quality flick; I was quite impressed. I didn't see it straight through--I got through the first hour, 33 minutes, and nine seconds in the first sitting and then watched the remainder a couple days later (not by my choice but because of circumstantial necessities)--so I'm unable to really give a good, thorough opinion as to how consistent the whole thing was, but overall I thought the movie fulfilled its purpose very well.
The way the basketball championship scene played out made me very happy--no taking the easy way out on this one; no sir! Also, the scene where William is reading that thing toward the end, I felt a mixture of amusement and awe as I realized that movies, too, can artistically break good ole "show don't tell," though I think the music could have been more poignant in that scene; I was very impressed with the music throughout the movie, but there it didn't quite do its job, I didn't think.
All in all, though, I really did enjoy the movie and would highly recommend it to anyone.
03 November 2007
Post 35
Last night, I saw Stardust. I really enjoyed it not just because it was a fun movie but because it was like nothing I've ever seen before. In fact, it was like nothing I've ever seen in a way that nothing I've ever seen was like nothing I've ever seen--if that makes any sense at all....
Did I mention I stayed up till 2:30 last night?
Anyway, Stardust was a good movie for a first date--nice, low key movie--so I was happy with it. It's interesting, though, in that I can't remember the last movie I saw in which more people died--maybe one of the Jurassic Park sequels--and yet I also can't seem to come up with a movie that I enjoyed death scenes in more. And I don't mean in the, "Yes! That guy so deserved to die! Ah! Catharsis! Yes!" It was more like, "Oh man! That guy died, too! That's so funny!" And then the whole thing with the ghosts--ah, it's just--death was never so entertaining.
But, I am Schmetterling, so I have to bring up a couple of qualms with consistency: 1) the witch should have gotten way old and gross after making that inn, and 2) Yvaine was not very consistent in when and how much she glowed; had I directed the movie, I would have had a lot more fun with, "Okay, now have her glowing a lot, now a little, now not at all, now just ever so slightly, now a lot again, now none, now a heckuva a lot, now only a little."
I thought the same thing when I first saw the first Pirates movie. That scene where they're all fighting in the cave, sometimes Barbosa's hat casts a shadow over his face, but it remains a skull. How cool would it have been if the patches of his face that were in shadow were fleshy while the rest of him was bony? C'mon, SFX crew! Get on that thang!
Anyway....
As far as writing goes, Stardust made a very believable story overall. I think the unicorn's name was Deus ex Machina, but she hurt as much as she helped, so that was okay with me. Really the only thing I couldn't swallow was Triston learning all that swordplay in a day or two on a pirate ship when, earlier in the movie, we learned from Humphrey that they had been in fencing classes together and Triston just couldn't get it. Of course, maybe his expedited learning had to do with the flower--didn't think of that. That's actually very plausible. I doubt that that's what the writers had in mind, but I'll pretend they did.
Were I really anal, I'd probably point out that there is no way Humphrey and Victoria would have come to the crowning ceremony, but I'm kind of a fan of curtain-call style endings--probably my drama background playing with my biases--so I can forgive and even enjoy that.
Overall, a really high quality feel-good movie, which I hope means a lot coming from the guy who repeated purports to hate feel-good things.
That is all.
Did I mention I stayed up till 2:30 last night?
Anyway, Stardust was a good movie for a first date--nice, low key movie--so I was happy with it. It's interesting, though, in that I can't remember the last movie I saw in which more people died--maybe one of the Jurassic Park sequels--and yet I also can't seem to come up with a movie that I enjoyed death scenes in more. And I don't mean in the, "Yes! That guy so deserved to die! Ah! Catharsis! Yes!" It was more like, "Oh man! That guy died, too! That's so funny!" And then the whole thing with the ghosts--ah, it's just--death was never so entertaining.
But, I am Schmetterling, so I have to bring up a couple of qualms with consistency: 1) the witch should have gotten way old and gross after making that inn, and 2) Yvaine was not very consistent in when and how much she glowed; had I directed the movie, I would have had a lot more fun with, "Okay, now have her glowing a lot, now a little, now not at all, now just ever so slightly, now a lot again, now none, now a heckuva a lot, now only a little."
I thought the same thing when I first saw the first Pirates movie. That scene where they're all fighting in the cave, sometimes Barbosa's hat casts a shadow over his face, but it remains a skull. How cool would it have been if the patches of his face that were in shadow were fleshy while the rest of him was bony? C'mon, SFX crew! Get on that thang!
Anyway....
As far as writing goes, Stardust made a very believable story overall. I think the unicorn's name was Deus ex Machina, but she hurt as much as she helped, so that was okay with me. Really the only thing I couldn't swallow was Triston learning all that swordplay in a day or two on a pirate ship when, earlier in the movie, we learned from Humphrey that they had been in fencing classes together and Triston just couldn't get it. Of course, maybe his expedited learning had to do with the flower--didn't think of that. That's actually very plausible. I doubt that that's what the writers had in mind, but I'll pretend they did.
Were I really anal, I'd probably point out that there is no way Humphrey and Victoria would have come to the crowning ceremony, but I'm kind of a fan of curtain-call style endings--probably my drama background playing with my biases--so I can forgive and even enjoy that.
Overall, a really high quality feel-good movie, which I hope means a lot coming from the guy who repeated purports to hate feel-good things.
That is all.
02 November 2007
Post 34
So. Today I was subbing at an elementary school, and several 6th-grade students were recognized for their excellence in their keyboarding class. More than a score of students were recognized for typing 30wpm; a goodly number reached 40wpm; several reached 50wpm; a handful achieved 60wpm (the speed I got when I took a test a couple months ago, though I think I type at least a little faster when I'm typing off the top of my head--like right now); one student was saluted for hitting the 80wpm mark.
Amazing.
Once, while subbing at a high school in the same city, a few students showed me their ability to hit triple-digit wpm. I was blown away.
I consider myself a mite bit young to begin memories with the phrase "Back in my day," but, seriously, when I was in sixth grade, I remember my teacher taking me to a computer lab to introduce us to this new fangled internet thing. About that same time, my family upgraded from our computer that was running Windows 3.1 and an impact printer to a Gateway that had Windows 95, a HP that could print color or black and white (though not both simultaneously), and a CD-ROM instead of a 5-1/4" floppy. I remember the first time my brother and I took that thing online; we looked at each other in fear when we heard the dial-up noises (noises now nearly lost to society--thankfully), thinking that something was wrong with our brand new computer.
Nowadays, toddlers surf the web, and elementary school kids type not only with proper form but astounding speed and precision.
Not bad, I don't suppose. Just--kinda surprising somehow.
Amazing.
Once, while subbing at a high school in the same city, a few students showed me their ability to hit triple-digit wpm. I was blown away.
I consider myself a mite bit young to begin memories with the phrase "Back in my day," but, seriously, when I was in sixth grade, I remember my teacher taking me to a computer lab to introduce us to this new fangled internet thing. About that same time, my family upgraded from our computer that was running Windows 3.1 and an impact printer to a Gateway that had Windows 95, a HP that could print color or black and white (though not both simultaneously), and a CD-ROM instead of a 5-1/4" floppy. I remember the first time my brother and I took that thing online; we looked at each other in fear when we heard the dial-up noises (noises now nearly lost to society--thankfully), thinking that something was wrong with our brand new computer.
Nowadays, toddlers surf the web, and elementary school kids type not only with proper form but astounding speed and precision.
Not bad, I don't suppose. Just--kinda surprising somehow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)