This felt less like a movie and more like an argument—or maybe a debate that no one wins. And I say this in the best possible way. Because so many movies these days are brain candy, requiring no thought or work from the audience. Things explode, and it's one action sequence after another. But Birdman skewers those superhero movies just a bit while simultaneously taking on the subject of "celebrity" versus "actor" and what it means to be "legitimate" or "authentic."
Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thompson, once an action-movie star known for the Birdman franchise, now trying to do serious work by adapting a Raymond Carver story for the stage, directing it, and acting in it. He's put everything he has into this version of What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, to the point that he's broke. His daughter Sam (Emma Stone) is a recovering drug addict working as his assistant. He's dabbling with one of the female actresses. He's staring down a lawsuit from an injured actor. And he's having to deal with the uppity Mike, the injured actor's replacement.
On top of all this, Riggan hears a voice (just the one) that reminds him of what a great star he once was and how much better he is than everybody else. He also believes he can make things move with his mind, and at times that he can actually fly. So maybe one of the topics under discussion in Birdman is the celebrity ego and how the Hollywood system encourages delusions of grandeur.
I'm generally a big fan of a movie that promotes discussion. And I mean beyond the holes in the plot (which is generally the extent of discussions about superhero movies); I prefer real conversation, the kind of things you can actually spend an evening around a table at a bar talking about. In certain circles, Birdman fits this bill. I mean, I can't envision just anyone wanting to argue the differences in perceptions of class and legitimacy between mega movie stars and Broadway actors, and what the tide of movie stars on Broadway has done to muddle things, but it's the kind of thing I and my friends would probably discuss. (Then again, I work with film and theatre people, and there's nothing any of us like more than to talk about what we do and how important it is or isn't. That's probably why Birdman has done so well in terms of awards—we love movies that elevate what we do and legitimize it as art.)
All that aside, Birdman deserves the praise it's received. It's a beautifully shot movie, too, just very well made. It's been a long time since I've sat through a movie and felt blown away by it in the sense of just having great admiration for what I'm seeing while at the same time being wholly entertained. But Birdman was marvelous on every level.
Showing posts with label surrealism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surrealism. Show all posts
2.22.2015
6.08.2014
Movies: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Ever since we read "How to Name a Dog" in school, I've enjoyed James Thurber. I'm sure many people have had to read "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" for school, too, only to immediately forget it when given something else to memorize and be quizzed over. So I'll give you the short version—really short, since the story itself is short to begin with: It's all in Walter's head.
That's not a spoiler, by the way. I didn't just ruin the movie or give away the ending. That's the premise, the foundation of the film, and the core of Thurber's original story. In the story Walter is driving his wife somewhere and has a bunch of daydreams as they go along. That wouldn't make much of a movie, so of course they took the character of Walter Mitty and made him daydreamy but put him to work in an office, namely in the photo department at LIFE Magazine.
I could get into the history of LIFE, but it isn't really relevant except to say to pick that magazine is an interesting choice that makes sense in the context of the story. LIFE (the monthly version, which appears to be what they're working on in this film) quit publishing in 2000 and was known for its beautiful photographic covers. And so here Walter (played by Ben Stiller) is responsible for something key to the magazine. He in fact has a good relationship with one of the best photographers, Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn).
Alas, as the film begins, LIFE is being bought out and will be printing its final issue as it moves toward an all-digital format. O'Connell has sent Walter a roll of film and has requested negative #25 be seriously considered for the last LIFE cover image. But negative #25 isn't there.
The first 30 minutes of the movie were a bit of a drag; it wasn't until Walter started having his real-life (real LIFE?) adventures that I got truly interested. The only thing in those first 30 minutes that kept me from turning it off entirely was the beauty of the movie. It is gorgeously shot. And as Walter goes to Greenland, Iceland, Afghanistan in search of O'Connell and the missing negative, the movie only gets better both in plot and visual interest.
Still, as to the plot I do have to say I called every "twist" well ahead of time. And I did have to wonder whether Walter had some kind of mental condition. Because it's one thing to daydream, but it's something else entirely to completely zone out like that. He should maybe be seen by a professional for that.
Kudos to Adam Scott, though, for playing a most convincing asshole. Wow. I really wanted something bad to happen to that guy.
In all, it was a cute movie once we made it past those first 30 minutes. Beautiful to look at, even if the plot wears thin in spots. And though it sometimes gets classed as a comedy, if you're looking for out and out laughs, this one will disappoint. Pick a different Ben Stiller movie for that.
That's not a spoiler, by the way. I didn't just ruin the movie or give away the ending. That's the premise, the foundation of the film, and the core of Thurber's original story. In the story Walter is driving his wife somewhere and has a bunch of daydreams as they go along. That wouldn't make much of a movie, so of course they took the character of Walter Mitty and made him daydreamy but put him to work in an office, namely in the photo department at LIFE Magazine.
I could get into the history of LIFE, but it isn't really relevant except to say to pick that magazine is an interesting choice that makes sense in the context of the story. LIFE (the monthly version, which appears to be what they're working on in this film) quit publishing in 2000 and was known for its beautiful photographic covers. And so here Walter (played by Ben Stiller) is responsible for something key to the magazine. He in fact has a good relationship with one of the best photographers, Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn).
Alas, as the film begins, LIFE is being bought out and will be printing its final issue as it moves toward an all-digital format. O'Connell has sent Walter a roll of film and has requested negative #25 be seriously considered for the last LIFE cover image. But negative #25 isn't there.
The first 30 minutes of the movie were a bit of a drag; it wasn't until Walter started having his real-life (real LIFE?) adventures that I got truly interested. The only thing in those first 30 minutes that kept me from turning it off entirely was the beauty of the movie. It is gorgeously shot. And as Walter goes to Greenland, Iceland, Afghanistan in search of O'Connell and the missing negative, the movie only gets better both in plot and visual interest.
Still, as to the plot I do have to say I called every "twist" well ahead of time. And I did have to wonder whether Walter had some kind of mental condition. Because it's one thing to daydream, but it's something else entirely to completely zone out like that. He should maybe be seen by a professional for that.
Kudos to Adam Scott, though, for playing a most convincing asshole. Wow. I really wanted something bad to happen to that guy.
In all, it was a cute movie once we made it past those first 30 minutes. Beautiful to look at, even if the plot wears thin in spots. And though it sometimes gets classed as a comedy, if you're looking for out and out laughs, this one will disappoint. Pick a different Ben Stiller movie for that.
12.14.2013
Movies: Cloud Atlas
I like stories about karma and destiny, and especially about soul mates.
Cloud Atlas is kind of about those things.
Some would probably say it's a lot about those things, but I feel it was only really skimming.
With lots of makeup and a high production value, Cloud Atlas traces six main story lines from past, present and future, and using the same actors so as to give the sense of reincarnated lives meeting again and again. I mean, I assume that was the point. Or maybe they just didn't want to hire more cast. Because that would get really expensive.
And because there are so many stories being told, the film is also really long, clocking in at nearly three hours. But I found myself interested enough not to get restless; I barely even fiddled with my iPhone, which is saying something in this day and age. The film was well edited and paced so as not to drag, despite its length.
The makeup did get a little distracting, but I still felt they did a good job with it. Of course, one can always spot Hugo Weaving; it's his mouth that gives him away.
Like anything with a lot of different stories, some here were more interesting to me than others, but then one might be able to say there is something here for everyone. The marriage of Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis is visually interesting and densely thematic. Hefty, even, in that it begins to lean toward preachy by the end. And yet isn't so much so that it becomes obnoxious. Maybe because they are preaching to the choir. I mean, is anyone really going to argue that slavery (of one kind or another) is a good choice? Or that might makes right? If they do, they have bigger problems than disagreeing with this movie.
One could parse Cloud Atlas any number of ways, and I'm sure many a student has written a lengthy essay about (as mentioned above) forms of slavery in the film (or book, though I haven't read it), and the ways characters fight for their freedoms and against various controls. Maybe they've written about star-crossed lovers. Or the ways karma comes round to bite you in the ass again and again until you learn your lesson.
Or maybe no one ever learns their lessons. But that's too depressing, surely, to consider.
In short, I enjoyed it. Though it was long, and in places overwrought and maybe a tad too on-the-nose with its message, I was engaged throughout, and that to me is the mark of a good movie.
Cloud Atlas is kind of about those things.
Some would probably say it's a lot about those things, but I feel it was only really skimming.
With lots of makeup and a high production value, Cloud Atlas traces six main story lines from past, present and future, and using the same actors so as to give the sense of reincarnated lives meeting again and again. I mean, I assume that was the point. Or maybe they just didn't want to hire more cast. Because that would get really expensive.
And because there are so many stories being told, the film is also really long, clocking in at nearly three hours. But I found myself interested enough not to get restless; I barely even fiddled with my iPhone, which is saying something in this day and age. The film was well edited and paced so as not to drag, despite its length.
The makeup did get a little distracting, but I still felt they did a good job with it. Of course, one can always spot Hugo Weaving; it's his mouth that gives him away.
Like anything with a lot of different stories, some here were more interesting to me than others, but then one might be able to say there is something here for everyone. The marriage of Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis is visually interesting and densely thematic. Hefty, even, in that it begins to lean toward preachy by the end. And yet isn't so much so that it becomes obnoxious. Maybe because they are preaching to the choir. I mean, is anyone really going to argue that slavery (of one kind or another) is a good choice? Or that might makes right? If they do, they have bigger problems than disagreeing with this movie.
One could parse Cloud Atlas any number of ways, and I'm sure many a student has written a lengthy essay about (as mentioned above) forms of slavery in the film (or book, though I haven't read it), and the ways characters fight for their freedoms and against various controls. Maybe they've written about star-crossed lovers. Or the ways karma comes round to bite you in the ass again and again until you learn your lesson.
Or maybe no one ever learns their lessons. But that's too depressing, surely, to consider.
In short, I enjoyed it. Though it was long, and in places overwrought and maybe a tad too on-the-nose with its message, I was engaged throughout, and that to me is the mark of a good movie.
8.31.2013
Movies: To Rome with Love
I liked this movie.
It was weird.
And it didn't try to explain its own weirdness, really; it just let the weird hang there, pretending to be normal.
The movie is made up of four story lines that are marginally related thematically by the idea of wish fulfillment. Or at least that's how I took it. In one plot, Roberto Benigni plays average office clerk Leopoldo, who says to his co-workers, "If you ask me . . ." to which they reply, "Nobody ever asks you." Next thing Leopoldo knows, he's being asked everything, all the time: what he had for breakfast, how he prefers to shave, boxers or briefs. He is suddenly famous and for no apparent reason. He shouts at the journalists and paparazzi to go away. And when they do go and find a new target for their attentions, Leopoldo realizes he misses the spotlight and all the perks it afforded him.
In another story, Woody Allen plays, well, Woody Allen if he were a retired classical music manager who'd once staged avant garde takes on famous operas. He and his wife have traveled to Rome to meet their daughter's fiancé and his family. Retirement doesn't sit well with Woody (calling himself Jerry), and when he discovers his daughter's fiancé's father is a fantastic singer (played by tenor Fabio Armiliato), he is determined to put the man on stage. But it turns out Giancarlo can only sing in the shower. What to do? Stage all the productions around showers, of course. Giancarlo is hailed as a new Caruso, but Jerry is labeled an imbecile for his ridiculous staging. After having his moment, however, Giancarlo is happy to go back to his obscure life as an undertaker.
Also pursuing celebrity: Monica (Ellen Page), who comes to Rome to visit her friend Sally and to get over her most recent heartbreak (the boy was gay, no matter how hard Monica tried to make him not be). Monica's goal is to be an actress. Sally frets that her boyfriend Jack (Jesse Eisenberg) will fall in love with Monica, something that seems to happen wherever Monica goes . . . And he does. The somewhat bizarre streak in this particular story line is the sometime appearance of Alec Baldwin as John, who seems to be the grown-up version of Jack, though this is not made explicit. Jack is a young architectural student, and John turns up on the street where Jack lives, saying, "I used to live here when I was a student." Jack offers to show John around, and then throughout their story, John sometimes appears to warn Jack—and sometimes Monica—about what is happening between them. "I know how this ends," John says at one point. (It ends with Monica scrapping plans to run away with Jack when she is offered a part in a movie with a hot star and cute director.)
And while Monica is trading up, so is Milly, a young newlywed in Rome with her husband Antonio. Of all the stories, this one was the most strained. Milly and Antonio are moving to Rome so Antonio can hopefully begin work in the family business. It is very important he make a good impression with his bevy of cousins. Milly wants to make a good impression, too, so she wanders out to get her hair done. And gets lost trying to find a salon. Stumbles onto a movie set, meets many of her favorite film stars, is taken to lunch by an actor she idolizes, and he sweet-talks the naive young thing into coming up to his hotel room. Milly finds herself in the old should-she-or-shouldn't-she predicament. It's an awkward set up all around, really, and the actor is hardly some handsome rogue; he's balding and paunchy. Maybe I've worked with enough actors that I just don't know what it means to be starstruck, but Milly's naiveté is beyond belief. And is she really attracted to the man, or is it the idea of him, of being with a celebrity?
The story gets stranger. Milly goes into the bathroom to try and figure out whether or not to sleep with the actor only to be accosted by a burglar. The actor leaves his jewelry and hies off, and Milly . . . Decides to sleep with the burglar instead.
Meanwhile, Antonio accidentally gets sent a prostitute named Anna (Penelope Cruz) and is forced to use her as a stand-in for the absent Milly when his uncles and aunts arrive to evaluate him and take him off to meet the rest of the family businessmen. And of course Antonio finally ends up sampling Anna's wares. I guess if there's adultery on both sides, you break even? Is it the whole, "What s/he doesn't know . . ." rule? In the end, the whole of Milly's and Antonio's stories are so manufactured, especially next to the equally strange but somehow more organic tales of the other characters, that it is difficult to enjoy it.
But three out of four isn't too bad. And as I said, there are themes of wish fulfillment (or be careful what you wish for), and also of celebrity (something many do wish for, either to become or to be with), and then of adultery too, which occurs in three of the four story lines . . . I could parse it out a number of ways, but I am tired, and I enjoyed the movie too much to dissect it. If I remember correctly, critics did not wholly enjoy To Rome with Love, but maybe that's simply because Midnight in Paris was so good. A tough act to follow. I like them both, but differently, though the same thread of magical realism and blurred lines between fantasy and reality runs through both. There's a little more real in Rome. But only a little. It reminds me of all the strange things that always happen to me, the things that cause my friends to shake their heads and say, "Only you, M. These things only ever happen to you."
. . . Maybe I'm living in a Woody Allen movie.
It was weird.
And it didn't try to explain its own weirdness, really; it just let the weird hang there, pretending to be normal.
The movie is made up of four story lines that are marginally related thematically by the idea of wish fulfillment. Or at least that's how I took it. In one plot, Roberto Benigni plays average office clerk Leopoldo, who says to his co-workers, "If you ask me . . ." to which they reply, "Nobody ever asks you." Next thing Leopoldo knows, he's being asked everything, all the time: what he had for breakfast, how he prefers to shave, boxers or briefs. He is suddenly famous and for no apparent reason. He shouts at the journalists and paparazzi to go away. And when they do go and find a new target for their attentions, Leopoldo realizes he misses the spotlight and all the perks it afforded him.
In another story, Woody Allen plays, well, Woody Allen if he were a retired classical music manager who'd once staged avant garde takes on famous operas. He and his wife have traveled to Rome to meet their daughter's fiancé and his family. Retirement doesn't sit well with Woody (calling himself Jerry), and when he discovers his daughter's fiancé's father is a fantastic singer (played by tenor Fabio Armiliato), he is determined to put the man on stage. But it turns out Giancarlo can only sing in the shower. What to do? Stage all the productions around showers, of course. Giancarlo is hailed as a new Caruso, but Jerry is labeled an imbecile for his ridiculous staging. After having his moment, however, Giancarlo is happy to go back to his obscure life as an undertaker.
Also pursuing celebrity: Monica (Ellen Page), who comes to Rome to visit her friend Sally and to get over her most recent heartbreak (the boy was gay, no matter how hard Monica tried to make him not be). Monica's goal is to be an actress. Sally frets that her boyfriend Jack (Jesse Eisenberg) will fall in love with Monica, something that seems to happen wherever Monica goes . . . And he does. The somewhat bizarre streak in this particular story line is the sometime appearance of Alec Baldwin as John, who seems to be the grown-up version of Jack, though this is not made explicit. Jack is a young architectural student, and John turns up on the street where Jack lives, saying, "I used to live here when I was a student." Jack offers to show John around, and then throughout their story, John sometimes appears to warn Jack—and sometimes Monica—about what is happening between them. "I know how this ends," John says at one point. (It ends with Monica scrapping plans to run away with Jack when she is offered a part in a movie with a hot star and cute director.)
And while Monica is trading up, so is Milly, a young newlywed in Rome with her husband Antonio. Of all the stories, this one was the most strained. Milly and Antonio are moving to Rome so Antonio can hopefully begin work in the family business. It is very important he make a good impression with his bevy of cousins. Milly wants to make a good impression, too, so she wanders out to get her hair done. And gets lost trying to find a salon. Stumbles onto a movie set, meets many of her favorite film stars, is taken to lunch by an actor she idolizes, and he sweet-talks the naive young thing into coming up to his hotel room. Milly finds herself in the old should-she-or-shouldn't-she predicament. It's an awkward set up all around, really, and the actor is hardly some handsome rogue; he's balding and paunchy. Maybe I've worked with enough actors that I just don't know what it means to be starstruck, but Milly's naiveté is beyond belief. And is she really attracted to the man, or is it the idea of him, of being with a celebrity?
The story gets stranger. Milly goes into the bathroom to try and figure out whether or not to sleep with the actor only to be accosted by a burglar. The actor leaves his jewelry and hies off, and Milly . . . Decides to sleep with the burglar instead.
Meanwhile, Antonio accidentally gets sent a prostitute named Anna (Penelope Cruz) and is forced to use her as a stand-in for the absent Milly when his uncles and aunts arrive to evaluate him and take him off to meet the rest of the family businessmen. And of course Antonio finally ends up sampling Anna's wares. I guess if there's adultery on both sides, you break even? Is it the whole, "What s/he doesn't know . . ." rule? In the end, the whole of Milly's and Antonio's stories are so manufactured, especially next to the equally strange but somehow more organic tales of the other characters, that it is difficult to enjoy it.
But three out of four isn't too bad. And as I said, there are themes of wish fulfillment (or be careful what you wish for), and also of celebrity (something many do wish for, either to become or to be with), and then of adultery too, which occurs in three of the four story lines . . . I could parse it out a number of ways, but I am tired, and I enjoyed the movie too much to dissect it. If I remember correctly, critics did not wholly enjoy To Rome with Love, but maybe that's simply because Midnight in Paris was so good. A tough act to follow. I like them both, but differently, though the same thread of magical realism and blurred lines between fantasy and reality runs through both. There's a little more real in Rome. But only a little. It reminds me of all the strange things that always happen to me, the things that cause my friends to shake their heads and say, "Only you, M. These things only ever happen to you."
. . . Maybe I'm living in a Woody Allen movie.
8.04.2013
Movies: John Dies at the End
(Admittedly watched while drinking a quantity of rum, so . . .)
I don't watch horror movies as a rule; I don't like gore. Psychological thrillers—I love those. But anything bloody and slashery is a no thank you.
Still, I liked this movie. I wasn't sure I would because I wasn't really sure what to expect, but the trailer did its job by intriguing me, and so . . . In its favor, it wasn't so gory. And a lot of the effects were just this side of gimmicky so that I didn't mind the nasty bits so much. I did mind the spiders, but they were brief.
The plot itself is a somewhat ridiculous romp, a tale of alternate dimensions and the need to protect the world as we know it from extraterrestrial influences. And there's a dog! It's all rather Buffyesque in a way, though the gang didn't quite gel in JDatE. No, here the focus is on Dave and his friend John who use an alien drug to heighten their senses so that they can defeat, um . . . Well, anyway, it was a fun movie, apparently based on a book (or a web serial? I'm not entirely clear on that and too tired to go look it up), the kind of thing you watch while drinking lots of rum on a Saturday night. Or beer. That would probably work too. But wine would be too artsy.
On the whole, the movie had the feel of a bit of a would-be zombie flick (thanks to the effect the drug has on some people), or maybe it's more like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, followed up with the video game big boss thing. The plot structure isn't fantastic, but the movie is fun enough to skate by these issues. It's comic book fare, really. Going in with little expectation, I found myself enjoying the movie, and its short running time means you don't feel the 99 minutes are wasted. JDatE is the stoner movie of the horror genre (or one of them; I assume there are probably others). It hits the sweet spot between silly and gross if and when you're in the mood for that kind of thing; fans of shows like The X-Files and/or Doctor Who might surely want to take a look, as JDatE inhabits a nexus between the two.
I don't watch horror movies as a rule; I don't like gore. Psychological thrillers—I love those. But anything bloody and slashery is a no thank you.
Still, I liked this movie. I wasn't sure I would because I wasn't really sure what to expect, but the trailer did its job by intriguing me, and so . . . In its favor, it wasn't so gory. And a lot of the effects were just this side of gimmicky so that I didn't mind the nasty bits so much. I did mind the spiders, but they were brief.
The plot itself is a somewhat ridiculous romp, a tale of alternate dimensions and the need to protect the world as we know it from extraterrestrial influences. And there's a dog! It's all rather Buffyesque in a way, though the gang didn't quite gel in JDatE. No, here the focus is on Dave and his friend John who use an alien drug to heighten their senses so that they can defeat, um . . . Well, anyway, it was a fun movie, apparently based on a book (or a web serial? I'm not entirely clear on that and too tired to go look it up), the kind of thing you watch while drinking lots of rum on a Saturday night. Or beer. That would probably work too. But wine would be too artsy.
On the whole, the movie had the feel of a bit of a would-be zombie flick (thanks to the effect the drug has on some people), or maybe it's more like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, followed up with the video game big boss thing. The plot structure isn't fantastic, but the movie is fun enough to skate by these issues. It's comic book fare, really. Going in with little expectation, I found myself enjoying the movie, and its short running time means you don't feel the 99 minutes are wasted. JDatE is the stoner movie of the horror genre (or one of them; I assume there are probably others). It hits the sweet spot between silly and gross if and when you're in the mood for that kind of thing; fans of shows like The X-Files and/or Doctor Who might surely want to take a look, as JDatE inhabits a nexus between the two.
6.29.2013
Books: The World Ends at Five
My anthology of stories is free on Amazon Kindle for a couple days. It's titled The World Ends at Five and Other Stories, and you can get it here (for US) or here (for UK). It's available in other regions as well, though the stories are all in English.
These are some of my earliest works. The stories are, I think, mostly what one would call magical realism. They lean toward the surreal and fantastic without being classic, high fantasy. Get it while it'shot free!
These are some of my earliest works. The stories are, I think, mostly what one would call magical realism. They lean toward the surreal and fantastic without being classic, high fantasy. Get it while it's
12.03.2012
Books: Stuff I've Written (updated)
I've listed these before, but there's a new e-book available now to add to your stack. You can find all these on my official site PepperWords, but I'm also going to list them here for you in order of publication. All are available on Amazon in Kindle format.
- "St. Peter in Chains"—A novella about what happens when a British intelligence agent allows love to compromise his focus. (And because I've had so many people wanting to know what happens to Peter and Charles, I'm working on the sequel now.)
- "Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Last Line"—My most popular title, a Holmes story in the Doyle style. (Currently the #1 Sherlock Holmes story on Amazon!)
- Star Signs Operating Manual—A little something different from my usual, this is an astrology book about how to handle people of various signs.
- "Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of Ichabod Reed"—The prequel to "Last Line." Yet another Doyle-ish tale. (And also the #2 Sherlock Holmes story on Amazon!)
- The World Ends at Five and Other Stories—This was originally published as a paperback anthology in 2008, but I've edited it a bit and released it now as an e-book.
10.28.2012
Television: American Horror Story: Asylum
I'll say up front that I can't stomach gore. However, I am a big fan of psychological thrillers. And I enjoy ghosts, haunted houses, and the like. American Horror Story seems to tread a fine line that runs through the nexus of all these. I had tried the first season but found it less than compelling, giving up after just two or three episodes. But when I heard that the new season would be completely different, I decided to try again.
So far, I've mostly enjoyed the second season of AHS. I think the 60s New England setting gives it a kind of Stephen King feel, and I do love Uncle Stevie (I can read gore, just can't bear to watch it on a screen). The frame story of the honeymooning couple is kind of weird, not sure if it's going anywhere or what, but the meat of the story is the 1964 serial murders committed by one Bloody Face. They believe they've caught the killer and locked him in the asylum known as Briarcliff (run by the Catholic church), but it wouldn't make much of a season if that were true, now would it?
Meanwhile, we've got James Cromwell as Dr. Arden doing some kind of Victor Frankenstein experiments with the mental patients. We've got Sarah Paulson (who, incidentally, shares the same birthday as me, though I'm a bit younger) as the snooping reporter who lands herself in the asylum after crossing Sister Jude (Jessica Lange). We've got Kit Walker (Evan Peters), whose only real crime seems to have been that he married a black woman and was promptly abducted by aliens—but now he's been pinned as Bloody Face. And Sister Mary Eunice (Lily Rabe) . . . Who the hell knows what's going on with her. She may very well be Bloody Face for all we know.
With all this setup, AHS is like a freight train moving under its own weight and momentum. Which is a good thing. It keeps the story going, keeps things interesting. And AHS also has a win on use of flashbacks, with a technique far better than anything Revolution is doing. Maybe it's the editing. This show is visually edited all to hell, but it works. The overall tone is consistent without being monotonous.
While there's still more gore than I'd personally like, I'll keep watching. Even though I know this train isbound for glory headed for a wreck, I'm along for the ride.
So far, I've mostly enjoyed the second season of AHS. I think the 60s New England setting gives it a kind of Stephen King feel, and I do love Uncle Stevie (I can read gore, just can't bear to watch it on a screen). The frame story of the honeymooning couple is kind of weird, not sure if it's going anywhere or what, but the meat of the story is the 1964 serial murders committed by one Bloody Face. They believe they've caught the killer and locked him in the asylum known as Briarcliff (run by the Catholic church), but it wouldn't make much of a season if that were true, now would it?
Meanwhile, we've got James Cromwell as Dr. Arden doing some kind of Victor Frankenstein experiments with the mental patients. We've got Sarah Paulson (who, incidentally, shares the same birthday as me, though I'm a bit younger) as the snooping reporter who lands herself in the asylum after crossing Sister Jude (Jessica Lange). We've got Kit Walker (Evan Peters), whose only real crime seems to have been that he married a black woman and was promptly abducted by aliens—but now he's been pinned as Bloody Face. And Sister Mary Eunice (Lily Rabe) . . . Who the hell knows what's going on with her. She may very well be Bloody Face for all we know.
With all this setup, AHS is like a freight train moving under its own weight and momentum. Which is a good thing. It keeps the story going, keeps things interesting. And AHS also has a win on use of flashbacks, with a technique far better than anything Revolution is doing. Maybe it's the editing. This show is visually edited all to hell, but it works. The overall tone is consistent without being monotonous.
While there's still more gore than I'd personally like, I'll keep watching. Even though I know this train is
10.11.2012
Right Now I'm Reading . . .
The White Forest by Adam McOmber. It was sent to me as a review copy, and I do try to get around to those once in a while. I like this novel, which is set in Victorian London and features a narrator who has a strange "talent" for hearing the voices of inanimate objects. The central story is a mystery about the disappearance of the narrator's friend, who was involved in a cult-like organization. Overall the novel is pretty good but very dense; I can only read it in bite-sized chunks, which is why it is taking me so long. Well, that and I'm busy with other things as well.
One thing about The White Forest is that it skips around in time a bit, with the narrator remembering things and such. In many cases this is used to build tension around the core mystery, but sometimes the gimmick draws too much attention to itself. I still like the book, though. Really, really dislike the narrator's friend Maddy (not the one who is missing but another "friend" who isn't much of one at all, at least not thus far; maybe it's just I knew too many people like her back in the day).
Since I haven't yet finished the book, I can't say whether I'd recommend it, but so far I'd tell my friends who like supernatural mysteries that it's a good read.
And next on my stack is The Heart Broke In by James Meek, which I read a review of somewhere and found myself intrigued. I don't even remember now what it's about, but I do recall thinking while I read the review that it maybe reminded me of Nick Hornby's Juliet, Naked, which is one of my favorite books. We'll see how it goes. I'll have it with me on my Kindle as I travel next week.
One thing about The White Forest is that it skips around in time a bit, with the narrator remembering things and such. In many cases this is used to build tension around the core mystery, but sometimes the gimmick draws too much attention to itself. I still like the book, though. Really, really dislike the narrator's friend Maddy (not the one who is missing but another "friend" who isn't much of one at all, at least not thus far; maybe it's just I knew too many people like her back in the day).
Since I haven't yet finished the book, I can't say whether I'd recommend it, but so far I'd tell my friends who like supernatural mysteries that it's a good read.
And next on my stack is The Heart Broke In by James Meek, which I read a review of somewhere and found myself intrigued. I don't even remember now what it's about, but I do recall thinking while I read the review that it maybe reminded me of Nick Hornby's Juliet, Naked, which is one of my favorite books. We'll see how it goes. I'll have it with me on my Kindle as I travel next week.
8.03.2012
Book Review: Whispers Under Ground by Ben Aaronovitch
Ben Aaronovitch
Del Rey, 2012
Kindle
_______________________________________
Here, in the third installment of the Peter Grant series, Aaronovitch hits his stride. While I've really enjoyed all the books (Rivers of London (aka Midnight Riot) and Moon Over Soho coming before this one), I've enjoyed this one most.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Peter Grant is a police constable in London who has been assigned to the Folly—a branch designed to investigate and deal with the un- and supernatural. Which means that Peter is also a magician's apprentice. Hey, it takes fire to fight fire, so to speak.
Aaronovitch does a nice job building the mythology over the course of the books, though readers unfamiliar with London might do well to keep a map of the city next to their reading chairs. Regular references to Harry Potter, Tolkien, Doctor Who (for which Aaronovitch has written), Star Trek, and the like are nice touches of geek infusion. Aaronovitch does have a bad habit of telegraphing his plot twists, at least to anyone paying real attention. He does it less in Whispers than in the previous two books, however, and the whole of the story comes across as more organic overall.
I have an American Amazon/Kindle account, so I do wonder at the description and whether the book was heftily edited for American readers, since there was no play of FBI Agent Reynolds' religious beliefs in the version I read. Could it be they thought the whole born-again Christian thing might offend? (It wouldn't. And anyway, most really zealous Christians wouldn't be reading these books anyway. Not that that's ever stopped them from raising a ruckus.)
All in all, these books are my new favorite series and Aaronovitch can't write them fast enough to suit me. Also: when can we make this a television series?
7.05.2012
Books: What I'm Reading & What's On Deck
Right now I'm reading Redshirts by John Scalzi. I'll post a full-on review when I'm done, but sufficient to say I'm really enjoying it so far. I picked it up because I'm waiting for Ben Aaronovitch's new Peter Grant novel to come out (Whispers Under Ground, due to deliver to my Kindle on 31 July). I wish they'd turn Grant & Nightingale into a television series already. That would be every kind of awesome.
And yes, now I will use this space to remind you that my novella "St. Peter in Chains" can be found on Kindle, Smashwords, and iBooks, with the Nook version due out any day now. Go fill in your own blank spaces between books with that quick little read of mine.
And yes, now I will use this space to remind you that my novella "St. Peter in Chains" can be found on Kindle, Smashwords, and iBooks, with the Nook version due out any day now. Go fill in your own blank spaces between books with that quick little read of mine.
4.16.2012
Book Review: Rivers of London (aka Midnight Riot)
Ben Aaronovitch
Del Rey, 2011
Kindle
_____________________________________________________
So the reason there are two book titles on this book review is because the book was published as Rivers of London in the UK and Midnight Riot in the US. Both titles apply, as there are a couple different things going on in the book—namely, a plot involving the rivers of London and one involving, well, a kind of supernatural influence that is causing increasing bouts of anarchy in London, culminating in (you guessed it!) a midnight riot at Covent Garden.
Del Rey, 2011
Kindle
_____________________________________________________
So the reason there are two book titles on this book review is because the book was published as Rivers of London in the UK and Midnight Riot in the US. Both titles apply, as there are a couple different things going on in the book—namely, a plot involving the rivers of London and one involving, well, a kind of supernatural influence that is causing increasing bouts of anarchy in London, culminating in (you guessed it!) a midnight riot at Covent Garden.
The book is, in fact, the first of a series about Probationary Constable Peter Grant who, on the eve of being assigned permanently to paperwork duties, is instead roped into becoming an apprentice to Detective Chief Inspector Thomas Nightingale . . . Who happens to be a wizard tasked with the singular job of working on cases involving magic. Nightingale also happens to be really, really old (though of course he doesn't look it), and part of Peter's job involves bringing his "governor" up to speed on the latest technology. Like, you know, cell phones, flat-screen tellies, and the Internet.
Also in the mix: ghosts, gods, goddesses, and other creatures from outside the average.
Peter is a smart lad, too, aiming like Newton to find a scientific basis for all the supernatural phenomena in which he finds himself enmeshed.
Aaronovitch is probably best known for his work involving Doctor Who, for which he's written episodes as well as tie-in novels. However, I'd say this book, and the follow-up Moon Over Soho with which I'm now more than halfway finished, is his best work yet. Aaronovitch's cinematic background shows in his description; everything he writes in Midnight Riot is made visible in the mind's eye so to speak, and the basic premise of the series lends itself to potential television or movie adaptation.
A fast read (no idea of actual page numbers because I read it on my Kindle), fun, found it perfect for while I was traveling. To London, in fact. Though thankfully there were no riots while I was in town.
12.12.2011
Movie Review: Midnight in Paris
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard
Directed By: Woody Allen
Written By: Woody Allen
Gravier Productions, 2011
PG-13; 94 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
IMDB has this movie listed as a comedy, which surprised me because I didn't see a whole lot of funny in it. But then again, comedy has a lot of different flavors, and Woody Allen isn't known for belly laughs. His comedy tends toward the more thought-inducing and neurotic.
I'll start out by admitting I'm no huge fan of Woody Allen; I haven't seen more than a handful of his movies. We had to watch Annie Hall in film school, of course, and while I thought that was an okay film, I had a difficult time understanding all the hype around it. Maybe I was born in the wrong era, or maybe I just don't think that way.
But I really liked Midnight in Paris. This is probably because I'm a writer in love with a foreign city myself and so I could completely identify with Wilson's character. He plays Gil, an established screenwriter who is taking a sabbatical of sorts in Paris so he can write what he hopes will be a great literary novel. Tagging along are his fiancée Inez and her parents, as well as some other friends of hers . . . Gil evidently has inherited all friends and family and has none of his own.
If I have one bone to pick with Midnight in Paris, it's that I cannot for the life of me figure out why Gil and Inez are together. They have nothing in common, and she has a terrible habit of making fun of him by relating sensitive and embarrassing anecdotes to others. Gil is a nice-guy liberal; Inez and her family are stuck-up right-wingers. If I had to guess, I'd say Inez was originally drawn by Gil's prospects, his connections as a screenwriter, which is likely why she fights him so hard when Gil mentions (repeatedly) that he might prefer to settle in the City of Lights indefinitely.
This is all prologue, of course; the real story here is how every night at midnight, Gil gets magically swept into the 1920s Parisian scene. While there he meets Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Dali, the Fitzgeralds, Cole Porter, and Gertrude Stein (portrayed quite well by Kathy Bates) among others. Meeting these icons gives Gil a shot of literary mojo. In fact, it seems almost addictive for him; Gil begins retreating from the modern world more and more as he begins to dwell on and within this fantastical space.
Of course, the underlying theme in Midnight in Paris is about the grass being greener. When Gil and a 1920s artists' model named Adriana (Cotillard) get swept back into the 1890s, she proclaims that she never wants to return to the present--her present, the 1920s. After all, the "now" is boring; things were so much better in the good ol' days. As Gil tries to convince her otherwise, he comes to the realization that escapism is no answer to life's problems.
It's a delicate balance; as a writer I know the value of living within one's imagination, sometimes for long periods of time. Breaking the dreamy concentration can be costly to a story or script. Interruption is generally unwelcome. But one also has to surface now and again, participate in real life, and be present in the present, else life can come crashing down while you're living and breathing an otherwhere.
Midnight in Paris is a gentle film, and beautiful in a cinematographic way, even if it carries no heavy insights into life. The motion in the film, both outward and introspectively, is slow, like a dawning. This is not a movie designed to jolt, or even to prompt great discussion; instead it is a love letter to the creative mind, and to all the influences that crowd it.
Directed By: Woody Allen
Written By: Woody Allen
Gravier Productions, 2011
PG-13; 94 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
IMDB has this movie listed as a comedy, which surprised me because I didn't see a whole lot of funny in it. But then again, comedy has a lot of different flavors, and Woody Allen isn't known for belly laughs. His comedy tends toward the more thought-inducing and neurotic.
I'll start out by admitting I'm no huge fan of Woody Allen; I haven't seen more than a handful of his movies. We had to watch Annie Hall in film school, of course, and while I thought that was an okay film, I had a difficult time understanding all the hype around it. Maybe I was born in the wrong era, or maybe I just don't think that way.
But I really liked Midnight in Paris. This is probably because I'm a writer in love with a foreign city myself and so I could completely identify with Wilson's character. He plays Gil, an established screenwriter who is taking a sabbatical of sorts in Paris so he can write what he hopes will be a great literary novel. Tagging along are his fiancée Inez and her parents, as well as some other friends of hers . . . Gil evidently has inherited all friends and family and has none of his own.
If I have one bone to pick with Midnight in Paris, it's that I cannot for the life of me figure out why Gil and Inez are together. They have nothing in common, and she has a terrible habit of making fun of him by relating sensitive and embarrassing anecdotes to others. Gil is a nice-guy liberal; Inez and her family are stuck-up right-wingers. If I had to guess, I'd say Inez was originally drawn by Gil's prospects, his connections as a screenwriter, which is likely why she fights him so hard when Gil mentions (repeatedly) that he might prefer to settle in the City of Lights indefinitely.
This is all prologue, of course; the real story here is how every night at midnight, Gil gets magically swept into the 1920s Parisian scene. While there he meets Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Dali, the Fitzgeralds, Cole Porter, and Gertrude Stein (portrayed quite well by Kathy Bates) among others. Meeting these icons gives Gil a shot of literary mojo. In fact, it seems almost addictive for him; Gil begins retreating from the modern world more and more as he begins to dwell on and within this fantastical space.
Of course, the underlying theme in Midnight in Paris is about the grass being greener. When Gil and a 1920s artists' model named Adriana (Cotillard) get swept back into the 1890s, she proclaims that she never wants to return to the present--her present, the 1920s. After all, the "now" is boring; things were so much better in the good ol' days. As Gil tries to convince her otherwise, he comes to the realization that escapism is no answer to life's problems.
It's a delicate balance; as a writer I know the value of living within one's imagination, sometimes for long periods of time. Breaking the dreamy concentration can be costly to a story or script. Interruption is generally unwelcome. But one also has to surface now and again, participate in real life, and be present in the present, else life can come crashing down while you're living and breathing an otherwhere.
Midnight in Paris is a gentle film, and beautiful in a cinematographic way, even if it carries no heavy insights into life. The motion in the film, both outward and introspectively, is slow, like a dawning. This is not a movie designed to jolt, or even to prompt great discussion; instead it is a love letter to the creative mind, and to all the influences that crowd it.
6.06.2010
Book Review: The Girl Who Chased the Moon
Sarah Addison Allen
Bantam, 2010
276 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I read Allen's Garden Spells some time back and really liked it. So then I tried her second novel The Sugar Queen and couldn't get into it at all. Never finished it. With such a 50-50 history, I wasn't sure what I'd think of The Girl Who Chased the Moon, but decided to give it a shot.
In a nutshell, the story is two-fold. The A plot line is about Emily, a teenager who comes to Mullaby, North Carolina, to live with the grandfather she's never met. Emily will learn about her deceased mother's childhood and will discover "strange and wondrous things." The B plot line is about Julia, who had been a contemporary of Emily's mother, and who had left Mullaby but was dragged back by her own father's passing. Julia has a two-year plan to take care of her father's restaurant until she can sell it for a small profit and leave town. But she starts to find herself ensnared by the past.
A quick read, and a good one. Allen is now at 66% in my book.
If you like the Southern hospitality genre (think: Miss Julia books by Ann B. Ross) or the semi-magical sorts of things Alice Hoffman is known to tackle, you'll probably like Allen's work. At least some of it.
Bantam, 2010
276 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I read Allen's Garden Spells some time back and really liked it. So then I tried her second novel The Sugar Queen and couldn't get into it at all. Never finished it. With such a 50-50 history, I wasn't sure what I'd think of The Girl Who Chased the Moon, but decided to give it a shot.
In a nutshell, the story is two-fold. The A plot line is about Emily, a teenager who comes to Mullaby, North Carolina, to live with the grandfather she's never met. Emily will learn about her deceased mother's childhood and will discover "strange and wondrous things." The B plot line is about Julia, who had been a contemporary of Emily's mother, and who had left Mullaby but was dragged back by her own father's passing. Julia has a two-year plan to take care of her father's restaurant until she can sell it for a small profit and leave town. But she starts to find herself ensnared by the past.
A quick read, and a good one. Allen is now at 66% in my book.
If you like the Southern hospitality genre (think: Miss Julia books by Ann B. Ross) or the semi-magical sorts of things Alice Hoffman is known to tackle, you'll probably like Allen's work. At least some of it.
5.24.2010
Television: Lost finale
So last night the television series Lost came to a much heralded conclusion. Don't read any more than this if you haven't watched it yet and don't want it ruined for you.
Locke and Ben find Desmond—who was rescued from the well by Bernard and Rose, who have kept Vincent as a pet, just in case you wondered what happened to all of them—and are taking him to the center of the island (where the light is) to destroy it. Desmond is, as Jack would later put it, a kind of weapon. Apparently his natural resistance to electromagnetism has something to do with it, but whatever. (I can't help but wonder what Widmore planned to do with Desmond?)
Jack, Hurley, Kate and Sawyer also catch up with Locke, Ben and Desmond and it ends up coming down to Jack and Locke and Desmond going to the light and sending Desmond down to—as best I can figure—pull a giant drain plug. Which causes the island to begin falling apart, but slowly enough that Jack and Locke have time to fight it out on the cliffs overlooking the sea. Jack wins that one, and he sends Kate and Sawyer off on Locke's (which was Desmond's) boat to the other island so they can catch the plane with Miles, Richard, and Lapidus—and have just enough time to convince Claire to come along too.
Since the island, meanwhile, is still disintegrating, Jack leads Hurley (who refused to leave) and Ben back to the place where the light had been. Jack intends to go down and fix things; basically, he's going to go put the plug back in the Drain of Doom. Hurley is left to become the next new Jacob, with Ben as his sidekick. While Jack is at it, he ties the wounded but not dead Desmond to the rope so Hurley and Ben can lift him to safety and (hopefully) get him home.
As an aside, I just want to say, I thought the light/drain mythology bit was dumb. I like fantasy and Indiana Jones as much as anyone, but that was . . . I don't even have the words. Navel of the World tourist postcards forthcoming, I suppose?
Back in the sideways world, Desmond is working double time to pull everyone together so that they can trigger their island memories of one another. I won't get into all the ways it happens, but I will say Claire's and Charlie's moment made me tear up. Jack is the one left out of all this, or maybe he's just the most resistant to it. A moment with Locke after having done spinal surgery, another with Kate when he arrives too late for the concert . . . She then leads him to the church where his father's body has been sent after Oceanic's temporary misplacement of it. But Jack will discover that the coffin is empty. He'll see his father again and realize he himself is dead. And he's come to the place where he's being reunited with his loved ones. Which isn't to say they're all dead (yet, in "our" time, if there is such a thing in the show). But apparently the lovely thing about this "Heaven" is that they're there regardless, just as you best remember them. Because love is eternal and knows no time.
For the most part, I liked the ending. I found it hopeful and uplifting. Warm, really. I enjoyed some of the imagery, like opening the show with the progress of Christian Shepherd's coffin: a symbol for laying the show itself to rest. And I totally called it that the final image would be Jack's eye closing. The writers of the show certainly show a liking for symmetry.
As for the island side of things, I can only say I hope that (a) Bernard, Rose and Vincent suffered no ill effects from the earthquakes as the island was breaking apart, and (b) Desmond was able to get home to Penny and Charlie. I was really glad that Claire and Kate both were able to go back to Aaron; a nice balance against the fact that Sun and Jin did not get to go home to their daughter.
I originally wanted to believe that the sideways timeline was an alternative option for those who didn't get happy endings on the island. I haven't quite decided if it was or wasn't. Whether it was Jack writing all of that in his head or something bigger. One theory suggests that the moment of Jack's death occurs during the flight, at the point where Rose tells him it's okay to let go after the turbulence. But that might also just coincide with the moment Jack gets back to the island via Ajira and does let go, as in ceasing to attempt to control things or be the leader. My media studies degree notwithstanding, I'd have to go and watch a lot of stuff over again before coming up with a solid answer for myself.
But like Jack, I don't necessarily feel the need to do that. I've let go of Lost, and am happy to just let the experience of it wash over me . . . Like a bright, warm light.
Locke and Ben find Desmond—who was rescued from the well by Bernard and Rose, who have kept Vincent as a pet, just in case you wondered what happened to all of them—and are taking him to the center of the island (where the light is) to destroy it. Desmond is, as Jack would later put it, a kind of weapon. Apparently his natural resistance to electromagnetism has something to do with it, but whatever. (I can't help but wonder what Widmore planned to do with Desmond?)
Jack, Hurley, Kate and Sawyer also catch up with Locke, Ben and Desmond and it ends up coming down to Jack and Locke and Desmond going to the light and sending Desmond down to—as best I can figure—pull a giant drain plug. Which causes the island to begin falling apart, but slowly enough that Jack and Locke have time to fight it out on the cliffs overlooking the sea. Jack wins that one, and he sends Kate and Sawyer off on Locke's (which was Desmond's) boat to the other island so they can catch the plane with Miles, Richard, and Lapidus—and have just enough time to convince Claire to come along too.
Since the island, meanwhile, is still disintegrating, Jack leads Hurley (who refused to leave) and Ben back to the place where the light had been. Jack intends to go down and fix things; basically, he's going to go put the plug back in the Drain of Doom. Hurley is left to become the next new Jacob, with Ben as his sidekick. While Jack is at it, he ties the wounded but not dead Desmond to the rope so Hurley and Ben can lift him to safety and (hopefully) get him home.
As an aside, I just want to say, I thought the light/drain mythology bit was dumb. I like fantasy and Indiana Jones as much as anyone, but that was . . . I don't even have the words. Navel of the World tourist postcards forthcoming, I suppose?
Back in the sideways world, Desmond is working double time to pull everyone together so that they can trigger their island memories of one another. I won't get into all the ways it happens, but I will say Claire's and Charlie's moment made me tear up. Jack is the one left out of all this, or maybe he's just the most resistant to it. A moment with Locke after having done spinal surgery, another with Kate when he arrives too late for the concert . . . She then leads him to the church where his father's body has been sent after Oceanic's temporary misplacement of it. But Jack will discover that the coffin is empty. He'll see his father again and realize he himself is dead. And he's come to the place where he's being reunited with his loved ones. Which isn't to say they're all dead (yet, in "our" time, if there is such a thing in the show). But apparently the lovely thing about this "Heaven" is that they're there regardless, just as you best remember them. Because love is eternal and knows no time.
For the most part, I liked the ending. I found it hopeful and uplifting. Warm, really. I enjoyed some of the imagery, like opening the show with the progress of Christian Shepherd's coffin: a symbol for laying the show itself to rest. And I totally called it that the final image would be Jack's eye closing. The writers of the show certainly show a liking for symmetry.
As for the island side of things, I can only say I hope that (a) Bernard, Rose and Vincent suffered no ill effects from the earthquakes as the island was breaking apart, and (b) Desmond was able to get home to Penny and Charlie. I was really glad that Claire and Kate both were able to go back to Aaron; a nice balance against the fact that Sun and Jin did not get to go home to their daughter.
I originally wanted to believe that the sideways timeline was an alternative option for those who didn't get happy endings on the island. I haven't quite decided if it was or wasn't. Whether it was Jack writing all of that in his head or something bigger. One theory suggests that the moment of Jack's death occurs during the flight, at the point where Rose tells him it's okay to let go after the turbulence. But that might also just coincide with the moment Jack gets back to the island via Ajira and does let go, as in ceasing to attempt to control things or be the leader. My media studies degree notwithstanding, I'd have to go and watch a lot of stuff over again before coming up with a solid answer for myself.
But like Jack, I don't necessarily feel the need to do that. I've let go of Lost, and am happy to just let the experience of it wash over me . . . Like a bright, warm light.
5.11.2010
Television: Happy Town
Why aren't you people watching this show? If you liked Twin Peaks, or The X-Files, or American Gothic, you should be watching Happy Town.
While Lost and FlashForward are good, they tend to be intense. Happy Town has all the dark drama but tempers it with quirk.
If you've missed out on the first couple episodes, they're available online. But to summarize: small town haunted by the disappearances of several residents. The locals refer to the perpetrator as "The Magic Man." A murder--of someone many suspected to be The Magic Man--turns the town on its head, even as the arrival of a strange new resident coincides with a delirious turn by the town's sheriff.
Now the sheriff's son turned acting sheriff is trying to solve the murder (well, he did that in Episode 2, but--) even as other strange things begin to happen . . .
Happy Town is definitely taking a few pages from the Twin Peaks play book, and Sam Neill is especially fun as a cinephile with something to hide.
The show, meanwhile, is in imminent danger of cancellation, though ideally ABC will let it play out over the summer at the very least. A boost in viewers would be helpful!
While Lost and FlashForward are good, they tend to be intense. Happy Town has all the dark drama but tempers it with quirk.
If you've missed out on the first couple episodes, they're available online. But to summarize: small town haunted by the disappearances of several residents. The locals refer to the perpetrator as "The Magic Man." A murder--of someone many suspected to be The Magic Man--turns the town on its head, even as the arrival of a strange new resident coincides with a delirious turn by the town's sheriff.
Now the sheriff's son turned acting sheriff is trying to solve the murder (well, he did that in Episode 2, but--) even as other strange things begin to happen . . .
Happy Town is definitely taking a few pages from the Twin Peaks play book, and Sam Neill is especially fun as a cinephile with something to hide.
The show, meanwhile, is in imminent danger of cancellation, though ideally ABC will let it play out over the summer at the very least. A boost in viewers would be helpful!
Book Review: Shades of Grey
Jasper Fforde
Viking, 2009
400 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I love this book.
Like all Jasper Fforde's novels, it takes some toe-dipping to get into, but Fforde has earned the patience of his readers. His standard MO is to write completely unintelligible things for the first couple chapters until the reader starts to understand it and it begins to make some kind of strange sense. Think of it as cultural immersion, the same way a person might learn a new language by being surrounded by it. It always works out in the end, so long as you have the gumption to stick with it.
Fforde's track record with the Thursday Next series, and the Nursery Crime books, opens the door for him to write this completely unanchored novel, itself the first of a trilogy. Without giving too much away, I'll simply note that it takes place in a future where everything's gone a bit retrograde and status is determined by color—not of one's skin, but what color (and how much of it) one is able to see. Society labors under strict and strange rules handed down by a man named Munsell, and poor Eddie Russett strives to be good in a world populated by people who are bent on being bad.
The question becomes: is circumventing an oppressive government—breaking the rules—a bad thing? It depends on one's motives . . .
Fforde is as clever as ever here (though I have a couple questions for him, which I've posted on his Web site's forum—if you please, Mr. Fforde). He's created a world any parageographer could be proud of, and his characters are thorough, even if most seem beyond redemption. The reader feels Eddie's frustration, and in many cases finds him- or herself frustrated with Eddie in particular. But the main character's cluelessness is the perfect mode of travel for the reader, who is new to all that Eddie takes for granted and joins him on his learning curve.
Call it a tale of opening one's eyes after suffering blind faith in the system. A tale for the ages, and the kind of thing they'll be teaching in high school along side 1984 in another decade or so. Well worth a read, and certainly more satisfying if you can get a book club to take it on and discuss it afterward.
Viking, 2009
400 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I love this book.
Like all Jasper Fforde's novels, it takes some toe-dipping to get into, but Fforde has earned the patience of his readers. His standard MO is to write completely unintelligible things for the first couple chapters until the reader starts to understand it and it begins to make some kind of strange sense. Think of it as cultural immersion, the same way a person might learn a new language by being surrounded by it. It always works out in the end, so long as you have the gumption to stick with it.
Fforde's track record with the Thursday Next series, and the Nursery Crime books, opens the door for him to write this completely unanchored novel, itself the first of a trilogy. Without giving too much away, I'll simply note that it takes place in a future where everything's gone a bit retrograde and status is determined by color—not of one's skin, but what color (and how much of it) one is able to see. Society labors under strict and strange rules handed down by a man named Munsell, and poor Eddie Russett strives to be good in a world populated by people who are bent on being bad.
The question becomes: is circumventing an oppressive government—breaking the rules—a bad thing? It depends on one's motives . . .
Fforde is as clever as ever here (though I have a couple questions for him, which I've posted on his Web site's forum—if you please, Mr. Fforde). He's created a world any parageographer could be proud of, and his characters are thorough, even if most seem beyond redemption. The reader feels Eddie's frustration, and in many cases finds him- or herself frustrated with Eddie in particular. But the main character's cluelessness is the perfect mode of travel for the reader, who is new to all that Eddie takes for granted and joins him on his learning curve.
Call it a tale of opening one's eyes after suffering blind faith in the system. A tale for the ages, and the kind of thing they'll be teaching in high school along side 1984 in another decade or so. Well worth a read, and certainly more satisfying if you can get a book club to take it on and discuss it afterward.
12.17.2009
Writing "Under the Dome"
I am currently reading Stephen King's latest, a rather large tome titled Under the Dome (full review to come, though I'll say I'm enjoying it). But as I considered the subject matter--a town finds itself isolated by an invisible force field--I found myself looking back at other of King's works and thinking that "under the dome" is the situation in pretty much any compelling narration, isn't it?
What I mean is: any good story is a situation involving contained people and forces. Whether it's the town of Jerusalem's Lot beset by vampires, the haunted Overlook Hotel in winter, or the whole of the USA after a virus leaves most people dead, the core of the story is set under a "dome" of circumstances that isolates them from the everyday, the normal, the mundane.
This goes for more than Mr. King's writing, but he's particularly adept at this slight of hand and mind. Reading his work is instructive.
I suppose this is also one of the reasons I really dislike the kind of mainstream literature so many academics tout; I find it dull. People living their lives and generally miserable--but without anything very interesting going on--doesn't make much of a story to my way of thinking.
What I mean is: any good story is a situation involving contained people and forces. Whether it's the town of Jerusalem's Lot beset by vampires, the haunted Overlook Hotel in winter, or the whole of the USA after a virus leaves most people dead, the core of the story is set under a "dome" of circumstances that isolates them from the everyday, the normal, the mundane.
This goes for more than Mr. King's writing, but he's particularly adept at this slight of hand and mind. Reading his work is instructive.
I suppose this is also one of the reasons I really dislike the kind of mainstream literature so many academics tout; I find it dull. People living their lives and generally miserable--but without anything very interesting going on--doesn't make much of a story to my way of thinking.
2.19.2009
Television: Lost
You know, I took a class in college called Parageography--the geography of imaginary places. As in Narnia and Middle Earth and Oz, or even the places Odysseus (aka Ulysses) visited when trying to get home from the Trojan war. Part of the class required us to create our own imaginary places. Mine was an island called AElit. It was an island no one could find. The back story was that an Englishman named Jonathan Engleman had gone on a sailing holiday and disappeared for 11 years, only to turn up talking about this island he'd been on . . . Now AElit was inhabited, mind you, and had its own history and language, etc. I used to have a Web site devoted to it, but I let the domain name lapse a long while back. Now I'm not saying the Lost guys stole, in part, my ideas. At any rate, mysterious islands--ones that move or can't be found--are nothing special to literature or myth. Islands seem to lend themselves especially to being small enough to lose in the great expanses of water that house the world. It's all in the execution of said story or myth . . .
A few thoughts about last night's episode:
A few thoughts about last night's episode:
- Is the "very clever" person Hawking mentioned her own son?
- Did Ben go off to attempt to murder Penny? After all, once he saw Desmond, he must've assumed she was in the vicinity. And Ben did tell Charles that he (Ben) would kill Charles' daughter (Penny) as revenge for Ben's own daughter's death.
- I'm guessing Kate probably left Aaron with Claire's mother. Giving up a child is difficult, even when one does it with the child's best interests at heart. But if anything more drastic than that had happened to Aaron, Kate would surely have been an even bigger emotional wreck than she was.
- So the island has always been jumping? In space, if not in time? But turning the donkey wheel made it move in time as well? Am I understanding this right?
2.18.2009
Snippet Television Update: Lost
Just one thing I want to say about last week's Lost: everyone is saying that Locke's turning the frozen donkey wheel will have stopped the time flashes. Oookay, then why exactly do they need the Oceanic 6 to return? I thought they were required to stop the skipping record. Did I miss something? Misunderstand something?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)