The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (1940) (nat)

I read a book. Finally. Thanks to the impending book group meeting tonight. Yep. Give me a deadline and I'll read a book. That says a lot about what my non-school life is going to look like.

Anyway, I won't say too much because I am going to go talk about it with people in just over an hour or so. I will say it just wasn't my cup of tea. The basic premise is a set of characters in small town 1930s Georgia. They all interact with one deaf-mute, Singer, who has recently lost his best friend (also a deaf-mute--what are the odds, really, of two deaf-mutes in the same small town in GA? And apparently there were more at other times.) to an asylum. There's Mick a pre-teen/teenager (girl) who loves music, Biff a diner owner who is either a pedophile or deeply regrets not having children of his own, Blount an educated rough-neck communist drunk, and Dr. Copeland a black doctor (in that he's black and he only treats blacks) who loves Marx but hates all other white people (except Singer). These four all interact with Singer but not with each other so much--there are, of course, other characters (a whole slew of them) but they get minor billing behind the main five. There's a lot of political, social, and economic concerns swirling around in the book but none seem to settle and none seem to come to any sort of conclusion (or even a hint at a possible conclusion).

Overall, I don't get the larger point behind the motivation of any of the characters, the absent sexuality (except for one possible event which could be read as just a kiss), any of the pseudo-relationships between the characters (especially that between Singer and his deaf-mute Greek friend), the supposed political struggle (I don't know which McCullers wants, capitalism, communism, or fascism---none work in the book), the random characters who just drop out of the book altogether . . . . I guess I just want a point, any point really.

Oh well, we'll see what the other people in the book group say and see if Tracy decides she likes to talk about books on the blog too :-)

Annie Hall (1977) (nat)

Well, it's good Tracy promised not to hate me if I didn't like her second favorite movie ever because I don't so much like this one. Something about Woody Allen just doesn't click in my head. I get where it's supposed to be funny or sweet or whatever else but it fails to really register with me. I end up sort of bored about half an hour into all of his movies, if not sooner. I don't even have that much to write about it. Oh well, 2 Woody Allen movies down (this and Purple Rose of Cairo) and 5 more to go (Sleeper, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Deconstructing Harry) . . . .

Oh dear, Woody Allen. Another reason I have to keep the movies in chronological order on the Netflix queue or all of his would end up at the bottom of the list (but above Passion of the Christ, definitely). I do remember liking Sweet and Lowdown, though. Maybe there's some sort of hope? Or that one's just a fluke (it probably is given that it's not so much on the list, damn it).

Old Boy (2003) (nat)

To mimic Tracy's form a bit, I can't do stars and there are technically no vomit scenes in the film . . . . but I was thisclose to being ill at least 4 times while watching this one. It's about this guy (Korean, the movie is Korean and I had to struggle with the stupid DVD settings to get it off of English dubbing--that's no good at all). Anyway, this guy, Dae-Su, is taken off the street one night and held prisoner for 15 years. The action of the movie is him finding out the who and why of his imprisonment after his release. I can't say too much about the plot because it all hinges on a pretty important twist or three. But he meets this girl Mi-do who may or may not be helping him out and he runs into a lot of trouble. There are 4 places where I recommend you look away. 1. he eats a LIVE octopus. I mean squirming in his mouth. He stuffs it in head first and rips it a few times but it still squirms, a lot. And it's not like "oh, a live octopus, chomp, yum chewy, next scene." Nope. It lingers on the squirmy thing in his mouth. Yich. You lost me on ever trying any sort of octopus again, honey. Thank the Koreans for that one. 2. and 3. There are not one but two violent dentistry scenes. Both involving a hammer. And not like a ball ping hammer or a jeweler's hammer. A hammer like construction workers use. I can't take dentistry scenes. I'd rather watch just about anything than people pulling teeth. 4. Something of a dentistry scene but it's at the end so I can't say too much. Yeah. This movie as a whole is just special. Lots of moral ambiguity. Lots of just plain ignoring any and all moral sense. No "decent guy" in this one really. It's a thing and I can't talk to you about it until you've seen it. It should be seen, I guess. But probably only once.

So. Yeah. Goodness. I'm going to have to stay up way late and watch something else before I go to sleep.

Oh! Sorry-revisions. I had to add this too. So IMDB is helpful and lets me know: "Four live octopi were eaten for the scene with Dae-su in the sushi bar, a scene which provoked some controversy abroad. Eating live octopus in Korea is commonplace although it is usually sliced first. When the film won the Grand Prix at Cannes, the director thanked the octopi along with the cast and crew." And that the actor eating them is Buddhist and had to pray after eating each one. Maybe I should pray to Buddha to help me get that out of my head. Unfortunately, I think it's stuck in that part of my brain with Britney's vagina. Ugh.

Anyway, the one problem I had that's in no way connected to tooth extraction or octopi was the supposed ages of the characters. Dae-Su and Woo-jin are supposed to be the same age or very very close in age yet the actor who is the former was 41 the year the film was made (and looks older than that, I would have guessed 50-ish) and the latter was only 27 (and a young looking 27). Dae-Su, of course, may look older because of the imprisonment and whatnot but he wouldn't and shouldn't look more than 14 years older. Meanwhile, I think Mi-Do should have been just a bit younger (the actress was 21)--she and Woo-jin look too close in age when he should be old enough to be her father. The ages throw off the plot a little bit.

Judgment at Nuremburg (t)

3.5 stars
Vomit scenes: 0

So, first of all let me register my outrage that this movie isn't in the 1001 book. Not only is it quite good and Oscar-lauded, it's in black and white! It has Spencer Tracy! It's about Nazis! Throw me a bone, 1001 book! Anyway, this is a quite compelling little courtroom drama that is perfectly paced despite its 186-minute running time. It's like the Munich before Munich, in that it doesn't give you any easy answers to the ethical and moral dilemmas raised by prosecuting civil servants under the Third Reich. I mean, they give the best speech of the movie to the Minister of Justice under Hitler. Spencer Tracy (playing The Decent Man) looks appropriately Entish and weathered, and Maximilian Scheall (sp?) is really great and disturbingly hot as the Nazis' defense lawyer. Definitely worth a watch, especially if you're a ST fan, but don't plan to knock out Cool Hand Luke on the same night. I was emotionally exhausted by the end of it.

Superbad (2007) and The Drowning Pool (1975) (nat)

Superbad is super fun. :) The first 10-15 minutes or so were a bit slow because the two guys aren't the best actors when it comes to normal dialogue but once the movie got going, it got much better. And, of course, the "boop" on the nose part, the silhouette dancing at the beginning, and the running makes the whole movie for me. Give me a movie with funny dancing and awkward running and I'm happy. Makes me want to watch Little Miss Sunshine now.

The Drowning Pool is another one from the Paul Newman boxed set and another point in the "Paul Newman appears shirtless in all of his movies" poll (this time he was even pants-less a couple of times)--and he turned 50 the year this movie was released. Anyway, this one is the follow-up to Harper. Newman is the private eye Lew Harper and he's been called to Louisiana by a former fling (real-life wife Joanne Woodward) who is being blackmailed for her marital indiscretions. Her conniving and this-close-to-a-prostitute daughter is Melanie Griffith in her second role ever (surprise, surprise, she was just as bad an actress then as she is now and it really showed against Oscar winners Newman and Woodward). Of course, it all turns out to be more than just a simple blackmailing case and turns into quite the Southern scandal. It's a just fine movie (no need to watch Harper first although I think the earlier one is probably the better movie) and Newman is fun as the always getting beat up detective but the plot is just a tad dull.

On another, completely unrelated note: I caught ten minutes or so of The King and I (1956) on TV. I haven't seen it in years and never processed that it contains a Siamese theater re-telling of Uncle Tom's Cabin: "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" (it's actually even on the soundtrack). It's just racist on so many levels--not only the white 1950s American version of a 1860s Siamese version of a white abolitionist American woman's version of 1850s slaves in the US but the casting of Rita Moreno (who is Puerto Rican) as the Siamese narrator of the re-telling (not to mention the fact that Yul Brynner was Russian although supposedly he had a Mongolian grandfather). Yeah. I missed all of that when I watched it as a child . . .

Clock-er. . . Didn't I already see Boyz in the Hood? (t)

2.5 Stars
Vomit scene(s): Innumerable

Now, I like Spike Lee. A good deal. And this is a very decent movie with some very decent performances (including a pre-Grey's Anatomy, pre-publicly-homophobic Isaiah Washington playing The Decent Man), but its message is . . . wait for it . . . working class black people are submerged in a culture that lionizes violence, and that culture is both pervasive and dangerous. Now, this message is delivered courtesy of a neat little metaphor relying on--I'm not kidding-- lactose intolerance, but still, not that original. Do yourself a favor and see "Bamboozled" instead. And if you want to see Harvey Keitel hamming it up as a police officer, why haven't you already seen "Bad Lieutenant"?

Good Bye, Lenin! (2003) (nat)

Another book selection but at least this one didn't make me feel like I was on a boat in a hurricane. It's about a 20-ish guy, Alex, who has grown up in East Germany. On the eve of the wall falling, his mother (who was really active in Socialist Party) has a heart attack as she sees her son arrested for protesting the East German government. The mother falls into a coma for 8 months during which time the wall falls and East German goes from the mother's beloved socialist government to a capitalist one. While she's in a coma, Alex falls in love with the nurse (who he first met at the protest) and the world changes dramatically. His mother wakes and Alex has to keep her calm so as to not bring on another heart attack. So, genius that he is, he decides not to tell her that the wall has fallen and the world she knew is gone. So begins the charade. Everyone has to pretend Socialism is the thing to love while little things creep in--a Coke sign on a building outside her window--that's right Coke is the universal symbol of capitalism. There's also a family story behind everything. The mother told Alex and his sister that their father ran off with another woman when they were young. That gets twisted as the story progresses. It'a a fairly sweet story about familial love and idealism.

Run Lola Run (1998) (nat)

Lola runs. For like 1/4 of the movie (at least). Lola screams loudly and shrilly enough to shatter glass and influence roulette wheels. Lola makes a pretty boring movie. I watched it because of the damned book. Damned book. I can see why its influential and all--it's one of those if you change one tiny thing, the whole course of the day (ad infinitum) can change. This one hinges on Lola needing to get to her boyfriend Manni before he robs a supermarket. Apparently he's a runner for some bad guys and he lost the money he's supposed to give them (he left it on a subway and a bum (who looked like he had leprosy) took it). Lola has 20 minutes and the film plays out those 20 minutes three different ways with little vignettes in between--conversations between Lola and Manni about whether he loves her and what she would do if he died. It's only about 90 minutes (that's with the credits) and most of it made me feel sea-sick--she runs a lot. And there is this strange animated Lola running down the stairs of the apartment building but that's all that is animated. IMDB calls it a "breathtaking, action-packed love story"--I guess, but it's not really. You can guess what the second and third re-tellings are going to include and while the ending is "happy," you haven't really gained much sympathy for Lola or Manni. They're small-time crooks and most of the time you're watching Lola run. If she'd been still for a little bit more of the movie, I might have cared (and not felt like I needed to put my feet on the ground to steady myself).

Please Don't Eat the Daisies (1960) (nat)

Watched mainly in protest of the 1001 book which doesn't include one Doris Day movie (like them or not, they compose an entire genre of movies that should be included, damn it). This one's not so great. Day is Kate MacKay--mother to 4 boys, the youngest of whom spends a lot of time in a caged-in playpen (roof, lock, and all) because he can pick locks (or so Kate says, no evidence is given in the movie) and housewife to Larry MacKay (David Niven) who is a pushover drama professor turned theater critic with a nasty wit. Larry's first review is of best friend Alfred's first attempt at a musical which is horrible and stars Jayne Mansfield wannabe Deborah Vaughn. Alfred and Deborah are mad and plot to get even. Larry gains fame in the circles he used to hate and ignores the plan he and Kate made to move to the country. She wins and they move to the country where she unknowingly helps Alfred with his revenge, which doesn't so much work out. Strangely placed scenes with Doris Day singing strange songs--this is the one with que sera sera. Blah Blah Blah supposed hilarity ensues and they make up at the end, of course.

Two interesting points: at one point David Niven slaps Doris Day's ass--you don't see that everyday and the following line offered by Kate's mother to Larry: "loving her is one thing, letting her think she's intelligent is another." So there. That's that. I'll try to watch something intelligent tomorrow.

Being There (1979) (nat)

I'd read this book a few years ago for one of Dr. Cowart's classes. The book is better. Both are about Chance, a man who is just not there mentally. It's never really established whether he is retarded--he's functional but just doesn't get anything at all. He mimics things he's seen on TV--he "likes to watch" (and, yes, that phrase gets him into some interesting sexual situations). Regardless, he's been raised by the "Old Man" and Louise, the Old Man's black maid and has worked in the garden of the house. The Old Man dies as old men are wont to do and Chance is left by himself (Chance is 50-ish at this point). Louise tells him that she's closing up the house and leaving but Chance just doesn't get it and stays until the Old Man's lawyers find him and kick him out. He's left to wander the street's of DC, thinking every black woman could bring him lunch (he asks very politely) and that the black kids could find him a garden to work in. While being amazed at himself on TV in a store window, he's hit by Eve Rand's car, slightly injured, and swept away to her humongous house (The Biltmore--which is supposed to be in a populated area of DC) all while she insists his name must be Chauncey Gardiner (to "what is your name" he replied "Chance the Gardener"). Eve's politically powerful husband is dying (she's not as old as he is) and both take a liking to Chance--thinking he's spouting metaphorical truths about business and economics as he talks about "working the garden." This continues in scope so much so that the President (of the US) is quoting him in speeches, the CIA and FBI are accused of shredding his files when no trace of his identity is found, the Russians take an interest in him and his "philosophy." The movie keeps this going as Eve's husband dies and leaves Chance to take over his powerful financial business--Chance then walks on water--I'm not speaking figuratively, that's the end, he walks on water.

Yeah. So the book deals with all of this much better and is more of a commentary on the "videots" who believe all they see on TV--mocking those who are wholly convinced of Chance's genius. He does not walk on water at the end. The book's end makes sense and doesn't make Chance Jesus. I'd suggest reading the book rather than watching the movie . . .

The Crucible (1996), Sleeping with the Enemy (1991), and Less than Zero (1987) (nat)

Yep, I spent all day Saturday watching movies in my bed. Yay!

I should have picked better movies but . . . ok, so I didn't actually choose the later two. I just didn't feel like getting up to find something else to watch and they came on after The Crucible, which I did choose (but from limited TV watching).

I'd never seen The Crucible. I liked it just fine. I'm guessing it was pretty faithful to the play, although I've never read that either (hmmmm, things to put on the to-read list--I may even own it . . . ). We get Daniel Day-Lewis against the besotted and mean Winona Ryder, the latter of whom cries "witch" in order to win him over. And, surprise surprise, that doesn't so much work out for her. She gets herself in deep and can't so much get out of the mess she's caused. I'm happy with the ending of this one--I was set to be angry with the whole thing had he gone through with the deal at the end. The movie makes me want to make a "Mean Girls" syllabus--wouldn't that be fun? This one and Taming of the Shrew and Mean Girls . . . that's as far as I got with that since I don't actually have to make a syllabus.

I've seen Sleeping with the Enemy too many times before. My sister loved it--that and Peggy Sue Got Married. Julia Roberts (Laura) is the abused privileged housewife to the evil, towel straightening Patrick Bergin (Martin). She fakes her drowning and moves to Iowa where she meets supposed-t0-be-cute drama professor Kevin Anderson (Ben). Martin finds them, of course, and that's a problem, of course. My only new reaction is that Ben's hair is way too bushy and Martin's moustache is way creepy. . . way to go make-up department (child-like uncontrollable hair=good guy, sinister facial hair=bad guy).

Less than Zero was a new one for me. I wouldn't bother watching it. Not even a minute of it. Way boring, way stereotypical "cool 80s, don't do drugs" movie. There is actually a visible "I shouldn't do cocaine because these people with whom I've been doing cocaine for fewer than 6 months are stupid" moment. That moment is not preceded by any other sort of character change. Apparently the movie has little to do with the book and Ellis wouldn't see it until recently because of the "DARE" message the filmmakers went with. Anyway, it's nowhere near as graphic as I'm sure the book is. There was the question of whether I'd seen an edited version since it was on FMC. But, nope. Thanks to the internet, I could find the "graphic sex scene" and it's not so much graphic. You can see, sort of, the point at which Jami Gertz's torso meets Andrew McCarthy's as she straddles him but everything is obscured by the leather jacket she is wearing (there was more shown in "Californication", many times over). The only other part is Robert Downey Jr. giving a guy a blow job--which you can't see at all and is supposed to be this grand revelation of his complete downfall (except James Spader has been saying all movie that Downey "works for him" while being surrounded by lots of buff blonde men . . . . not so much with the subtle or the surprise).

Cool Hand Luke (1967) (nat)

Question: Does Paul Newman appear in any movie at the height of his career in which he keeps his shirt on and buttoned-up?
The Long Hot Summer (1958)--shirtless
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)--shirtless
The Young Philadelphians (1959)--sweaty wifebeater (close enough in the 50s)
Sweet Bird of Youth (1962)--shirtless
Harper (1966)--shirtless
Cool Hand Luke (1967)--shirtless most of the movie
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)--I can't remember . . .

There are, of course, many many more movies to watch in order to examine this question :)

Anyway, I started watching this one the other night with Joel but fell asleep in the middle--no fault of the movie, I was exhausted and it was late--so I finished it yesterday. It's good--and for reasons other than the poll above. Paul Newman is Luke a war-hero in jail for beheading parking meters. Once in jail he is a constant and growing trouble to the administration and an irksome presence turned inspiration to the rule-following and rule-making inmates. The turn in the movie, in Luke's character and the other inmate's regard of him, was interesting and well-done, I think. But I would have liked the ending to be different. I know that's what should have happened and it's realistic and all but that's not what I wanted to happen at all.

Stardust (2007) (nat)

Watched this one with the girls Friday night. As mentioned below, I'd just read the book a couple of weeks ago and was looking forward to the movie but was unsure of how they'd translate some things. Well, it turns out they just changed about 75% of the content. I did like most of it. It took a minute to get into, for me, because I was a little dismayed at the almost complete change of the beginning of the story. All of the characters were expanded, some were created for the movie, and some who appeared in the book were eliminated entirely (which meant restructuring major portions of the story). Captain Shakespeare is almost completely an invention of the movie (there is a pirate on a flying ship but that's about as much info as we get in the book) but I loved that character--very funny. But the movie short-changed the story of the Stromhold princes. There was much more competition between Septimus and Primus in the book and I missed that in the movie. The movie did add in the showdown I thought the book needed as well as the interaction between the non-main characters that was missing. I'm not sure which ending I like better, though. The movie's is happier but the book's seemed sweeter and more poignant . . .

Jezebel (1938) (nat)

Joel and I watched Jezebel today -- in an effort to up the numbers from the 1001 Movies to Watch before You Die book. It was already in my Netflix queue but got bumped up thanks to my poor performance in the count of movies I've seen (of course, it sort-of didn't help me in that it also added one to Joel's count . . . ).

Anyway, this one was much better than Dark Passage. Bette Davis is Julie, a strong-willed woman engaged to Preston Dillard (Henry Fonda) and she fights him and social standards the whole way. He leaves and she's got to prove her worth, more or less literally, when he returns. The movie is good but I would have liked a different ending or at least a more honest reason for her final actions. A noble reason is given for what she does and I think it's just her usual selfishness . . . but you'd have to see the movie for me to explain any more than that without giving it away. The undercurrents are a pretty strong "hurrah South and slavery" theme--definitely more racist than Tracy--thanks to being set in 1852 New Orleans.

Trivia: Bette Davis won the Oscar for Leading Actress beating Fay Bainter (for White Banners) who won Supporting Actress for Jezebel (she was Aunt Belle). The film was nominated for but lost best cinematography, score, and pitcure. And apparently some of the scenes were shot around Fonda's need to be off-set while his wife was giving birth to Jane.

Dark Passage (1947) (nat)

Dark Passage is a Humphrey Bogart/Lauren Bacall movie (with Agnes Moorehead of "Bewitched" fame). Bogart is Vincent Parry, a man accused, tried, and convicted of killing his wife. He escapes San Quentin to be picked up by Bacall's Irene Jansen. It turns out that Jansen is a bit obsessed with the trials (in the courtroom and out) of Parry because it reminds her of something in her own past. I can't say much because the "twists" in the noir-ish plot would be given away.

What is interesting, if annoying, is that you don't see Bogart's face until a little over an hour into the movie (which is about an hour 45). Most of the camera work is done as if the viewer is Parry so we see his arms or feet but no face or body. We see him in dark dark shadows at one point but still over 30 minutes in to the movie. There's a plot reason for the obscuring of his face but it's a little odd and sort of disorienting to watch.

And I have to admit that I fell asleep before the end of the movie. I'm not really inclined to watch the rest and think I might regret it if I finish it (a la Night of the Iguana) but I'll probably watch it anyway, especially since there are less than 45 minutes left. Maybe while I put away laundry.

Not much reading lately. I have read more of Calamity Physics and like it but it's way long (500+) so it's taking a while.

The Amazing Screw-On Head (2006) and A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) (nat)

Joel and I watched The Amazing Screw-On Head Thursday night. Apparently it was supposed to be a TV show but only the pilot was made so its only about 1/2 hour long. It's by the same guy who wrote Hell Boy. It's literally about a screw-on head (voiced by Paul Giamatti) who saves the world when told to do so by Abraham Lincoln. Screw-On Head is helped by his manservant, Mr. Groin, who is the latest in a long line of butlers. Emperor Zombie (voiced by David Hyde Pierce) was Head's first butler but turned against him and now has a plot to kill all the subsequent menservants. Emperor Zombie also had Head's girlfriend, Patience (voiced by Molly Shannon), turned into a vampire and she is thereafter Zombie's flunkie. It's just fine. I wouldn't have seen it except Joel wanted to watch it.

Streetcar was a re-watch for me. Joel hadn't seen it and I thought that was sacrilege so we watched it Saturday night. I love it although Blanche was reminding me of my grandmother a bit this time . . . scary!

"Californication" (nat)

No movie today but I did watch the pilot for David Duchovney's new Showtime show, "Californication," on Netflix's website. All I can say is this: lots of boobs. Lots. At least those of four women shown multiple times. And full on naked boobs--not a glimpse of cleavage here or there, or just a topless woman. I could like it maybe if it calmed down a bit with the pointless naked.

Duchovney is Hank: a novelist who has severe writer's block after having written a best-selling book which has been turned into a movie (a movie that completely misses the mark and stars "Tom and Katie"). He is also recently "divorced" (they were never technically married) from the mother of his wannabe punk rock 12 year old daughter. Hank wants her back but she's getting married so he sleeps with any girl who will pull her top off. Meanwhile, the daughter is acting out and Hank's agent is trying to find him a "nice girl" and trying to get Hank to write a blog.

I guess it's ok. Again, if it calmed down with the naked or at least had a reason for the naked or balanced the genders of the naked. . . . Who knows. It's an interesting idea. I'd maybe watch it if I had Showtime. I might give it another shot if it shows up on Netflix but I won't hunt it down.

The Night of the Iguana (1964) and BUtterfield 8 (1960) (nat)

Yawn. Even with the normally explosive Richard Burton and the sassy Ava Gardner, it's more or less boring. It's one of those play-movies with lots and lots of dialogue but not so much going on and not so much atmosphere. It's about the not-quite defrocked priest Shannon (Burton) who is locked out of his church after just a year or so for a supposed indiscretion with a girl. He then becomes a tour guide for Mexico and ends up guiding a bunch of Baptist women including the precocious, flirtatious, obnoxious Charlotte Goodall, the only young girl on the trip. Her daddy can get her anything according to her and she wants nothing more than a man, any man really. Shannon gets in trouble because Charlotte letches on to him. Shannon ends up taking the group to the inn of a friend (Ave Gardner's Maxine Faulk) in a desperate last move not to lose his tour guide job. There they also meet a middle-aged quick-sketch artist and her grandfather who is the oldest living poet. Shannon has his break when the leader of the Baptist women calls him defrocked. It's ok. But just ok when Streetcar and Sweet Bird of Youth and The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone and even Baby Doll (all also by Tennessee Williams) are so much better. This one watches almost like I was reading the dialogue as opposed to watching something. And this one is more about religion which tends to bore me anyway. I stopped about a half hour until the end and took a nap . . . we'll see if I finish it. I'm not really inclined to.

But, I'd forgotten that I also watched BUtterfield 8 the other week. That one I like quite a bit. It's an interesting partner to Breakfast at Tiffany's in terms of subject matter. Here we have Elizabeth Taylor as Gloria Wandrous a call-girl of sorts although she never takes payment per se. She still lives with her mother who turns a naive blind eye to her daughter's actions, including the fact that the "service" BUtterfield 8 calls the house and tells the mother the list of places Gloria is to appear to "model" dresses. Gloria falls in love, of course, with the one man who dares to calls her bluff, Weston Liggett. A man married, of course, to a "proper" woman with social status who makes Liggett a bit claustrophobic. Gloria and Liggett spar and fall in love while his wife is away. His wife returns and all hell breaks loose. It's interesting as the bad girl gone good story, like Holly Golightly, but the ending in BUtterfield is not all kissing in the rain after Cat is found. I won't spoil the ending but it's a stark contrast to Breakfast. Taylor is fantastic as usual and I like the job the other actors did, too. Another interesting part of it is the author of the novel, John O'Hara, was a wacko. Worth a look on wikipedia.

There was no movie yesterday . . . I fell down on my movie-a-day plan. But I've seen two movies in one day on enough days to make up for a few slips, which there will probably be more of in the next week or so as I have to deal with people coming in for graduation. Yick (the people, not the graduation). Maybe I'll watch another one later tonight . . .

Stardust (novel) (nat)

I just finished reading Stardust and now I think I shouldn't have. I liked it. But now I think the movie is going to be bad because just from the list of characters on imdb, I can tell they changed it quite a bit--giving Yvaine a sister and Tristran a son. And from stills they have, I can point out the things that don't happen in the book. Hmpf. We'll just have to see about that.

Anyway, I like the book a lot. It's about a boy (illegitimately born of a woman from Faerie--illegitimate children are becoming a theme in my reading/watching) who promises to retrieve a fallen star for a girl he loves, but who obviously is just trying to get rid of him. The novel does a good job of planting you firmly in the Faerie world even though it glosses over certain events (just saying something happened rather then showing) and the passage of time is uncertain. I wish Gaiman had described more of the events and that some of the "evil" forces had culminated into something of a showdown (which is what I suspect the movie might do) instead of the sort-of weak resolution to the conflict. I mean it made sense and it's ok but wouldn't it have been more fun if there were a sword fight or some magic thrown around or something? I think the book could have been about twice as long and sustained a more intricate plot. But, for a fun summer read, I like it. It would probably also teach well . . .

Good lord, woman (Stacey)

Oh my god...Are you trying to make me feel inferior? All I have to contribute from this summer's reading is several young adult books, H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man, and lots of trashy supernatural novels. But I have to admit that this could become just another addictive time waster. I can't seem to have enough of those.

Splendor in the Grass (1961) (nat)

Not a movie to watch when your mother is driving you mad. Here we get star crossed lovers (well, not really "lovers" and that's the driving conflict) Natalie Wood (Deanie) and Warren Beatty (Bud). Their parents are enough to drive anyone to the brink. Her father is oblivious and unable to stand up to her mother. Her mother is a meddling moron who asks repeatedly if Deanie has been "spoiled" and then later ignores Deanie's health in favor of asking if the doctors blamed her mother for her illness (citing Freud). His mother is useless and powerless in the face of his father who is an annoyingly loud man who refuses to listen to anyone's opinions but his own. Bud wants to marry Deanie because he loves her (or so he says but the not so subtle subtext is that he just wants to have sex with her and can't stand waiting any longer). Deanie wants to marry Bud because she's flimsy as a person and has attached herself to him in a really unhealthy way. Lots of overt good girl/bad girl juxtaposition (in that you're either one or the other) but the good boy/bad boy dichotomy is more realistic (of course) in that the men can be both good and bad (have your virgin and your whore too--but not in the same girl). In the background is the prosperity and then stockmarket crash of the 20s making for an interesting thread of role reversal in terms of wealth. Natalie Wood is just brilliant. I now want to re-watch West Side Story and Rebel without a Cause.

Glitch (sort-of) number 1 (nat)

So, now that Joel has published to this thing, I see that is it very helpful in that it doesn't identify authors. I went back in and put the author's name in parentheses at the end of the title of each blog . . . let's try that (in that you all put your name when posting not that I have to go back and figure it out and do it). Unless there is a better idea?

Or, ok fine. I see that it does id the authors but at the end of the post in teeny tiny little letters that I just now saw. . . . I think I'd still like to know who wrote the thing when I start reading it . . .

Holy. Shit. (J)

The sheer volume of media intake is squinting into the horizon of staggering; the fact that you still have time and energy to then output response to said media is hammered-drunk, falling-down amounts of beyond staggering. We really need to get you working on cancer, global warming, and toothpaste that can be returned to the tube. And maybe knitting? Doesn't knitting take a long time? Maybe you could start knitting the true value of pi. That ought to keep you busy until I get some guys from JPL to build a hamster wheel that will both fit you and, well, restrain you.

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each (nat)

One more post and I'm done for the night. I wanted to list a few cds that I just got that I'm already loving a lot. I'll link to their amazon pages on the cd titles so you can hear snippets.


Emiliana Torrini. Fisherman's Woman.


Keren Ann. Keren Ann.

Rachel Yamagata. Happenstance.

William Galison and Madeleine Peyroux. Got You on My Mind.

(Leslie) Feist. Let It Die.

Yes, it's girl heavy. I also got Keane, The Fratellis, and Amos Lee but I haven't listened to the first two and amazon forgot to pack the last one so it'll be here Monday.

After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor— (nat)

And this one is full of the most recent books I've read. These aren't all in the last week (like the movies) but they are all after the completion of the dissertation. I've also included some links to sites about the authors, books, etc. From oldest forward, again:

1. Kadare, Ismail. The File on H. It's about a pair of Irish Homer scholars who go to a tiny, remote village in Albania, along the Serbian line, to research epic poems still being told in the oral tradition. Their visit is assumed to be a spy mission by the "federal" and local governments. Hilarity is supposed to ensue. This one is supposed to be "part spy novel, part comedy of errors" according to the back of the book and I've seen rave reviews of the author--along the lines of "thank god he's finally translated into English for the wider market, he's a genius . . . " Unfortunately the comedy part doesn't come off as particularly funny when it could, I think. Maybe with a different writer. It's like when a comedy skit is really funny on paper but the actors bomb. And it's not even really a bomb in the book. It's readable, you have a vague interest in what happens but it doesn't come off as even remotely funny. But the frustrating part is that you can see how it could be funny. Maybe it may be a cultural/language thing? The author is Albanian. I'll give the author another try but wouldn't recommend this particular book.

2. Meloy, Maile. Liars and Saints. She's one of Granta's Best Young American Novelists. I really like this one. I read it in one sitting. An easy read with multiple narrators about several generations of a Catholic family in California and all of the mishaps that befall them. It's both funny and tragic and, I think, honest about families and their dysfunctions. The characters are all mostly likable despite some severe flaws which I think is hard to accomplish.

3. McCall Smith, Alexander. Dream Angus. (part of Canongate's myth series) This is another easy read and I read this one in one sitting as well. It's about the Irish/Scottish dream "god" Angus. The book is more or less short stories strung together with the common character of Angus, although he appears in different forms and as different characters, if that makes sense. I like the last story a lot despite my want to dislike part of the content--I'd have to give away the end. They remind me of sort of sweet bedtime stories, which is appropriate for the subject matter. Interestingly, this book does not appear on his website--which is mainly focused on his Ladies Detective Agency Books and other series.

4. Maugham, W. Somerset. The Painted Veil. I'd hoped the book would fill in some of the character in the boring movie. I disliked the movie because it seemed as if some of the character development was lacking but I thought I saw how it could be a good movie and moving story if those things were filled in. I hoped the book would do that. I was wrong. I didn't finish reading it because I knew the story from the movie and the novel wasn't adding anything. Of the two, I'd say watch the movie because it will take less time and it is at least pretty. But, I'd really advise skipping both.

5. Mosher, Howard Frank. Stranger in the Kingdom. Yick! Don't read it! This one is supposed to be about "the unforgettable story of a brutal murder in a small town and the devastating events that follow." First problem is that none of that is true for the first two thirds of the book except the small town part. No one is murdered until that far into the narrative--literally page 266 of 421. Additionally, the author really just wants to show off his knowledge of SAT words. Really, I think he bought the learn vocabulary cds they recommend for the SAT or GRE. The narrator is another problem, I guess it is supposed to be an adult looking back on the summer in his childhood when these events happened but we're never really told that in so many words and the narration switches from the vocab-heavy to sounding like a child. Way inconsistent. I stopped reading it after I learned who died. And, on page 297 where I stopped reading, there were no real "events that follow" of consequence. I'm not sure who wrote the blurb on the back of the book but he/she is either a complete moron or did not read the book at all.

6. Mason, Bobbie Ann. Atomic Romance. This one was a disappointment. I'd read "Shiloh" and liked it. But I just couldn't get into this one. I think I gave it 50 pages or so and I still didn't care about the main character at all. It's about this guy who is pretty smart but works a blue collar job at the nuclear plant. He has a dog, his mother is in a nursing home, his sister is across the country, his best friend is an alcoholic, he won't call the woman he most recently dated but he desperately wants to. Could be interesting. But it isn't.

7. Meloy, Maile. Family Daughter. At first this one made me very angry. I almost stopped reading after 20 pages because it is about the same family in Liars and Saints but some very crucial character elements (like whether certain of them are alive or not) are changed. I thought the author had broken her own rules. Nope. It's worth the read. It turns out (this isn't a huge spoiler or anything) that in Family Daughter one of the characters, Abby, is writing a novel vaguely (ok, a LOT) like her family, she publishes it and that novel is Liars and Saints. She goofs in that in Family, Abby changes the characters names so as to not really anger her family and to be able to claim it as pure fiction but Liars uses the same names as Family. What I think is interesting is that I found myself liking the characters as they are in Liars more than the "real" ones in Family. I wonder if Family were read first, if the characters in Liars would be less likable . . . She's got one more book, Half in Love (short stories) and I think I'll read that too.

8. Palahniuk, Chuck. Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey. I've been halfway reading this one for a little while now. It's ok. Typical Palahniuk. The narration is interesting in that it's the story of Rant after he's died as told by family, friends, acquaintances, etc. Nothing special but not terrible either.

9. Pessl, Marisha. Special Topics in Calamity Physics. (side note: her name is a link to her myspace page, she's annoyingly pretty to be so young and talented. The title is a link to its own website with additional info--I haven't looked at this yet because it promises spoilers). I'm in the process of reading this one now--about 100 pages in to the 500 or so. It's good but not in a "I want to stay up all night to finish it way" so it's taking me a little while to read. It's about a college (Harvard) student with an academic father and a dead mother who tells the story of her senior year in high school during which a teacher died horribly. It's geek-fun. The parts and chapters are set up like a syllabus but the content of each is only vaguely connected to the titles so it's not annoying in a "look at all of the books I've read and can twist the plot of my story to fit" way. And the narrator is smart and likable, referencing other texts in her descriptions in a fun snarky way. But she's also just a little geek trying to not get hurt when making friends at a new school (she and her dad move every 4-6 months or so). It's good but it makes me want to re-read The Secret History by Donna Tartt.

10. Gaiman, Neil. Stardust. I liked the movie preview so I wanted to read the book. That and Tracy and Rachel like him (and I like what I've read of the Sandman series). I'm liking it so far although it lead to a terrible dream in which Joel dies of a 105 temperature and I'm left to care for a strange baby that shows up . . . . This is the dream that results from a day in which I watch Die Hard and Harper and read parts of Special Topics and Stardust and a fashion magazine . . . my poor brain is confused.

Ok, so that catches me up. I'll post more on the unfinished novels as I read. Next on the list is The Once and Future King as promised to Joel and The Confederacy of Dunces as promised to my dad.

as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen (nat)

This one will be one big clump of the movies I've watched in the past week. It's quite a few . . . I have a lot of time on my hands. From the oldest forward:



1. No Reservations (2007) - typical romantic comedy but with cooking so I like that. And I love cute little Aaron Eckhart with his Muppet hair, love the little Abigail girl, still not so much a fan of Catherine Zeta Jones but she's tolerable here even though she talks strangely.



2. The Taming of the Shrew (1967) - This was a re-watch. Even with my tentative dislike of reading Shakespeare, I absolutely love this movie even with it being bad for women (esp. that last speech of Elizabeth Taylor's). Taylor and Burton are just great together on screen and in a fight . . . . much like in real life.



3. The Young Philadelphians (1959) - (black and white). A melodrama about an illegitimately-born (unbeknownst to him) social climbing lawyer who redeems himself, of course. And starring in said film is the lovely Paul Newman, shirtless at one point--who could ask for more, really.



4. A Very Long Engagement (2004) - I love Audrey Tatou. That's it. Ok, so more -- it's a very pretty movie visually. And I thought it ended more or less optimistically--although I know Tracy disagrees--but I won't say what the ending entails for those who haven't seen it. But I think it's a very sweet love story.



5. The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - I'm not a huge Steve McQueen fan, he just doesn't "do it for me" as JD would say, although I will say I've never seen any other movie of his so maybe it was just this one. Joel got me his boxed set so I have 2-3 other movies of his so we'll see. And I did not like the mod screen-splitting or the trippy blur to TV test screen as they make out. But I want Faye Dunaway's hair and I do like the ending to this one better than the ending to the newer version.



6. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) - Fun and action-y. That's what a Die Hard movie should be. And I like the cute little Mac commercial boy. I do want to know whether in an un-edited version somewhere 1. if we'll hear the "fucker" of "motherfucker"; 2. if the Mac boy eats the Snickers bar in the glove box of the car he cons the OnStar woman into starting (all he talked about before that was how hungry he was).

7. Harper (1966) - Another one from my Paul Newman boxed set. He's a private eye (this is one of his "H" movies, apparently he asked that the character's last name be changed to something beginning with an "H" and that the movie then be titled that last name because of the success of Hud and The Hustler or so Robert Osborne tells me in an intro to the movie) and is one of the movies to revitalize the genre after noir went black. Lauren Bacall is in it as a nod to the older version (as are Robert Wagner and Janet Leigh). Anyway, it's a fun whodunit with backstabbing women (and men, for that matter) and poor Paul getting beaten up and shot at at every turn. And a super creepy scene with a lot of Mexicans that reminds me of something that I can't quite put my finger on . . .

8. Talk to Me (2007) - This makes me want to watch Dirty Pretty Things again. I really like Chewy (I'm not looking up how to spell his name)--I also like Cheadle and Taraji Henson. I wish some of the time spans at the end had been more clear and a little better editing to pick up the pace in the second half. But I liked the story and the acting and the music and the costuming and the ever-changing hair-styles (those just made me laugh).

Ok, that's it. So, now I'll post with each movie or so. And I'll figure out how to make you guys authors too so you can post. Super fun! :)

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse (nat)

I decided to add a blog for my book reading and movie watching projects. The lists on the side of the other blog are getting too long and there seems to be no way to only show part of them while linking to the rest of the list (well, there may be but I don't know how to do it and am tiring of trying to figure it out). And those lists are starting to annoy me with their length not to mention that I should write more than a quip about what I've read and watched if it's really to be useful (more for me than anyone else really). So I'm going to blog on books and movies here. And I think this is the first real sign I'm getting bored after finishing the dissertation . . . I'm signing myself up for a writing project.