First, put a ~ on the n in Bolano. And I'll avoid any spoilers.
Second, no, I'm not finished with the whole book. I'm going to try to write about each book (5 in all) because I am certain that by the time I get to the end of this almost-900 page monstrosity not only will it be five years from now but I will have forgotten everything from the beginning of the book.
Starting with the title. I wish someone knew how to pronounce it. It is "twenty-six, sixty-six" (my preference, I think) or "two-six-six-six" or "two thousand six hundred sixty six" or "two six sixty six" or . . . . Of course, all translated from Spanish but the same configurations apply. The New Yorker has a "National Reading 2666 month" (right--in a month. Ha!) and discusses the title but with no real conclusions. Here and here.
I love the epilogue: "An oasis of horror in a desert of boredom" --Charles Baudelaire. I need to find the source but it might be the title of a paper one day.
So this part, as indicated by the title, is about the critics. Four critics, only one of whom is a woman, who study the same author (who is a bit Pynchon- or Salinger-esque in reclusivity): Liz Norton (British), Jean-Claude Pelletier (French), Piero Morini (Italian), and Manuel Espinoza (Spanish) study Benno von Archimboldi (German). Arguably, the critics are the preeminent Archimboldi scholars and they supposedly spend a lot of time writing and conferencing on the author. Slightly interesting is Bolano's choice to have only European scholars and an European author when he was Chilean.
I was incredibly interested at first. How many books are written on literature scholars? Not many. And how many actually dare to show them at a conference? Not many. And how many show the relationships between scholars. Not many. So that drew me in along with all of the hype and the great physical packaging of the three book boxed set. But these scholars, unfortunately for my attention span with the book, engage in a sort of scholarship that I don't appreciate and that I find sort of useless academically. They chase the author. The actual physical author. They are interested in his life, where he is, etc. I love Salinger, love DeLillo, am intrigued by Pynchon (mainly because I don't understand the books enough to love him). But their personal lives do not come into play in my scholarship. I would never dream of taking a trip to New York to find Pynchon and can't imagine that finding the man would actually accomplish anything. And this is not only because when faced with an author I can do little more than say my name for an autograph but because I study fiction. I'm not looking to write a biography.
Another fact that tested my tolerance is the treatment of women. Norton is not on equal footing with the men academically. She stumbled into her study of the author. And, of course, she must, absolutely must, have a physical relationship that causes problems and turns sour not to mention the emotional baggage she brings into that relationship. And the narrator (third person omni), at first, paid little heed to her and her opinions on the relationship but offered the other side in detail. Toward the end of this book, he does resolve that a bit and pays more attention to her but the damage has been done. There aren't many other women in the book so far. An old publisher who only makes a brief appearance, a Mexican woman who is maybe (probably) sexually exploited and deserted, a woman or two referred to in a story, and a hoard of Mexican women killed but only referenced in passing toward the end of the book.
Another odd thing is the attention paid to dreams by the narrator. Several times the reader is told about the dreams of the main characters. They're maybe interesting but I'm not sure what to do with them.
2666 is certainly not like other South American/Latino books I've read. This is not Garcia Marquez's magical realism (which right now just makes me want to read that instead). I would be interested to know if this is a strain of Latino literature I've missed or if it's something new or if it's just Bolano (which really just makes me want to go back to school for Latino lit).
So far the book is good. Not quite the brilliant espoused by critics and it definitely tests my interests. It's a dense read and the tiny sections instead of chapters tend to make me read fewer pages in one sitting. Add that to the plot and thematic trouble and it's going to take me a while to get through it. I like it but I'm really questioning whether all the hype isn't just because the author died, left the book unfinished, and the sheer ginormous size of it. It might help, too, if I had already read The Savage Detectives instead of piling it on my nightstand.
So, forward I go (after a brief respite with some Winterson and Obama, I think).
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
I am beginning to have a clear picture of the films Paul Haggis must have in his collection. Those he admires most and after which he models his writing.
Gentleman's Agreement is ostensibly about anti-Semitism and how terrible it is with Gregory Peck going under-cover as it were as a Jew to write a magazine article about the impacts of anti-Semitism. The problem is that it's about a gentile going under cover as a Jew to expose gentile beliefs and most of the movie is spent on conflicts between Peck and his in-on-it fiance (who he's known for about 5 minutes) because of the considerable strain it puts on their relationship and the way she chooses to handle anti-Semitism by not handling it. While Peck wants to fight every fight, the fiance would rather turn her nose up at it but not say anything in the moment. Then we get the real Jew in on the action who is only visibly persecuted once in the film and has trouble finding an apartment (but there is no on-screen confrontation). The trouble with the whole movie is that while it does expose some of the horrible things done to the Jewish population, it's really all about liberal gentile guilt. The terrible things are done to Peck who we know isn't Jewish so those people watching the movie who are anti-Semitic would think oh that's terrible that one of ours is being treated that way not oh that's terrible that we treat Jews that way.
In addition to those considerable problems, the movie is preachy and speech-y (a la Haggis). The movie turns around when the fiance learns she must take some form of action and rents her place to the Jewish friend thus resolving the conflict between she and Peck. Unfortunately, the whole movie comes off as condescending. No, we shouldn't tolerate any sort of hate or hate crime but slugging men in restaurants is not the answer either. I understand this movie was forward for its time and caused considerable trouble for those involved thanks to McCarthy era witch-hunting but it doesn't hold up and shouldn't be used as a model for social action movies now.
Gentleman's Agreement is ostensibly about anti-Semitism and how terrible it is with Gregory Peck going under-cover as it were as a Jew to write a magazine article about the impacts of anti-Semitism. The problem is that it's about a gentile going under cover as a Jew to expose gentile beliefs and most of the movie is spent on conflicts between Peck and his in-on-it fiance (who he's known for about 5 minutes) because of the considerable strain it puts on their relationship and the way she chooses to handle anti-Semitism by not handling it. While Peck wants to fight every fight, the fiance would rather turn her nose up at it but not say anything in the moment. Then we get the real Jew in on the action who is only visibly persecuted once in the film and has trouble finding an apartment (but there is no on-screen confrontation). The trouble with the whole movie is that while it does expose some of the horrible things done to the Jewish population, it's really all about liberal gentile guilt. The terrible things are done to Peck who we know isn't Jewish so those people watching the movie who are anti-Semitic would think oh that's terrible that one of ours is being treated that way not oh that's terrible that we treat Jews that way.
In addition to those considerable problems, the movie is preachy and speech-y (a la Haggis). The movie turns around when the fiance learns she must take some form of action and rents her place to the Jewish friend thus resolving the conflict between she and Peck. Unfortunately, the whole movie comes off as condescending. No, we shouldn't tolerate any sort of hate or hate crime but slugging men in restaurants is not the answer either. I understand this movie was forward for its time and caused considerable trouble for those involved thanks to McCarthy era witch-hunting but it doesn't hold up and shouldn't be used as a model for social action movies now.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Mama Mia! (2008)
Oh dear. I felt very sorry and embarrassed for Pierce Brosnan singing. Otherwise the movie was cute enough. Not brilliant or life changing but cute and fun. The last few minutes with the cast singing in spandex outfits was really charming and endearing and sort-of worth watching the whole movie for but, of course, we all know I have a weakness for silly dancing actors. And, of course, I hope I look as good as Meryl Streep does when I'm that age, in spandex no less.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Bye Bye Birdie (1963)
This one was on tv on a Saturday afternoon with nothing to do. And, apparently, nothing on tv either. Basically a lot of good-ish actors who shouldn't be singing but did: Janet Leigh, Dick Van Dyke, Ann-Margaret, and a few others. I know it was supposed to be kitschy and not perfect but it was close to intolerable and headache inducing. I appreciate the idea of it but not this execution.
Bell, Book and Candle (1958)
I've seen this movie a bazillion times and like it quite a bit. It's a cute, fun romantic comedy centering on Kim Novak, who is a witch, and James Stewart, who is bewitched. Jack Lemmon supports the cast as Novak's brother and Elsa Lancaster (best known, perhaps, as the bride of Frankenstein) is their aunt. The plot is basic romcom fare: girl meets boy, girl/boy likes the other, girl gets boy (with a little magic), and then hilarity ensues. Definitely worth watching, a bazillion times at that.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Wrong Man (1956)
Hmpf. I had problems with this movie, some founded and others not so much. Basically, the movie failed to have much of an impact. According to Hitchcock, who introduces the film, this is a real story and all the more frightening because of its reality. Well, yeah, maybe in 1956.
So, the film is about the police arresting the wrong man for a crime and the methods by which they deem him guilty are less than reliable--really relying solely on identifications by eye-witnesses which we all know from watching one too many Law and Order episodes (or just basic sociology/criminal justice classes) are none too accurate. So, right, that's scary in 1956 but technology and police oversight prevent the majority of that sort of mix-up now in my mind. What makes that one more of an unfounded problem is because there are tons of wrong men arrested and tossed in jail as illustrated by the bazillion cases of wrongly convicted people based on inaccurate fingerprint identification in LA recently. Basically, I know this still happens but it doesn't frighten me so it is not an effective method of suspense.
The very much founded in reality problem I have with the film is the wife's complete inability to function once things really go downhill for the husband. And then she miraculously recovers months (I forget what the text actually said so maybe it's longer?) later. Seriously?
So this one ends up being a vaguely interesting look at a wrongly accused man but doesn't hold up to the passage of time (or the idea that women might be able to handle stress a little bit better).
So, the film is about the police arresting the wrong man for a crime and the methods by which they deem him guilty are less than reliable--really relying solely on identifications by eye-witnesses which we all know from watching one too many Law and Order episodes (or just basic sociology/criminal justice classes) are none too accurate. So, right, that's scary in 1956 but technology and police oversight prevent the majority of that sort of mix-up now in my mind. What makes that one more of an unfounded problem is because there are tons of wrong men arrested and tossed in jail as illustrated by the bazillion cases of wrongly convicted people based on inaccurate fingerprint identification in LA recently. Basically, I know this still happens but it doesn't frighten me so it is not an effective method of suspense.
The very much founded in reality problem I have with the film is the wife's complete inability to function once things really go downhill for the husband. And then she miraculously recovers months (I forget what the text actually said so maybe it's longer?) later. Seriously?
So this one ends up being a vaguely interesting look at a wrongly accused man but doesn't hold up to the passage of time (or the idea that women might be able to handle stress a little bit better).
Friday, January 16, 2009
Catching Up: 22 Movies and a Book (!)
So, yeah. I was lazy. I was out of town then it was Christmas then it was New Year's then it was . . . Yeah, nope, just me being lazy. So here's the catch-up blog entry. I'll try to keep it short.
1. The Visitor (2007): Brilliant, inspiring, and heartbreaking. It manages to make the issue of illegal immigrants pertinent and get the viewer emotionally involved without resorting to cheap tricks or cheesy plot lines or ranting at the system.
2. Good Night, and Good Luck (2005): My apologies to Clooney but I found this one a tad lifeless. To be so concerned with the impact of McCarthy's political reach, the film folds itself into this one news show without showing the viewer the wider implications. While I know a good bit of the history, the movie should allow me to use that a supplement, not the primary source for information. Meanwhile, that info could have been added in if other, superfluous, aspects were removed (the Patricia Clarkson/Robert Downey Jr storyline was sweet but carried no importance for the larger plot, for example). It's fine but I'm baffled at the hoopla about it when it was released.
3. Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa (2008): I LOVE dancing animals. That's it.
4. Jane Austen Book Club (2007): A movie like this can pass for cute because I don't expect the same things from it as I do, say, Good Night, and Good Luck. It's fluff and it's fun and it makes me wish I had a book club. My only complaint: Jimmy Smits.
5. The Hustler (1961): This just makes me sad that Paul Newman will never make another movie. It's good. I'm not in love with it and it has it's problems (the female character is not what we'd call, oh, I don't know, good for women) but Newman is wonderful as usual as is Jackie Gleason. It does offer an interesting look into the "tough guy" and the (d)evolution of such a character, especially when that tough guy is ultimately being controlled by, not only his addiction to his profession/hobby (pool and gambling on the game), but by the machinations of that corner of society (the hierarchy of tough guys so to speak). So, yeah, an interesting glimpse into that sort of masculinity.
6. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953): I've seen this movie a bazillion times but I still love Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell. Yes, it's a tad dated. Yes, it's a tad sexist. But it's still a solid, fun comedy musical.
7. Christmas in Connecticut (1945): A cute Barbara Stanwyck movie in which she's a domestic goddess in print: writing essays with decorating, child rearing, and cooking tips about her life on a farm in Connecticut with her husband and newborn baby. The man who owns Stanwyck's publication demands that she give a soldier a proper Christmas at her home which, of course, the owner will also attend. The problem? Stanwyck is a single, childless woman living in a tiny New York apartment and her uncle, who owns a restaurant, provides all of the recipes for her writing. Mayhem ensues during which a male pursuer of Stanwyk proposes marriage (again) and offers his Connecticut farm for a cover-up scheme and, of course, Stanwyk and the soldier fall in love. It sounds more confusing than it is. The movie is a fun, false identity movie (that was strangely and probably tragically, remade in 1992 for tv with Dyan Cannon and Kris Kristofferson, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger).
8. 3:10 to Yuma (1957): YAWN. Watch the newer one.
9. Evening (2007): I didn't expect this to be good but I did not expect it to be so bad. Now that I see it was co-written by Michael Cunningham, I'm even more baffled. I did not like The Hours (novel or movie) or A Home at the End of the World but I disliked those three things for very different reasons. It seems as if Cunningham is making a study out of how to just miss the mark in a variety of ways. Amazing. Anyway, the movie is just dull and I think completely fails to do what it sets out to do. And then end. Ugh. The end is just a cheap attempt to make everyone cry.
10. Sabotage (1936): Supposedly the first film to be made about terrorism, this one is not your typical Hitchcock. It's fine but it's a little dull and slow.
11. Adaptation (2002): Things I do not need to see in a movie: a crowning baby, Nicolas Cage masturbating (especially more than once). Otherwise, the film was an interesting look at meta-narratives and the process of adapting a book to film. I have the book but haven't read it so I'd be interested to see how it ties together. I'm glad to have seen it but won't watch it again unless I teach it.
12. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007): What? The title refers to how pregnant one of the main characters is when she goes to an rendezvous for an illegal abortion. One ginormous problem with the film is that it is subtitled in white letters against an often light background making the Romanian impossible to translate. So half the time I had no idea what was being said. The other problem is that I can't imagine being impressed with the film had I been able to understand every syllable. It seemed to function on characters emotions that were not explored or developed. But, again, maybe one line of subtitles would have solved that problem.
13. The Reader (2007): Genius. Clint Eastwood should watch this movie over and over until he can learn to make a mid-film thematic and tonal transition without making it look and feel like two disparate movies jammed together at the middle. Kate Winslet is brilliant as usual and the actor playing the boy convincingly ages into Ralph Fiennes who is also wonderful. My one tiny complaint is a tiny lack of exposition when she is offered a promotion to distinguish it from the earlier, more life-changing promotion. One little line would have helped me immensely. Otherwise, virtually flawless.
14. The Lost Weekend (1945): I lost 101 minutes watching this poor excuse for an anti-drinking PSA. Sad.
15. The Man who Knew Too Much (1956): Strangely, a remake of a 1934 Hitchcock, by Hitchcock, this time with James Stewart and Doris Day. It's definitely interesting. It kept my attention but a few threads were left hanging loose (the taxidermist, for example) that I would have preferred tied up.
16. Marley and Me (2007): That sound you hear is an audible scoff at the idea that this is anything like a family film about a rambunctious puppy. I'll save you the rant and just say this: at least the last 20 minutes of the film are devoted to an almost pornographic look at this poor dog dying, including the euthanasia syringe being inserted and drained of drugs. Terrible.
17. Goya's Ghosts (2006): This movie is not so much about Goya but more about a scandal into which he is pulled revolving around a monk who has Goya's muse imprisoned under (false) charges of being a heretic (we're talking the Spanish Inquisition here) and then that monk is shamed and flees only to return under the guise of a rational man working under the banner of Napoleon. It has some flaws (Natalie Portman playing two characters, for one) but it's watchable.
18. The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): This one isn't even worth a review. Just watch The Tudors.
19. The Red Shoes (1948): I have mixed feelings about this one. It's a tad long (a little over two hours) to tell what should be a concise, compact story. Quite a lot of time is performance footage which is not especially compelling even as much as I love dancing movies. But the story is interesting in that it centers on a retold ballet version of the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, "The Red Shoes," while the larger story is also a retelling of the same story. So, eh. It's on the list and I like the layered meta-narratives.
20. Wife for a Night (1952): A strange little Italian mixed-up identity movie that will only suffer if I attempt a plot summary. But it's cute and fun.
21. Smart People (2008): Unfortunately not written by smart people.
22. Brideshead Revisited (1981, miniseries): This should really count as about 5 movies since it was almost 11 hours long. Regardless, I liked it but think it a few things crammed together. There is the war frame, the Sebastian/Charles college story, some sort of transitional period, and a Charles/Julia story. Individually, they all work but I found myself forgetting entirely about the frame until it came up again at the end and then not being interested in it because it skipped information I wanted to know. And I loved the Sebastian/Charles and Charles/Julia stories but did not care for the circumstances that removed Sebastian from the story. I found myself wanting more Julia in the first half and more Sebastian in the second. It's as if they couldn't really appear as full characters in the same scene. Oh, and I found the whole parents' dying parts not well incorporated which could be the point, that adults don't necessarily come into our lives until there is a serious problem, but still.
23. And the book! Vacation (2008) Deb Olin Unferth: I bought this one (for my birthday) largely because it's a pretty hardcover sans dust jacket published by McSweeney's. This is a strange book to me because I found myself not really caring about what happened or about the characters when I first started reading it (which, of course, relegated it to the pile while I finished Calamity Physics) but somewhere in the middle-ish of the book, I cared. And by the end, I really wanted the book to continue. It's a strange plot-line with a few subplots so I can't really summarize it with any efficiency or, ultimately, veracity but I do recommend it. I'm not sure why but I do like it, kind of a lot.
Ok, that's done. Hopefully, I can stay on top of things a little better now ;)
1. The Visitor (2007): Brilliant, inspiring, and heartbreaking. It manages to make the issue of illegal immigrants pertinent and get the viewer emotionally involved without resorting to cheap tricks or cheesy plot lines or ranting at the system.
2. Good Night, and Good Luck (2005): My apologies to Clooney but I found this one a tad lifeless. To be so concerned with the impact of McCarthy's political reach, the film folds itself into this one news show without showing the viewer the wider implications. While I know a good bit of the history, the movie should allow me to use that a supplement, not the primary source for information. Meanwhile, that info could have been added in if other, superfluous, aspects were removed (the Patricia Clarkson/Robert Downey Jr storyline was sweet but carried no importance for the larger plot, for example). It's fine but I'm baffled at the hoopla about it when it was released.
3. Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa (2008): I LOVE dancing animals. That's it.
4. Jane Austen Book Club (2007): A movie like this can pass for cute because I don't expect the same things from it as I do, say, Good Night, and Good Luck. It's fluff and it's fun and it makes me wish I had a book club. My only complaint: Jimmy Smits.
5. The Hustler (1961): This just makes me sad that Paul Newman will never make another movie. It's good. I'm not in love with it and it has it's problems (the female character is not what we'd call, oh, I don't know, good for women) but Newman is wonderful as usual as is Jackie Gleason. It does offer an interesting look into the "tough guy" and the (d)evolution of such a character, especially when that tough guy is ultimately being controlled by, not only his addiction to his profession/hobby (pool and gambling on the game), but by the machinations of that corner of society (the hierarchy of tough guys so to speak). So, yeah, an interesting glimpse into that sort of masculinity.
6. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953): I've seen this movie a bazillion times but I still love Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell. Yes, it's a tad dated. Yes, it's a tad sexist. But it's still a solid, fun comedy musical.
7. Christmas in Connecticut (1945): A cute Barbara Stanwyck movie in which she's a domestic goddess in print: writing essays with decorating, child rearing, and cooking tips about her life on a farm in Connecticut with her husband and newborn baby. The man who owns Stanwyck's publication demands that she give a soldier a proper Christmas at her home which, of course, the owner will also attend. The problem? Stanwyck is a single, childless woman living in a tiny New York apartment and her uncle, who owns a restaurant, provides all of the recipes for her writing. Mayhem ensues during which a male pursuer of Stanwyk proposes marriage (again) and offers his Connecticut farm for a cover-up scheme and, of course, Stanwyk and the soldier fall in love. It sounds more confusing than it is. The movie is a fun, false identity movie (that was strangely and probably tragically, remade in 1992 for tv with Dyan Cannon and Kris Kristofferson, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger).
8. 3:10 to Yuma (1957): YAWN. Watch the newer one.
9. Evening (2007): I didn't expect this to be good but I did not expect it to be so bad. Now that I see it was co-written by Michael Cunningham, I'm even more baffled. I did not like The Hours (novel or movie) or A Home at the End of the World but I disliked those three things for very different reasons. It seems as if Cunningham is making a study out of how to just miss the mark in a variety of ways. Amazing. Anyway, the movie is just dull and I think completely fails to do what it sets out to do. And then end. Ugh. The end is just a cheap attempt to make everyone cry.
10. Sabotage (1936): Supposedly the first film to be made about terrorism, this one is not your typical Hitchcock. It's fine but it's a little dull and slow.
11. Adaptation (2002): Things I do not need to see in a movie: a crowning baby, Nicolas Cage masturbating (especially more than once). Otherwise, the film was an interesting look at meta-narratives and the process of adapting a book to film. I have the book but haven't read it so I'd be interested to see how it ties together. I'm glad to have seen it but won't watch it again unless I teach it.
12. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007): What? The title refers to how pregnant one of the main characters is when she goes to an rendezvous for an illegal abortion. One ginormous problem with the film is that it is subtitled in white letters against an often light background making the Romanian impossible to translate. So half the time I had no idea what was being said. The other problem is that I can't imagine being impressed with the film had I been able to understand every syllable. It seemed to function on characters emotions that were not explored or developed. But, again, maybe one line of subtitles would have solved that problem.
13. The Reader (2007): Genius. Clint Eastwood should watch this movie over and over until he can learn to make a mid-film thematic and tonal transition without making it look and feel like two disparate movies jammed together at the middle. Kate Winslet is brilliant as usual and the actor playing the boy convincingly ages into Ralph Fiennes who is also wonderful. My one tiny complaint is a tiny lack of exposition when she is offered a promotion to distinguish it from the earlier, more life-changing promotion. One little line would have helped me immensely. Otherwise, virtually flawless.
14. The Lost Weekend (1945): I lost 101 minutes watching this poor excuse for an anti-drinking PSA. Sad.
15. The Man who Knew Too Much (1956): Strangely, a remake of a 1934 Hitchcock, by Hitchcock, this time with James Stewart and Doris Day. It's definitely interesting. It kept my attention but a few threads were left hanging loose (the taxidermist, for example) that I would have preferred tied up.
16. Marley and Me (2007): That sound you hear is an audible scoff at the idea that this is anything like a family film about a rambunctious puppy. I'll save you the rant and just say this: at least the last 20 minutes of the film are devoted to an almost pornographic look at this poor dog dying, including the euthanasia syringe being inserted and drained of drugs. Terrible.
17. Goya's Ghosts (2006): This movie is not so much about Goya but more about a scandal into which he is pulled revolving around a monk who has Goya's muse imprisoned under (false) charges of being a heretic (we're talking the Spanish Inquisition here) and then that monk is shamed and flees only to return under the guise of a rational man working under the banner of Napoleon. It has some flaws (Natalie Portman playing two characters, for one) but it's watchable.
18. The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): This one isn't even worth a review. Just watch The Tudors.
19. The Red Shoes (1948): I have mixed feelings about this one. It's a tad long (a little over two hours) to tell what should be a concise, compact story. Quite a lot of time is performance footage which is not especially compelling even as much as I love dancing movies. But the story is interesting in that it centers on a retold ballet version of the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, "The Red Shoes," while the larger story is also a retelling of the same story. So, eh. It's on the list and I like the layered meta-narratives.
20. Wife for a Night (1952): A strange little Italian mixed-up identity movie that will only suffer if I attempt a plot summary. But it's cute and fun.
21. Smart People (2008): Unfortunately not written by smart people.
22. Brideshead Revisited (1981, miniseries): This should really count as about 5 movies since it was almost 11 hours long. Regardless, I liked it but think it a few things crammed together. There is the war frame, the Sebastian/Charles college story, some sort of transitional period, and a Charles/Julia story. Individually, they all work but I found myself forgetting entirely about the frame until it came up again at the end and then not being interested in it because it skipped information I wanted to know. And I loved the Sebastian/Charles and Charles/Julia stories but did not care for the circumstances that removed Sebastian from the story. I found myself wanting more Julia in the first half and more Sebastian in the second. It's as if they couldn't really appear as full characters in the same scene. Oh, and I found the whole parents' dying parts not well incorporated which could be the point, that adults don't necessarily come into our lives until there is a serious problem, but still.
23. And the book! Vacation (2008) Deb Olin Unferth: I bought this one (for my birthday) largely because it's a pretty hardcover sans dust jacket published by McSweeney's. This is a strange book to me because I found myself not really caring about what happened or about the characters when I first started reading it (which, of course, relegated it to the pile while I finished Calamity Physics) but somewhere in the middle-ish of the book, I cared. And by the end, I really wanted the book to continue. It's a strange plot-line with a few subplots so I can't really summarize it with any efficiency or, ultimately, veracity but I do recommend it. I'm not sure why but I do like it, kind of a lot.
Ok, that's done. Hopefully, I can stay on top of things a little better now ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)