[movie review] Lock Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels

After my friend @ AnatomyofP confirmed that she liked Jason Stratham, I gave it a 2nd try. Okay, he's good; maybe not the most underrated, but this was a far more enjoyable movie. I'm not really sure if it was supposed to be a light farce, somewhat more serious than Shoot 'Em Up, but I liked the 2/3 of it I saw. Procrastination overtook me, and I decided that finishing my homework was more important. However, I've got to do laundry tonight, so I think I'll watch The Mummy and finish this.

Tentative:
4 - Definitely see it on video.

[review] Masterpiece Mystery! : Sherlock

(Apparently the exclamation mark is required in the title.)

A Study in Scarlet is the first story/novella describing the meeting and beginning friendship between John Watson, a medical doctor invalided out of the British Army occupying Afghanistan, and Sherlock Holmes, an independent investigator and master of deductive logic. The stories are all written in the first person voice of Dr. Watson. I've read a few of the short stories and the longer Hound of the Baskervilles, and do not claim to be a fan of Doyle who goes off the deep end because of some bit of minutia. E.g., Holmes gets his nicotine from patches, since as he puts it, it's impossible to sustain a smoking habit in London these days.

A Study in Pink is the first episode of the 21st Century re-make. Not being a rabid fan, I can't tell you if the other 2 are directly based upon Doyle's works. A comment, though: I read Study in Scarlet after watching the show, wondering how this back-story of Watson matched up to Doyle, or if it was just a dramatic license to make it appeal to a 'modern' audience. Oh, the irony of history re-written upon modern flesh.

The most remarkable two points are the script and Martin Freeman. The script is sharp, witty, fairly representative of the characters from the books, and fairly non-stop with the only pauses for a breath being the (unfortunately repetitive, but at least infrequent) cuts of Our Heroes in a London taxi en route to something.

Martin Freeman, aka Dr. John Watson, is absolutely stellar. Subtle is the only succinct adjective I can provide for Freeman: not too much, not to little, perfectly aligned with the script. Rarely am I so impressed with an actor's work at first view. Given this fact, I am perhaps doubly looking forward to The Hobbit. This Watson is a 40-ish ordinary man, nothing physically remarkable, with a strong sense of the value of human life and curiosity. I can't imagine Holmes keeping an inept companion, so seeing a competent and active participant in the investigation is pleasant; I wouldn't have been able to take a bumbling doctor. He is still writing their stories, only today it's in a blog rather than the magazines Doyle used.

Holmes is, as always, an excessively arrogant and obsessively objective man, though Cumberbatch is an unexpected choice for his age; Mr.Gopher & I both had an image of a more mature man. He pulls off an elegant Holmes, always well-tailored, and smooth, but physically and verbally, but I still think he should have looked older. Rather like DI Lestrade (Rupert Graves), who looks like a senior detective inspector for Scotland Yard. Well, he totally pulls of an arrogant SOB, too, who nevertheless grows to rely upon the participation of his friend. He comes across as the primary hero, which is how he's written by Doyle's doctor.

The adaptation of things for the modern life are amusing at times: texting is sort-of like telegrams. And, for mild humor, the initial episode finds Watson confronting modern assumptions of why two men are living together when initially meeting their landlady.

Watson is a far more approachable character, either in the books or this film, finding our sympathy for putting up with a pain-in-the-ass colleague, balancing Holmes' absolute objectivity with emotional perception. As Doyle's Holmes states, "You see, but you do not observe"; Watson could return "you observe, but you do not feel".

As I haven't read everything Doyle wrote, I don't know if episode 2 or 3 is from original material. The plots are interesting. Other characters are introduced to some degree. If you know in which story Holmes first runs into Moriarity, I would like to know.

My only significant complaint is one element of an otherwise perfectly fine filming style. I notice most often in made-for-TV shows an over-use of the "Hey, This Is Significant" shot. There's a fight in an apartment, the dining room table gets scratched by the villain's weapon, Watson comes home, notices the table is scratched, gets annoyed at the disregard for the furniture, meanwhile being ignorant of Holmes nearly getting decapitated. I really don't need a close-up of the weapon making the scratch. In a show which should appeal to an educated audience, the patronizing use of these shots is just annoying. Again, luckily they're infrequent - it's just extremely annoying.

Overall, they're wonderful. Carefully considered modernization, good cast, great script-writing. And since I could watch it on Netflix, great price.

Gopher Rating: Worth paying for.
hmmm. I don't have a rating scale for TV shows, so "See it on the big screen" isn't really an option. I'll have to come up with one. Everything boils down to money, though: either its worth paying for or it isn't; either it's worth an hour or two of your life or it isn't.





post script
Everyone in the world seems to want to make movie versions of Sir A.C. Doyle's master detective. Netflix isn't streaming the 1930s versions w/ Basil Rathbone, so I can't compare them, since I think I saw one of them on Channel 9's Saturday Afternoon B&W Matinee on LBI 25 years ago. The Downey/Law version that came out in 2009 looked like a souped-up action-adventure movie with the same names. Robert Downey is awesome when his game is on, but the preview left the impression of what would happen with Tony Stark playing Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps unfair, but the trailer is what's supposed to entice me. As I write this, I pause and search for a trailer for the TV show ... well, perhaps that wouldn't have enticed me, either.

by the way:
Who assigns idiots to making movie trailers? The worst EVER was for Terminator 4.

[review] Green Zone

eliminate subtitles

It's not often that I am struck in the first 20 minutes of a movie by "I would have done it differently". Subtitles are a nice feature to communicate information while concurrently trying to provide the viewer with the "feel" of foreign-ness. And face it, dubbed movies look stupid.

Subtitles are not the only tool at a director's disposal, though.

The further through the movie, and given the movie's major Theme, the movie really should have just left out the subtitles altogether. Several scenes later on were wonderfully done to avoid dialogue all together. The opening should have done the same thing - provide a visual story which didn't require dialogue and then add the foreign language in without subtitles.

Generally, though, I enjoyed it.

Book of Mercy [review]

Psalm 33
You who question souls, and you to whom souls must answer, do not cut off the soul of my son on my account. Let the strength of his childhood lead him to you, and the joy of his body stand him upright in your eyes. May he discern my prayer for him, and to whom it is uttered, and in what shame. I received the living waters and I held them in a stagnant pool. I was taught but I did not teach. I was loved but I did not love. I weakened the name that spoke me, and I chased the light with my own understanding. Whisper in his ear. Direct him to a place of learning. Illuminate his child's belief in mightiness. Rescue him from those who want him with no soul, who have their channels in the bedrooms of the rich and poor, to draw the children into death. Let him see me coming back. Allow us to bring forth our souls together to make a place for your name. If I am too late, redeem my yearning in his heart, bless him with a soul that remembers you, that he may uncover it with careful husbandry. They who wish to devour him have grown powerful on my idleness. They have a number for him, and a chain. Let him see them withered in the light of your name. Let him see their dead kingdom from the mountain of your word. Stand him up upon his soul, bless him with the truth of manhood.

Book of Mercy, Leonard Cohen, Villard Books, NY 1984.
yes, that Cohen.

Written without a pause, without a break, without artistic & artificial separations one sees in the visual presentation of poetry, this pushes, his words driving in passion, giving you no opportunity to emphasize one thing over another.

These psalms absolutely must be read slowly. Cohen's music and lyrics are powerful, often presented in an extremely blunt style in his recorded music. (you gave me head/on the made bed) These poems are straightforward, direct, but not blunt. From an extremely talented user of the English language, each sentence should be considered carefully.

As one would imagine from the title, the majority revolve around Mercy, seeking or seeing God's mercy in the various aspects of Life. I wish I could include some of the others** which were poignantly moving for me, except you'd likely get bored.

The psalms in the Old Testament are poetry. Some are exquisite in pain (Ps. 22) or overwhelming in joy (Ps. 118) comforting in their traditional use (Ps. 23) or just nice (Ps. 150). I have a psalter (book of psalms) which is translated from Hebrew into modern poetry.* Here, Cohen has simply written his own. These are not renditions of biblical passages from the King of the Israelites or some other dead Jewish guy 2100 years ago; they are cries from a man today, which might not be in print in another couple millenia. Although if they were, they would cry out, appealing to man's soul and God's Mercy.

Gopher rating:
2 - definitely buy a copy, you'll read it more than once.


*I'm not at home, so I can't cite it.



** Why not? Copyright allows me to present material for purposes of criticism. So, from my lips to God's ears:
Psalm 40
Let me not pretend you are with me, when you are not with me. Let me close down, let the puppet fall amoug the strings, until, by your mercy, he rises as a man. Let him dare to call on you from the dust, when there is nothing but dust, and the coils of his defeat. Enter me again into the judgment, I who refuse to be judged. Enter me into the mercy, I who have forgotten mercy. Let me raise your kingdom to the beauty of your name. Who do you welcome me? asks the bitter heart. Why do you comfort me? asks the heart that is not broken enough. Let him lie among the strings until there is no hope for his daily strategy, until he cries, I am yours, I am your creature. Then the surface of the world is restored, then he can walk and build a will. Blessed are you whose blessings are discerned by those who know your name. The evil are seen clearly, and the good are beyond safety, and in the panic the whole world prays. Let us not be tested. Blessed are you who creates and destroys, who sits in judgment on numberless worlds, who judges the present with mercy.

.

[review] Careless in Red

Wow - I just realized I've never written a review for an Elizabeth George book. I own almost all of them and am eagerly awaiting the latest being available at the Mpls Library.

reading review style

I found an interesting series of novels - sort of a noir-wizard-Sam-Spade. On the Brain Candy level. This certainly isn't Raymond Chandler. Pleasant distraction and quick read. Review likely to be coming after finishing my thesis. Uhh ... thesis ... that reminds me of something ... something ... OH! that thing on my desk.

The author has written 13(?12) books in the series about the same character. Do I want to actually read the reviews of any beyond the next one? I really don't want to know that John and Mary wind up romantically involved. Really blew some of the romantic/sexual tension in the book I'm reading right now. Of course, that information was in a review of it. So, when you're writing reviews for Amazon (or whatever) - please don't add in tangential information about the further plot/character development.

I guess I'm over-organized on something. I only read books in the order they're written (chronologically for the story line, not publication date). I read all of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin opus. Once I decided to read all 20 of them ... well, I didn't want to find out what happened in the next one. I already completely enjoyed them, so I never bothered to read the reviews. Admittedly, the existence of other volumes does allow one to draw the conclusion that Our Heroes survive. The trick for a truly good author is to make you forget this when keeping you on the edge of your seat for the book in your hands.

Hennepin County Library - please remind those two people that I'm waiting for #4.
.

spongy white bread on the great buffet

An insanely funny review of Atlas Shrugged. I couldn't stop laughing.

I can't imagine it being that funny, if you haven't read the book, which the reviewer describes as "nerd revenge porn". Several of the reader comments (well the 1st few, I"m not going to read all 396 of them) are really amusing, as well. "Regardless, I may have to read it now, just so I can picture John Galt as a sentient cup of yogurt the whole time."

commenter #39 stated:
I think most Objectivists sit in their middle class suburban houses and think “Yeah, if society was like that, then I’d be a CEO making the big bucks too!” And there are also those who see these people, and use this selfishness and lack of self esteem and use it to manipulate them. Probably why it appeals to segment of the tea party folks.
-- nailed it in one. This explains my personal opinion of tannin-containing-idiots quite succinctly.

I read it in high school and it was the first significant piece of literature that really impressed me socio-politically. Sure, I'd read a bunch of Heinlein, Asimov, and I might even have read Dune, and quite a bit of Cherryh's more social-focused works. All of which came across as clearly SciFi. Atlas Shrugged was presented as more clearly 'it could be real', since it didn't have interstellar space traveling aliens wielding laser guns. I clearly disagree with the reviewer about how plausible the objectivist-world is. Just look around, man, and listen to the politicians today.

[pre-review] This Body of Death

I can't take it anymore.

This Body of Death, latest endeavour from Elizabeth George, is up to par with her fantastic writing. Normally, her books start with an opening chapter which leaves you wondering which one of the people are going to bite it before Chapter 2. This opens in a totally foreign style, quickly identifiable as a formal report. Being about a group of 3 twelve-year old boys and a toddler, who is implied to be the victim of some horrific events. Chapter 2 comes. We still don't have a body or any police. We have, however, gotten a chapter which seems much more as expected. But no body. Back to the little boys. No body. At this point, I'm ready to ask "so where's Death, dammit?" Finally a body appears. But it is clearly an adult victim with an equally adult perpetrator.

As the plot progresses, it keeps popping back to the criminal report of the three boys and toddler.

I am at the point where I simply cannot read that part any more. The implication seems to be that the older boys killed the younger one with premeditated horror. If I knew the little tyke lived, I'd be okay with it. The writing is so bland and emotionally detached that I simply can't take it. Sure, the style is appropriate for some sort of review-report. But the sheer lack of emotional contact is driving me nuts.

Yet my response "why isn't anyone dead yet?" was in expectation of an adult victim. What's wrong with me, if the expectation of an adult dying is okay (in a literary sense), but a very young child completely horrifies me?

The new character on the force at Scotland Yard is an alcoholic woman, who like any alcoholic expends a lot of energy to avoid being revealed as such. An interesting approach to character is that she is far more worried about the vodka than in whether or not she's getting respect from her male subordinates, although if asked would claim the sexism was the biggest problem.

An Adult screwing up her life, and screwing up other Adults' lives, is much more emotionally palatable to me than trying to read something piecemeal that I just know is going to be truly horrific (as the report-author keeps stating). I think it's just the victim's age which is bothering me; I wonder, however, what my response would be if it was an adult. George's book With No One As Witness had a psychotic killer luring teenaged boys to their death; for some reason that wasn't so bad. In that situation, though, the kidnapping and murder were only mentioned distantly with details coming out only with the police investigation. This just drags out and out in excruciating detail, leaving me in fear for the child's life. Obviously this is extremely well written to provide such a strong response. Nevertheless ...

Sorry, Ms. George, I just can't take it. I am certain the two plot lines will merge; if the toddler survives, I might go back and read the whole thing when I re-read the book eventually (which I'm sure I'll do).

[review] The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

This is the film version of Stieg Larsson's book, Män som hatar kvinnor [men who hate women] is less direct, but more appealing is the English title for the movie & book, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Taken in that order:

Movie has a pared-down version of the plot, excellently chosen to maintain a seamless story line without the parallel line. Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist, is convicted of libel and en route to jail for a few months when approached to investigate a 40-year old murder. Eventually persuaded, he heads off to rural Sweden. Concurrently Lisbet Salander, a bizarre younger woman is having horrific issues with a guardian, no explaination is provided as to why she has one. Eventually the two work together on the mystery of a missing young woman who has been murdered. Salander, a computer whiz, and Blomkvist, the star investigator, apply their respective talents. The clan's patriarch just wants to know who killed his beloved niece before he dies, even if no other justice can be served. Eventually we realize that the mystery must be closer to home than anticipated as someone starts trying to run Blomkvist/Salander out of town and off the story.

I've never been to Sweden and don't speak Swedish - this limits my opinion of the set design/location choices/script. If Minnesota was attractive to Swedish immigrants, I can see why. Mr.Gopher is the person to ask about these aspects.

The script - in the sense of the translated language and the given plot - were good, coherent and internally consistent. The character development starts in the middle of a story in several senses: Blomkvist is convicted, but we don't know the actual reason; Salander has a guardian, but we don't know why. We just pick up in the middle of their respective stories before they merge.

I'm surprise this got an R - rather than NC-17 rating - for "disturbing violent content including rape, grisly images, sexual material, nudity and language" - basically sex & violence. Our limits for sexual explicitness are down right Victorian compared to Europe & we're a nation with an appalling appetite for violent movies, but usually not the two together. The sexual violence in one scene actually shocked me; the sex/nudity certainly didn't.

A good movie, and mostly enjoyable. A good story with an ending I didn't expect.

Gopher Rating:
3 - definitely see it on video


The source material book has, in addition to the movie plot, a concurrent, parallel story line. In this, Blomkvist's libel conviction plays a much larger role, as this legal problem haunts him personally and professionally. The man requesting the murder investigation entices him by offering information to disprove the libel claim and thereby restore his journalistic reputation. Salander's strange behavior is presented gradually in historic contexts, making her more sympathetic. The sex and violence make more sense within the deeper story here. Lifting the legal undercurrent wholesale from the story makes the characters thinner than Larsson's depth gives. But in a movie one doesn't expect the same depth.

There are one or two instances of utterly bizarre words where I think the translator picked the wrong word from a dictionary for an 1) old-fashioned term and 2) colloquial English. Larsson's writing style is extremely detailed. Where possible, he fleshes out the physical scenes with specifics. E.g., He doesn't simply mention someone's having breakfast, he provides the list of food. E.g. Not only does someone furnish her flat from IKEA, he specifies which furniture lines. A set designer's work is limited trying to figure out how the author imagined it.

The Author gave this (and 3 other books) as a graduation present. It is often intriguing what people think you'll like. What they think your literary tastes are. In this case, perhaps more so than usual, since a writer is the gift-giver. This falls into the category "I'm glad I got this" type of present.

Gopher Rating
2.5 - somewhere between 'definitely read this' and 'you'll probably read it more than once'.
This rating is more on the fence than usual. I know I'll read it again; if you like mystery stories you probably will as well.

p.s.
I just requested the 3r novel from Larsson; within 1 hour I became #1449 of 1451 with 153 books available. 29 weeks before I would get it, assuming everyone keeps it for the full 3 weeks.
By the time I get the copy, it will probably be out in paperback.
Oh, my ... I can request the large print version and be #264 of 264 with 25 copies available and ... and.. 32 weeks before I could get it.

[review] Atlas Shrugged

The older a woman gets, the more likely she is to be set in her feminist philosophy. What is a woman's relationship with the world or herself as a woman? Does she care? The older she gets, the more settled she is in her own self-conception. Therefore she has more time to opine on Woman's Condition, since she isn't spending any time worrying about her own. The older I get, the more surprised I am at women's relationship to the world. In many ways, I don't think it's changed in the past 50 years.

Dagny Taggart, the central character with the moral [in Rand's point of view] force and business skill, is a woman yet she is also painted as not-feminine. That's fine and probably even panders to 1950s perceptions of women in executive positions. A real woman, after all, would be feminine and at home with her husband. But Taggart's ultimate choice of a relationship partner is [in my point of view] stupid and panders to the 1950s view of women being dependent upon a man's opinions. She only becomes truly fulfilled when she sees the light of economic reality given to her by a man.

Why choose fellow railroad magnate Hank Rearden, who obviously loves her, when she can choose some mythical, iconic man who doesn't love her?

Dagny Taggart & John Galt are no different than Cinderella and Prince Charming. Prince Charming saw Cinderella's physical beauty & didn't particularly care about anything other than her shoe size. Galt sees Dagny's economic power and doesn't particularly care about anything else. In fact, I don't recall if there's any mention of their relationship beyond Messiah & Apostle. I don't see why it makes any difference to the story that Dagny is a woman. This ought to be idealistic for rabid feminists - the central character is a woman who isn't a woman.

I am a rabid opponent of the idea of love at first sight. I like romance. Romance isn't love. Love can only be based upon knowledge. My cousin told his college drinking buddies at a bar one night, "see that beautiful woman over there? I'm going to marry her." That would be my divorced-dad cousin. The men crossing Dagny's life path are interesting, and at least one becomes her lover; but she breaks off the relationship when she realizes he loves her. How familiar does this sound? Then she meets some man spouting lovely things (okay, so they're lovely socioeconomic things, but still ...) and what does she do? Falls for an icon rather than a man who loves her. I think I roomed with this one in college.

Atlas Shrugged yields the quintessential self-perception of American Capitalism. This is, of course, not how we practice that economic theory, as AIG can vouch. But it is how Americans idealize it. The Marlboro Man of Business - this is why Republicans idealize capitalism with utterly no governmental regulation. They likely think they're Hank Rearden, while in reality they actually are Jimmy Taggart.

I read this while in high school & enjoyed it without realizing it was an economic philosophy treatise. Even at 15 I realized the personal relationship choices of the heroine really left something to be desired. At 44, I have lived long enough to have seen the myriad ways that people myopically view Love. And their equally unhealthy relationships with It. I'm also old enough to have seen the myriad ways that people myopically view Economic Reality; and their extremely unhealthy relationship with that, too.

Love of money and power are the central points, not love of a person. You can just skip the chapter entitled John Galt Speaks. The rest of the book is a pleasant story. The chapter entitled John Galt Speaks is the economic meat of the treatise, putting the whole story into the perspective of Objectivism. (... the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism, ...)

Gohper rating:
I still think it's a nice novel, and can be read to partially understand the American
Conservative party conception of reality. The economic depression behind the story should be familiar; as should the deterioration of American industry into pathetic impotence.
.

[review] The Secrets In Their Eyes

El Secreto De Sus Ojos, The Secrets In Their Eyes, Argentina, 2009 Best Foreign Film Oscar

A murder mystery that isn't all a mystery.
Starts with an horrific murder/rape in the 1970s being recalled by a retired detective with a judge whom we suspect is more than just a colleague in his eyes. He reveals his intention of writing a book about this infamous case. We expect the murder to be a mystery with the culprit revealed in the last minutes. Nope. We find him about 2/3 through the movie. After this, I was left wondering where the plot was going; the murderer is let out of prison by corrupt government officials, and then disappears.

The story flips back and forth between the never-clearly-defined Today and the 1970s (Isabel Peron's appearance & vague comments indicate the 1976 military coup's immediacy). Yet unlike other movies' attempts at concurrent then/now plots, this succeeds in keeping the whole story flowing. The 1970 elements aren't undermined by information from the 2000 elements, leaving us anticipating each new scene. The relationships between the detective/judge, detective/widower, widower/murderer all have roles in the story, although it isn't always immediately clear how/if they all fit together.

The make-up crew did an excellent job making the central pair perfectly believable in both younger & older incarnations of their characters. I checked how old the actors are, out of curiosity. Darin was 51 & Villamil 39 for filming. Somewhere in the script the detective (Darin) mentions how old he is, making him much older than the 1976 story, while Villamil is much younger than her character for the 2000-ish part.

The story revolves around the detectives' efforts to find the murderer, the widower's efforts to reconcile himself with the loss of his wife and the inability of Argentine justice to offer the death penalty. He discards this notion of retribution, suggesting that if he were locked up and raped in prison for the rest of his life, that would be a greater retribution, making the murderer experience what he did to the wife.

Argentinian criminal justice not being organized as it is here, the judges and detectives work more closely than we as Americans expect. There is a chronic struggle for the detective with his feelings for the judge.

I had never seen either actor before. Ricardo Darin was in an American film, The Stranger; Soledad Villamil was no English-language credits. Juan Jose Campanella has directed quite a few American TV shows, but only two English-language movies, incl. Love Walked In.

All in all, each of the elements of movie making were extremely well done. I can very much see how it would win an Oscar. I will likely see it again.

Gopher Rating:
2 - Go see it on the big screen, at matinee prices.
.

what not to watch

I'm stuck: too many movies, not enough time? No - more like not enough time and still not enough movies. No, unlike STFU&GBTW I do not need to keep up to date with the newest Hollywood CGI banquet. Minimal time w/ Mr.Gopher & what to see? Well, it's not our different tastes limiting my options. It's June. Summer movie season is supposed to be here. Even if I look at the AMC options (and not our theater, as the Riverview does 2nd runs), I'm still stuck.

Robin Hood: These look like the worst critiques of Crowe's work I've seen in a long time. At least in this version, Richard is dead. Although for once I really wish the Robin Hood character was "fighting" against Richard, the king who decimated the royal treasury by futile crusades, rather than John, who at least gave us the Magna Carta.

Prince of Persia: you must be kidding. Who in the hell thought Gyllenhaal would be a good choice as a Persian? Okay, he's a serious improvement over Brad Pitt in Troy (another surely-you-jest casting epic), in that at least he's not blonde. Isn't there any A-list actor who could look like he's from the Middle East, rather than Wales? Like, say, Alfred Molina? At least they didn't cast Russel Crowe. And, while we're at it ... why give it a sub-title, unless they're planning to make more than one? Why not just call it Sands of Time OR just prince of Persia?

Date Night: Romantic Comedy is generally portrayed as "The Man Will Attend To Placate His Woman, Not Because He Likes It". I suspect that if we went, I'd like it and Mr.Gopher would suffer through 90 min, eliminating it from post-movie dinner discussion. We would be forced to discuss ... hmmm.....

Iron Man 2: well, it probably isn't bad. But, if I only have one movie to pick, this isn't going to be it. And, of course, there's the "Mr.Gopher doesn't do superheroes" factor.


What else is playing in town ...

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: we did see. It was good; I'll try to put a review together. Mr.Gopher managed to watch the whole thing ignoring the subtitles.

The Secret in Their Eyes: hmmmm.... this looks interesting.

Metropolis. Definitely worthwhile; haven't seen it; and, afterall, it's in German.


ah, well ... perhaps I should go back to my thesis.
.

[review] March Violets

March Violets, by Philip Kerr

Murder and disappearances are no surprise in the Summer of 1936, Berlin. These are the specialty of Our Hero, Bernhard Gunther. He’s a hard-bitten private detective who strategically quit the police force to set up business away from politics.

This is what it would be like for a non-American to read Ellory or Hammett. (I mean anyone not from here, regardless of their native language.) Kerr uses anachronistic/British English terms (braces, i.e. suspenders), as well as German titles (Hauptüberführergruppenvergnügen, you get the idea). These are both sparing. The military titles are generally irrelevant to the plot, so they provide a delicate spice you don't need to identify. However, the use of German slang directly translated into English is heavy handed.* These are frequent. Frequent enough to really interrupt the flow. This is my biggest compliant.

Famous people pop in and out both by name and in person. Again, a passing knowledge of German history would seriously benefit the reader. Goebbels v. Himmler? Sure, you recognize their names, but who are they?** One major (fictious) character is a steel magnate from the Ruhr, whose major competitors are Thyssen & Krupp - fine, but perhaps the story’s depth is more apparent if you know those 2 are the biggest steel manufacturers in Europe, rather than wonder why your coffee pot brand is misspelled.

Here and there the story seems to be steered from the passenger seat; driven more by the author than the inherent plot. One significant detour to Dachau is totally contrived to the point of annoyance.

Most of my complaints revolve around the author trying to demonstrate his vast personal knowledge of German history and geography. I’ve been to several places mentioned. Mentioning the burned out husk of the Reichstag is nice; I hadn’t realized it was destroyed before the war. Using major landmarks (Museum Island, the War Memorial, Unter den Linden, etc.) is enough orientation for the casual tourist or world-news aware. Anything more is too much.

All in all, a relatively ordinary detective-murder mystery set in a pleasantly different paradigm (not England or LA/NY). Nothing spectacular one way or the other. But the bumpy writing makes it ineligible for a rating better than "pleasant distraction".


*I was rather pleased I actually knew one of these (quite surprisingly, the slang for hangover).
No doubt my in-laws would be equally at a loss with bird, gumshoe, heat, sing (woman, private detective, police, confess).

**Sorry, in-laws & meine deutsche Freunde, but the vast majority of Americans don't know who they are.


Healthy Gopher's rating: - if it's lying around your friend's summer cottage, and you're bored, might as well read it.

[review] Virgin Spring

why ... ?

One of Ingmar Bergman's pieces. It won the 1961 Oscar for Best Foreign Film. I guess that makes it a "classic". (A term I find annoying in the film context.) Mr.Gopher enjoyed listening to the euphonious language of his beloved 2nd home (which is not here). I - of course - read the subtitles. It is an omnipresent curiosity when watching foreign films, how well translated the subtitles are. One would think, given this production of the film is only a few years old, and the almost universal knowledge of English in Sweden, that one could rely absolutely on the translation. Well ... the title page states it is based upon a myth/ballad/song from the 14th Century. Or is that the 13th Century? Mr.Gopher told me the English & Swedish had the same number (13), but the counting wasn't the same. Sigh ... now, if only my befuddlement stopped there.

I am not one who bemoans the confusion of foreign films, wringing my hands in embarrassment, wanting to seem chic or cosmopolitan by opining on the "meaning" of the work. There is an introduction to the film by Ang Lee. He stated (for some reason, I thought this person was a woman?) that this was one of the most influential films he saw as a younger man. He went on to discuss the film's content in terms of the basic elements of human life. That the film delved into what makes us human. An interview with the two main actresses revealed similar views.

Set in 13th/14th Century Sweden, this is the explanatory myth of the creation of the Virgin Spring. (A well-spring, that is, not the season) A young spoiled girl (virgin) is sent to bring a bunch of candles to the distant church; a young serf pregnant girl (not-virgin) goes with her. Not-virgin is jealous and despises the virgin. For some utterly inexplicable reason, she abruptly claims to be afraid of the forest, and stays behind at a small hut. Running away from the owner's lecherous advances, she runs after the virgin. The (idiotically) naive virgin meets up with 3 really decrepit goat herders. They induce (seduce?) her to stop on her travels, and have lunch with them. She realizes the goats belong to her neighbors. They attack, rape, kill her and then steal her expensive clothing. All of which occurs within the sight of the not-virgin, who can't bring herself to either run away or defend the other girl. The villains stop for the night to seek shelter at - of course - the dead girl's family's home. Offering her dress as payment for the generosity, they are revealed, and killed by the enraged father.

After finding the daughter, the parents & the rest of the still-living cast mourn. The father swears to God that, to atone for something, he will raise a church on this very spot. Moving the virgin's corpse, a clear fresh spring flows forth from the ground. This is definitely the sort of tale one expects to explain the presence of some small spring in the middle of a church.

I was so hung up on the inexplicable behavior of the pregnant not-virgin, that it really interfered with the rest of the movie. Did she just refuse to go forward out of real fear? Out of sloth, to avoid working/traveling? Did she passively watch the violence because she hated the virgin & wanted to see her get 'taken down a notch'? After doing all of this, why did she return to the farmstead, and then fess up to the father, rather than lying about her indirect complicity? Why did the father just pat her on the head and send her off to help him prepare for battle (i.e., killing the villains)?

Yes, there were interpersonal conflicts: the mother (spoiling the daughter, their only remaining child) vs. the father (who argues she should be trained properly, yet seems to pointedly exclude the mother from his own relationship with the daughter). The staff vs. the not-virgin about her amoral pregnancy-generating behavior. The bizarre little boy (the 3rd goat herder), who is unclearly attached to the older two: is he their brother?

I found the choice of B&W to be particularly interesting for two reasons, one rather mundane and the other not. There is an appealing stark simplicity to shooting in B&W outdoors, which avoids any 'noir' overtones. Ansel Adams in motion pictures. Yet, due to the B/W, the characters' appearance seemed overly stereotypical. The father is visually the utter archetype of a viking hero; the nationalistic artists from the 30s would have loved him as the Aryan uber-mench. (picture #1 here, a strikingly young Max von Sydow). The daughter is a stereotype of what Americans see as the Young Swedish Girl. Yet the not-virgin and the villains were so much antitheses, that it seemed ridiculous. Dark, heavy features, shot in shadows, what I assumed was an overly heavy-handed effort for the director to say "These are the Bad People". Given what I've heard of Bergman, it is difficult to believe that such an obvious choice was accidental. Yet, if it wasn't, I don't understand what its purpose is.

In the SCA, there are genres of story telling. One of them is the kind which is told by Fighters about their exploits on the Field of Battle, where one is required to start the tale: "No shit, there we were ..." There is also the type of tale, which need not be personal, and often is a re-telling of an historical epic/saga/poem. Around the Dark Ages, these tales were rather morbid. These are referred to as "Every One Dies". Virgin Spring is not quite an 'everyone dies' tale, but it has the distinct feel of one. I expected the mother to throw herself into the river to drown herself in sorrow (Admittedly, as an excessively devout Catholic who's really into self-penance, she likely wouldn't have committed the unforgivable sin of suicide.), and then have the father build the church and die with the last stone being laid, while the tenants looked on in servile acceptance.

I would mention that I really enjoyed the appearance of the movie. It would definitely entice me to visit Sweden for that sort of views. The costuming, et al., was really good, and pretty accurate for the time/place. I then discovered it was nominated for Best Costuming (B&W).

So, yes, there's plenty to discuss in an artsy "ain't I cosmopolitan" way ... but I still didn't like the movie.

Gopher Rating:
See it if someone else is paying.
.

[review] Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Only Ian Fleming would write a story wherein the heroine is named Simply Scrumptious, with a car that can fly and float. 'Nuff said.

Piracy

Sometimes I enjoy reading a movie review, even if I'm not inspired to go see the film. On this instance, though, both appeal. See note at bottom about German political policy.

Pirate Radio: hopefully I'll get to see it around Thanksgiving, although The Author & I have a date to see The Road, which I'd do before this.

from the movie review:
The [English] government vows to sink the pirates and finally forces through the required legislation. This is highly unpopular. Just imagine an American administration turning off your rock and forcing you to listen only to NPR. Wow, I'm sorry I wrote that. There are probably fringers who think Obama is plotting to do just that.

I would be tempted to drop MPR a little not, although I'm sure they've already seen it.

Radio Caroline, upon which the movie is loosely based, is still broadcasting through iTunes. Right now they have a 1966 playback-year.


now, about the German politics:

There was a quiz on Der Spiegel to help you figure out which political party platform most closely matches your own. Since they have 100 parties - well, actually on a dozen or so - this is far more complicated than here, where the choice is usually 50:50 shot in the dark. After answering the questions as honestly as I think, for a personal platform, not necessarily what I would encourage the whole country to do, and considering an occasionally misunderstanding of the question in the context of how Germany works,... the result was the closest party was the Pirate Party. The focal point of which is civil rights, esp. regarding what we consider the 1st amendment's points on publication and access to information.

The Great American Novel

Cinda contemplated what constitutes great American literature. Not being a professional writer, or a devout classicist, my literary consumption has been mostly popular stuff. Anne Perry, Robert Ludlum, Lois McMaster Bujold, Patrick O'Brian. I have read a couple of her recommendations, especially To Kill a Mockingbird.

No two people being the same, of course I paused to consider what I would recommend, if offering American literature to a foreigner. Something which paints a picture of life in America. How we, as Americans see our self-identity as Americans. Murder mysteries are all well and good, but does one paint a picture of America that is uniquely American? Love stories are popular, but does one demonstrate our idea of romance? Do we even have a monopoly on one flavor of love?

L.A. Confidential is an amazing picture of Los Angeles in 1952. All the glories of Hollywood, police and political corruption, the image that American was trying to give itself after the end of the war. The language used is uniquely American and uniquely 1950s. People don't speak like that any more. Removing the rose colored glasses of the Leave It to Beaver Era.

The Autobiography of Malcom X is a rather interesting picture of a very interesting man. The American dream of going from a nobody in poverty to being important; embracing freedom of religion and then embracing religion in freedom; and, of course, getting killed for bucking the system. A picture of the civil rights movement more likely to make whites uncomfortable than King's.

Atlas Shrugged yields the quintessential self-perception of American Capitalism. This is, of course, not how we practice that economic theory - but it is how Americans idealize it.** The Marlboro Man of Business - this is why Republicans idealize capitalism with utterly no governmental regulation - they think they're Hank Rearden or they're monumentally ignorant and think they're Jimmy Taggart. I read this while in high school & loved it without realizing it was an economic philosophy treatise. [Even at 15 I realized the personal relationship choices of the heroine really left something to be desired.]

Laura Ingall-Wilder's stories surrounding Little House on the Prairie paint a little idylic image of American Imperialist Expansionism in the 19th Century. Being almost-contemporary and written from personal experience, it might be rose-colored, but at least provides a very personal image of how White Euro-Americans look at the westward expansion into the prairies. Leave-It-To-Beaver of the 19th Century. This should be required hand-in-hand with:

Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee is non-fiction, so it doesn't qualify as a novel; however, there aren't too many novels written from the point of view of the Indians. This is simply offered as a tool to better appreicate how Wilder's novels reflect the American view at the time which, for the most part, continues today.



.
** since writing this, the government has totally fucked us, and, boy, I mean fucked us ... and we've screamed for more more more more ...in our socialist economic love-fest. Or that could be our communist love-fest, depending on how in love you are with government buy-outs. What fucktards are running our government? Oh, that's right, the same assholes who are benefiting from all this dumb-ass money distribution (upwards re-distribution, that is) ... but don't let me sound too bitter.
.

[review] Food, Inc.

If you have never slaughtered your own food, you should be required to see this.

"bigger, faster, fatter, cheaper" : a farmer's description about how MegaCorp demands your food be produced. I would put a name in, but I don't recall which one it was. There are, after all, only 5 or 6 companies in the entire United States of America which produced your dinner last night.

Yes, there are some disturbing scenes in the movie. Was it the outdoor one-at-a-time chicken slaughtering? No, it was the mechanized efforts to get sick and lame cattle into the chute for slaughter.

And, yes, as with any documentary film, there is the issue of:
>> selective editing of film
>> getting highly articulate people who really don't represent the norm to talk favorably about your point of view

As Mr. Gopher observed, it provided a refreshingly unusual view of the "good guys" not being angels. The Nice Farmer was still filmed slaughtering his chickens and beef. It's not like the director only showed the Bad Corporate Farmers being gross. And, it was a very sympathetic view of the poor guys stuck in the middle. They've got a farm, they need to use it, but they really can't do it without bankrupting their soul as well as their pocket book.

Farm for MegaCorp? It makes you a feudal serf. It's no different than 100 years ago living in a Company Town. Want seed? Buy from MegaCorp. Want to be paid? Do it Our Way.

One of the most pleasant few minutes of the movie was the section about Stoneyfield. The organic yogurt people. That would be the big corporate organic people. The CEO was interviewed about Wal-Mart becoming their new client. The other organic people despise him for 'selling out'. He thinks it's wonderful that The Enemy wants to sell organic. Why do they? As the Wal-Mart manager said, "because our customers want it".

The film crew accompanied some Wal-Mart sales-employees to a small family dairy farm in New England. The wife of the couple shakes hands and laughs as she says, "You know, I've never actually been in a Wal-Mart. We won't buy your stuff, we sort of boycot it." You know the WalMart guys must hear this a lot, because they managed to keep a straight face.

Yup ... pretty damn depressing. While underscoring the mantra: It's not inherently bad, it's the way they go about it that is evil. Well, keeping animals in feed lots was pretty much condemned outright.

Mr. Gopher & I went to see this after having dinner at Zeno's. No, neither Greek philosophy nor Greek food. Sort of the haute couture, "Look, ma, I'm spending a lot of money on dinner!" Well, in this case the $30 dinner for 2 which included a bottle of wine and movie tickets for 2 was a pretty good deal. We realized we don't normally consume a whole bottle of wine as we floated around the corner to the theater. Pleasantly it's near one of my favorite theaters (the Lagoon).

Gopher Recommendation:
2 - Definitely go see it on the big screen (at matinee prices). Like good special effects, it is more powerful on the big screen.

and ...
The $30 Cheap Date Night Special @ Zeno's is worthwhile. Yes, that's what it's called.

.

[review] Apocalypse Meow

Apocalypse Meow is a graphic novel story of a unit of American soldiers in Vietnam. While not specifically mentioned, it's set during the height of the war. It's interesting. STFU&GBTW posted it on his blog that he was intrigued by a video clip posted on (of course) YouTube, see below.

The different nationalities are different species. American Bunnies (they're cute, therefore they're not rabbits), Vietnamese Cats, Russian Bears, French Pigs. The video is updated to today, so the enemy soldiers are camels. This is not for children. The events span the experiences of American soldiers there, guerilla warfare, never knowing who to trust, not knowing when you'll get out, "American military advisors" in countries that you haven't gotten around to invading yet, corporate interference, believing you're there for some Holy cause ... holy cat shit, Batman! It's actually the Middle East!

It's a quick read in 3 short volumes.

Gopher Rating:
3 - borrow it from a friend/library
(unless you're into military history, in which case, I'd give it a 2)


video for Cat Shit One

The soldier-bunnies in the books were the unit Cat Shit One (the original title of the books, no doubt modified for American sensibilities).

The trailer, below, is intriguing in a way the 2-D comics can't be. The violence is more vivid. And it twists one's perception about the application of violence. Do we emotionally respond to torturing or shooting or executing cute plush bunnies in the same way we do about humans? Well, as an editorial ... we can't respond the same way, since the American Government censors out ability to do so. Perhaps that alone makes this worthwhile, to force some emotional engagement in the gov't dictated vacuum.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this. The author's website presents information about Cat Shit One, the original title of the books. Says 'coming soon early 2010'.

[review] Religulous

wow ... #3

no, not another jr. gopher!

There are very, very few movies I’ve ever despised enough to walk out of. Boogie Nights was repugnant. The only reason I didn’t walk out was because I was @ the theater with a friend. Afterwards, we walked out in silence. Eventually I asked in an odd tone of voice, “so, what did you think?” We both vowed never to sit through another movie so god awful horrible, even if it meant leaving the other one in the theater.

Pulp Fiction: yup, I must be the only person in America who thought the movie sucked. I can’t tell you why. Nothing specific struck me, just the awful movie. I don’t want to watch it again to figure it out.

And now .... (drum roll, please) ...

Religulous: you have got to be kidding. This should have been called Ridiculous. Because, while Mahr might be funny, this wasn’t. If someone had just told me that it was a 2 hour effort to ridicule and despise people for their religious beliefs, I wouldn’t have bothered. Well, I only bothered with the first 30 min.

Mahr’s claim that he wanted to understand this bizarre phenomenon of deism was a self-serving lie - he didn’t want to and didn’t bother to try. The note on IMdB reads: "Bill Maher's take on the current state of world religion." It isn't. He just runs around pondering with this smirk on his face "I don't understand ..." There was no effort to understand.

Strangely, he interviewed quite a diverse group of people in 30 min.:

• a bunch of truckers who have a chapel at a truck stop in a converted (of course) tractor-trailer.
• a minister who is a recovered homosexual married to a recovered lesbian whose mission in life is to convert the rest of Gay America to the wonders of a life with Jesus.
• the head of the National Academy for the Advancement of Science
• a former Motown star who epitomizes the "Jim Baker send me your money for God" type of evangelical preacher

There was no effort to solicit anything truly intelligent or articulate from them. Nope, just asking questions to elicit a previously determined answer. Come on - the fellow from the NAAS was articulate.

If they had only a) made an effort to be funny/satirical or b) not tried to pretend to be a documentary ... well, I might have been more likely to at least watch the whole thing. A review stated: It's not what the movie is about, it's how it's about it. If so, Mahr totally failed by losing my interest 30 min. into the movie.

Gopher Movie Rating:
Go floss your teeth.


I understand the appeal of wanting to understand why people believe what they do. (Mahr doesn't, but that's okay.) I would really have been interested in this as a serious movie.

I never asked my friend the Nuclear Physicist and devout Catholic why he, as a scientist, believes in a divine God. One would assueme a man who spends his time trying to observe the bizarre mysteries of the unseen and uncertain wouldn’t have so much difficulty believing in God, rather than neutrinos.

I suppose I could ask Mr.Gopher, another physicist and devout Catholic why he believes in God. It seems an incredibly personal question, even for one’s spouse. (A truly insane confluence of talking about sex yes, but not Faith?) Well, something to talk about besides our taxes Friday when we play hookie together.

I’m a scientist. Although I’m not a physicist, and not always so sure about the devout Catholic. I think like many, part of my justification for this belief is not discussed publicaly. Mystics make most American Catholics uncomfortable. We tend to accept the mysticism of saints and messiahs, but not ourselves.

And, apparently unlike some, science doesn’t threaten my faith. The more I studied physical chemistry, the more convinced I was that there was a god. How could so much of the universe be described by mathematics without something behind it? I cannot imagine any scientific finding capable of repudiating the existance of God. I can only imagine the more knowledge we have of the natural world simply reaffirming this.

A naval pilot once stated that after a night-time instrument-only bad-weather landing on an aircraft carrier, he had no problem believing in what one cannot see.