Or is it the Clothes You Wear?

On Sunday there was a marathon of Dungeons & Dragons going on in my living area. So I took that as a prime opportunity to watch Georgy Girl, the 1966 film starring Lynn Redgrave and Charlotte Rampling. While not as swinging' London as I had hoped, mainly due to my false hopes from the The Seekers' theme song, it is the lovely kind of movie which is not made, or at least not seen, anymore.

Georgy Girl is not at all about window shopping on Carnaby, but the choice not to. The entire movie is really surprisingly feminist...and I'll try to explain without giving anything away. There are love triangles and babies involved, we'll leave it at that. There are also choices that are made by characters that could easily be condemned by the viewer, if not conceptualized as feminist. "Having everything" does not necessarily mean doing everything without any less desirable aspects of life. Rather, "having everything" is understood to mean making choices to be sure that what is desired from life is possible.

It's refreshing to view such complex portrayals for women, expressing beliefs that are rarely legitamized. I'm having similar feelings about the main character in a book that I'm reading, We Need to Talk About Kevin, which is a novel comprised of ficticious letters written from Kevin's mother to Kevin's estranged father. Kevin was the sole gunman in a Columbine-esque school shooting, and most of it has to do with the reprecussions from that. (To be honest, I'm not very far, I forgot how time-consuming it can be to read adult literature.) But, the character relates very openly feelings about deciding to have a child and raising a child that are very seldom heard outside of feminist discourse. In any case, the book is supposed to be really disturbing, so when I'm finished with it, I'll let you know. I'm taking a break to read the new John Green, which, unfortunately, is ending his streak for me.

Oh, and I've also been watching this a lot, in an attempt to perfect some of the moves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw6Fjo6VXTg

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it

So in an earlier post I blogged a letter to Douglas Coupland. Doing some library research online, I found this letter to Coupland on a librarian's review blog of The Gum Thief, the same book that incited my letter:



Dear Mr. Coupland,

I just read The Gum Thief and found it to be such inane drivel that it was actually painful to read. It wasn't particularly funny or clever or well-written, but for some unknown reason, it got good reviews...elsewhere. But it just doesn't work for me. You seem bent on taking advantage of your notoriety as the guy who wrote Generation X. Okay, congratulations. Enough already.

Signed,

Not a fan



I wouldn't go that far, but she's Canadian, so I think she took it a bit personally.

Anyway, I still have to watch Georgy Girl, the Thanksgiving Gossip Girl episode, and I bought some music last night so hopefully I'll be posting soon.

Just a quickie, but holy moly

I just stumbled across this gem, one of the original LP covers for a soundtrack that ended up on the Crippled Dick Wax compilation Vampyros Lesbos. I don't even have words for it. (Courtesy of LP Cover Lover)

Saved by (cute) technology

So I began a Facebook page due to some slight peer pressure from Molly and April, mostly. I'm really not catching on - none of it makes much sense. So, feeling about as modern as cellophane-wrapped hard candies in an old lady's purse, I did what I always do when I'm feeling less than great: look at pictures of baby animals. This one really did the trick:

Those Damn Dolls!

The other day I finally watched my Netfilx which had been laying about for some time. I took in the cinematic delights that make up The Valley of the Dolls, a 1967 film starring, notably, Patty Duke (pictured above with a bottle of Dolls) and a pre-Manson, Polanski-loving Sharon Tate.

I love camp, so I really enjoyed the movie. There are enough 60s freeze shots, montages of photo shoots and scenes of women screaming and throwing things to satisfy. I thought that the wardrobe wasn't as strong as I would have liked for a late sixties era film, but there is an awesome All About Eve-like relationship between two Broadway (way square, right)stars (one addicted to Dolls, thanks to California) which ends in a wig-pulling scene of awesome proportions.

I've seen Russ Meyer's genius explosion of bosoms and drugs known as Beyond the Valley of the Dolls a bunch of times which definitely lessened the impact of this one a bit. If you've never seen either, I would recommend watching them in their release order. But please, watch them. Meyer's film is definitely my favorite movie to show people for the first time. Really, it has everything you could ever want from a movie, including transvestites, Nazis, and the Strawberry Alarm Clock.

But this recent viewing really reinvigorated my relationship with Netflix. (As well as with this blog). It had been languishing for quite some time as anyone who is my friend on Netflix could tell you. Pitiful really for a cinema studies student. But I'm fully committed again - committed in the same way that I am to finally finishing Buffy and Angel as well. I think the next one will continue with the swinging sixties in the form of Georgy Girl. That title song is great, so the movie has to be as well!

I'm Bringing this Baby Back, I Swear

If for no other reason but we're gaining on the end of the year, and I'll need to make my requisite lists. Ethan? You hear that Ethan?

Letter Writing Campaign

Dear Douglas Coupland:
Stop trying to be Tom Perrotta. Can we also acknowledge how the meta story is just Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I mean, that's fine, but shouldn't some of the peer reader characters at least mention this?
Thanks.

Dear Tom Perrotta:
Be funny again. Stop listening to pretentious book reviewers who rave about how hilarious your recent work is. They're stupid and seem to completely forget that you wrote Joe College and Election. Also, stop writing the same book.
Thanks.

Reaction to Untitled JJ Abrams Project

So, my one faithful reader, sorry to have been absent for some time. I read two books, Tom Perrotta's The Abstinence Teacher, and Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Both were fine, if not really good, I just don't have much to say about either. I did however, see Cloverfield yesterday. Let me preface by saying I'm not fanatical about J.J. Abrams, in fact I've never seen a single show that he's worked on (to my knowledge). But, a giant monster movie does call for some excitement, althoughI didn't have the highest of hopes for its success going into it.

Let me note though, that although I find the red herrings of fake websites and fake spoilers pretty unnecessary, (although still a little cool) Abrams' use of modern technology and the lack of actual spoilers until only a week before the movie's release is pretty new and exceptional. And since the release, of course there are a lot of speculations regarding clues in the film: possible spaceships, a whispered 'it's still alive,' etc. But, Cloverfield isn't really a movie where you care about where the monster's origin, or what happens to it. It's also not a movie where characters develop or even that you care about them or their motivations. In other words, it's no Host. What is most compelling about the movie is its theme of modern documentation, the everyman as journalist simply because the technology exists. This investigation is not simply expressed through Hud's attachment to the handycam throughout the ordeal. The use of camera phones as documentation devices used first at Rob's party is parallelled on the street as stunned bystanders take photos of the Statue of Liberty's head. Toward the end, Rob and Beth don't speak to their friends and family on film, but speak to authorities, giving their names and names of those who died.

The disappointment that many in the theatre expressed by the film's conclusion is extremely interesting. The constraints of the film as recovered footage mean that there will be no conclusion. Or at least one which gives answers to some viewers' questions. But it's an odd reaction when this style of footage is coveted in an actual event of interest. The shots of the monster(s) are pretty good, by the end the viewer has seen it from all angles and distances; for a few seconds one even sees the inside of the thing. So, ultimately, the disappointment expressed by some begs the question: Has the proliferation of this sort of everyman journalism not grabbed the attention of the populace in an entertainment context yet or is the perceived need for a filmic narrative that follows the classic story arc that strong?

In either case, I'll be interested to see how George Romero uses this formula in Diary of the Dead. I doubt he'll be as strict as Abrams, but that could be less a directorial decision, and one unfortunately based on public reaction to Cloverfield.

Hollywood Babylon

I am in such great company with this novel 'start a blog' idea. I just discovered that Michael Musto, fabulous columnist for the Village Voice has a blog as of yesterday: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/
Because I am lazy and feeling sickly despite copious amounts of Emergen-C, I will copy hilarity from NY Mazine's Daily Intelligencer, which I love because the writers love the CW's Gossip Girl. (Which, damn you no television, I will have to wait until the weekend to watch the finale online. Is Blair pregnant?! If it's Chuck's will it come out wearing a 'signature scarf' and use the word 'cassingle'?)

We could not be more excited. Musto is hilarious and raunchy — in fact,
he's the only gay writer who makes fart jokes. In the whole world!

Reading vs the Monarchy

Anyone who knows me is well aware of my weakness for meta. Songs about the radio, films about film history, and books about books all have the same knee-weakening capability. I am also a sucker for royal iconography, so I really didn't stand a chance when Alan Bennett's The Uncommon Reader was sitting on the new book shelf. Just look at that cover and swoon.

The story revolves around Queen Elizabeth at an unspecific time period, except for the fact that around the middle of the story, the death of Diana occurs. She stumbles upon the mobile library, and out of courtesy borrows a book. As she describes, she begins to build her literary muscle and gains an insatiable need to read. Her new hobby is met with disdain from those in her inner circle, these obstacles allowing for contemplation of two impressions of the act of reading: that it is elitist and that it is dangerous.

I read this book days after receiving a mass company email at work. The marketing supervisor decided to let us all know, for whatever reason, that his New Year's resolution was to read. To read?! He actually admitted to taking his kids to the library and *gasp* decided to pick up a book for himself. One book? Is this normal? I know that those scary studies are released every now and again that 25% of Americans went a whole year without reading a book, but really, who are these people? This email, in conjunction with Bennett's book made me wonder what Mr. Marketing would think of my regular reading. Would he be as equally shocked?

When was reading 'swift-boated'? And I don't mean Mortimer Adler reading. Pleasure reading, without taking notes, reading once and possibly forgetting most of the text is fine. So when did it become ivory tower? Perhaps the problem is with making something so personal and solitary a mass movement. I guess this supposedly solipsistic aspect of reading is what makes it subversive, or at least potentially so. The continual banning of books must stem from the 'pen is mightier than the sword' adage, although today it is more likely to be applied as 'the pen in mightier than the filmic image of the sword.' How true this is, I have no idea.

There are a lot of other interesting elements regarding the modern place of the monarchy in British society, especially that will be the more interesting aspect for some readers, I'm sure. But, overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

First Post - End of Year Film Ruminations

This is my first blog entry! I'm hoping that starting this will help me to organize things like movies watched and books read in the 'new year.' For starters, my top 10 films of 2007 list, with honorable mentions and films that probably would have been list contenders if I had seen them:



Top 10

1. Eastern Promises
2. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
3. The Host
4. I'm Not There
5. King of Kong: A Fistfull of Quarters
6. Death Proof
7. Hot Fuzz
8. Sweeney Todd
9. 2 Days in Paris
10. Juno



Honorable Mentions:

Superbad
Hairspray
Knocked Up
The Darjeeling Limited
The Rape of Europa
You're Gonna Miss Me



Possible contenders, Had I seen them, or if they were out here yet:

The Lives of Others, Into Great Silence, Zodiac, Paris je t'aime, Once, Crazy Love, La vie en Rose, Hostel Part II, Fido, Black Sheep, Joshua, This is England, Romance & Cigarettes, Great Wall of Sound, Into the Wild, The Good Night, My Kid could Paint That, Control, Margot at the Wedding, Savages, Persepolis, There Will be Blood, The Orphanage.