I think I had a pretty productive day yesterday. I got a good start on rewriting based on my new idea, though I then figured out what I needed to go back and fix in what I rewrote yesterday.
Today, though, will likely be my “get stuff done” day since I have that appointment to see a doctor about my knee, and that will probably kill my writing time. While I’m out, I can run all my weekly errands so that Wednesday can be a good working day.
I tried to unwind a bit by watching a movie last night. I’d recorded the 1948 production of A Woman in White from TCM. I read the book when I was immersing myself in Victorian literature before I wrote Rebel Mechanics (and when I thought it was going to be a lot more gothic than it turned out to be), so I was curious about the movie. Unfortunately, movies of that era were somewhat lax in anything resembling authenticity. The story is set in England. Almost all the characters are British (except for the Italian). In this movie, almost all the main characters were played by American actors, who weren’t even trying for British accents. Most of them were using that “mid-Atlantic” accent of the era, though one sounded like he was maybe from Georgia. But then most of the supporting characters either were British or were doing passable British accents, which made it even more jarring. I had to turn it off midway through. It’s a frustrating story to begin with because it’s centered on the concept of helplessness, with some of the main characters entirely under the power of others, and then there are some of the attitudes of the period that make you want to smack the characters’ heads together. But when you throw in the accent issues and the melodrama that came with that period, I just couldn’t take it.
I guess the helplessness thing was also getting to me because I’m seeing a doctor today about my knee problems, and I really hate seeing doctors. I’m braced for the “there’s nothing really wrong, it’s all in your head” treatment. Or else the “why didn’t you get something done sooner” lecture, to which the answer is all those years of constantly being told there’s nothing wrong and it’s all in my head. But at least maybe today I’ll get some answers and the start on a path toward fixing it. I miss being able to go on long walks, being able to go hiking on uneven surfaces, being able to dance. I’m getting out of shape and I can feel it, and I hate that.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Monday, June 12, 2017
Superhero Movie Weekend
I actually took a weekend and didn’t do any real work during it. It turned out to be a big movie weekend. Saturday, I went with friends to see Wonder Woman. I’m not the biggest fan of superhero movies. In fact, I’m totally burned out on the genre, but I really liked this one (maybe because it was as much a WWI costume drama as it was a superhero movie). A lot has been written about its feminist themes, and all that, and I did appreciate the way Wonder Woman was treated here — her costume is functional ancient Greek-style armor rather than a satin swimsuit with a brass bra, and all the “look how beautiful she is” camera shots were focused on her face, not her body — but I think the main thing I liked was the total lack of cynicism. Diana was 100 percent pure, good, and sincere, and that was treated as the right way to be. Everything she did, she did out of love, wanting to bring peace to the world and help the people who needed help. No excuses about it being hard or impossible or you can’t help everyone. Maybe it was a bit naive, but she wasn’t wrong about it being important to just try. She was a strong female character not just because she was a good fighter, but because she had that strong moral core.
The other thing I liked was the relationship. They didn’t have to weaken Steve to make Diana more powerful. He was strong, brave, and capable enough that he could easily have been the hero of his own movie, and he was strong, brave, and capable enough to recognize Diana’s abilities and not see them as any kind of threat, instead recognizing what an asset she was. Yeah, he had his “damsel in distress” moments in which she had to rescue him, but that wasn’t because he was weak. It was because she had superpowers and could stop bullets. He was able to recognize her strengths and incorporate them into his plan, so they made a great team. That’s the kind of thing I’d like to see more often in movies. Neither member of the couple has to be relegated to sidekick or love interest. Both of them can be strong, and they can mesh their individual abilities to be stronger together.
But it turns out I was missing the context for the framing story, so I found that the Batman vs. Superman movie that sets it up was available on HBO on demand, and the Man of Steel movie that set that one up was on TNT on demand, so I watched those on Sunday, and wow, what a hot mess. I’m amazed that they managed to make Superman dark and depressing. I guess my instincts were right to avoid those, in spite of my fondness for Amy Adams and Henry Cavill. They did a good job with what they were given, but Man of Steel was more like Independence Day than like a Superman movie, and Batman vs. Superman was clearly written by and for those Internet nerds who get into epic debates over which superhero could beat up which superhero, and never mind that they wouldn’t be fighting because they’re on the same side. Wonder Woman totally stole the show in that movie, and the only really interesting parts were the bits setting up the Wonder Woman movie.
Is it too much to ask to get at least one scene of Lois Lane and Diana together in the Justice League movie? I like Amy Adams’ take on Lois Lane, even if she’s been criminally underused so far, and Diana is so wonderful (I just hope they don’t pile on a bunch of modern-day cynicism now that she’s a century older).
And now I think I’m burned out on superheroes once more. I need to find myself a good costume drama. A good romantic comedy would be nice, but they don’t make those anymore.
The other thing I liked was the relationship. They didn’t have to weaken Steve to make Diana more powerful. He was strong, brave, and capable enough that he could easily have been the hero of his own movie, and he was strong, brave, and capable enough to recognize Diana’s abilities and not see them as any kind of threat, instead recognizing what an asset she was. Yeah, he had his “damsel in distress” moments in which she had to rescue him, but that wasn’t because he was weak. It was because she had superpowers and could stop bullets. He was able to recognize her strengths and incorporate them into his plan, so they made a great team. That’s the kind of thing I’d like to see more often in movies. Neither member of the couple has to be relegated to sidekick or love interest. Both of them can be strong, and they can mesh their individual abilities to be stronger together.
But it turns out I was missing the context for the framing story, so I found that the Batman vs. Superman movie that sets it up was available on HBO on demand, and the Man of Steel movie that set that one up was on TNT on demand, so I watched those on Sunday, and wow, what a hot mess. I’m amazed that they managed to make Superman dark and depressing. I guess my instincts were right to avoid those, in spite of my fondness for Amy Adams and Henry Cavill. They did a good job with what they were given, but Man of Steel was more like Independence Day than like a Superman movie, and Batman vs. Superman was clearly written by and for those Internet nerds who get into epic debates over which superhero could beat up which superhero, and never mind that they wouldn’t be fighting because they’re on the same side. Wonder Woman totally stole the show in that movie, and the only really interesting parts were the bits setting up the Wonder Woman movie.
Is it too much to ask to get at least one scene of Lois Lane and Diana together in the Justice League movie? I like Amy Adams’ take on Lois Lane, even if she’s been criminally underused so far, and Diana is so wonderful (I just hope they don’t pile on a bunch of modern-day cynicism now that she’s a century older).
And now I think I’m burned out on superheroes once more. I need to find myself a good costume drama. A good romantic comedy would be nice, but they don’t make those anymore.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Beastly Plot Problems
It took a little more than a walk to the movie theater and back to work out my plot problems, but I think over the weekend I finally figured it all out. I’m bad about doing a lot of handwaving when I plot my books. The start of the synopsis is really detailed, then about midway through it becomes more a case of “and then stuff happens.” I figure it’ll come to me when I get there. But when I get there, I need to be a lot more specific than that. I’d reached that point in the book, and every idea I came up with fit into the “but why would they do that?” category. It’s very frustrating. I do think I figured it out, though. We’ll see when I get to work today.
I loved the new Beauty and the Beast. It fixed some of the issues I had with the animated version and the Broadway version. I’ve always been a bit bothered by the enchantress cursing the whole castle because the prince was leery of letting in a stranger. Supposedly, he was being punished for judging by appearances, but if she’s the kind of person who puts that kind of curse on someone and on all his innocent servants, then maybe he was judging her by what was inside. This movie alters that a bit so it makes a lot more sense. I’ve also always been bothered by the fact that the way he shows that he’s changed from judging by appearances is to fall in love with the most beautiful girl in town. In this case, in spite of the song lyrics about Belle being the most beautiful girl in town, I think they make a distinction between her kind of beauty and the kind of beauty he was previously interested in. She’s more girl-next-door pretty, and I don’t think the prince before the curse would have even looked at her twice. He was more into the very artificial Baroque-era beauty of powdered wigs and face paint.
I loved the music enough to immediately buy the soundtrack and have listened to it repeatedly. There are a number of new songs — not just coming from the Broadway version, but new for the movie — that I really love, and I enjoy the new versions of the old songs (Ewan McGregor had WAY too much fun with “Be Our Guest”).
I was really impressed with Dan Stevens’ version of the Beast. His facial expressions really come through even in the CGI, and his eyes say so much. It looked nothing like him, yet was obviously him, if that makes sense. I even managed to have a few Downton Abbey flashbacks, where I recognized a look on his face, in spite of the fact that in this he looked like a fur-covered beast.
So, yeah, this will be one I buy on BluRay on release day. Then I may have to have a massive fairy tale weekend, watching this and Cinderella and maybe mixing it up a bit with Into the Woods and throwing in some Tangled. With lots of chocolate and pink champagne.
I loved the new Beauty and the Beast. It fixed some of the issues I had with the animated version and the Broadway version. I’ve always been a bit bothered by the enchantress cursing the whole castle because the prince was leery of letting in a stranger. Supposedly, he was being punished for judging by appearances, but if she’s the kind of person who puts that kind of curse on someone and on all his innocent servants, then maybe he was judging her by what was inside. This movie alters that a bit so it makes a lot more sense. I’ve also always been bothered by the fact that the way he shows that he’s changed from judging by appearances is to fall in love with the most beautiful girl in town. In this case, in spite of the song lyrics about Belle being the most beautiful girl in town, I think they make a distinction between her kind of beauty and the kind of beauty he was previously interested in. She’s more girl-next-door pretty, and I don’t think the prince before the curse would have even looked at her twice. He was more into the very artificial Baroque-era beauty of powdered wigs and face paint.
I loved the music enough to immediately buy the soundtrack and have listened to it repeatedly. There are a number of new songs — not just coming from the Broadway version, but new for the movie — that I really love, and I enjoy the new versions of the old songs (Ewan McGregor had WAY too much fun with “Be Our Guest”).
I was really impressed with Dan Stevens’ version of the Beast. His facial expressions really come through even in the CGI, and his eyes say so much. It looked nothing like him, yet was obviously him, if that makes sense. I even managed to have a few Downton Abbey flashbacks, where I recognized a look on his face, in spite of the fact that in this he looked like a fur-covered beast.
So, yeah, this will be one I buy on BluRay on release day. Then I may have to have a massive fairy tale weekend, watching this and Cinderella and maybe mixing it up a bit with Into the Woods and throwing in some Tangled. With lots of chocolate and pink champagne.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Dissecting Enchanted
I got about 4,000 words written on the new thing yesterday, but I’m not entirely happy with what I have, and it will need a bit of fixing before I can move forward. I’m not sure these are things I can let stay the way they are and fix on the second round because the foundation has to be right before I can go on. Fortunately, some new stuff came to me last night that I think will help. It even makes sense in the light of day, so that’s good.
I got into a bit of discussion yesterday on Facebook about the movie Enchanted. It’s one of my favorites, a real “happy place” movie, something I pull out when I need a mood lift or am just wanting something silly and fun. I noticed that my interest starts to wane about two thirds through the movie, and I realized that this happens every time. I’m totally involved through most of it, and then right at the time Giselle and her prince are reunited, I find myself reaching for my knitting, picking up a book, or checking e-mail.
Because if it’s worth analyzing, it’s worth overanalyzing, I’ve been thinking about this (since it’s good to know why someone’s attention might wane in a story). Spoilers ahead for a nearly 10-year-old movie.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that there aren’t any real musical numbers after that point (other than the singer providing music for the ball). In fact, there’s an aborted musical number that marks that point — the prince begins singing a romantic duet, and Giselle doesn’t join in, leaving him hanging. I love musicals, and James Marsden has a glorious voice that I wanted to hear more of, so I was disappointed that we didn’t get a real musical number with him. At the same time (and related to this), this is the moment when Giselle goes from being the fish out of water to the “straight man.” The prince then kind of has the role Giselle was playing earlier, while she’s the one who knows the city. An ordinary perky girl who’s at home in her surroundings isn’t nearly as much fun as a full-on Disney princess unleashed in modern New York. I don’t want to see her being normal.
But I also have a lot of problems with the romantic plots — and I recognize that this isn’t universal, that the story works for a lot of people, and it even worked for me the first time I saw the movie, and apologies if I’m about to ruin it for you.
Part of it is that supposedly one of the “lessons” is that you can’t just fall in love instantly. You shouldn’t marry the guy you just met the day before. You need to spend some time getting to know him first. But Giselle didn’t know Lawyer Guy for much longer than she knew the prince before she decided to stay in New York. Meanwhile, Lawyer Guy was with a woman for five years without committing to her, so I suppose they’re also saying that he just wasn’t that into her? Are they advocating a happy medium — one day isn’t long enough, five years is too long. Maybe three days is okay? But then the prince and the ex run off and get married immediately. Are they wrong?
Part of it is that I really feel bad for the prince. In that scene where he’s singing and she doesn’t join in, I become Team Prince. The poor guy has just spent the last couple of days desperately trying to find and save her. In real-life relationship terms, she’s not obligated to love him just because of what he does for her, but in this case, she was expecting him to come for her and save her. That was what she had the fight with Lawyer Guy about the night before when she realized that Lawyer Guy made her feel hot and bothered. So then the prince shows up, having done what she expected him to do, and she’s disappointed. He goes along with her request to go on a date, and it looks like he’s been enthusiastic about that, has really enjoyed his time, and on the same level of enthusiasm that Giselle brings to everything. He’s not at all cynical. There’s nothing in their interaction that even suggests that they aren’t really a good match. They didn’t make him a bad guy, which is nice, but him being a good guy who seems like a good match for her makes her rejection of him kind of weird, especially given her interactions with Lawyer Guy. They spend all their time together berating each other over their worldviews and lifestyle choices. Yeah, he changes, so I guess he’s not quite as critical of her as he once was, but we don’t see them spending a lot of time together being happy and enjoying the same things. Once we’re getting the idea that they have feelings for each other, they barely interact until the climactic scene at the ball. Instead, she spends that time with the prince and with the daughter. It really looks like she wants to stay because she likes New York and the daughter more than because she likes the guy.
And then they Pair the Spares, matching up Lawyer Guy’s driven career-woman ex up with the prince at first sight, probably so we won’t think the main couple are jerks for ditching their present relationships in mid-date to be with each other. If the exes get a happily ever after, then it wasn’t so bad.
I feel like they either needed to show that once the prince and Giselle actually got to know each other they realized that they were incompatible or they needed to make the prince a borderline villain rather than a clueless buffoon (he was really no more clueless than Giselle — in fact, he coped rather well on his own in New York, without having the native guide and local support that she had). And they needed to show more compatibility with Lawyer Guy, more middle ground where they weren’t criticizing each other. Or they could have just let the fairy tale characters learn some lessons from the New Yorkers, and vice versa, and let the established couples remain together, but in a different way. What would it look like for a fairy tale prince and princess to go on a date in New York? What would they talk about? What might they bring back to their kingdom to change their society? And meanwhile the cynical New Yorkers could start living out a fairy tale romance in their city.
Also, as many times as I’ve walked through Central Park, I’ve never run across a musical number and I’m very disappointed in this. Maybe I’ll start one the next time I’m there.
I got into a bit of discussion yesterday on Facebook about the movie Enchanted. It’s one of my favorites, a real “happy place” movie, something I pull out when I need a mood lift or am just wanting something silly and fun. I noticed that my interest starts to wane about two thirds through the movie, and I realized that this happens every time. I’m totally involved through most of it, and then right at the time Giselle and her prince are reunited, I find myself reaching for my knitting, picking up a book, or checking e-mail.
Because if it’s worth analyzing, it’s worth overanalyzing, I’ve been thinking about this (since it’s good to know why someone’s attention might wane in a story). Spoilers ahead for a nearly 10-year-old movie.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that there aren’t any real musical numbers after that point (other than the singer providing music for the ball). In fact, there’s an aborted musical number that marks that point — the prince begins singing a romantic duet, and Giselle doesn’t join in, leaving him hanging. I love musicals, and James Marsden has a glorious voice that I wanted to hear more of, so I was disappointed that we didn’t get a real musical number with him. At the same time (and related to this), this is the moment when Giselle goes from being the fish out of water to the “straight man.” The prince then kind of has the role Giselle was playing earlier, while she’s the one who knows the city. An ordinary perky girl who’s at home in her surroundings isn’t nearly as much fun as a full-on Disney princess unleashed in modern New York. I don’t want to see her being normal.
But I also have a lot of problems with the romantic plots — and I recognize that this isn’t universal, that the story works for a lot of people, and it even worked for me the first time I saw the movie, and apologies if I’m about to ruin it for you.
Part of it is that supposedly one of the “lessons” is that you can’t just fall in love instantly. You shouldn’t marry the guy you just met the day before. You need to spend some time getting to know him first. But Giselle didn’t know Lawyer Guy for much longer than she knew the prince before she decided to stay in New York. Meanwhile, Lawyer Guy was with a woman for five years without committing to her, so I suppose they’re also saying that he just wasn’t that into her? Are they advocating a happy medium — one day isn’t long enough, five years is too long. Maybe three days is okay? But then the prince and the ex run off and get married immediately. Are they wrong?
Part of it is that I really feel bad for the prince. In that scene where he’s singing and she doesn’t join in, I become Team Prince. The poor guy has just spent the last couple of days desperately trying to find and save her. In real-life relationship terms, she’s not obligated to love him just because of what he does for her, but in this case, she was expecting him to come for her and save her. That was what she had the fight with Lawyer Guy about the night before when she realized that Lawyer Guy made her feel hot and bothered. So then the prince shows up, having done what she expected him to do, and she’s disappointed. He goes along with her request to go on a date, and it looks like he’s been enthusiastic about that, has really enjoyed his time, and on the same level of enthusiasm that Giselle brings to everything. He’s not at all cynical. There’s nothing in their interaction that even suggests that they aren’t really a good match. They didn’t make him a bad guy, which is nice, but him being a good guy who seems like a good match for her makes her rejection of him kind of weird, especially given her interactions with Lawyer Guy. They spend all their time together berating each other over their worldviews and lifestyle choices. Yeah, he changes, so I guess he’s not quite as critical of her as he once was, but we don’t see them spending a lot of time together being happy and enjoying the same things. Once we’re getting the idea that they have feelings for each other, they barely interact until the climactic scene at the ball. Instead, she spends that time with the prince and with the daughter. It really looks like she wants to stay because she likes New York and the daughter more than because she likes the guy.
And then they Pair the Spares, matching up Lawyer Guy’s driven career-woman ex up with the prince at first sight, probably so we won’t think the main couple are jerks for ditching their present relationships in mid-date to be with each other. If the exes get a happily ever after, then it wasn’t so bad.
I feel like they either needed to show that once the prince and Giselle actually got to know each other they realized that they were incompatible or they needed to make the prince a borderline villain rather than a clueless buffoon (he was really no more clueless than Giselle — in fact, he coped rather well on his own in New York, without having the native guide and local support that she had). And they needed to show more compatibility with Lawyer Guy, more middle ground where they weren’t criticizing each other. Or they could have just let the fairy tale characters learn some lessons from the New Yorkers, and vice versa, and let the established couples remain together, but in a different way. What would it look like for a fairy tale prince and princess to go on a date in New York? What would they talk about? What might they bring back to their kingdom to change their society? And meanwhile the cynical New Yorkers could start living out a fairy tale romance in their city.
Also, as many times as I’ve walked through Central Park, I’ve never run across a musical number and I’m very disappointed in this. Maybe I’ll start one the next time I’m there.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
What's Romantic?
I may have recovered from the convention weekend. A day of rest and a good night’s sleep, and I feel more or less back to normal.
I suppose I should wish a happy Valentine’s Day, but I’m really not a fan of the holiday. And no, it’s not a bitter single woman thing. I’m just opposed to the idea of romance on demand, that you’ve somehow failed in your relationship if you don’t do something big on this particular day, or that you’ve failed at life if you don’t have someone doing something for you. Or that you have to do something special for yourself. Or that you have to do something to make someone else feel better about not having someone. Basically, it all boils down to “buy something today!” and that makes me cynical.
But I’m not opposed to the idea of romance. I’m happily single at the moment and content if I remain this way. I guess I’d be open to romance if I met someone who made my heart flutter, but it’s been a very long time since that happened (I guess I’m very picky, and I seem to be getting pickier with age). I do love fictional love stories, though. And now I’m about to say something rather controversial:
I don’t think The Princess Bride is the best fantasy romance movie. I don’t even think it’s a very good fantasy romance movie. I do think it’s a brilliant film, and is one of my all-time favorites. I just don’t think it’s very romantic. And I’m not sure it’s meant to be. It’s a satire. The book is rather cynical about the romance aspect, even suggesting at the end that the relationship isn’t likely to last. Really, Westley and Buttercup hardly spend any time together during the movie, and we have zero sense of what their relationship is like. The actual “love story” part of the movie happens during that prologue montage of “as you wish,” which obviously leaves a lot of it out. The bulk of the movie is about Westley trying to get back to her while she sits around passively. That gives you the sense that they probably aren’t very suited to each other. Once he starts spending time with her, he’s probably going to be very bored with her. He could do so much better.
So, what do I think is the best fantasy romance movie? My vote goes for Stardust, the adaptation of the Neil Gaiman novel. It really is a romance, fitting the structure of the genre. We have the couple that starts out with opposing goals and not being very interested in each other, but then as they face danger together and get to know each other, they start developing feelings, and then they grow as people to be able to be in love with each other and realize that it’s love. They spend almost the entire movie with each other, so we see what their relationship looks like. We see their feelings develop. And there are grand moments of romance and adventure along the way, with swashbuckling, flying pirate ships, desperate chases, secret identities, and all that, plus the kind of happy ending that leaves you with a big sigh. I watch this movie over and over again and it makes me happy every time.
I think an honorable mention might be Ladyhawke, though it’s hampered horribly by one of the most ill-fitting soundtracks ever (supposedly, it had a more traditional score in the European release, and I desperately want them to release that on DVD) that makes it really hard to watch, and then there’s Matthew Broderick’s attempt at whatever accent he was attempting. This one also loses some romance points due to the fact that the lovers can never actually share scenes with each other, due to the plot (they’re under a curse that leaves her as a falcon by day and him as a wolf by night, so they can’t be together in human form), but they do find ways of conveying their love.
Hmm, a common thread seems to be Michelle Pfeiffer — she’s the heroine in Ladyhawke and the villain in Stardust.
Otherwise, we kind of have to go into animated films. I’m partial to Tangled for romance purposes because there’s no creepy Stockholm Syndrome going on and the characters actually spend time together before falling in love.
Another honorable mention in its own category might be the season 3 finale of the TV series Once Upon a Time, which sent two of the characters, who’d been flirting a bit but who hadn’t yet become openly romantic, back in time to the fairy tale world, where they had to play Back to the Future and set things right and find a way back home, and doing all that allowed them to grow closer together and admit their feelings. They’ve botched a lot in that show, but that 2-part episode works. Also, someone needs to cast Colin O’Donoghue as a romantic leading man in something, and please let him use his real Irish accent. His “leading man” big-screen role so far was as a Father What a Waste with an American accent, and while he held his own quite well playing opposite Anthony Hopkins, the charm was utterly wasted in a psychological horror movie.
I suppose I should wish a happy Valentine’s Day, but I’m really not a fan of the holiday. And no, it’s not a bitter single woman thing. I’m just opposed to the idea of romance on demand, that you’ve somehow failed in your relationship if you don’t do something big on this particular day, or that you’ve failed at life if you don’t have someone doing something for you. Or that you have to do something special for yourself. Or that you have to do something to make someone else feel better about not having someone. Basically, it all boils down to “buy something today!” and that makes me cynical.
But I’m not opposed to the idea of romance. I’m happily single at the moment and content if I remain this way. I guess I’d be open to romance if I met someone who made my heart flutter, but it’s been a very long time since that happened (I guess I’m very picky, and I seem to be getting pickier with age). I do love fictional love stories, though. And now I’m about to say something rather controversial:
I don’t think The Princess Bride is the best fantasy romance movie. I don’t even think it’s a very good fantasy romance movie. I do think it’s a brilliant film, and is one of my all-time favorites. I just don’t think it’s very romantic. And I’m not sure it’s meant to be. It’s a satire. The book is rather cynical about the romance aspect, even suggesting at the end that the relationship isn’t likely to last. Really, Westley and Buttercup hardly spend any time together during the movie, and we have zero sense of what their relationship is like. The actual “love story” part of the movie happens during that prologue montage of “as you wish,” which obviously leaves a lot of it out. The bulk of the movie is about Westley trying to get back to her while she sits around passively. That gives you the sense that they probably aren’t very suited to each other. Once he starts spending time with her, he’s probably going to be very bored with her. He could do so much better.
So, what do I think is the best fantasy romance movie? My vote goes for Stardust, the adaptation of the Neil Gaiman novel. It really is a romance, fitting the structure of the genre. We have the couple that starts out with opposing goals and not being very interested in each other, but then as they face danger together and get to know each other, they start developing feelings, and then they grow as people to be able to be in love with each other and realize that it’s love. They spend almost the entire movie with each other, so we see what their relationship looks like. We see their feelings develop. And there are grand moments of romance and adventure along the way, with swashbuckling, flying pirate ships, desperate chases, secret identities, and all that, plus the kind of happy ending that leaves you with a big sigh. I watch this movie over and over again and it makes me happy every time.
I think an honorable mention might be Ladyhawke, though it’s hampered horribly by one of the most ill-fitting soundtracks ever (supposedly, it had a more traditional score in the European release, and I desperately want them to release that on DVD) that makes it really hard to watch, and then there’s Matthew Broderick’s attempt at whatever accent he was attempting. This one also loses some romance points due to the fact that the lovers can never actually share scenes with each other, due to the plot (they’re under a curse that leaves her as a falcon by day and him as a wolf by night, so they can’t be together in human form), but they do find ways of conveying their love.
Hmm, a common thread seems to be Michelle Pfeiffer — she’s the heroine in Ladyhawke and the villain in Stardust.
Otherwise, we kind of have to go into animated films. I’m partial to Tangled for romance purposes because there’s no creepy Stockholm Syndrome going on and the characters actually spend time together before falling in love.
Another honorable mention in its own category might be the season 3 finale of the TV series Once Upon a Time, which sent two of the characters, who’d been flirting a bit but who hadn’t yet become openly romantic, back in time to the fairy tale world, where they had to play Back to the Future and set things right and find a way back home, and doing all that allowed them to grow closer together and admit their feelings. They’ve botched a lot in that show, but that 2-part episode works. Also, someone needs to cast Colin O’Donoghue as a romantic leading man in something, and please let him use his real Irish accent. His “leading man” big-screen role so far was as a Father What a Waste with an American accent, and while he held his own quite well playing opposite Anthony Hopkins, the charm was utterly wasted in a psychological horror movie.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Quiet Time
I've reached the quiet part of my holiday season. Christmas Eve will be busy, but otherwise, I don't have a lot of obligations. I think I'm going to consider this a week off, other than writing, since I'll be busy in the week between Christmas and the New Year.
I saw Rogue One on Friday, and I really liked it. But it was a very different kind of Star Wars movie, definitely not suitable for kids. The regular Star Wars movies are basically fantasy in a space setting. This was a World War II movie in a Star Wars setting. It reminded me of The Dirty Dozen or Guns of Navarone, with maybe a dash or two of Saving Private Ryan. I thought that grittiness made the universe more real, and we saw more of it away from the main action of the series. This movie essentially hands over to the original movie, and I feel like it added a new layer of meaning to that movie because we now know what was involved in getting to that point.
I want to see it again, but it is rather draining. I was even a bit sore after the movie from being so tense for so long.
Now I want to spend this week reading and writing. It's bitterly cold (for this region), and I think it's a good day to spend under the electric blanket with the laptop.
I saw Rogue One on Friday, and I really liked it. But it was a very different kind of Star Wars movie, definitely not suitable for kids. The regular Star Wars movies are basically fantasy in a space setting. This was a World War II movie in a Star Wars setting. It reminded me of The Dirty Dozen or Guns of Navarone, with maybe a dash or two of Saving Private Ryan. I thought that grittiness made the universe more real, and we saw more of it away from the main action of the series. This movie essentially hands over to the original movie, and I feel like it added a new layer of meaning to that movie because we now know what was involved in getting to that point.
I want to see it again, but it is rather draining. I was even a bit sore after the movie from being so tense for so long.
Now I want to spend this week reading and writing. It's bitterly cold (for this region), and I think it's a good day to spend under the electric blanket with the laptop.
Wednesday, August 03, 2016
Magic Space Rollerblades
I read through the first half or so of the new book yesterday, and my instincts about what I'd likely need to cut were pretty much on target. I'll be cutting a lot of scenes out of the beginning and then beefing up the middle. In "hero's journey" terms, the Crossing the First Threshold part comes way too late in the book. I extended the "refusal of the call" for too long. It needs to be somewhat substantial because it's a big threshold to cross, but probably not five chapters worth. And I need to change the opening scene because it's kicked off by something that I thought would be important in the book but that I didn't end up using all that much.
After that much reading and thinking, my brain shut down. I guess I was still in convention recovery mode. So I took a shower, put on my pajamas and watched a brainless movie -- Jupiter Ascending. I'd recorded it off HBO a month or so ago, but there was a glitch in the recording that seemed to cut off the ending, and I knew it wasn't just the movie having an odd ending because it cut straight to the technical part of the credits, skipping the stuff about director, writer, and cast. Since I'd zoned out midway through the movie, I found another showing and had the DVR grab it.
And it still didn't make much sense. It was kind of like they found script pages from various other movies and stuck them together. The visuals were pretty spectacular, and the cast was full of "what are these people doing in this movie?" kind of actors, but the script was basically a stereotypical bad YA novel that borrows heavily from other films. It starts out as The Terminator, only our heroine is a maid instead of a waitress and she's being stalked by alien assassins instead of a killer robot from the future. And she faints and has to be carried away by the hot soldier sent to save her instead of running away with him. Actually, she gets carried around a lot. I guess it makes for a romantic visual with her in the arms of the beefy guy who has magic space rollerblades, but it really adds to the sense of the damsel in distress. There are some bits that make me think of Signs. Then we have the brief Princess Diaries interlude, followed by the segment right out of the movie Brazil (including a cameo by the director of that movie -- perhaps an attempt to avoid a lawsuit?), and then we have some Phantom Menace costuming, and then the part I never seem to manage to watch because at that point in the film I feel compelled to read Facebook, and then there's a dash of Revenge of the Sith mixed with The Empire Strikes Back, and then I don't even know. Maybe some Xanadu? It's a good thing I didn't see this in the theater because I was compelled to blurt out the obvious lines from the scenes that were being borrowed.
I can't really recommend this movie, but at the same time, you really kind of have to see it. Turn off the sound and play some good classical music and use it to facilitate daydreaming. It could be like a kind of meditation because it's certainly good for emptying your mind.
Unfortunately, I was too tired to use it for good brainstorming background, and I still need to come up with a new opening scene. Hmm, what other brainlessness does HBO have to offer?
After that much reading and thinking, my brain shut down. I guess I was still in convention recovery mode. So I took a shower, put on my pajamas and watched a brainless movie -- Jupiter Ascending. I'd recorded it off HBO a month or so ago, but there was a glitch in the recording that seemed to cut off the ending, and I knew it wasn't just the movie having an odd ending because it cut straight to the technical part of the credits, skipping the stuff about director, writer, and cast. Since I'd zoned out midway through the movie, I found another showing and had the DVR grab it.
And it still didn't make much sense. It was kind of like they found script pages from various other movies and stuck them together. The visuals were pretty spectacular, and the cast was full of "what are these people doing in this movie?" kind of actors, but the script was basically a stereotypical bad YA novel that borrows heavily from other films. It starts out as The Terminator, only our heroine is a maid instead of a waitress and she's being stalked by alien assassins instead of a killer robot from the future. And she faints and has to be carried away by the hot soldier sent to save her instead of running away with him. Actually, she gets carried around a lot. I guess it makes for a romantic visual with her in the arms of the beefy guy who has magic space rollerblades, but it really adds to the sense of the damsel in distress. There are some bits that make me think of Signs. Then we have the brief Princess Diaries interlude, followed by the segment right out of the movie Brazil (including a cameo by the director of that movie -- perhaps an attempt to avoid a lawsuit?), and then we have some Phantom Menace costuming, and then the part I never seem to manage to watch because at that point in the film I feel compelled to read Facebook, and then there's a dash of Revenge of the Sith mixed with The Empire Strikes Back, and then I don't even know. Maybe some Xanadu? It's a good thing I didn't see this in the theater because I was compelled to blurt out the obvious lines from the scenes that were being borrowed.
I can't really recommend this movie, but at the same time, you really kind of have to see it. Turn off the sound and play some good classical music and use it to facilitate daydreaming. It could be like a kind of meditation because it's certainly good for emptying your mind.
Unfortunately, I was too tired to use it for good brainstorming background, and I still need to come up with a new opening scene. Hmm, what other brainlessness does HBO have to offer?
Monday, July 25, 2016
In the Home Stretch
I've reached the 3/4 mark of this book, with about 100 pages to go (if the plot cooperates). That means that if I write 25 pages a day this week, I can finish this draft before ArmadilloCon. Then the con weekend can be my between-drafts palate-cleansing break, and then when I get back I can dive into the major surgery revisions. I'd like to finish those in the two weeks before WorldCon, which can be my break before I do editing/polishing and proofreading. This may be the fastest first draft I've ever done for a book this length. I may have writtenone of my category romances in about that time, but it was only 50,000 words. Otherwise, I believe Once Upon Stilettos was done in something like 5-6 weeks. And then it took me months to revise. I haven't re-read what I've written, so I don't know how heavy the revisions on this one will be. I know of some tweaking I want to do, and there's a character who'll need to be better established to set up something I want to do with her. There are also some scenes I'll need to amp up or flesh out, and probably some scenes that need to be trimmed or cut entirely (I suspect I've got a lot of Plotting on Paper in this book, where the characters discuss possible things they could do so that I can figure out what they will do).
Then I'll spend September playing with a new idea to see if it's viable. In October, I'm hoping to dive into the next Rebel Mechanics book.
Speaking of which … the hardcover edition of Rebel Magisters is now available at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble (and through other places, like the Ingram catalog, for library purchases). It's part of the overall book listing, so if you click on the book, it will show the formats that are available. I'm hoping to have news of audio soon.
In other news … I saw the new Star Trek movie this weekend, and I think I liked it better than the other ones in the reboot series. I'm still iffy on the concept of the reboot, and there were a few lines and scenes that were on a fine line between "homage" and "parody," with a set of scenes that were straight out of fanfic. But in general, it felt a lot more like classic Star Trek than the previous two films did.
Though, to be honest, I was far more excited by the new trailer for Rogue One, the new Star Wars movie. That looks like it's going to be so much fun.
And now off to get my 25 pages written. I'm going to try to get more than that to lighten my load for Thursday so I can deal with packing and preparation and get to bed early.
Then I'll spend September playing with a new idea to see if it's viable. In October, I'm hoping to dive into the next Rebel Mechanics book.
Speaking of which … the hardcover edition of Rebel Magisters is now available at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble (and through other places, like the Ingram catalog, for library purchases). It's part of the overall book listing, so if you click on the book, it will show the formats that are available. I'm hoping to have news of audio soon.
In other news … I saw the new Star Trek movie this weekend, and I think I liked it better than the other ones in the reboot series. I'm still iffy on the concept of the reboot, and there were a few lines and scenes that were on a fine line between "homage" and "parody," with a set of scenes that were straight out of fanfic. But in general, it felt a lot more like classic Star Trek than the previous two films did.
Though, to be honest, I was far more excited by the new trailer for Rogue One, the new Star Wars movie. That looks like it's going to be so much fun.
And now off to get my 25 pages written. I'm going to try to get more than that to lighten my load for Thursday so I can deal with packing and preparation and get to bed early.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Madness and Movies
Yesterday was the day of getting my to-do list dealt with -- ordering promo material, paying bills, making appointments. I don't know why all that is so draining, but it is. And that means today is a day for writing. I was so tired last night that I went to bed super early, which meant I was up early today and got my errands taken care of. So I can spend the rest of the day hiding in my air conditioned cave, sitting under the ceiling fan, drinking cool beverages, and writing like a madwoman.
I mean in quantity, not in quality. Then again …
In other topics of interest …
I have not seen the new Ghostbusters, mostly because that would involve leaving the house, and see above about writing. However, I did watch the original two on cable over the weekend, and you know, that first one is really not a good movie. The premise is fun and the cast is great, but the script is awful. I like the first half, when they're actually, you know, ghost busting, but then it jumps the rails entirely when it goes off on the tangent of Sumerian deities. There's no real worldbuilding, no character development, and yet there's potential there. The treatment of women is pretty awful. The stuff around Sigourney Weaver's character was really uncomfortable, both with the creeper neighbor and the way Bill Murray's character treated her. I don't think I'd seen the second one since I saw it at the theater, but I was surprised that I mostly liked it better. That may have been because it was relatively fresh and I didn't remember any of it, but I liked the plot better. There weren't as many funny lines or comic set pieces, but the story was more coherent. Really, though, the entire thing in both movies was the charm of the cast and the novelty of it. There's a lot of room for improvement in those films.
And then there's this news: The Jim Henson Company is developing a movie of Terry Pratchett's Wee Free Men, with script by Pratchett's daughter (who is actually a professional screenwriter, so it's not just a nepotism thing). Her involvement suggests that they won't screw up the spirit of it, and the Henson people do good stuff. It seems like they would "get" it. The project is "in development," so there's no guarantee it will actually make it to the screen, but Brian Henson himself is involved, which probably helps.
I'm going to have to see the new Star Trek movie this weekend (my friends are going) because I'm on the Star Trek panel at WorldCon, with people who've actually written for the series, including David Gerrold. I haven't been keen on the reboot movies and might have skipped it otherwise, but now it counts as work.
Speaking of work ...
I mean in quantity, not in quality. Then again …
In other topics of interest …
I have not seen the new Ghostbusters, mostly because that would involve leaving the house, and see above about writing. However, I did watch the original two on cable over the weekend, and you know, that first one is really not a good movie. The premise is fun and the cast is great, but the script is awful. I like the first half, when they're actually, you know, ghost busting, but then it jumps the rails entirely when it goes off on the tangent of Sumerian deities. There's no real worldbuilding, no character development, and yet there's potential there. The treatment of women is pretty awful. The stuff around Sigourney Weaver's character was really uncomfortable, both with the creeper neighbor and the way Bill Murray's character treated her. I don't think I'd seen the second one since I saw it at the theater, but I was surprised that I mostly liked it better. That may have been because it was relatively fresh and I didn't remember any of it, but I liked the plot better. There weren't as many funny lines or comic set pieces, but the story was more coherent. Really, though, the entire thing in both movies was the charm of the cast and the novelty of it. There's a lot of room for improvement in those films.
And then there's this news: The Jim Henson Company is developing a movie of Terry Pratchett's Wee Free Men, with script by Pratchett's daughter (who is actually a professional screenwriter, so it's not just a nepotism thing). Her involvement suggests that they won't screw up the spirit of it, and the Henson people do good stuff. It seems like they would "get" it. The project is "in development," so there's no guarantee it will actually make it to the screen, but Brian Henson himself is involved, which probably helps.
I'm going to have to see the new Star Trek movie this weekend (my friends are going) because I'm on the Star Trek panel at WorldCon, with people who've actually written for the series, including David Gerrold. I haven't been keen on the reboot movies and might have skipped it otherwise, but now it counts as work.
Speaking of work ...
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Filling in the Details
I gave myself a morning out because it was the last day the latest Jane Austen adaptation, Love and Friendship (adapted from "Lady Susan"), was going to be in the theater. And I'm glad I went, as it was very well done -- laugh-out-loud funny to the point I'm going to need the DVD to catch all the lines, with some amazing costumes. Plus, the return of the Cold Comfort Farm version of Kate Beckinsale (as opposed to the American action film version).
I also may need to track down the book. I suspect it's available via Project Gutenberg. It's a shorter work rather than a novel, and Austen never submitted it for publication. The credits, in the part where they say "buy the soundtrack on whatever label" said to read the book by Jane Austen, "in which Lady Susan is vindicated." That makes me wonder what they may have changed or left out in the movie.
Now it's back to brainstorming. I did enough yesterday that the plot is starting to come together and I have the major throughline. Now I need to figure out the details. The details are the hard part. When it's still more of a vague idea, it sounds utterly brilliant. Then you start drilling down into the how and why, and it starts to fall apart. So far, my research has paid off because it's given me a lot of ideas and has already filled in some of the "how" stuff. So all that time reading wasn't a waste.
The next real test of the idea will come when it's time to put it in words.
I also may need to track down the book. I suspect it's available via Project Gutenberg. It's a shorter work rather than a novel, and Austen never submitted it for publication. The credits, in the part where they say "buy the soundtrack on whatever label" said to read the book by Jane Austen, "in which Lady Susan is vindicated." That makes me wonder what they may have changed or left out in the movie.
Now it's back to brainstorming. I did enough yesterday that the plot is starting to come together and I have the major throughline. Now I need to figure out the details. The details are the hard part. When it's still more of a vague idea, it sounds utterly brilliant. Then you start drilling down into the how and why, and it starts to fall apart. So far, my research has paid off because it's given me a lot of ideas and has already filled in some of the "how" stuff. So all that time reading wasn't a waste.
The next real test of the idea will come when it's time to put it in words.
Monday, June 20, 2016
In Which My Theory is Validated
I survived the trip to Comicpalooza, and now I get to be home for a whole month before my next trip. This trip was really tiring, for some reason, and I'm not quite sure why, as I didn't have a lot of programming, got to bed at a reasonable hour and didn't have to get up all that early. I'm not sure I'll do this one again if I'm asked. The only visibility as an author was during the panels. My books weren't being sold in the dealer's room. People who wanted to see me couldn't find me. I did pass out a lot of bookmarks and postcards at the panels, but I don't know if those will lead to book sales. Basically, everyone who saw me on a panel would have to buy at least two books and tell one other person about my books for the trip to have paid off at all. This event does seem to be trying to add more of a literary presence to the general pop culture mix, but they still have work to do to make it work for the authors. It's a massive, for-profit event, but the authors are being treated like they're at a small, non-profit literary convention, only with less exposure. At the only event similar to this I've been to, where they were adding a literary track to a pop culture event, they paid for the authors' hotel, and they gave authors a free table in Artist Alley for book sales and autographing.
Still, I did have fun, and maybe just giving it a shot this time was worthwhile. One of the panels I was on was standing-room-only, which was nice to see. The people watching was very entertaining. I got to hang out with some of my writer friends. I went to a literary panel I wasn't on and learned some new things.
And then there was this:
Although I had a panel that wrapped up right as this was supposed to begin, I managed to get a seat near the top of the arena-style room for the Aliens reunion panel. Those dots on the stage are most of the cast. The big dot on the screen is Sigourney Weaver. She's the far-right dot at the table. To her left is Michael Biehn, and to his left is Carrie Henn (Newt), all grown up and a mom and school teacher.
There were some fun stories about the audition process and who tried out for which parts. But my favorite part of the panel was getting my personal view of the movie validated.
I've spoken before about how I consider this a rather romantic movie because of the relationship between Ripley and Hicks. He seems very impressed with her, she trusts him, and they form a real bond. Well, Michael Biehn said that was all totally intended and was in the script. He called it a "like story." That was his favorite thing about his character -- not the macho action hero stuff, but the way Hicks was impressed by Ripley, took her seriously, and was willing to listen to her. He said he caught the movie on TV earlier this year and found himself watching it all the way through for the first time in ages, and he was struck by the way that he was smiling every time he looked at Ripley (actually, he said "her" as he patted Sigourney Weaver on the arm). So, yeah, that wasn't just hopeless romantic me reading that into their relationship.
Also, there apparently is going to be an Alien 5 that's a kind of reboot, as Hicks will be in it and still alive. That's nice for me, as I've generally been pretending that everything after Aliens didn't happen. I'm curious what kind of story that will be, as it's rather obvious that time has passed. Will they find each other again, or will we learn they've been together all this time? Anyway, they have to wait until the Prometheus sequel is done (and when Sigourney Weaver is done with Avatar), but they said it was happening.
Still, I did have fun, and maybe just giving it a shot this time was worthwhile. One of the panels I was on was standing-room-only, which was nice to see. The people watching was very entertaining. I got to hang out with some of my writer friends. I went to a literary panel I wasn't on and learned some new things.
And then there was this:
Although I had a panel that wrapped up right as this was supposed to begin, I managed to get a seat near the top of the arena-style room for the Aliens reunion panel. Those dots on the stage are most of the cast. The big dot on the screen is Sigourney Weaver. She's the far-right dot at the table. To her left is Michael Biehn, and to his left is Carrie Henn (Newt), all grown up and a mom and school teacher.
There were some fun stories about the audition process and who tried out for which parts. But my favorite part of the panel was getting my personal view of the movie validated.
I've spoken before about how I consider this a rather romantic movie because of the relationship between Ripley and Hicks. He seems very impressed with her, she trusts him, and they form a real bond. Well, Michael Biehn said that was all totally intended and was in the script. He called it a "like story." That was his favorite thing about his character -- not the macho action hero stuff, but the way Hicks was impressed by Ripley, took her seriously, and was willing to listen to her. He said he caught the movie on TV earlier this year and found himself watching it all the way through for the first time in ages, and he was struck by the way that he was smiling every time he looked at Ripley (actually, he said "her" as he patted Sigourney Weaver on the arm). So, yeah, that wasn't just hopeless romantic me reading that into their relationship.
Also, there apparently is going to be an Alien 5 that's a kind of reboot, as Hicks will be in it and still alive. That's nice for me, as I've generally been pretending that everything after Aliens didn't happen. I'm curious what kind of story that will be, as it's rather obvious that time has passed. Will they find each other again, or will we learn they've been together all this time? Anyway, they have to wait until the Prometheus sequel is done (and when Sigourney Weaver is done with Avatar), but they said it was happening.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Austen Obsession
I had a nice weekend that was actually sort of relaxing. My house seems to have crossed some kind of tipping point where it's clean enough that additional mess bothers me, so I'm motivated to clean even more. Since I got home from my trip, I've cleaned the kitchen after the day's cooking and eating every night before bed, and I've made my bed every morning. Now the real problem to tackle is the upstairs. I spent Saturday morning cleaning, so I got to spend the rest of the weekend hanging out and relaxing. I've started researching the concept for the next book I want to write and got through a whole research book on Saturday. Plus, I did some other leisure reading. It was nice to have a couple of days in which I had no plans or obligations, and even the house stuff was mostly done so I could enjoy myself without any sense of what I should be doing.
I got through the copyedits on Friday, so today I start a thorough proofread. I may try having the computer read out loud so I can make sure I'm seeing what's on the page rather than what's in my head. We'll see how long that lasts. I may find it very irritating.
While I was hanging out and relaxing on Saturday, I caught the movie Austenland on cable (actually, DVRd it and then watched it that evening). I'd wanted to see this when it came out, since I read the book, but it was at a theater I don't usually go to, didn't run very long, and had terrible reviews. It ended up being a rather cute movie. I might have been annoyed if I'd paid full price at a theater to see it, but it was just right for a cable movie, and if I find the DVD at a cheap price I might be tempted because it was fun and would make good companion viewing for either a conventional Austen adaptation or Bridget Jones Diary. (I may have to have a Jane Austen-themed girls' night in party someday.)
The plot follows a young woman who's been utterly obsessed with Jane Austen her whole life on a splurge vacation to what's essentially a Jane Austen immersion experience in England. Guests assume an identity appropriate to the period, wear period clothes, and live in a grand mansion. There are actors filling out the group (mostly men, since the guests tend to be women), playing out all the little flirtations toward a somewhat scripted storyline that the guests aren't aware of. The trick is that when so much is scripted, it's hard to tell what's real, so our heroine finds herself suspicious when she encounters the perfect Darcy type. Meanwhile, there's that stablehand/coachman who's willing to break character and show her what goes on behind the scenes.
It's been a long time since I read the book, so I didn't remember how it worked out and only remembered a few odd details. I think it could have been better, but it was mostly played for farce, and that proved to be rather entertaining. I just wish there had been more of the scenes of the actors hanging out in their free time because the contrast between them in Austen mode and their real selves was fun. I was never really sure what the movie was trying to say about the heroine's Austen obsession because it kept waffling on whether she was right about her ideals or foolishly deluded. She was so obsessed that it wasn't healthy (her home was a shrine to Austen), but at the same time she seemed to be one of the sanest people in the movie and I couldn't blame her for the way she reacted to things. You wouldn't have to be obsessed with Mr. Darcy to be turned off by the men she encountered before her trip.
It was just nice to have a fun romantic comedy without gross-out stuff added to attract men and with male love interests who were actually adults rather than overgrown fratboys who needed to be tamed by a shrew who forced them to grow up.
Speaking of movie romance, they've released a teaser trailer for the live-action Beauty and the Beast, and it looks lovely:
I'm so there. It might work as brain bleach to purge the atrocity Once Upon a Time has created of that story.
I got through the copyedits on Friday, so today I start a thorough proofread. I may try having the computer read out loud so I can make sure I'm seeing what's on the page rather than what's in my head. We'll see how long that lasts. I may find it very irritating.
While I was hanging out and relaxing on Saturday, I caught the movie Austenland on cable (actually, DVRd it and then watched it that evening). I'd wanted to see this when it came out, since I read the book, but it was at a theater I don't usually go to, didn't run very long, and had terrible reviews. It ended up being a rather cute movie. I might have been annoyed if I'd paid full price at a theater to see it, but it was just right for a cable movie, and if I find the DVD at a cheap price I might be tempted because it was fun and would make good companion viewing for either a conventional Austen adaptation or Bridget Jones Diary. (I may have to have a Jane Austen-themed girls' night in party someday.)
The plot follows a young woman who's been utterly obsessed with Jane Austen her whole life on a splurge vacation to what's essentially a Jane Austen immersion experience in England. Guests assume an identity appropriate to the period, wear period clothes, and live in a grand mansion. There are actors filling out the group (mostly men, since the guests tend to be women), playing out all the little flirtations toward a somewhat scripted storyline that the guests aren't aware of. The trick is that when so much is scripted, it's hard to tell what's real, so our heroine finds herself suspicious when she encounters the perfect Darcy type. Meanwhile, there's that stablehand/coachman who's willing to break character and show her what goes on behind the scenes.
It's been a long time since I read the book, so I didn't remember how it worked out and only remembered a few odd details. I think it could have been better, but it was mostly played for farce, and that proved to be rather entertaining. I just wish there had been more of the scenes of the actors hanging out in their free time because the contrast between them in Austen mode and their real selves was fun. I was never really sure what the movie was trying to say about the heroine's Austen obsession because it kept waffling on whether she was right about her ideals or foolishly deluded. She was so obsessed that it wasn't healthy (her home was a shrine to Austen), but at the same time she seemed to be one of the sanest people in the movie and I couldn't blame her for the way she reacted to things. You wouldn't have to be obsessed with Mr. Darcy to be turned off by the men she encountered before her trip.
It was just nice to have a fun romantic comedy without gross-out stuff added to attract men and with male love interests who were actually adults rather than overgrown fratboys who needed to be tamed by a shrew who forced them to grow up.
Speaking of movie romance, they've released a teaser trailer for the live-action Beauty and the Beast, and it looks lovely:
I'm so there. It might work as brain bleach to purge the atrocity Once Upon a Time has created of that story.
Monday, May 09, 2016
Weekend Movies and Sewing
It's a busy week of gearing up for my trip to the Nebula Awards weekend, and I have a mile-long to-do list. Fortunately, I mostly finished my sewing over the weekend. I just have to sew on the hooks and eyes, which I'll do while watching TV tonight. I'm pretty pleased with the outcome. It's not perfect, but I figure it's at the same or higher quality than something that would have cost about the same at a store. I don't see myself starting to make all my own clothes, but it's nice to have an option for things that I can't find at a store. This particular item didn't seem to exist anywhere that I could find.
Because I was sewing a lot, and a lot of it involved hand work because I was hand basting before doing the machine sewing (smoother through the machine than pins), I did some movie watching, catching up on some OnDemand stuff on HBO.
So, I finally saw Pitch Perfect 2. The first movie was cute, but was mostly about the music, with the plot almost being an afterthought. The sequel barely even tried with a plot. It was so by-the-numbers that the writers clearly weren't trying to come up with something to string together the musical numbers. If you didn't figure out just about everything that would happen for the resolution within the first ten minutes of the movie, you either don't see a lot of movies or weren't paying attention (gee, do you think it will end up being important that the plucky newcomer likes writing songs?). I think a lot of my amusement stemmed from the fact that the lead woman on the "enemy" team played a pivotal Game of Thrones guest role, and I was blurring the two roles in my head. Still, it was fun for background noise while sewing, and the music is good. I'd love to try singing something like that.
Then there was Jurassic World, or as I've dubbed it, "Too Stupid to Live: The Movie." Just about every plot development in the story happened because of someone making a massively bad decision. The story would have gone nowhere if everyone had exhibited basic common sense. And, again, you kind of know exactly how it will all work out based on the first ten minutes. I was cheering for the dinosaurs. It was okay for background noise while sewing, but I think I'd have been bored just watching. The best part was all the memes that came out of the raptor training scene and the way that became a thing for zookeepers to act out and photograph.
Now to plan my travel wardrobe -- it turns out it's going to be cooler than I expected, so that changes some of my plans -- do laundry, clean the house, prepare some promo materials, start packing, finish sewing, finish setting up my tablet so I'll have all the logins for my usual sites, etc., etc.
Because I was sewing a lot, and a lot of it involved hand work because I was hand basting before doing the machine sewing (smoother through the machine than pins), I did some movie watching, catching up on some OnDemand stuff on HBO.
So, I finally saw Pitch Perfect 2. The first movie was cute, but was mostly about the music, with the plot almost being an afterthought. The sequel barely even tried with a plot. It was so by-the-numbers that the writers clearly weren't trying to come up with something to string together the musical numbers. If you didn't figure out just about everything that would happen for the resolution within the first ten minutes of the movie, you either don't see a lot of movies or weren't paying attention (gee, do you think it will end up being important that the plucky newcomer likes writing songs?). I think a lot of my amusement stemmed from the fact that the lead woman on the "enemy" team played a pivotal Game of Thrones guest role, and I was blurring the two roles in my head. Still, it was fun for background noise while sewing, and the music is good. I'd love to try singing something like that.
Then there was Jurassic World, or as I've dubbed it, "Too Stupid to Live: The Movie." Just about every plot development in the story happened because of someone making a massively bad decision. The story would have gone nowhere if everyone had exhibited basic common sense. And, again, you kind of know exactly how it will all work out based on the first ten minutes. I was cheering for the dinosaurs. It was okay for background noise while sewing, but I think I'd have been bored just watching. The best part was all the memes that came out of the raptor training scene and the way that became a thing for zookeepers to act out and photograph.
Now to plan my travel wardrobe -- it turns out it's going to be cooler than I expected, so that changes some of my plans -- do laundry, clean the house, prepare some promo materials, start packing, finish sewing, finish setting up my tablet so I'll have all the logins for my usual sites, etc., etc.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Tea Tirades
I did try taking the laptop downstairs when I went to lunch on Friday, and while there was still some goofing around before I got around to writing, I'd written 1,000 words and washed dishes before the time I usually would have started writing, so I'd call that a win. I'll have to try that again today.
I managed about 6,000 words on Friday. I had grand plans to do some writing on Saturday, but I was hit by what I assumed at the time was allergies, but then I started running fever, too. Now the fever and most of the allergy-like symptoms are gone, but I feel really tired and weak. I skipped yoga this morning because I suspected sleep was more important. We'll see if I feel up to going to the Requiem rehearsal tonight. It would be annoying to have made it to all the rehearsals up to this point and not be able to sing in the concert because I got sick right before the final rehearsals.
I want to get writing done today because I'm at a good part in the story. I got to write a scene I've been visualizing for years. Oddly enough, it came out very different from the way I'd visualized it. That may have had something to do with putting it in context, which changed the setting and circumstances slightly, and that then altered the scene itself.
In other weekend news, the preschoolers had to sing in church, and this time they actually sang so that they were audible. It was an achievement. They were very, very cute. Bonus: All the clothing stayed on. No one ran off or cried or tried to jump off the chancel steps. So, all in all, a win.
Weekend movie viewing: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. These movies are basically extended sitcoms for the PBS crowd, but they work when you need a good feel-good film and are craving a chance to watch Maggie Smith and Judi Dench act together. There's a scene near the beginning of the film in which Maggie Smith's character and the young hotel owner are meeting with executives of an American hotel chain, trying to get funding to expand the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel into a chain. Maggie Smith's character asks for a cup of tea, and then she launches into a tirade about how tea requires boiling water to release the flavor from the dried leaves, and yet all she's ever served in America is a cup of tepid water with a teabag on the saucer, and she has to dip the teabag into the tepid water and see if it changes color or flavor at all. I was shouting "Amen!" at that scene because that's exactly what you get. Even if you bring your own tea, trying to get actually hot water for brewing it is a challenge, and you're lucky if you don't get water that has at some point come in contact with a container that's previously held coffee, so that you get coffee-flavored water for brewing your tea. I need to get a recording of this scene on my phone so I can play it at restaurants when I'm served "tea," since it sounds so much better when Maggie Smith says it (even if it's in the voice of a character who's a former maid rather than in the voice of the Dowager Countess).
I managed about 6,000 words on Friday. I had grand plans to do some writing on Saturday, but I was hit by what I assumed at the time was allergies, but then I started running fever, too. Now the fever and most of the allergy-like symptoms are gone, but I feel really tired and weak. I skipped yoga this morning because I suspected sleep was more important. We'll see if I feel up to going to the Requiem rehearsal tonight. It would be annoying to have made it to all the rehearsals up to this point and not be able to sing in the concert because I got sick right before the final rehearsals.
I want to get writing done today because I'm at a good part in the story. I got to write a scene I've been visualizing for years. Oddly enough, it came out very different from the way I'd visualized it. That may have had something to do with putting it in context, which changed the setting and circumstances slightly, and that then altered the scene itself.
In other weekend news, the preschoolers had to sing in church, and this time they actually sang so that they were audible. It was an achievement. They were very, very cute. Bonus: All the clothing stayed on. No one ran off or cried or tried to jump off the chancel steps. So, all in all, a win.
Weekend movie viewing: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. These movies are basically extended sitcoms for the PBS crowd, but they work when you need a good feel-good film and are craving a chance to watch Maggie Smith and Judi Dench act together. There's a scene near the beginning of the film in which Maggie Smith's character and the young hotel owner are meeting with executives of an American hotel chain, trying to get funding to expand the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel into a chain. Maggie Smith's character asks for a cup of tea, and then she launches into a tirade about how tea requires boiling water to release the flavor from the dried leaves, and yet all she's ever served in America is a cup of tepid water with a teabag on the saucer, and she has to dip the teabag into the tepid water and see if it changes color or flavor at all. I was shouting "Amen!" at that scene because that's exactly what you get. Even if you bring your own tea, trying to get actually hot water for brewing it is a challenge, and you're lucky if you don't get water that has at some point come in contact with a container that's previously held coffee, so that you get coffee-flavored water for brewing your tea. I need to get a recording of this scene on my phone so I can play it at restaurants when I'm served "tea," since it sounds so much better when Maggie Smith says it (even if it's in the voice of a character who's a former maid rather than in the voice of the Dowager Countess).
Friday, February 12, 2016
Romantic Stuff
I've got to get geared up for a convention this weekend, and then there's that Valentine's thing. I actually don't care about Valentine's Day one way or another, and that's not just me being bitter and single. It just seems odd to have a random day designated for romance, whether or not that day is meaningful to you. Each couple should have their own day that means something to them and their relationship, not something dictated by a bunch of corporate marketing departments. Really, when you think about it, Valentine's Day is like the least romantic thing ever because it's romance on demand, without meaning. It's obligation rather than sincere sentiment.
But it is a handy time to discuss what is and isn't romantic and to make lists, and such. Earlier this week on NCIS, one character was facing her first Valentine's Day after a divorce and said she wanted to just stay home and watch a movie that night. One of her co-workers gave her a Valentine's Day gift: the DVD of Aliens for a movie to watch that night. That cracked me up because of a discussion here a few years ago, in which I declared my view that Aliens is actually a very romantic movie. Seriously, that scene where Hicks teaches Ripley how to use the gun is totally swoonworthy (and there are no other movies -- Hicks and Ripley got married and adopted Newt and lived happily ever after, with the occasional alien incursion to battle because they need a bit of excitement in their lives, so there).
For more recent movies, I guess Stardust would be high on my list where I actually like the relationship and feel like I could imagine the couple really working on a long-term basis. And, yikes, even that isn't truly recent. I liked the way the relationship was developed in the recent version of Cinderella, and Far from the Madding Crowd was a nice one. Mostly, though, romance in movies has been pretty awful lately.
On TV, my current favorite relationship is Emma and Hook on Once Upon a Time. That show is such a hot mess in so many ways, but this is the one thing they seem to be getting mostly right. Yeah, they started as enemies, so there was some bickering, but then he quickly realized that his life had gone down a bad path if someone as awesome as she is thought he was a jerk, and he made a sincere attempt to change. He's gone through goodness knows how many portals to other worlds on her behalf. Once thing I like is that it's been mostly a slow build (well, from our perspective. In the show timeline, it's been months, even though it's taken years for us). They went from enemies to allies to friends, to closer friends with a bit of flirtation, to actually being romantically involved while still being friends. It wasn't one of those TV "I hate you/kiss/bed" relationships. Now that they're together, it isn't always smooth sailing (there's the minor issue right now that he's dead, but she's planning to do something about that), but most of the conflicts they're dealing with are external, and they're facing them together. It's proof that the Moonlighting curse doesn't have to apply if you do it well. You can get together a couple without it sapping all energy from the show.
For music, I have to share this:
Sigh. This is from the Broadway show The Scarlet Pimpernel, as performed by the divine Terrence Mann. I suppose it's not entirely a happy song, as it's about a relationship that has ended, and it is sung by the villain, but remove it from context and it sounds like someone who believes in what the other person can be and hopes for her to be able to live up to that potential. I have this as the alarm for my cell phone alarm clock. If you have to wake up, you may as well wake up to something like this. Also, it starts softly and builds, so it's not jarring, and I want to listen to it, so I don't hit snooze.
But it is a handy time to discuss what is and isn't romantic and to make lists, and such. Earlier this week on NCIS, one character was facing her first Valentine's Day after a divorce and said she wanted to just stay home and watch a movie that night. One of her co-workers gave her a Valentine's Day gift: the DVD of Aliens for a movie to watch that night. That cracked me up because of a discussion here a few years ago, in which I declared my view that Aliens is actually a very romantic movie. Seriously, that scene where Hicks teaches Ripley how to use the gun is totally swoonworthy (and there are no other movies -- Hicks and Ripley got married and adopted Newt and lived happily ever after, with the occasional alien incursion to battle because they need a bit of excitement in their lives, so there).
For more recent movies, I guess Stardust would be high on my list where I actually like the relationship and feel like I could imagine the couple really working on a long-term basis. And, yikes, even that isn't truly recent. I liked the way the relationship was developed in the recent version of Cinderella, and Far from the Madding Crowd was a nice one. Mostly, though, romance in movies has been pretty awful lately.
On TV, my current favorite relationship is Emma and Hook on Once Upon a Time. That show is such a hot mess in so many ways, but this is the one thing they seem to be getting mostly right. Yeah, they started as enemies, so there was some bickering, but then he quickly realized that his life had gone down a bad path if someone as awesome as she is thought he was a jerk, and he made a sincere attempt to change. He's gone through goodness knows how many portals to other worlds on her behalf. Once thing I like is that it's been mostly a slow build (well, from our perspective. In the show timeline, it's been months, even though it's taken years for us). They went from enemies to allies to friends, to closer friends with a bit of flirtation, to actually being romantically involved while still being friends. It wasn't one of those TV "I hate you/kiss/bed" relationships. Now that they're together, it isn't always smooth sailing (there's the minor issue right now that he's dead, but she's planning to do something about that), but most of the conflicts they're dealing with are external, and they're facing them together. It's proof that the Moonlighting curse doesn't have to apply if you do it well. You can get together a couple without it sapping all energy from the show.
For music, I have to share this:
Sigh. This is from the Broadway show The Scarlet Pimpernel, as performed by the divine Terrence Mann. I suppose it's not entirely a happy song, as it's about a relationship that has ended, and it is sung by the villain, but remove it from context and it sounds like someone who believes in what the other person can be and hopes for her to be able to live up to that potential. I have this as the alarm for my cell phone alarm clock. If you have to wake up, you may as well wake up to something like this. Also, it starts softly and builds, so it's not jarring, and I want to listen to it, so I don't hit snooze.
Monday, February 08, 2016
Mixed-Up Movies
I had an absolutely delightful lazy weekend. I went to bed early Friday night, for plenty of reading time before turning out the light (still earlier than normal). Saturday, I slept late, had a leisurely breakfast, then spent the day reading. I got through a whole book that afternoon. I think the last time I did something like that, it may have been a holiday. I also managed to get to a couple of HBO movies I've been planning to watch.
First, there was Kingsman. This is the one with the team of "gentleman" secret agents. You may recall the trailer with the scene of Colin Firth very politely beating up a gang of street toughs without wrinkling his bespoke suit. The concept of this movie, an updated and high-tech Knights of the Round Table, had a lot of promise, and it has a great cast. But I felt like the whole thing was mishandled. The story focuses on a young street punk who gets recruited to try for an open spot on this modern Round Table. These operatives are usually recruited from among the upper crust, but his father had once saved the life of Colin Firth's character, so he's being considered for the role now.
One of the issues I had with this movie was that it didn't seem to know if it was trying to be a spoof of secret agent movies along the lines of Austin Powers, playing with the idea of dapper gentlemen kicking ass, or if it was meant as a serious secret agent movie. Another issue was that it was a transformation/coming of age movie that skipped the actual transformation process. They established that this kid had the physical skills already -- he'd been a champion gymnast, had served briefly in the military, and grew up in a tough neighborhood -- but what he was lacking was social graces. They even mentioned Eliza Doolittle. But we never saw him learning any of this stuff, even though in the final confrontation he's there in his nice suit, with his posh accent, and knowing all about the finer things. It's not helped that they seem to have conflated testing and training. We see the trials the candidates for the one open slot go through and those are kind of training-like, but we don't see them actually being trained as one of these operatives.
My other issue is that they don't seem to know what a gentleman is and don't really seem to have made any effort to come up with their own definition. They mostly seem to have settled on a vague "wears nice clothes and knows about good drinks" rather than dealing with a code of chivalry and behavior. That gives the sense that this movie was written by and for 13-year-old boys. These gentleman agents swear like sailors, so there's little contrast other than accent between the way the agents speak and the way the street toughs speak. The final test for which candidate is chosen is something no true gentleman would do. And yet a lot of the main character's strengths seem to come from the fact that in spite of his rough upbringing, he has instincts that tend to lead him to behave in a chivalrous manner, though it doesn't seem like the script is aware of this. Then we also have the treatment of women, which was bad enough that I noticed and was bothered by it. One of the candidates for the open slot is a girl, and she seems to step right out of the "how not to write a strong female character" playbook. For one thing, she's "the girl," with that being her defining trait. They seem to be trying to write her as a Strong Female Character, so she's the one who's most capable in the group while also being the only one who's nice to the hero. Except then the way they pave the way for the hero to win in spite of her awesomeness is to tear her down. She's whiny and afraid and only gets through some of the tasks because of a pep talk from the hero. She plays a role in the final showdown, but it's off to the side, and her "enemy" is her own fears. She doesn't have any other antagonist to fight or deal with. And then there's the princess -- the one person who stood up to the villain and refused to go along with his scheme, so she's been held prisoner, something right out of my "strong female character" guide. But then at the end of the movie she's literally given to the hero as a reward. I wanted to throw things at the screen.
So, if it's on TV and you like secret agent movies, there are some amusing moments and a good cast (yes, that is Mark Hamill playing a British professor). But it's not what it should have been.
On the extreme other end of the spectrum, I watched The Water Diviner, which is not what you'd expect of a Russell Crowe film (he stars in it and directed). It's sort of an artsy period piece about the aftermath of World War I. An Australian farmer who lost all three of his sons at Gallipoli heads to Turkey after the death of his wife to see if he can find his sons' bodies and bring them home. Surprisingly, he gets the most help from a Turkish officer who's now being made to help the British catalogue the battlefield. The fate of his sons isn't entirely what he'd been led to believe, and so he has to go on a dangerous journey to find the truth.
I recall that there were some criticisms that this movie didn't quite know what it wanted to be, and I might agree, because it's a lot of things all at once. I just happen to like those things and the way they were put together. It's got mystery, adventure, romance, plus a lot of philosophical musing about war and grief. There are dashes of magical realism in that the main character is a diviner, someone who can find the right place to dig a well, but that also helps him find other things. It's probably tied up too neatly for those looking for more of a philosophical art piece, but it moves a little too slowly for those looking for an action film. I liked it, though. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Whether it's a wide shot of the Outback or an image of a man sitting alone at a table in a hotel dining room, every shot looks like a work of art, and the film lets these shots linger so we can enjoy them. There's no MTV-like quick-cutting. And it must have haunted me because I think it inspired some dreams last night. The war scenes are pretty vivid, as is the aftermath, but I don't think it's to the violent extremes of a lot of movies these days. It's an odd little movie that may only be to some tastes.
First, there was Kingsman. This is the one with the team of "gentleman" secret agents. You may recall the trailer with the scene of Colin Firth very politely beating up a gang of street toughs without wrinkling his bespoke suit. The concept of this movie, an updated and high-tech Knights of the Round Table, had a lot of promise, and it has a great cast. But I felt like the whole thing was mishandled. The story focuses on a young street punk who gets recruited to try for an open spot on this modern Round Table. These operatives are usually recruited from among the upper crust, but his father had once saved the life of Colin Firth's character, so he's being considered for the role now.
One of the issues I had with this movie was that it didn't seem to know if it was trying to be a spoof of secret agent movies along the lines of Austin Powers, playing with the idea of dapper gentlemen kicking ass, or if it was meant as a serious secret agent movie. Another issue was that it was a transformation/coming of age movie that skipped the actual transformation process. They established that this kid had the physical skills already -- he'd been a champion gymnast, had served briefly in the military, and grew up in a tough neighborhood -- but what he was lacking was social graces. They even mentioned Eliza Doolittle. But we never saw him learning any of this stuff, even though in the final confrontation he's there in his nice suit, with his posh accent, and knowing all about the finer things. It's not helped that they seem to have conflated testing and training. We see the trials the candidates for the one open slot go through and those are kind of training-like, but we don't see them actually being trained as one of these operatives.
My other issue is that they don't seem to know what a gentleman is and don't really seem to have made any effort to come up with their own definition. They mostly seem to have settled on a vague "wears nice clothes and knows about good drinks" rather than dealing with a code of chivalry and behavior. That gives the sense that this movie was written by and for 13-year-old boys. These gentleman agents swear like sailors, so there's little contrast other than accent between the way the agents speak and the way the street toughs speak. The final test for which candidate is chosen is something no true gentleman would do. And yet a lot of the main character's strengths seem to come from the fact that in spite of his rough upbringing, he has instincts that tend to lead him to behave in a chivalrous manner, though it doesn't seem like the script is aware of this. Then we also have the treatment of women, which was bad enough that I noticed and was bothered by it. One of the candidates for the open slot is a girl, and she seems to step right out of the "how not to write a strong female character" playbook. For one thing, she's "the girl," with that being her defining trait. They seem to be trying to write her as a Strong Female Character, so she's the one who's most capable in the group while also being the only one who's nice to the hero. Except then the way they pave the way for the hero to win in spite of her awesomeness is to tear her down. She's whiny and afraid and only gets through some of the tasks because of a pep talk from the hero. She plays a role in the final showdown, but it's off to the side, and her "enemy" is her own fears. She doesn't have any other antagonist to fight or deal with. And then there's the princess -- the one person who stood up to the villain and refused to go along with his scheme, so she's been held prisoner, something right out of my "strong female character" guide. But then at the end of the movie she's literally given to the hero as a reward. I wanted to throw things at the screen.
So, if it's on TV and you like secret agent movies, there are some amusing moments and a good cast (yes, that is Mark Hamill playing a British professor). But it's not what it should have been.
On the extreme other end of the spectrum, I watched The Water Diviner, which is not what you'd expect of a Russell Crowe film (he stars in it and directed). It's sort of an artsy period piece about the aftermath of World War I. An Australian farmer who lost all three of his sons at Gallipoli heads to Turkey after the death of his wife to see if he can find his sons' bodies and bring them home. Surprisingly, he gets the most help from a Turkish officer who's now being made to help the British catalogue the battlefield. The fate of his sons isn't entirely what he'd been led to believe, and so he has to go on a dangerous journey to find the truth.
I recall that there were some criticisms that this movie didn't quite know what it wanted to be, and I might agree, because it's a lot of things all at once. I just happen to like those things and the way they were put together. It's got mystery, adventure, romance, plus a lot of philosophical musing about war and grief. There are dashes of magical realism in that the main character is a diviner, someone who can find the right place to dig a well, but that also helps him find other things. It's probably tied up too neatly for those looking for more of a philosophical art piece, but it moves a little too slowly for those looking for an action film. I liked it, though. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Whether it's a wide shot of the Outback or an image of a man sitting alone at a table in a hotel dining room, every shot looks like a work of art, and the film lets these shots linger so we can enjoy them. There's no MTV-like quick-cutting. And it must have haunted me because I think it inspired some dreams last night. The war scenes are pretty vivid, as is the aftermath, but I don't think it's to the violent extremes of a lot of movies these days. It's an odd little movie that may only be to some tastes.
Monday, February 01, 2016
Decluttering entertainment
January is over, and although that's normally what I'd consider a slow month, it ended up being very busy for me. I had stuff going on every weekend. February is a little quieter. I actually don't have anything other than the usual church stuff scheduled this coming weekend, and I'm already excited about that. It's been a long time since I had a Saturday to just hang around the house and not have to worry about going anywhere or doing anything in particular.
This weekend's fun was seeing the new Star Wars movie again with a group of friends. Yes, I've seen it twice already, but I hadn't seen it with these people, and we went out to eat together afterward, so it was a social event.
My other movie viewing for the weekend was watching Mad Max: Fury Road on HBO, and I have to say I was a little disappointed. I'd seen so much hype about it. So many of the SF/F authors I know were raving about it and talking about seeing it repeatedly. I was expecting something with unexpected depth for an action movie. Instead, it was basically fight, drive, drive, fight, and the fact that one faction was a group of women fleeing an abusive man didn't really elevate things all that much. I found it all rather boring.
Though I did like the vehicle with the rows of giant drums on the back, the wall of amps on the front, and the guy playing the flamethrower guitar. Because if you're going to head into battle, you might as well bring your own soundtrack. Really, I was more interested in all the ways they put the odd vehicles together with mixes of pieces and parts (and I am not a car person by any means) than in the story. And I liked the previous Mad Max movies.
I've also decided to give up on the Shannara series. I made two attempts to watch the latest episode and finally just turned it off and deleted it from the DVR midway through. I had to admit to myself that I wasn't enjoying it, and time is to precious to waste on things I feel I "should" like. Ditto on the opposite end of the spectrum for Mercy Street on PBS. I can recognize that it's well done, but I don't like any of the characters and am not interested in the story. It was rather liberating to turn the TV off after Downton Abbey. I guess it's like decluttering for entertainment -- if it doesn't bring me joy, I can get rid of it.
On the other hand, Galavant has made me so happy this season. I won't hold my breath for another season because the ratings are so low (what's wrong with people?!!!!), so I'm glad they gave it a nice ending with room for more, but oh, do I want more. And I need this on DVD immediately. It's like instant transportation to the happy place, a sure cure for a bad day. And it turns out you can already get the soundtrack on digital, so I think I need this right now.
Meanwhile, this is something of an anniversary for me. Fourteen years ago yesterday I got laid off from my last job, so today is my anniversary of being my own boss. There have been times when it's been a struggle, and there are frustrations sometimes, but I wouldn't trade it for any other job. I'm getting to live my dream. There aren't a lot of people who are lucky enough to make a living doing something they dreamed of as a child, especially in a field like this. Now I just have to keep at it because I'm too spoiled to go back to a regular job. It would be soul-destroying.
This weekend's fun was seeing the new Star Wars movie again with a group of friends. Yes, I've seen it twice already, but I hadn't seen it with these people, and we went out to eat together afterward, so it was a social event.
My other movie viewing for the weekend was watching Mad Max: Fury Road on HBO, and I have to say I was a little disappointed. I'd seen so much hype about it. So many of the SF/F authors I know were raving about it and talking about seeing it repeatedly. I was expecting something with unexpected depth for an action movie. Instead, it was basically fight, drive, drive, fight, and the fact that one faction was a group of women fleeing an abusive man didn't really elevate things all that much. I found it all rather boring.
Though I did like the vehicle with the rows of giant drums on the back, the wall of amps on the front, and the guy playing the flamethrower guitar. Because if you're going to head into battle, you might as well bring your own soundtrack. Really, I was more interested in all the ways they put the odd vehicles together with mixes of pieces and parts (and I am not a car person by any means) than in the story. And I liked the previous Mad Max movies.
I've also decided to give up on the Shannara series. I made two attempts to watch the latest episode and finally just turned it off and deleted it from the DVR midway through. I had to admit to myself that I wasn't enjoying it, and time is to precious to waste on things I feel I "should" like. Ditto on the opposite end of the spectrum for Mercy Street on PBS. I can recognize that it's well done, but I don't like any of the characters and am not interested in the story. It was rather liberating to turn the TV off after Downton Abbey. I guess it's like decluttering for entertainment -- if it doesn't bring me joy, I can get rid of it.
On the other hand, Galavant has made me so happy this season. I won't hold my breath for another season because the ratings are so low (what's wrong with people?!!!!), so I'm glad they gave it a nice ending with room for more, but oh, do I want more. And I need this on DVD immediately. It's like instant transportation to the happy place, a sure cure for a bad day. And it turns out you can already get the soundtrack on digital, so I think I need this right now.
Meanwhile, this is something of an anniversary for me. Fourteen years ago yesterday I got laid off from my last job, so today is my anniversary of being my own boss. There have been times when it's been a struggle, and there are frustrations sometimes, but I wouldn't trade it for any other job. I'm getting to live my dream. There aren't a lot of people who are lucky enough to make a living doing something they dreamed of as a child, especially in a field like this. Now I just have to keep at it because I'm too spoiled to go back to a regular job. It would be soul-destroying.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Weekend Entertainment
I had my first rehearsal with the community chorale last night. It turns out they really don't need another soprano. I think there were more sopranos than all the other parts combined. I'm also utterly drained, for some odd reason, so I'm worried about my productivity today. I may give it another week, see what the balance is and see how I react afterward. It's not as though I've really committed.
I forgot to discuss my weekend entertainment, other than the music workshop. I managed to be first on the request list at the library for Alan Dean Foster's new Star Wars novelization, and of course that became available on Friday when I was out all day. But I got home just in time to swing by the library before it closed. It seemed like this one was pretty short compared to the other novelizations, and it didn't add all that much to the movie, just a couple of what seemed to be trimmed scenes or moments and some introspection of some of the characters. One or two things became a little more clear, and although I'm no physicist, I got the feeling that the science behind one of the things made more sense the way it was described in the novel than it appeared to in the movie. It's worth a read for completion's sake, but I definitely wouldn't pay hardcover prices for it. I'm not even sure I'd buy this one as a mass market paperback, since I can't imagine re-reading it a lot in this era when we can easily rewatch the movie once it comes out on DVD.
For my movie viewing, I did my Alan Rickman tribute by watching A Little Chaos on HBO. This was one of his last film appearances, and it turned out to be even more of a tribute than I realized because he also directed it and was one of the writers. It's a nice little costume drama about the creation of the gardens at Versailles. Rickman played Louis XIV, but the main character was a female garden designer played by Kate Winslet, and the leading man was the head garden designer, played by the same guy from Far From the Madding Crowd, so I guess I've had a theme going lately. There was some conflict about the idea of order vs. the chaos of nature, but mostly it was about trying to create something beautiful and how that affects people. It was definitely a "spot the actor you know from another costume drama" kind of movie, which is always fun. It really made me want to create a garden. Maybe I should rearrange my Christmas cacti.
I've got a bunch of stuff piling up on the DVR. I went to bed early Sunday night, so I didn't manage to watch the premiere of Mercy Street, and I was at rehearsal last night, so I haven't yet watched the first episode of War and Peace. I have so much stuff going on this week and this weekend that I don't know when I'll catch up. Sunday afternoon may have to be some serious sofa time.
I forgot to discuss my weekend entertainment, other than the music workshop. I managed to be first on the request list at the library for Alan Dean Foster's new Star Wars novelization, and of course that became available on Friday when I was out all day. But I got home just in time to swing by the library before it closed. It seemed like this one was pretty short compared to the other novelizations, and it didn't add all that much to the movie, just a couple of what seemed to be trimmed scenes or moments and some introspection of some of the characters. One or two things became a little more clear, and although I'm no physicist, I got the feeling that the science behind one of the things made more sense the way it was described in the novel than it appeared to in the movie. It's worth a read for completion's sake, but I definitely wouldn't pay hardcover prices for it. I'm not even sure I'd buy this one as a mass market paperback, since I can't imagine re-reading it a lot in this era when we can easily rewatch the movie once it comes out on DVD.
For my movie viewing, I did my Alan Rickman tribute by watching A Little Chaos on HBO. This was one of his last film appearances, and it turned out to be even more of a tribute than I realized because he also directed it and was one of the writers. It's a nice little costume drama about the creation of the gardens at Versailles. Rickman played Louis XIV, but the main character was a female garden designer played by Kate Winslet, and the leading man was the head garden designer, played by the same guy from Far From the Madding Crowd, so I guess I've had a theme going lately. There was some conflict about the idea of order vs. the chaos of nature, but mostly it was about trying to create something beautiful and how that affects people. It was definitely a "spot the actor you know from another costume drama" kind of movie, which is always fun. It really made me want to create a garden. Maybe I should rearrange my Christmas cacti.
I've got a bunch of stuff piling up on the DVR. I went to bed early Sunday night, so I didn't manage to watch the premiere of Mercy Street, and I was at rehearsal last night, so I haven't yet watched the first episode of War and Peace. I have so much stuff going on this week and this weekend that I don't know when I'll catch up. Sunday afternoon may have to be some serious sofa time.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Moody Movie Monday
It's back to work after a slightly busy, but less busy than I've been lately, weekend. I even managed to start catching up on all the stuff that's been on HBO recently, so I have movies to discuss.
Friday, I took it easy and went for the silly with the latest Night at the Museum movie. These are sort of fun guilty pleasures for me. I'd never have paid actual money to see them in the theater, but they can be entertaining for an evening at home. I enjoy seeing the various guest stars they find to play the historical figures brought to life in the museum. For the previous one, Amy Adams stole the show as Amelia Earhart, but in this one, it was Dan Stevens (best known so far for Downton Abbey) completely stealing the movie with a 100 percent all-in take on Lancelot. In fact, he was going so far into it that I had to pull up IMDB on my phone to figure out who he was. The voice was so familiar, but I couldn't place him, and I think most of it was not just the beard and longer hair but also the swagger and attitude that were the complete opposite of Matthew. We got an absolutely sublime scene in which Lancelot, who's totally unaware that he's actually a museum wax figure brought to life, heads out of the museum to find Camelot, ending up at a theater production of the musical, where he confronts Arthur, played by Hugh Jackman, who has to convince "Lancelot" that he's not really Arthur, just an actor playing the role, at which point Lancelot calls Hugh Jackman out on being a liar and a fraud for pretending to be Arthur, and Hugh Jackman goes into Wolverine mode until the actress playing Guinevere says it doesn't work as well without the metal claws and with his shirt on. And I am not making any of that up. It really happened in the movie. Meanwhile, Dan Stevens is playing it totally straight with the kind of intensity he might give to Hamlet and I think Hugh Jackman is having to bite his tongue to keep a straight face.
So, anyway, that was a lot of fun, though it was a little sad that it was Robin Williams' last on-screen appearance.
Then I was very glad to find that the new version of Far from the Madding Crowd was available on demand because I wanted to see it but didn't make it to the theater while it was showing (because it was only at a few of the art houses that are inconvenient to get to and it didn't stay long). I went through my emo, moody, dramatic teen phase in my early 20s, but instead of indulging it by reading books about brooding vampires, I read depressing Victorian literature, including a lot of Thomas Hardy. Seeing movie versions takes me back to the days of my youth, and I think this was a pretty good adaptation. Of course, it misses a lot, but I think it still gets in that sense of how vulnerable women could be and how hard it would have been for a woman to be able to maintain her power and independence if she had any at all. For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about a woman who inherits a farm, leaving her independent and not needing a husband to provide for her, so she's reluctant to marry and give up that independence, since according to the laws of that time, her husband would then own all her property. She's wooed by the shepherd who loved her before she became wealthy and who stays by her even as their fortunes reverse, the wealthy neighbor who wants to unite their farms, and a dashing rogue of a soldier. I suppose you could look at them as each representing reasons a woman might marry, for help and companionship, for economic reasons, or for passion.
But mostly, it's all about how true love runs out before a storm to cover the harvest so it won't be ruined. And lots of English countryside scenery porn. Not to mention an attractive man doing nice things and being good with animals. I may have to watch it again, for science. I'm also kind of in the mood to re-read the book.
I guess the reason I had to go through my teen moody phase in my twenties was that I completely failed at it in my teens. When I was feeling moody and retreated to my room to listen to music and sulk, I listened to ABBA, or sometimes the Sound of Music soundtrack. I think I was doing it wrong.
Friday, I took it easy and went for the silly with the latest Night at the Museum movie. These are sort of fun guilty pleasures for me. I'd never have paid actual money to see them in the theater, but they can be entertaining for an evening at home. I enjoy seeing the various guest stars they find to play the historical figures brought to life in the museum. For the previous one, Amy Adams stole the show as Amelia Earhart, but in this one, it was Dan Stevens (best known so far for Downton Abbey) completely stealing the movie with a 100 percent all-in take on Lancelot. In fact, he was going so far into it that I had to pull up IMDB on my phone to figure out who he was. The voice was so familiar, but I couldn't place him, and I think most of it was not just the beard and longer hair but also the swagger and attitude that were the complete opposite of Matthew. We got an absolutely sublime scene in which Lancelot, who's totally unaware that he's actually a museum wax figure brought to life, heads out of the museum to find Camelot, ending up at a theater production of the musical, where he confronts Arthur, played by Hugh Jackman, who has to convince "Lancelot" that he's not really Arthur, just an actor playing the role, at which point Lancelot calls Hugh Jackman out on being a liar and a fraud for pretending to be Arthur, and Hugh Jackman goes into Wolverine mode until the actress playing Guinevere says it doesn't work as well without the metal claws and with his shirt on. And I am not making any of that up. It really happened in the movie. Meanwhile, Dan Stevens is playing it totally straight with the kind of intensity he might give to Hamlet and I think Hugh Jackman is having to bite his tongue to keep a straight face.
So, anyway, that was a lot of fun, though it was a little sad that it was Robin Williams' last on-screen appearance.
Then I was very glad to find that the new version of Far from the Madding Crowd was available on demand because I wanted to see it but didn't make it to the theater while it was showing (because it was only at a few of the art houses that are inconvenient to get to and it didn't stay long). I went through my emo, moody, dramatic teen phase in my early 20s, but instead of indulging it by reading books about brooding vampires, I read depressing Victorian literature, including a lot of Thomas Hardy. Seeing movie versions takes me back to the days of my youth, and I think this was a pretty good adaptation. Of course, it misses a lot, but I think it still gets in that sense of how vulnerable women could be and how hard it would have been for a woman to be able to maintain her power and independence if she had any at all. For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about a woman who inherits a farm, leaving her independent and not needing a husband to provide for her, so she's reluctant to marry and give up that independence, since according to the laws of that time, her husband would then own all her property. She's wooed by the shepherd who loved her before she became wealthy and who stays by her even as their fortunes reverse, the wealthy neighbor who wants to unite their farms, and a dashing rogue of a soldier. I suppose you could look at them as each representing reasons a woman might marry, for help and companionship, for economic reasons, or for passion.
But mostly, it's all about how true love runs out before a storm to cover the harvest so it won't be ruined. And lots of English countryside scenery porn. Not to mention an attractive man doing nice things and being good with animals. I may have to watch it again, for science. I'm also kind of in the mood to re-read the book.
I guess the reason I had to go through my teen moody phase in my twenties was that I completely failed at it in my teens. When I was feeling moody and retreated to my room to listen to music and sulk, I listened to ABBA, or sometimes the Sound of Music soundtrack. I think I was doing it wrong.
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
2015 in Review
That new mattress topper may not have been such a good idea, after all. It makes the bed so comfortable that it's hard to get up. At least the featherbed became uncomfortable by morning because I ended up lying in a pit where the feathers were either displaced or compressed (the reason it had to be shaken every morning). Maybe once I get accustomed to the new bed, the novelty will wear off.
While I didn't do any world changing yesterday, I did manage to get to the must-do items on the to-do list, which included re-reading the part I've already written of the book in progress so I can dive back into it. That means writing resumes today. I took far too much time off.
Because I was taking time off, I never did a year-in-review post. Work-wise, it looks like I had a strong start, pushed through the summer, then slacked off in the fall. I wrote a book and got started on a book, plus wrote several synopses for a book proposal. I had three books published.
Reading-wise, I was in a real slump. I only read about two-thirds of my usual number of books. However, I did have a couple of really long books on the list, as well as several reference books that involved not only reading, but taking a lot of notes. I also had a few books that didn't make it onto the list because I didn't finish reading them. I devoted a fair amount of time to them before deciding not to bother. And I was also trying to weed out the Strategic Book Reserve, so I have a stack of books by the nightstand where I read one or two chapters and decided they weren't for me. I suspect I read a lot more than I gave myself credit for, since I only log books I finished.
Much of my reading for the year was re-reading Terry Pratchett, mostly because I was on so many related panels at WorldCon and wanted a refresher course. After flipping back through my log, I think my favorite new-to-me book that I read this year was Alias, Hook by Lisa Jensen. Otherwise, nothing really jumped out at me as "you must read this" material.
It was also a low year for movies, as the only ones I saw in the theater were Cinderella, Inside Out, The Minions, Spectre, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens (unless I'm forgetting something). I saw Cinderella and The Force Awakens twice at the theater.
On TV, we said farewell to Haven and Continuum, which both got actual endings that I found satisfying in a bittersweet way. There must have been something that ended in the spring that I've forgotten (did Parks and Recreation end last spring?). I didn't start watching much new stuff in the fall, though I did start catching up on The Expanse and like it so far. This summer's fun new show was Killjoys. In general, the ongoing shows had a bad habit of taking harsh turns to the dark, usually for the worse. I've joked about the Writers Guild suicide pact.
Wow, it seems like I didn't enjoy a lot this year. But I took a real vacation to a place I want to go back to. I went to a lot of conventions, including one in a brand-new place that I enjoyed a lot. I took a lot of long walks. I sang a lot, getting beyond what used to be a crippling case of stage fright to be able to sing a bucket-list solo in a major choral work. I got to see one of my favorite composers conduct a world premiere of a brand-new work (along with one of my favorite older works). I did a lot of knitting and baking. Maybe you could say that I was doing stuff instead of reading or watching stuff. I should continue that, though I need to include more writing in the mix.
So, here's to another year of doing stuff.
While I didn't do any world changing yesterday, I did manage to get to the must-do items on the to-do list, which included re-reading the part I've already written of the book in progress so I can dive back into it. That means writing resumes today. I took far too much time off.
Because I was taking time off, I never did a year-in-review post. Work-wise, it looks like I had a strong start, pushed through the summer, then slacked off in the fall. I wrote a book and got started on a book, plus wrote several synopses for a book proposal. I had three books published.
Reading-wise, I was in a real slump. I only read about two-thirds of my usual number of books. However, I did have a couple of really long books on the list, as well as several reference books that involved not only reading, but taking a lot of notes. I also had a few books that didn't make it onto the list because I didn't finish reading them. I devoted a fair amount of time to them before deciding not to bother. And I was also trying to weed out the Strategic Book Reserve, so I have a stack of books by the nightstand where I read one or two chapters and decided they weren't for me. I suspect I read a lot more than I gave myself credit for, since I only log books I finished.
Much of my reading for the year was re-reading Terry Pratchett, mostly because I was on so many related panels at WorldCon and wanted a refresher course. After flipping back through my log, I think my favorite new-to-me book that I read this year was Alias, Hook by Lisa Jensen. Otherwise, nothing really jumped out at me as "you must read this" material.
It was also a low year for movies, as the only ones I saw in the theater were Cinderella, Inside Out, The Minions, Spectre, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens (unless I'm forgetting something). I saw Cinderella and The Force Awakens twice at the theater.
On TV, we said farewell to Haven and Continuum, which both got actual endings that I found satisfying in a bittersweet way. There must have been something that ended in the spring that I've forgotten (did Parks and Recreation end last spring?). I didn't start watching much new stuff in the fall, though I did start catching up on The Expanse and like it so far. This summer's fun new show was Killjoys. In general, the ongoing shows had a bad habit of taking harsh turns to the dark, usually for the worse. I've joked about the Writers Guild suicide pact.
Wow, it seems like I didn't enjoy a lot this year. But I took a real vacation to a place I want to go back to. I went to a lot of conventions, including one in a brand-new place that I enjoyed a lot. I took a lot of long walks. I sang a lot, getting beyond what used to be a crippling case of stage fright to be able to sing a bucket-list solo in a major choral work. I got to see one of my favorite composers conduct a world premiere of a brand-new work (along with one of my favorite older works). I did a lot of knitting and baking. Maybe you could say that I was doing stuff instead of reading or watching stuff. I should continue that, though I need to include more writing in the mix.
So, here's to another year of doing stuff.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)