Exciting news (well, not that exciting)...

I went to Borders earlier to waste time before a movie and they had some bargain bins up front. I rooted around and found a bunch of books that a) sounded interesting, b) are supposed to be good, and/or c) I'd thought about buying previously.

So, for $4 each, I bought (in paperback):
The Ruins of California by Martha Sherrill
Bride Island by Alexandra Enders
The Saffron Kitchen by Yasmin Crowther
The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova

And despite some of those titles, none of them are crappy, women's beach-reads. Though I didn't notice until now that they are all female authors. Interesting.

For $6, I got Charmed Thirds by Megan McCafferty (it was more expensive because it's hardcover). And this one is a frivolous read, but I had the first two a while back and remember enjoying them immensely. So I figured I'd take the chance.

Then, as an impulse buy while in line, I picked up Ella Enchanted (the DVD), on sale for $8. Alright, so it's not a great movie, but Anne Hathaway and Hugh Dancy in a silly fairy tale? Why not?


After, I went to see Priceless, a French comedy with Audrey Tautou and Gad Elmaleh (of The Valet fame). It was cute. Could have been better, it felt a little disjointed...like they weren't quite sure what the focus of the film should be. But it was interesting and fun.

Keep in mind that I haven't yet read the book (though I have read the first chapter twice)...but I'm watching The Golden Compass and it's not very good.

The story is probably too complicated for a movie, which is why it is ridiculously dense. But I'm sure the same can be said for the Harry Potter films.

The issue I have is mostly with the writing. It is too minimal and thin, and by that I mean that there are parts that could and should be used for exposition, that either aren't and so it feels like something is missing, or they are used poorly and only reveal certain information, and do so in a very clumsy manner. It feels unpolished and not as concise as it could be.

Additionally, the structure of the film is very uneven. Long, uneventful and unfulfilling scenes are followed by very short scenes, densely packed with loads of complicated information. Not only that, but the dense scenes often featured a character who only appears briefly and then leaves you wondering what the hell just happened (the first appearance of Eva Green, for example, in which she comes, gives a shitload of backstory and a little insight into the future, and then leaves and we don't see her for another 45 minutes). It was difficult to follow along and highly inconsistent.


I do like the actors, for the most part. I wish there were a little more Daniel Craig, but that's for purely selfish reasons (damn, that man has the most amazing blue eyes). Eva Green was nice, too, and Sam Elliott might have been my favorite character overall. And while I liked that Freddie Highmore and Ian McKellen provided voices, it would have been awesome if they were actually in the film. Oh, and I feel it necessary to just mention Christopher Lee, and leave it at that.

It was an interesting story and I feel like the book would have been very good. But as a film, it is simply clumsy.

And now I really need the sequel because the whole second half, I was waiting for the big confrontation with Daniel Craig and then nothing. It just ended. Ummm...boo. At least Harry Potter resolves at the end of every book/movie (except possibly Deathly Hallows which is currently listed as having "Part I" and "Part II" on IMDb, with release dates a year apart. Boooooooo).


Alright. I think that was all. Or at least I'm close enough to having finished putting all of my thoughts in the post that I don't feel the need to complete it any further. Just call me "Leonardo."

I am cheerful because my wretched Geography class was cancelled. And I used the time I would have been there to go grocery shopping. So well done, all around.

I have also realized why a) I am so disenchanted with the UCF film program, b) I hate gen-ed class, and c) art history has become my most fascinating area of study. And all are related.

It's theory. I love theory. I love discussing and analyzing and theorizing. It can be applied to any humanity, really. Maybe even sciences. But so far, the only classes I've been exposed to this kind of learning since high school has been art history. Gen-eds never delve that far into curriculum (actually, my Chemistry class bordered on it...which is why I obsessed over getting an A in that class....I studied 18 hours for the final exam because I wanted to make sure I did well...who does that? For Chemistry?).

Anyway, the film program here is SERIOUSLY lacking in theory. I even took Theory and Criticism in Film and we didn't get beyond the most basic formalist theory. We literally spent half the semester on Seigei Eisenstein's concept of montage (aka - what has become standard for film editing). It was revolutionary...in 1915. We barely scratched the surface of André Bazin, who had some interesting, critical ideas. We never once discussed anything like feminism, black theory, Marxism, queer theory. We never even looked at social or political context of films or discussed how the biography of a filmmaker can affect the work. (All of those are things we've covered in the first 6 weeks of my Theory and Criticism of Art History course). To it's credit, the American Cinema class I'm in currently is all about biography and social context. But it lacks severely in anything else. We don't discuss thinkers in film classes. And we should.

I was in the library today, picking up a book for a film paper I have due in two weeks (I'm highly doubtful that anyone else in my class will use an academic source. Maybe an online newspaper or journal article...but I'm guessing Joe Schmo's Film Review website is going to be their top source. But whatever. In the books I picked up (and when I'm in the film books section, I pick up many that are not related to my research...just to see), there were plenty of references to Baudelaire or Walter Benjamin (whose work Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is paramount to Marxist theory and any duplication-based art, like printmaking or photography or film). Yet has Walter Benjamin been mentioned in ANY of my film classes? No. Not once. Maybe back at Indiana, but definitely not at UCF.

Perhaps I'm expecting too much from a school whose art history department is slowly imploding while they build a new Biological Sciences building, but it's my education and shouldn't I be getting more than this?

I guess the bottom line is that if I want to learn it, I'll have to teach myself. Or go to grad school (I'm making the broad assumption that grad school actually teaches based on theory and discourse.

--------

In other news, Nilla wafers and vanilla frosting is the best snack ever. Plus, the frosting entirely defeats the purpose of eating Reduced-Fat Nillas (yes, I'm using that as a "plus").

My thesis is not progressing greatly, but I am having a great time reading through some of the books and articles I've found.

And now I'm taking a break to watch American Gangster, which I picked up from a redbox today (it was just released on DVD). Mmm...$1 movie night. Life is grand.

(As a sidenote, I think it's really sad that there are really only two prominent, black dramatic actors (Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington). I mean, I think you can make an argument for Jamie Foxx or Will Smith as a Denzel-follower, and possibly someone like James Earl Jones for Freeman (had his career been fuller in more recent years), but really...)

The Next 9 Children's Characters That Should Come Out of the Closet

Hilarity, plus some very solid and well thought out arguments.

First off, I think my exam went incredibly well. I was quite confident about much of it, and while I'm certain to have gotten some wrong...I'm really hoping (and expecting) to get at least a B-. Though now I'm afraid I'll jinx it.


Second, The Hudsucker Proxy is fricking brilliant. I've been meaning to see it forever, and now it just happens to be on HBO Signature. Schweet.

However, Jennifer Jason Leigh (while very talented), is so forgettable. Every time I see her in a movie, I can't place her face and have to look her up. It's sad really, though I am quite looking forward to Margot at the Wedding.


Third, I'm kinda excited that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks are working on Angels and Demons. I know a lot of people didn't like The Da Vinci Code and CLEARLY the book is so much better, but I thought it was decent (if only for the awesome cast...Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Ian McKellen? Hells yes!).

Better yet, National Treasure: Book of Secrets opens in under two months! Yay!


Fourth, I finished up Emma earlier this week and have moved on to T.C. Boyle's Talk, Talk. So far, it's fabulous. He has a really superb writing style that is just enjoyable and engaging. Junior year, we had read his The Tortilla Curtain, which I also remember as being quite good.


Finally, I didn't get to see any movies today. It's just so depressing to go to a theater alone on a Friday. Perhaps come Monday I'll have plenty of time.

It's officially my weekend!

YAY!

19th Century Art was cancelled tomorrow because my professor has a doctor's appointment.


While it would be fabulous to have the next 96 hours off (yeah, that's right...my next class is Monday at 2:30pm), I regrettably have a great deal of work to get done.

Namely, my 8-page comparative paper on Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun's Marie-Antoinette and Her Children and Mary Cassatt's The Bath, due Monday. Also, studying for my Chemistry and Anthropology exams on Tuesday.


In other good news, I'm nearly done with "Emma." Under 100 pages left (my copy's 450). It's a really intriguing novel. It plays a lot with perception; how Emma perceives people, how and why her opinions of them change. The treatment of Jane Fairfax throughout the novel is particularly exciting.

I came to a rather disturbing realization today.

I was reading "Emma" between my Anthropology and Chemistry classes and I remembered that Clueless is loosely based on Austen's classic.

Now, I love Clueless, but I really don't appreciate picturing Alicia Silverstone as Emma, and I would really rather not visualize Brittany Murphy every time Harriet's on the page (which is quite frequently).

On the upside, I don't mind seeing Paul Rudd prancing around my mind every time Mr. Knightley makes an appearance. Mmm...Paul Rudd.

Oh.

My.

God.


[...]


I just saw Stardust and dear god! Robert De Niro as a GAY PIRATE! I was CRACKING UP!


Aside from that, the movie was really good, as well. Claire Danes was amazing. Charlie Cox (newcomer in the lead role) was very impressive, the story was engaging and intriguing. It wasn't without its flaws (it could have been a tighter narrative), but overall very good and I will most certainly purchase it on DVD.


The only slight downside is that it made me REALLY want to watch Stage Beauty (another of Danes' fantastic roles), but my sister is currently in possession of it. Then, I wanted to watch Almost Famous, because of the Billy Crudup connection (note: if you're wondering how my mind works, it's all just a long line of associations). And to continue, I saw the first half hour of Singles today on HBO...but anyway...my sister has Almost Famous in her possession, as well.

So, Chris...

Do you think you could go through my DVDs and put all the ones you haven't watched yet in one case that you can keep, and put all the ones you've already watched in the other case and I can take them back with me? I'll be home for Labor Day weekend so I can pick them up (with my new Jane Austen books. BTW...have you read "Pride & Prejudice" yet?).


Alright. So that's it for now. Tonight we're having dinner with the boys in 204 (not to be confused with the boys in 305...yeah, that's my roomies for you. If there are hot any guys in the complex, we will make friends with them and most likely eat/drink/hang out with them).

Hey literary friends!

I'm currently looking for book suggestions, preferably before Monday. (It's tax free week here in Florida, so all clothing, school supplies, and books under $50 are sales tax exempt...until Monday.)


I'm pretty open as to the style and content of said books. I much prefer it to NOT be in the first person, however, exceptions will be made.

My reading list this summer has consisted of:
- "Chasing Cezanne" by Peter Mayle
- "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" (also "Half-Blood Prince")
- "Pride & Prejudice"

Up next:
- "Water For Elephants" by Sara Gruen
- "No Way to Treat a First Lady" by Christopher Buckley
- "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass"

So...I'm pretty much up for anything, in any genre, for any age.


Thoughts?

Look! Spock!


Pretty damn good, eh?

I'm excited.


Still no Kirk. According to J.J. Abrams he's "taking names" for Kirk.


Also, two movies I saw previews for yesterday and about which I am SUPER excited: August Rush (I LOVE Freddie Highmore) and Dan in Real Life.


Things to do this week:
- Rewatch first two Bourne movies
- See Bourne Ultimatum
- Finish reading "Pride & Prejudice"
- Watch Netflix'ed Sweeney Todd in Concert (it has NPH, plus I can familiarize myself with the music before Tim Burton's version comes out in January)
- Watch TiVo'ed "The Riches" from May
- Go see at least one other movie in the theater (topping the list are Live Free or Die Hard, License to Wed, You Kill Me, Pirates: At World's End again...all for $2.50, or Hairspray again for $6)


It's a difficult life I lead, folks.

Camping has been done and I am back in Florida, showered, and feeling lovely.

It was a lot of fun. Possibly more than I had anticipated (because my expectations were falling exponentially in the days leading up to it), but it was a good time nonetheless. It's possible it will become a tradition...though that gets more difficult as the years progress and our lives become far less predictable. It would be nice if it were something that people went out of their way to make happen (as some of us did this year). It may have cost over $300 (grand total was just under $306), but it was kinda worth it.

There are pictures up on Facebook for those with access and interest (though I look like crap).


To sum up:
- Flights were good.
- Many hours of airport/plane time have allowed me to get 163 pages into Pride & Prejudice (nearly halfway in my copy) and I'm loving it!
- The site was decent, the beach within walking distance was superb.
- The mosquitos sucked.
- The hike was a little lame. I wish it could have been longer, but the aforementioned mosquitos sucked the life out of that plan.
- It was a little awkward having Nikki's friend around, but she was a nice girl.
- 6 is an odd number for playing cards. We need groups divisible by 4.
- The ground was really hard to sleep on.
- I got sunburned and it hurts, but its making my already-existant tan look pretty damn hot.
- S'mores are the greatest food ever. Panera potato chips are also very good, especially when one is famished.
- It was super excellent to have real conversations with Patty (mostly while driving to and from the campgrounds). He rocks hardcore.
- Bob Evans for breakfast!!!


So yes. I got back to my apartment earlier than I had expected, so I picked up Fazoli's for dinner and watched Sleepers, which I've had from Netflix for about two months now (to be fair, for one of those months, I was in Illinois). It was pretty sweet. Tons of awesome people. Jason Patric looks very much like Eric McCormack (Will from "Will & Grace") in certain scenes. That and Mario Cantone (from "Sex and the City" fame).


Well, I'm off to read a little more P&P before bed...but I thought I'd leave you with some intriguing upcoming film releases:
- The Ten (Paul Rudd, Jessica Alba, Adam Brody, Famke Janssen and more in a film with the tagline: "If He'd meant the commandments literally, He'd have written them in stone.")
- Dedication (Billy Crudup and Mandy Moore in a romantic dramadie...and with all the crap she's been putting out lately, it might be time for her to catch a break)
- The Hottest State (Written and directed by Ethan Hawke...might be worth it)
- September Dawn (Alright, so I'm not a fan of the westerns in general, and Jon Voight doesn't really help the situation, but it does have Dean Cain and the synopsis: "A love story set during a tense encounter between a wagon train of settlers and a renegade Mormon group." Renegade Mormons? That's worth the price of admission.)
- The Nines (Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis in an interesting set-up and written/directed by John August, who also wrote Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)

Julie Delpy is going to be at the Apple Store on Michigan Avenue on Thursday (July 26).

Color me jealous!


Also, I miss Harry Potter. I want to read more. I'm *this close* to starting over at book one (I've only read it once).

Actually...

Times I've Read:
Sorcerer's Stone - 1
Chamber of Secrets - 1
Prisoner of Azkaban - 2
Goblet of Fire - 3
Order of the Phoenix - 3
Half-Blood Prince - 2
Deathly Hallows - 1


PS - It's Daniel Radcliffe's birthday today (mmm...18!)

So I really hate censorship. But that's not what really gets me about the controversy surrounding this book.


Now, I'm not a parent. Not even close. So I can't really comment on the nature of parenting. These are just my opinions and theories.


But what I took away from the article, (which is about a children's book that uses the word "scrotum" for those of you who didn't want to click the link) is that parents and teachers don't want to have the uncomfortable discussion with their children about what a scrotum is.


And THAT makes me upset. It's one thing to ban Harry Potter because you think it will make your children satan-worshiping, tree-hugging pagan atheists (though it would be quite impossible to be both pagan and an atheist, but we'll assume that those who think Harry Potter promotes demon worship wouldn't know the difference anyhow), or something crazy like that. But not wanting to explain "scrotum" to your 10 year old? That might border between lazy and in denial.

There has always been this debate going on about sex education in school (which encompasses the messy abstinence versus safe sex debate) and how much of the education should be placed on the schools and how much on the parents.

Now, on paper, I'm a big supporter of parents being involved in sex education, but I can understand how uncomfortable of a topic that is. And frankly, if parents are only teaching abstinence, then I'd like the kids to get the "if you're going to have sex (which you shouldn't), USE A CONDOM" speech.


The point is--raising kids can be uncomfortable, at times. But I think a book like this would be a good testament to a person's parenting. Are your kids comfortable coming to you with uncomfortable issues? What would you say if your kid asked "what's a scrotum?"

I guess there are three responses I can think of:
1) "That's a grown-up word and you don't need to know it" (dismissive and closed - not a good parenting style)
2) "Look it up in a dictionary" (less dismissive and closed - at least you're not shutting down the active knowledge acquisition, but not great)
3) "Oh, well that's the skin that boys have around their testicles" (uncomfortable, but open, honest, and creating a welcomed environment for learning and asking questions)


The parents and teacher wanting to ban the book seem to be in the first camp, whereas (I'd like to think) that as a parent, I'd be down in camp 3.

That, and I'm not overly offended by the word "scrotum." It's better than saying "ball sac."

Another gem from my Amazon plog (which actually originated from the Leaky Cauldron)...

The New York Post has begun a blog called "The Quibbler" and had devoted it to all things Harry Potter from now until the release of Deathly Hallows (the 7th book for those of you who may be living under a rock...though if you're reading this journal, you certainly aren't).

Anyhoo...the first I've read has been:

Once you've heard roughly 3,000 Harry Potter theories, it's hard for any of them to stand out. They become a big mush of characters and plot developments muddling up your Potterey thoughts: Snape was good, Snape was bad, Snape was bad until he met Lily, Snape was only good for Lily, Snape would have been good if Lily hadn't died, Snape is good because Lily died, Snape was good but only when he was with Lily...
...you get the idea.

So far, so good. Oh, the theories.

I think that's the thing I'll miss the most is theorizing. What happened in the past, what comes next, and what it all means. I'm sure there will still be questions unanswered, but the big ones will be wrapped up. And the epilogue will ruin many slash theories (though canon never really stopped us in the first place).


If you'd like to check out the Quibbler for yourselves, the web address is: http://blogs.nypost.com/potter/

Spoilers are eminent. Beware.