Going Bananas

It's been awhile since I've been here, so let's get right to it, shall we?

Went to a local multiplex this afternoon, figuring I'd see whatever wasn't sold out. I mention this little factoid as it clearly reflects the state of my expectations, or lack thereof...

As I was in a bit of a time crunch, Space Chimps promised to be a perfect combination of available, brief, and underadvertised; it fulfilled that promise. The audience was sparse, the laughter seemed primarily to come from me, (but I've been away from consistent film viewing for some time now,) but I found it a pleasant way to ease back into experiencing a theatrical airing of a movie.

Having just read the Yahoo reviews submitted by other viewers, I cannot help but notice how much the reviews remind me of the political rhetorc airing daily on CNN. There seems to be a very hard division between lovers and haters of this film, and I suspect I know where the lline lies.

I confess I understand why there are those who say all the characters were a bit annoying, even as I understand those who found the film to be cute. On the one hand, I love monkeys: I've never seen an entire group without at least one class clown and an appreciative audience within said gathering; on the other hand, I can see how those unable to ignore the anthropomorphizing simply want to slap the protagonist silly, get the girl drunk to loosen her up a bit and get the rod out of her rectum, and drop the stud muffin monkey into the nearest deepest pit. And yes, Jeff Daniels' villainous character is written with the depth of Dudley Doright's Dishonest John. But seriously, what can one expect going into a movie rated G? The ones I question are the ones who had problems with the language used.

Granted, the puns are groan-worthy corny, but some people like that sort of thing; my dad does, but I don't (exactly) judge him for it. He is, after all, from a different era/mentality/world than the one in which I live and move. Of course, that's a puritanical world in which sexual innuendo is picked up on highly sensitive radar that begs explanations by the innocent. While not everyone who appreciates corn will necessarily be offended by innuendo, those who will be offended won't like anything about this film.

Of course, those who dislike this film because they do not relate to or appreciate the criticism leveled at the protagonist's behavior are not those who will be offended by the innuendo. If anything, they will find the references too tame by far. In fact, there was one and only one comment that caused me to do a doubletake because it seemed so out of keeping with the general tone otherwise maintained throughout the film.

I think what irritated me more was that the protagonist's manifestations of the chip on his shoulder seemed all too real to me. Such characters are alive and well in our society, much too well. They strut and preen, show off and mouth off, and it's all considered normal, acceptable, conventional. The film dealt with this and all other problems much as has the Road Runner over the years. If one sympathizes with Wile E. Coyote or even merely abhors RR's violent solutions, one will find SC less than amusing.

Another way of looking at it, I think, is that this is reminiscent of Mel Gibson's Chicken Run, though I found the chimps more appealing than the hens for some reason.

When all is said and done, I just like monkey muzzles.

Mad for More

Back to the Movies and it's been a delight. Got to see the fourth installment of Indiana Jones proved to be an attempted handoff to the next generation, something someone should suggest to Sylvester Stallone...

Handoff or not, formulaic or not, the film was satisfactory. It probably didn't hurt that I hadn't been in a theater since last year, but there you go. The pacing was swift, the dialogue punny, the situations ridiculous, the resolutions campy. What more can one ask of an Indy film?

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, on the other hand, was so very highly touted and I had such great expectations of it. On the eve of my viewing, I was reliably informed that the new lead is tres cute, though way older... 26 or something like that... (tried to keep a straight face, really). True, there were two epic battles instead of just one: one for failure and one for success, as is proper for apprentices succeeding passing masters. Yes, young though William Moseley may be, this was, indeed, the passing of High King Peter the Magnificent, whose suffix should perhaps be omitted, as his sister so wisely suggests... I do think that the tension between Peter and Caspian is better illustrated in the film than I felt was fleshed out in the text, though again, it's been awhile since I've read the book. I particularly liked the mostly silent Edmund, who is growing up quite nicely, I think. Certainly he is far more intriguing silent than is the oh so virtuous and disgustingly righteous Lucy, whom I adore in the books and despise in this film - too much of a know-it-all this time around, for my taste. Can't say I was all that keen on Susan, either, though no doubt was left that she and Caspian had a non-thing going pretty hot and heavy... Too bad Tumnus is long gone - that MacAvoy had a nice, furry torso... Still, Reepicheep ... well, he's cuter in the book, too, though not by much. And who could help loving the DLF? Eh... Still, I did feel compelled to watch he first installment next day, just to refix my focus. Fun stuff.

What's next? Not sure, but definitely an air-conditioned theater is preferable in this heavy laden heat...

Another Month

Another month has passed and much has happened.

Gas prices have gone through the roof, causing people finally to reconsider transportation alternatives, especially here in the good old U.S. of A. Let's face facts, though: if I was a poor cyclist before, impecuniousness is not going to improve my balance. So I guess it's back to the pedes God gave me, though they don't work quite as well as of yore, if perhaps as well as when I first received them over half a century ago...

Natural disasters have struck around the globe, from Myanmar and China to the American Midwest and most recently, California. If the cost of the California wildfire down Santa Cruz way has risen to some $10 million and there are over 34 million people residing in the state, isn't that less than 50 cents per person? Or is that not an appropriate way of thinking of the matter?

Daniel Radcliffe was evidently featured on the Rachael Ray talk show this morning, but I didn't get the memo until the last five minutes of the show, during which she was demonstrating the virtues of a warehouse-purchased pot roast dinner in these fiscally trying times...

Rambling does, indeed, seem to be what I am doing here today...

Checked out Facebook... found some addictive word games... sure wish I knew how to link all my blogs so that I don't have to keep thinking of different things to say for each... Something tells me this sort of rambling belongs on a different long-neglected blog...

Ah well...

Snape's Patronus

So Snape's patronus is a Silver Doe, mate to James Potter's stag. One has to wonder how he feels when he realizes what Harry's patronus is and what is must mean about James. It makes his snide comment to Tonks even more ironic, though perhaps his sneer is as much for himself as for her.

Clearly Severus has never been able to get over his infatuation for Lily, the young neighborhood girl with whom he was able to share his delight in magic and impress with his superior knowledge. To be fair to Snape, it does seem that pretty much all the young lads were a little in love with Lily, so it wasn't just a selfish pleasure on his part. She was bright, vivacious, saucy, spunky, friendly, kind, young, and healthy. Like her son, she would probably have made a pleasant ingredient for a polyjuice potion. What more does youth want of youth?

Lily has what Severus does not: loving parents. She even has a sibling, though that does not necessarily seem to be something worthy of envy in this case... Still, young Severus is desperately alone and embattled in his emotionally and physically abusive household. Lily is the neighborhood ray of sunlight in his otherwise dark world. That he should cling to her even beyond her death is both sad and understandable. That he should be willing to sacrifice what is left of his life to protect her son, even one spawned of his most hated rival and enemy, says as much about the wretchedness of his life as it does about his valor and love for her.

The fact that Snape has a female patronus invites yet another line of thinking, though I do not wish to tread down any unworthy path here. Instead of going down the demeaning stereotypical interpretation of weakness at sight of his feminine patronus as Voldemort surely would have, I think, rather, that it is reflective of the ferocity of his protectiveness of Harry, deep down, despite all outward appearances to the contrary. There is, after all, no creature fiercer in nature than a mother protecting her young, as witnessed in Molly Weasley's duel with Bellatrix LeStrange. That same ferocity is evident in Snape's defense of Harry in spite of the youth's antagonism and the suspicions of the Dark Lord's minions.

One might leap to argue with the characterization of fierce here, but let me explain. Being an effective double agent requires a very special personality, one capable of duplicity at the deepest levels. This comes at a great price, however, for such a person can never fully, clearly, believably reveal self to others, any more than a chameleon can resist nature's demand to change in each new environment. Despite this, Snape remains true to his very death, only giving in to his desire to gaze into his love's eyes in the face of her son as he is breathing his last and giving up his oh so closely guarded secrets and memories.

Perhaps those malevolent looks Harry endures for six long years are as much Snape's desperate efforts to conceal his desire for Harry's lost mother as a reflection of his feelings for the father of whom the rest of Harry so irksomely reminds him...

Thus, the Silver Doe, and no apologies needed, except perhaps for the snip at Tonks, whose similarly evoked patronus is so much more macho... ;->

HP Immersion

Has it only been 2 1/2 weeks since I dipped my head into the Harry Potter pensieve and found myself sucked into its universe once again? The total audio immersion has been a fantasy escape much needed and desired, though the periodic skips and skids of the cd recordings provided far too much unwanted intrusion from this mundane world to which I perforce now return, if ever so briefly.

I am, after all, only here to take another breath prior to resubmerging myself, this time into the video interpretation of the texts. I suspect this will only take 2-3 days, however, after which I will feel obliged to reread all the texts, having thoroughly confused myself as to which events belong to which medium.

This morning I reminisced delightedly on the reminder that the Ravenclaw dormitory requires not a password, but an astute response to a query that requires divergent thinking, or at least thinking. Hermione really would have found great pleasure in that house, though clearly she would have missed out on much fun and many physical adventures in exchange.

Okay, going back in. When I resurface, I shall probably ruminate further.

Media Muscle Flexing

Is there any doubt as to which national presidential candidate is currently favored by the mainstream media? Not a day goes by without some sort of positive article being published, usually on the front page. This seems to be true on both paper and electronic pages, by the way.

I don't have a firm opinion regarding any particular candidate at present, though I have found myself leaning first one way, then another, as the campaign has wound its way up and down the length and breadth of this geographically vast nation of ours. What I do have a firm opinion about, however, is that I do not care to be railroaded by blatant shouting. I confess my hackles are going up as a sense of claustrophobia from perceived herding continues to assail me. Perhaps I should stop reading so much, though if I do that, how will I ever make up my already too malleable mind?

I suppose if I start scouring a greater variety of news sources, I'll start getting more varied perspectives. Perhaps greater confusion will ultimately lead me to some sense of clarity. At present, viewing the candidates puts me in mind of selecting produce: with so many similarities, how does one determine what is truly under the skin without peeling something open?

Fleeing Flights

First Aloha Airlines goes belly up, then ATA swiftly follows, both citing rising fuel costs as part of the problem. Now the FAA's crackdown on safety inspections is causing American Airlines to cancel flights en masse. What's a commuter to do?

On the mainland, there are still trains, buses, and automobiles as alternative means of transportation, but here in the islands there is an increasing concern (at least in this locale) about the distinct possibility of being stranded on an undeserted island in the middle of the Pacific. What does that mean?

Like Gilligan's famous enclave, there are positives and negatives galore to this scenario. The weather is warm, the people are friendly... sort of... and the food is some of the best in the world, at least for this palate. On the other hand, my cats are "over there."

As this airline war of attrition continues and fuel prices mock would-be travelers, highlighting the failure of the outgoing administration to adequately address an issue that has been identified for most of my life, alternatives seem to be fast fading. Time has become a critical factor.

Where is Mighty Mouse when you need him to save the day? Or Underdog, for that matter? Auwe!

New Bond Film Raises Old Issue

Yes, Daniel Craig has breathed fresh life into one of my favorite franchises that had gone seriously stale. For this I am grateful. The casting of Craig, however, may have been one of the few things the producers have done right in far too long.

The link above leads to an article about a mayor of a small rural town in Chile who drove onto one of the sets for the upcoming Bond film. The very first thing that struck me was the number and quality of the qualifications laid on this man before the article even got underway:

Yes, he is a mayor. That should suffice. Why is it necessary to indicate that the town is small? Why should it matter that it is rural? Does this reflect on the film? No, it belittles the man. To what end?

The title of the article titillates, the adjectives add fuel to the intended fire, and what should be the heart of the matter is buried so far down the article that many readers will, in all likelihood, never get there.

So what is the point? Yes, I seem to have buried it as well... The point is that this public official was making a political protest over the all too common practice of using one country's scenic locales to depict those of another country. The problem here is that this particular piece of land has been the bone of contention between two neighboring countries for over a century. How is it that the filmmakers failed to know this? Did they knowingly proceed? Somehow that seems worse, the willful fanning of controversial political flames.

A second point, more than merely secondary, is that the increased police presence in the town because of filming is reminiscent of one of the bloodiest and most brutal dictatorships in recent Chilean history. Again, the filmmakers seem callously, arrogantly oblivious of the society in which they are working as guests.

How is it that foreign filmmakers carry such clout that a man of such stature as a local mayor should be treated as a common criminal by police officers acting merely as hired security? In the United States, they would be off duty, moonlighting, without the authority necessary to arrest intruders. They would simply be present to deter or detain, as need be. True, Chile is not the U.S., and even in this country no one is above the law, but since when is protecting a film set license to oppress others, as this mayor has described? Of course, since when does a public official feel the need to make a spectacle of himself in order to make a point? Oh wait... I can answer that one...

Fictionalized Bios

I confess: Kate Winslet does absolutely nothing for me in James Cameron's Titanic. Perhaps it's all that distracting water everywhere, or perhaps it's that I just don't buy the young di Caprio as a romantic lead. Whatever the reason, I've never really understood all the acclaim the actress has received over the years. Thus, I went into the viewing of Finding Neverland with expectations only of Johnny Depp, who has yet to disappoint me. It's always good, at least for me, to go in with muted expectations - Finding Neverland blew me away.

Depp, of course, does not disappoint, though Dustin Hoffman, as he so often does, offers such a marvelously quiet, matter-of-fact performance that I had to think about it to appreciate it properly. And I love to watch young boys at play, regardless of their ages, so that was fun. Freddie Highmore in particular was a pleasure to watch. It's not at all difficult to wonder why the Screen Actors Guild nominated his performance. It's a pity that his role conflates some of the brothers and is not, in fact, factual. Ah well...

Winslet was a surprise for me. I think I've always seen her as more matronly than anything else, so this role works well. Not being distracted by physical incongruities, I was finally able to appreciate what she brings to the performance itself. My bad; she's really good. Newsflash to self...

Julie Christie has come a long way from Lara to characters such as Rosmerta and the du Maurier here. She, too, is now able to provide nuanced performances without so much external physical distraction, though in her case, she remains a striking presence.

Perfect Stranger, on the other hand, the Halle Berry/Bruce Willis vehicle that also features Giovanni Ribisi, is narrative fictionalization, and it is mind-blowing in its own way, reminiscent of Hitchcock's favored narratives. I feel an idiot for not having seen the denouement coming sooner, but it was a fun ride, nevertheless.

Must exercise more with Brain games...

I do find it interesting that Halle Berry, a stunningly beautiful woman, has chosen to do so many psychological thrillers that present her as a vulnerable woman who is actually so very deadly. Interesting...

For Shannon

To those of us who have children in our lives,
whether they are our own,
grandchildren,
nieces,
nephews,
or students...
here is something to make you chuckle.

Whenever your children are out of control,
you can take comfort from the thought that
even God's omnipotence did not extend
to His own children.

After creating heaven and earth,
God created Adam and Eve.

And the first thing he said was
" DON'T !"

"Don 't what ? "
Adam replied.

"Don't eat the forbidden fruit."
God said.

"Forbidden fruit ?
We have forbidden fruit ?
Hey Eve..we have forbidden fruit ! "



" No Way ! "
"Yes way ! "

"Do NOT eat the fruit ! "
said God.




"Why ? "

"Because I am your Father and I said so ! "
God replied,
wondering why He hadn't stopped
creation after making the elephants

A few minutes later,
God saw His children having an apple break
and He was ticked !
"Didn't I tell you not to eat the fruit ? "
God asked.





"Uh huh,"
Adam replied.

"Then why did you ? "
said the Father.

"I don't know,"
said Eve.
"She started it ! "
Adam said.

"Did not ! "
"Did too ! "
"DID NOT ! "

Having had it with the two of them,
God's punishment was that Adam and Eve
should have children of their own.
Thus the pattern was set and it has never changed.

If you have persistently and lovingly tried to give children wisdom and they haven't taken it,
don't be hard on yourself.

If God had trouble raising children,
what makes you think it would be
a piece of cake for you ?

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT !

1. You spend the first two years of their life
teaching them to walk and talk. Then you spend
the next sixteen telling them to sit down and shut up.

2. Grandchildren are God's reward
for not killing your own children.

3. Mothers of teens now know why
some animals eat their young.

4. Children seldom misquote you.
In fact,
they usually repeat word for word
what you shouldn't have said

5. The main purpose of holding children's parties
is to remind yourself that there are children
more awful than your own

6. We childproofed our homes,
but they are still getting in.



ADVICE FOR THE DAY:

Be nice to your kids.
They will choose your
nursing home one day

AND FINALLY:

IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF TENSION
AND YOU GET A HEADACHE,
DO WHAT IT SAYS
ON THE ASPIRIN BOTTLE:




"TAKE TWO ASPIRIN"
AND "KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN"!!!!!