I'd like to begin by saying that my interest in the book and the movie adaptation derives from watching Elizabeth Gilbert's TED talk on inspiration - I think it's the best TED talk available. She is funny and peaceful and a bit spiritual, and this intrigued me enough to read Eat Pray Love, although the first several pages I read a the bookstore before purchasing it didn't promise any grand life insights. Ultimately, I think the book is such a bestseller not because it is supposed to inspire you to think or rediscover things (something I think each good book must inspire), but for two reasons: a) it talks about self failure and depression, and successfully coming out of it and feeling like a worthwhile person again; b) it exposes the intimate thoughts of a real person, and that's something people are always addicted to.
Overall, the book was...maybe worth reading once. I'm not sure the movie deserves anywhere near this praise.
The movie is weak and diluted. Each period of Liz's life attempts at showing the symptoms of her inner struggles, but fails at every turn. It really tries to combine effective editing and stylistic approach with the atmosphere of Liz's journey, it's quietness or festivity, and doesn't make it work. The supporting characters, that added such flavor and variety to the book... are downplayed and simplified in the movie - then one has to ask, why are they kept at all? There are many moments, where in the book we are supposed to witness an emotional transformation, a lesson learned, and in the movie - the plot moves without evoking anything out of the audience... Generally, whoever was making this took the wrong approach - the approach of a semi-observer, the typical Hollywood approach to every separate section of the movie.
For example, in the Italy section, we get these closeups of the food, and whose of us who have read the book understand that we're supposed to feel this self indulgence keenly... But we can't - because the close up the food is rather random when you take into account the general approach to the way Italy is portrayed.
Richard from Texas in the India section almost made me cry - from anger. What did they do to him? Why did they make him a man who yells? I really like the actor, and the bit where we find out about Richard's past life, but overall - what kind of mentor is that?
In Bali, the movie took a turn toward a Romantic I don't know what. It was still supposed to be about the people, the strangeness of the place, about learning what level of maturity you want in a person... and that was also all kind of...not there.
Wayan the healer, who has a deeper purpose in the book and life of the author, here is just a woman who comments on Liz's sex life and divorce.
Overall, the movie tries so much to reproduce everything from the book that many elements had to be narrowed - which results in everything feeling shallow and underdone. While the book provided some sort of emotional connection to Liz, one has to struggle to connect at all to the Liz of the movie.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Fire and Hamlock by D.W. Jones
I want to start out by saying that after reading many of the reviews half way to being finished, and finishing the book in under a day, I did not find the ending anti-climactic or disappointing. Twisty, yes. Not giving us all the answers - yes. But we ultimately get what we look for - an explanation to the magic surrounding Polly and Tom, and a sort of resolution to their attachment/love for each other.
I do think this book requires a re-read: Tom uses Polly to try and save himself but it appears overall that he rather cares for her - but I'd like to find particular places of confirmation for the latter; Polly is tricked into separating herself from Tom in order to let him live with the help of his horse/car=defiance - but at what point is Polly roped into being a tilting point? I understand that Tom tied her to himself when she helps him create - he does this unknowingly at first; but why does she have to reject him, to lose in order to win? That also needs a reread.
Otherwise, this was terrific. Mrs. Jones wrote Polly as a child wonderfully, and her transition into someone older and in love is so seamless one has to wonder at the writer's skill. Her parents are dreadful, of course - and I'll step away from the argument on how unrealistic or realistic they are, but will say that I really enjoyed seeing a character who was so delusional-paranoid that she managed to misunderstand life and rot it for herself (Ivy).
The mix between the modern and the interwoven magic is terrific - if it were introduced when all the characters were adults, this would have been downright fantasy and straightforward. But starting out with 10 year old Polly, and going from pretend playing to actual magic... and having Tom first play along and then actually be just as scared as Polly makes it realistic.
I do think this book requires a re-read: Tom uses Polly to try and save himself but it appears overall that he rather cares for her - but I'd like to find particular places of confirmation for the latter; Polly is tricked into separating herself from Tom in order to let him live with the help of his horse/car=defiance - but at what point is Polly roped into being a tilting point? I understand that Tom tied her to himself when she helps him create - he does this unknowingly at first; but why does she have to reject him, to lose in order to win? That also needs a reread.
Otherwise, this was terrific. Mrs. Jones wrote Polly as a child wonderfully, and her transition into someone older and in love is so seamless one has to wonder at the writer's skill. Her parents are dreadful, of course - and I'll step away from the argument on how unrealistic or realistic they are, but will say that I really enjoyed seeing a character who was so delusional-paranoid that she managed to misunderstand life and rot it for herself (Ivy).
The mix between the modern and the interwoven magic is terrific - if it were introduced when all the characters were adults, this would have been downright fantasy and straightforward. But starting out with 10 year old Polly, and going from pretend playing to actual magic... and having Tom first play along and then actually be just as scared as Polly makes it realistic.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Swan Thieves by E. Kostova - some spoilers p2
So now I'm to page... 424 out of 564 or something. I'm getting much closer to the ending, and thus far my suspicions have all been confirmed - Robert is obsessed with Beatrice and dreams of her; Marlow is also becoming slightly obsessed, and I suppose we are all supposed to understand why all the men in the (Oliver, Robert, even Marlow) are falling into this deep strange love with her.
At this point, I think Mary is a replacement for Beatrice to Robert. Their correspondence and the development of their relationship mirror so closely that of Oliver's and Beatrice's that I'm not even sure Robert sees Mary - I think she is a symbol to him, a means to become a little closer to Beatrice.
I'm at work right now, but let me jot down my thoughts to expand on later:
>> I like Mary; she is a contra to Kate - she is alone and somewhat worships her loneliness and individuality. He admiration for Robert is very real and makes me more and more into her; She stared out spunky, strange - but as she talks about herself and Robert - she becomes close to actual experiences of somewhat un - reciprocated love.
>> I don't like that both Kate and Mary start feeling real only when talk about their relationship to Robert; I don't like that a man is needed to make them real. In that sense, since Beatrice is more about painting, and not quite about love - all the men around her are in love with her, thus she needs not really depend on them, she is the only one who is real all the time. I wonder if this is on purpose;
>> I still don't understand why Beatrice has nightmares of embracing Oliver's wife at her death; is this guilt? Is this a strange love?
At this point, I think Mary is a replacement for Beatrice to Robert. Their correspondence and the development of their relationship mirror so closely that of Oliver's and Beatrice's that I'm not even sure Robert sees Mary - I think she is a symbol to him, a means to become a little closer to Beatrice.
I'm at work right now, but let me jot down my thoughts to expand on later:
>> I like Mary; she is a contra to Kate - she is alone and somewhat worships her loneliness and individuality. He admiration for Robert is very real and makes me more and more into her; She stared out spunky, strange - but as she talks about herself and Robert - she becomes close to actual experiences of somewhat un - reciprocated love.
>> I don't like that both Kate and Mary start feeling real only when talk about their relationship to Robert; I don't like that a man is needed to make them real. In that sense, since Beatrice is more about painting, and not quite about love - all the men around her are in love with her, thus she needs not really depend on them, she is the only one who is real all the time. I wonder if this is on purpose;
>> I still don't understand why Beatrice has nightmares of embracing Oliver's wife at her death; is this guilt? Is this a strange love?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Swan Thieves by E. Kostova - some spoilers
I am not done reading this book (p.355 of 564), but I already can't stop myself from talking about it (a good sign).
First of all, I can't believe the average population like this - either the average population is a sucker for flowery language (which sometimes goes over the top here; I maintain that noone can balance flowery language like Nabokov), or everyone is secretly into visual art - because in addition to life and drama, this book is filled with the slow quiet obsessions of a painter. Paintings are discussed for color, composition, emotional evocation, periods, their artists, periods. Artistry is generally discussed - how much do you need to practice to count as a true artist? How crazy is still normal - at what point imagination transforms into loosing touch with one's reality?
All of this I found intriguing, if a little run on and straightforward, because I'm very much into drawing myself (though not so much art history). I understand the love for shape and color and the stress of recreating nature better than you can see it, but just as you feel it.
Second, it took me many pages and a shock to realize that Marlow, the initial narrator, is a man. Possibly, because the author is a woman and thus I expected a woman to narrate... Possibly because some of Marlow's thought patterns are very much like my own. And actually, he is the only man thus far in the novel we hear think. To me, at this point, he is also the least realistic character - I think what makes him most realistic is his obsession with Robert, and his frequent moments of attraction to the women around him.
Or perhaps all artistic types seem feminine.
Kate is my favorite, thus far - I feel that it's largely because of her portions of narration that I enjoy this book so much - her alteration from being a responsibility free young adult to becoming a mother and wife to a husband who is too consumed by his art to be a good family member - those are the most realistic parts of the book, I feel.
Robert, of course... you can't help but love slightly. He's one of those people (you know those people) who are not quite down to earth. They shine brightly, are both addictive and tempting, but easily fail to be good friends because they're so wrapped up in whatever high level fantasy they are aiming towards. Those people, even if generous, also tend to be so amazingly selfish. So you love them because you can't help it, and you hate them because they don't love you back (at least that's what happens with me).
Another thing I love about this book is the intertwining story lines that sort of mess with your head and keep you guessing - there is the present research Marlow is doing on Robert; there are the reminiscences of women Robert has left; there are the letters which eventually turn from what Marlow imagines those moments to be into the thoughts of the woman going through them. And this whole time we still have no idea who the mystery portrait muse is, and keep trying the new and old characters that appear on to her image to try and figure it out.
Because each part of these is engaging, though the book is long, it's easily addicting.
Interestingly, there are many parts which make me go - wait, when I write, this is exactly what I try to avoid - since when is this allowed? For example, we know everything that Marlow does - he went for a nap, then came to and realized that he only slept 20 minutes, then fell asleep for another hour.
One one hand - who the hell cares?
On the other - you really trust the dude to tell you only the truth and nothing but.
Something I'm looking forward to see her resolve: the romanticized Beatrice (meh, what a name) and Oliver. Because other then somewhat acting on their love for each other, they have no faults. They are unbelievable. I'm not too happy about this - because, from what I get, it's their life that is destroying Robert; from all the hints, he seems so under impression from those events, so in love with Beatrice (my guess, she's the mystery girl) - and yet, I've still to see anything about them that isn't noble and flowery and so darn boring... I can barely sympathize with either of them. Though, I feel, there are some points that still make them real - and it's not about character development at this point, it's her approach to characters overall. Kostova makes them attentive to age, to seeing the person's spirit through their appearance, to giving them doubts and some will. Beatrice really becomes intriguing to me when she begins having nightmares about Oliver's wife's death - why does it touch her so? I want to find out.
But overall... Gosh, it's just so nice to have SO many pages of the book dedicated to - oh, look at this brushstroke, and it's impossible to paint rain unless you're an impressionist, and subject matter reveals the inner soul of the artist... Because this is how I see things, this is how many of us see things apparently. This is why all of this "of he(art) and mind".
First of all, I can't believe the average population like this - either the average population is a sucker for flowery language (which sometimes goes over the top here; I maintain that noone can balance flowery language like Nabokov), or everyone is secretly into visual art - because in addition to life and drama, this book is filled with the slow quiet obsessions of a painter. Paintings are discussed for color, composition, emotional evocation, periods, their artists, periods. Artistry is generally discussed - how much do you need to practice to count as a true artist? How crazy is still normal - at what point imagination transforms into loosing touch with one's reality?
All of this I found intriguing, if a little run on and straightforward, because I'm very much into drawing myself (though not so much art history). I understand the love for shape and color and the stress of recreating nature better than you can see it, but just as you feel it.
Second, it took me many pages and a shock to realize that Marlow, the initial narrator, is a man. Possibly, because the author is a woman and thus I expected a woman to narrate... Possibly because some of Marlow's thought patterns are very much like my own. And actually, he is the only man thus far in the novel we hear think. To me, at this point, he is also the least realistic character - I think what makes him most realistic is his obsession with Robert, and his frequent moments of attraction to the women around him.
Or perhaps all artistic types seem feminine.
Kate is my favorite, thus far - I feel that it's largely because of her portions of narration that I enjoy this book so much - her alteration from being a responsibility free young adult to becoming a mother and wife to a husband who is too consumed by his art to be a good family member - those are the most realistic parts of the book, I feel.
Robert, of course... you can't help but love slightly. He's one of those people (you know those people) who are not quite down to earth. They shine brightly, are both addictive and tempting, but easily fail to be good friends because they're so wrapped up in whatever high level fantasy they are aiming towards. Those people, even if generous, also tend to be so amazingly selfish. So you love them because you can't help it, and you hate them because they don't love you back (at least that's what happens with me).
Another thing I love about this book is the intertwining story lines that sort of mess with your head and keep you guessing - there is the present research Marlow is doing on Robert; there are the reminiscences of women Robert has left; there are the letters which eventually turn from what Marlow imagines those moments to be into the thoughts of the woman going through them. And this whole time we still have no idea who the mystery portrait muse is, and keep trying the new and old characters that appear on to her image to try and figure it out.
Because each part of these is engaging, though the book is long, it's easily addicting.
Interestingly, there are many parts which make me go - wait, when I write, this is exactly what I try to avoid - since when is this allowed? For example, we know everything that Marlow does - he went for a nap, then came to and realized that he only slept 20 minutes, then fell asleep for another hour.
One one hand - who the hell cares?
On the other - you really trust the dude to tell you only the truth and nothing but.
Something I'm looking forward to see her resolve: the romanticized Beatrice (meh, what a name) and Oliver. Because other then somewhat acting on their love for each other, they have no faults. They are unbelievable. I'm not too happy about this - because, from what I get, it's their life that is destroying Robert; from all the hints, he seems so under impression from those events, so in love with Beatrice (my guess, she's the mystery girl) - and yet, I've still to see anything about them that isn't noble and flowery and so darn boring... I can barely sympathize with either of them. Though, I feel, there are some points that still make them real - and it's not about character development at this point, it's her approach to characters overall. Kostova makes them attentive to age, to seeing the person's spirit through their appearance, to giving them doubts and some will. Beatrice really becomes intriguing to me when she begins having nightmares about Oliver's wife's death - why does it touch her so? I want to find out.
But overall... Gosh, it's just so nice to have SO many pages of the book dedicated to - oh, look at this brushstroke, and it's impossible to paint rain unless you're an impressionist, and subject matter reveals the inner soul of the artist... Because this is how I see things, this is how many of us see things apparently. This is why all of this "of he(art) and mind".
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Films: Signs; Mars Attacks; Queen of the Damned; U... movie, review, signs Films: Signs; Mars Attacks; Queen of the Damned;
1. SIGNS
Just watched 'Signs'. Wept. Loved it.
I'm never getting away from faith. I doubt that I will ever get religious (too many things about organized church make me puke, and too many fanatical believers make me favor my reason and logic over the feeling of security amid the great universe) - but not feeling part of a greater whole is beyond me.
Some reviewers on Netflix say that it's absurd that the point is that God arranged the alien invasion; I instead wonder how they can take it to heart in such a way - how can they see God as some singular entity that purposefully acts on an individual's behalf? That's rather silly.
I like this movie because:
- some grand acting, really; even Mel Gibson (I've had an aversion to him since he started directing, but truly, he's pretty good); the children are lovely too;
- some pretty funny moments - which you don't expect in what is mostly a horror/adventure/drama, I guess?
- the concept of things being 'meant to be' - not preordained, but still 'no coincidences'; I never think deeply enough to believe this or not (I'd mostly likely not), but the approach is very close to 'taking life as it comes'; while perhaps something isn't quite 'always supposed to happen', it definitely is what it is.
- the actual presence of aliens; I mean, these being crop circles and this being a movie that deals with religion, I was completely counting on the viewer never finding out where aliens exist or not. I thought the main character would get his faith back because of the potential of their existence. Not at all, in fact - this approached faith as a life view - are you an optimist or not? Do you believe things come together properly despite whatever may happen, or is each of alone and doomed? Do you hate life for what it's brought to you, or do you accept and make do? In this case, God is life, and life is the person, so really, it's how at peace are you with yourself?
- As food for thought, for non-religious people like myself, this film suggests - see if YOU can notice the pattern of cause and effect in life's occurances; see if you can look at the brighter side of it.
2. MARS ATTACKS
First time watched it a decade ago, back in Russia - hated it. Remembered it as some stupidity about weird Martians that pointlessly kill people. It felt overdone, unrealistic, cheap.
Rewatched it today because people think it brilliant.
And fortunately, it is.
Great cast - I was so pleased to see many actors that I really like (until about 4 years ago, I recognized actors by face, but could never pay enough attention to associate names - now I'm better :)).
And everything a social commentary, and exaggerated only slightly and just perfectly, and all the little stories interesting.
All in all - gosh, does growing up twist one's brain.
Can't complain though.
3. QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I read Interview with the Vampire earlier this year (actually last year now) and enjoyed it very mildly. Not sure why the characters or the writing didn't hook me; maybe should have paid better attention. My sister loved it and ended up reading the whole series.
I only watched the movie adaptation (which was also entertaining, but in very rare a film can I tolerate Tom Cruise without wanting to carve up his weird so typically American face; a blonde Lestat on Cruise? Who thought of that? Pitt also doesn't fit vampires very well. Not sure blonde people can generally pull it off - this is likely why Twilight is gayer than it could be); and now, eagerly (because I haven't read any other of Anne Rice's books, and apparently, this film is book 3-4 loosely rolled into one) consumed Queen of the Damned.
What can I say. Lestat makes this movie. Without the actor playing him, without the charisma, it would have been flat.
Also, there's this Jesse girl, who grew up with Vampires and wants to return to them, wants to be with her 'mother' forever - now, this is far more believable reason to want to drink blood by murdering humans, amongst other perks then Eternal Love (pfft, Twilight);
Overall, I wished that the motives behind each character were more explored; Lestat's especially - he's not delved into deep enough.
But the prevalent theme is loud and clear - what's eternity when you have to hide, when you're alone. And so when the last scene shows Jesse and Lestat walking hand in hand through time you like that it isn't love per say, but that it's companionship.
Oh, and the Queen of course is gorgeous.
So despite clear faults, I'd watch it again for the pretty people, the views, and the kicks.
Just watched 'Signs'. Wept. Loved it.
I'm never getting away from faith. I doubt that I will ever get religious (too many things about organized church make me puke, and too many fanatical believers make me favor my reason and logic over the feeling of security amid the great universe) - but not feeling part of a greater whole is beyond me.
Some reviewers on Netflix say that it's absurd that the point is that God arranged the alien invasion; I instead wonder how they can take it to heart in such a way - how can they see God as some singular entity that purposefully acts on an individual's behalf? That's rather silly.
I like this movie because:
- some grand acting, really; even Mel Gibson (I've had an aversion to him since he started directing, but truly, he's pretty good); the children are lovely too;
- some pretty funny moments - which you don't expect in what is mostly a horror/adventure/drama, I guess?
- the concept of things being 'meant to be' - not preordained, but still 'no coincidences'; I never think deeply enough to believe this or not (I'd mostly likely not), but the approach is very close to 'taking life as it comes'; while perhaps something isn't quite 'always supposed to happen', it definitely is what it is.
- the actual presence of aliens; I mean, these being crop circles and this being a movie that deals with religion, I was completely counting on the viewer never finding out where aliens exist or not. I thought the main character would get his faith back because of the potential of their existence. Not at all, in fact - this approached faith as a life view - are you an optimist or not? Do you believe things come together properly despite whatever may happen, or is each of alone and doomed? Do you hate life for what it's brought to you, or do you accept and make do? In this case, God is life, and life is the person, so really, it's how at peace are you with yourself?
- As food for thought, for non-religious people like myself, this film suggests - see if YOU can notice the pattern of cause and effect in life's occurances; see if you can look at the brighter side of it.
2. MARS ATTACKS
First time watched it a decade ago, back in Russia - hated it. Remembered it as some stupidity about weird Martians that pointlessly kill people. It felt overdone, unrealistic, cheap.
Rewatched it today because people think it brilliant.
And fortunately, it is.
Great cast - I was so pleased to see many actors that I really like (until about 4 years ago, I recognized actors by face, but could never pay enough attention to associate names - now I'm better :)).
And everything a social commentary, and exaggerated only slightly and just perfectly, and all the little stories interesting.
All in all - gosh, does growing up twist one's brain.
Can't complain though.
3. QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I read Interview with the Vampire earlier this year (actually last year now) and enjoyed it very mildly. Not sure why the characters or the writing didn't hook me; maybe should have paid better attention. My sister loved it and ended up reading the whole series.
I only watched the movie adaptation (which was also entertaining, but in very rare a film can I tolerate Tom Cruise without wanting to carve up his weird so typically American face; a blonde Lestat on Cruise? Who thought of that? Pitt also doesn't fit vampires very well. Not sure blonde people can generally pull it off - this is likely why Twilight is gayer than it could be); and now, eagerly (because I haven't read any other of Anne Rice's books, and apparently, this film is book 3-4 loosely rolled into one) consumed Queen of the Damned.
What can I say. Lestat makes this movie. Without the actor playing him, without the charisma, it would have been flat.
Also, there's this Jesse girl, who grew up with Vampires and wants to return to them, wants to be with her 'mother' forever - now, this is far more believable reason to want to drink blood by murdering humans, amongst other perks then Eternal Love (pfft, Twilight);
Overall, I wished that the motives behind each character were more explored; Lestat's especially - he's not delved into deep enough.
But the prevalent theme is loud and clear - what's eternity when you have to hide, when you're alone. And so when the last scene shows Jesse and Lestat walking hand in hand through time you like that it isn't love per say, but that it's companionship.
Oh, and the Queen of course is gorgeous.
So despite clear faults, I'd watch it again for the pretty people, the views, and the kicks.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Temporary Placeholder
Books recently read to write about:
- 'Howards End' by E.M. Forster
- 'Eat Pray Love' by Liz Gilbert
- 'Dresden Files' (book 1-6) by Jim Butcher
- 'The Frank Zappa Book' by obvious author
- 'Elements of Writing Fiction' (several by several authors)
- 'Hotel Eden' (short story collection) by Ron Carlson
- 'Dragon Wing' by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman (Death Gate cycle - will end up reading all)
- 'Sense and Sensibility' by Jane Austen
- 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' (again) by Rowling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)