I'm all alone today, so I'm making an experimental (and noisy) svithe. Forgive me.

.

So Lady Steed and the Big O went to see her parents this weekend so I could have some time to rewrite two short stories and Byuck, all of which need to get back to their new homes pronto (and hopefully stay there this time).


Yesterday, between bouts of preposition rearranging, I caught up with Master Fob. One of his recent posts inspired me to write about love, but the story I had in mind I'm not ready to tell, so I'm going somewhere else instead. But it's still related--just more more inspired by the fact that today I am alone.

It is bad to be alone. Or at least being alone all the time can't be good. For whatever reason, God made us social creatures. I may be somewhat less social than other people, but I am still human and I do like people. Most of the time.

Or at least I try to be inoffensive. But putting a bunch of wav files in this post certainly isn't helping.


And I don't suppose I will even write a very good post. I'll be too busy figuring out where to stick what to pay much attention to whether or not the whole thing is working. I screw a lot of things up this way. And yet Lady Steed loves me anyway. It's a funny thing about her.

Anyway, people.


Today in Sunbeams, we talked about how we are like Heavenly Father--how he made us like him.


I think it is an extremely safe assumption that God is a social creature himself. The world's a factory designed to make people he would like to spend eternity with. And one of the things I suppose we have to learn how to do is getting along with each other.

Um, actually, that's not what I was planning on talking about. This is a svithe--this'll be more about charity than---

I know, but---

No! No it's not! You aren't listening! Boy, if Lady Steed was here, she---

Ha, ha. Very funny. Let's be serious.


But it wouldn't hurt to talk about Lady Steed a little. After all, she loves me even though I have limited skills:

Because let's face it--brains and artistry just aren't that marketable. I'm not sure what employers want, but it's not that. And so she's a remarkable woman, to stay home and wisen up the Big O while I'm off wasting myself in the pursuit of lucre when we all know she's a much more marketable human being.

Actually, no. It's a three-day weekend. Ha ha!


Anyway, this is a svithe about sociality and leaning on one another and being with one another and helping one another and how that's good. Or it's supposed to be.


I actually feel very strongly about this, even if I don't really live up to it all the time. I feel it's important to help an old lady get her groceries into her trunk, smile at the people we pass on the sidewalk, prevent toddlers from running out onto the Beltway, know our neighbors. We need to genuinely care for the people around us--family, friends, neighbors, strangers; whether in our town or clear across the country. We need to love them all!

Um. Huh. I don't think....


Anyway, forget it. What it comes down to is this: We need people. You, me, God, everyone. And I'm happy to have some good ones in my life. One in particular who's coming home tomorrow. So, if you'll excuse me,



last week's svithe

Bruce Robin, The Chemist, and a couple svithes

.

Can a woman forget her sucking child,
that she should not have compassion
on the son of her womb?
yea, they may forget,
yet will I not forget thee.

Friday night I had the most awful thing happen. Doing a quick search on my blog suggests this revelation of my failure will not surprise any of you, but, for all intents and purposes, I had forgotten that the Big O is a twin.

Twin #2 came to me that night, and asked me, "Why do you always call me [Biggo]?"

"Surely, I don't! I call you by your own name! I'm sure of it!"

But as I said this, I wracked my brains, trying to remember this crying child, who looked just like my bonny boy, trying to remember his name, and failing.

Finally, I resorted to finding his birth certificate. Bruce Robin. 'Bruce Robin'? No wonder I couldn't remember it.

"Do you mind if I call you Robin?"

I could tell he didn't care. He just didn't want to be called Biggo anymore.

I woke up, convinced I had a forgotten son, Robin, and panicked, wondering how I could ever make things up to him, help him feel loved again, redeem myself as a father, and return this child to feelings of love and security.

Thank God. Thank him that he never forgets us.

-------------------------

A friend loveth at all times

Circumstances prevented us from visiting with Foxy J this weekend while she was in Davis, so we were delighted and amazed when the fates tossed another dear, dear friend right into our laps.

The Chemist and his wife shared a basement-split-in-two with us back when we were all newlyweds. We shared that dump for two years. Then four years later we were together again in Berkeley. Then off they went to Boston.

Then today, here he was. In town for business.

We won the Have-The-Chemist-Over-For-Lunch contest and reveled in his company until he had to leave for Monterey.

But, as he told us once, with us four--no matter how long its been between visits--we can always pick up where we left off.

Ever since I made the discovery almost a decade ago that God made us social creatures, I've never stopped riffing on the subject. Because it's true. We were built to need each other.

And I'm so happy to have good friends.

Thank you, friends.

-------------------------

last week's svithe

The Erotic in LDS Lit Part VIII: Theric replies to your questions and comments (c)

.

I intended this to be the final week, but some things came up in conference that deserve mention. If the talks are up early enough, the final part will appear next Wednesday as regularly scheduled.

.

If you fear, fear not. If you fear not, fear.
---J. Reuben Clark

Adam: You know, this is really interesting to me because I have the same problem with adolescent ultra-prudery that you describe. And yet, the first time I tried to seriously write after being married, I felt that I could not express the truth I felt about certain characters without writing about their sexual relationship.

It was only one sentence and it was not explicit in any way, but it was openly about sex, and it seemed right when nothing else did.

I don't have a lot to say in reply to this; I mostly count it as an amen to my basic argument that sex is a part of life and art is about life. To quote Levi Peterson again, "Ultimately [literature] should reflect all life. Nothing that people feel, nothing that they do, should be denied a place in literature."

That's the way I feel.

Adam: I've only seen one film ever, for example, in which I found a sex scene neither offensive nor unnecessary. . . .

I should point out that I have seen films with suggestive content that I found acceptable and even enlightening in context . . . but . . . only one with an actual sex scene that I thought added to the beauty of the film.

I've been trying to think of movies in which I can say the same, but nothing comes immediately to mind. Alas, but I haven't been watching many movies the last few years, and specific instances are lacking.

That said, I do yet have a feeling of understanding the holiness of appropriate sexuality between good people as experienced through film. I wish I could be more specific.

Can I use this as an excuse to watch more movies?

Adam: I also want to say that after reading your series thus far I took some time to read your The Widower. It so elegantly evoked my feelings for my own good wife that I was nearly brought to tears. Thank you for using your gifts for good instead of evil.

Everytime I read this, it warms my heart. Thanks again for the compliment, Adam.

Schmett: Perhaps you married folks can help me out here, but I cannot reconcile within myself the dramatic dichotomy in the Church regarding "adult" things. I mean, sex seems a really tense subject because, unlike most thou-shalt-nots, even though it'd get me excommunicated right now, the days will come when I won't be fully living my faith without it. But it seems ridiculous to me that it should be such a frightening and taboo subject because Temple covenants are the exact same way! I mean, I remember growing up, Mom and Dad would go to the temple fairly regularly, and even though I had no idea what they did there and that I couldn't go do the things they were doing, I understood that one day I would be able to, and I eagerly looked forward to getting my endowment all of my growing-up years. How is it, then, that sex is so horrifying?

I'm going to pretend the word "horrifying" was something less, um, horrific, but otherwise I think this deserves more reflection on our part.

Although I agree with Foxy and RC that the way the church teaches about sex is mostly okay, there can be no doubt that there is a difference in looking forward to sex and looking forward to ordinances.

But really, the differences are stark. Sex is available half-drunk under the bleachers, for instance. Sex is widely present. Sex is on billboards and in your spam. When was the last time you had an equivalent illicit offer for ordinances? I'm going to guess the answer is pretty close to never.

And that's the difference. It takes more vigilance and effort to stay sexually inexperienced, mentally or physically. Avoiding unholy thoughts about the temple is much easier.

There ain't no templtosterone to fight against. So feeling of weakness and failure are less likely to come as regards ordinances. Ergo, sex is more likely to be looked upon with frustration and self-loathing.

But it doesn't have to be so.

And I think in most cases, openness (of an appropriate sort) between parents and child will help.

Eugene: . . . especially for teenage boys, everything arouses sexual feelings.

Exactly.

To swing this more in the direction it was originally intended, what about stuff I keep around my house? Are there some books I should keep locked up in my bedroom? And where do I start?

All I can say is thank goodness Sears discontinued their catalogue.

Now if only there wasn't that sexy just-baptized chick in the Book of Mormon --- remember her? And forget pictures, what about the train of thoughts that can lead from the harlot Isabel? And what if a kid cracks the Bible?

In the end, teach correct principles. They'll learn to govern themselves. Eventually.

Recession Cone: We don't talk a lot about sex during church for several very good reasons.

#1: The church sees sex as a very private and sacred expression of unity between married people. One of the ways we keep things sacred is not to discuss them excessively (e.g.: Heavenly Mother, Temple Rituals).

#2: The more one thinks about sex outside of marriage, the harder it is to maintain virtue. Sexual thoughts are arousing - there's a positive feedback loop here. There's little purpose in talking up how great sex is to a group of adolescents that aren't supposed to be having it. Mentions of sex at church that I remember from my pre-married phase were very appropriate: sex was placed in context as a gift from God, but we didn't dwell on how mind-blowingly wonderful it is. This seems like the right approach to me.

#3: The church has to respect diversity of opinion. Sex is a very delicate subject. It can easily divide a ward (e.g. "Is oral sex ok between married people?"). The church has to very carefully decide what issues to discuss, so as not to place stumbling-blocks in each other's way. It's best to leave some subjects implicit.

#1: I don't disagree. Well said.

#2: "Positive feedback loop" --- funny choice of words.

But you're right: talking about sex (in any way) leads to thinking about sex, leads to feeling, um, sexy, I guess, et cetera. It builds on itself. Which is part of the reason chastity lessons can get uncomfortable --- especially to adolescents who haven't yet figured out things like what's-what and control thereof.

On the other hand, ignoring things won't help. Balance. The every tricky thing called balance.

#3: I find this the most compelling reason.

I had a BYU professor --- single woman in her late forties --- and one day she went on a sudden rant about a bridal shower she had been to. Someone had given the bride some edible panties. ! The professor went on and on about how evil this was and how out of touch with prophetic guidelines and Church policy and how when she gets married she certainly won't allow that kind of debauchery into her sacredest of relationships. Et cetera.

I think not talking about such things is just better for everyone.

So yeah. Although I don't think it needs to be official policy (that would require talking about it), at the very least I think it is very very weird to host passion parties with the ladies at church.

Celia: In Elder Holland's talk/book Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments, he opens with "The topic of human intimacy is as sacred as any I know. In discussing it, the subject can quickly slide from the sacred into the merely sensational. It would be better not to address the topic at all than to damage it with casualness or carelessness."

Which is why it took me so long to start this series after the initial request. I don't know how well I've succeeded at avoided sliding into the "merely sensational." I would appreciate feedback on this point.

Eugene: A rollercoaster has no socially redeeming value. And they've been known to kill people.

This is probably the most interesting comparison to porn this series produced.

And thought provoking.

In no small measure because I love roller coasters.

Eugene: In any case, hypotheticals notwithstanding, without concrete reference points . . . the resulting discussions will turn into attempts to guess what's in somebody else's head when the word "porn" is mentioned.

And because no one should feel compelled to read, watch or do something for purposes of argument or to be "cool" or whatever, the discussion becomes abstracted to the point of pointlessness.

Good point. Next time I do this, I'm giving everyone some pornographic homework.

Eugene: Unless we are to use explicitness itself as the final measure (which I reject, with caveats), then I think it would be better to define "meaningfulness" in terms of the moral intent of the artist.

Perhaps. At least in terms of defining something as "pornography." But in terms of defining what makes a "pornographic experience" for the consumer, the artist's moral intent likely has very little bearing.

From Part II: Jorgensen decides that in order for us to have a "pornographic event", we need "three elements: a porn author, a porn text, and a porn reader. In fact, it seems to me that the porn event seldom requires all three, though it always requires one: just a porn reader. Porn author and porn text make the event more likely but do not inevitably guarantee it."

(Which reminds me --- I didn't listen to the whole thing, but on City Art's and Lectures last night, Slavoj Žižek spoke on what might be termed a polite pronography. Sort of.)

Eugene: The beauty of the human form is a moral good . . . . Perhaps that is the test I would apply: Can beauty be found there?

Again, I like this thought a lot.

And in the end, we are judged for ourselves and our own intents. Back to what's in my house, we have a nice book of Waterhouse whose work by any standard is beautiful, but which can, for the viewer, easily slip into sexual territory fairly labeled pornographic.

So. Do I hide this book from my children? Do I hide it from them while they are between the ages of ten and twenty-one? Do I burn it on City Hall steps? Do I send it to school with them to show their friends?

I sometimes envy people who will close the doors on these questions by labeling 80% of the world evil.

But they're kidding themselves if they think that rejecting God-given beauties makes them holy.

Chosha: . . . it doesn't sound like porn. It sounds like arthouse.

Now there's a slippery slope! Is this about moral intent again? It it about artist exceptionality (which all us artists want to believe in because it makes us better than everyone else)? Is Shortbus not porn because it's indie? Is Larry Clark free of moral requirements because he's shown at Cannes?

The whole argument may only be semantics, but it makes me very, very nervous.

Chosha: I'll concede that the depiction of exploitation doesn't always equal porn (which wasn't really my original point, but I can see how it reads that way). Even so, there's definitely a line I don't think any filmmaker should cross in what they show on film, and calling it 'art' doesn't automatically render it okay. When the sex/nudity becomes gratuitious or too explicit, I think they've crossed the line into porn.

Where exactly that line should be drawn? Well now we're back to definitions...

I know, I know. Stupid definitions.

I think it's heartening that, no matter how much we quibble, as a whole we all seem to be on the same page. (This is an invitation for the disagreers to come out in force.)

Celia: The church teaches us that we ought to be modest in dress, action, and word so we don't deliberately arouse others (besides our spouse of course).

I think this is good advice to us all. Deliberately arousing others must surely be a sin. Incidentally arousing others is likely innocent.

But what about when we take an action which, although we don't intend it to arouse others, we know plain well will arouse them anyway? Are we off the hook then?

Celia: The second thing I get from that broad definition of porn is that it doesn't have to be naked women in magazines or in a film to be considered pornography.

People can be aroused by less. Now, I'm not saying that every time a person is aroused by something they see, read, or hear it is pornographic and necessary to repent. However, I believe that no matter the subject matter, if you continually dwell on and go back to something for the sake of arousal (even if it's a magazine with people modeling lingerie or a book like Between Husband and Wife), it is pornography and should be avoided.

In the end, I think the primary responsibility for pornography falls upon the end user. Sure, people making billions on others' addictions are responsible, but we are all responsible for ourselves. And if we want the hollyjollies, we can find them anywhere.

Those Disney Princesses are pretty hot.

Celia: I forgot to say that outside the traditional exploitative and blatant porn, there are some things that could be pornographic to some and not to others. We each have to really look at our hearts, thoughts, actions, and feelings and take responsibility for them.

So let it be written.

In a go, go, go world that sometimes seems to be an endless treadmill of deadlines and bill paying, we can often forget that we're fundamentally sensual beings.

This line comes from SF Weekly's latest Best of San Francisco issue. It's in the blurb for the City's best striptease lessons and the line stuck with me. When I happened across it again week's later and said "So that's where I read that," I knew it had a lot of truth.

Much like how the revelation that we are social creatures recreated my understanding of myself, I think it is also healthy to recognize we are sensual creatures. We are also spiritual creatures, yes, but to forget that our soul is flesh and spirit both is a mistake.

Speaking of sociality, last Sunday President Eyring taught us that joy is not something we find as individuals. We need each other. Sometimes on a macro level (eg, Church); sometimes on a micro level (eg, the bedroom).

We are complex and holy creatures, children of God who loves us.

Let us enjoy our blessings wisely.

20[july&augustmovies]18

.

HOME

Logan Lucky (2017)

We ended June watching Ocean's 8 and Ocean's Eleven and the first hour of this movie. Finished in July. Hello, July!

One interesting thing is that it has a final-act introduction of an investigator ala Ocean's 8. I don't know if it is inherently better or worse, but it's not as strong as the rest of the movie---opposite problem of Ocean's 8. I do like the misdirection and the clever bit of twisting around at the end. The accents made it hard to understand everything that was said. Lady Steed liked the movie a lot more than I did (I'm still undecided) and is wanting to watch it again to try and decipher some pieces now that we know how it ends.

Some things definitely weren't answered. For instance, did the white gang leader get a payout? If not, why not? What about Joe Bang's brothers? I'm guessing now, but I'm not clear. Maybe only if Joe gives them some?

Maybe there's a bunch of explanatory stuff on Quora or Reddit I can seek out....

HOME

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Holds up. Caught a minor continuity error and it's much more bittersweet having seen Infinity War, but it's still charming and fun and smart. Comparing Cate Blanchett here to Ocean's 8 just emphasizes how wasted she was there.

Although Black Panther is a strong contender, for my money, this is the best score Marvel's done to date.

HOME

The Disaster Artist (2017)

So no, I have not seen The Room. But I enjoyed this movie immensely just on the knowledge I have. I like how it balanced being able to laugh at people while still making us empathize with them.

It's really terrific. We laughed a lot. And we felt some pain. I'm happy to report the most painful moment in the film (for me) was not factual, but it's a good example of why sticking straight with facts isn't always the most truthful option.

HOME

The Lego Batman Movie (2017)

I missed big chunks of this because I was doing some parenting (appropriate). Although immensely enjoyable, this is by no means a favorite Batman film of mine. However, the Nolan and Burton films do not have any lines half so hilarious as the best lines of this film. Really. Some of the best one-liners in recent history.

THEATER

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

I like so much about this movie, but it's not better than the first movie and doesn't do all that much that's new. Although Michelle Pfeiffer looks great and I would buy her toy as seen in the credits.

It was awesome, though, the audience's reaction to THAT post-credits sequence. That was great.

HOME

Finding Dory (2016)

I missed half or more, but my impressions are the same. Good with great moments, inferior to Nemo.

THEATER

Sorry to Bother You (2018)

What a great movie! And I love this new trend of Oakland starring in movies. I guess I need to go see Blindspotting next.

The film is as smart and strange and clever as its trailer promised. Actually, more so. The problem with the film is that it's got so many clever pieces it sometimes forgets about the shape of the film as a whole. Or, in other words, it's twenty-some minutes too long and has a hard time finding its ending. It took me ten minutes after leaving the theater to realize it was the correct ending, but that may be because the ending took too long coming.

Also, there's a practical effect (the mere existence of which I appreciate) which reminds me of Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. And makes me realize why digital has become so pervasive. But I'm still glad it's practical. I think it's more effective than digital would be.

One way to think of this movie---much of it, not all---is Idiocracy but in the present day.

THEATER

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018)

I was moved throughout. I don't really remember MisteRogers' Neighborhood that well, but because I get weepy every time he shows up on my social-media feeds, I'm sure he made a big impact on me. And I know enough about him to know that he was a swell guy. But WYBMN gives the most sweeping look at him I've ever encountered. And it's wonderful.

We took my parents and sister with us and they also left full of admiration for the man. Whoever it was that suggested this film be shown in LDS wards to teach ministering was right.

But also, we should all watch it, as humans, to become better with children, and to calm our own urges to interrupt.

HOME

The Absent-Minded Professor (1961)

Fred MacMurray is so good at stuff like this, it's impossible to understand how Double Indemnity even exists.

This film is aging just fine. My kids enjoyed it immensely. Its over-the-top slapstick that never gets old, if done well, and some of the jokes seem at least as sharp now as they ever could have in 1961: "I'm an American! See it? My credit cards!" (The absent-minded professor, however, it seems to me, should never be trusted with credit cards. Egad.)

In short, worth revisiting and passing down to the next generation.

HOME

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (2013)

I've been wanting to see this movie since it was first announced stateside and I've probably checked it out of the library at least six times, but only now did we finally watch it. And: wow.

First, the art was as lovely as I expected, but there was an unexpected effect to the simply composed art. My eyes felt relaxed. Watching films can be so taxing, but this movie allowed my eyes to settle into the whitespace and simple lines and natural compositions. They could relax.

But the film itself is not simple. It kept complicating as it betrayed my expectations. It's not a quiet or easy film. In a way, it would have been easier had my kids not watched it, but now it has left them with some heady themes to grapple with. That must be good.

It's a beautiful film, even when it is displaying ugliness. And it is a warm film even when it is wading through disappointment or error or deceit. People make mistakes. We can still love them. Or, at least, not hate them.

Incidentally, if you're liking to give a film a rich Mormon reading, try this on for size. You'll have plenty to consider.

HOME

Howl's Moving Castle (2004)

I had a curious reaction to this, my third viewing. On the one hand, the film felt overlong. On the other hand, all those moments that made it overlong felt layered with symbols I had never seen before. Falling phalluses, Calcifer becoming Donne's flea. And because of its length, I had time to really think about all the Miyazaki elements that recur again and again and to consider what they are doing here, this time: amorphous black creatures, cascading feathers, magical old women, flying humans, pseudo-Victoriana, flying machines, smoke and steam, beautiful androgynous men.

Both those lists can go on and on, of course. Miyazaki is a true auteur in the sense that all his work is part of one great whole.

And that whole is so great it's rather difficult to hold onto it all at once.

HOME

Dunkirk (2017)

Such an amazing movie. Amazing. I've already praised Mark Rylance who deserves special recognition in a film where everyone is excellent. This time though, let's give a nod to Hans Zimmer whose score melds so perfectly with the sound design. Sometimes it's not clear if that's orchestra or footsteps, orchestra or warship. And that pulsing uncertainty helps us feel for the soldiers.

Also, if I haven't already mentioned it already, props to the editing. This film wouldn't work without exquisite editing and that's what we have. Swish it around with the sound and we're unsettled at all times but clarity is also available around the corner. For instance the cut near the ends that seems like a dream sequence but is not. That's the result of careful coordination between seeing and hearing, knowing the history of film and understanding the film you're building.

It's a remarkable work of art.

Also worth pointing out: Lady Steed, who was utterly uninterested in this film until we saw Darkest Hour, was moved. Stunned, really, for about an hour after it ended. We haven't seen Shape of Water yet, but she's appalled it beat out Dunkirk for Best Picture.

THEATER

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Nonstop action, yes. Less tech but a tricky use of the classic face. The two female leads could have been more dissimilar for legibility. That would have been nice.

The politics of superagents is complicated and troubling, of course, and the MI film address that. The use of the CIA here was a hard thumb. But it was the throwaway lines about a fictional president that I found most unsettling this goround. Fictional presidents have always been an average president. But one outlier can change the nature of "average" quite a bit.

Tom Cruise is again well. At the beginning of the film, he looked my age. The film sure did a number on him though....

HOME

Porco Rosso (1992)

I wanted to revisit this on Kohl's recommendation. I had a fever as I watched it so who knows if I saw it accurately, but it doesn't make my top-five Miyazaki films.

It came out two years after TaleSpin and there are some remarkable similarities. I wonder if Miyazaki ever saw Disney Afternoon--?

HOME

Your Name. (2016)

What an amaaazing movie! I was expecting to be amazed and so, of course, at first, I was not. I liked the way it set up the situation. Then I was confused. This happened a lot. In part because this is many more kinds of movie than I expected. It kept changing on me, even restructuring the world as I understood it, which is a dangerous thing to do. Few better ways to turn your audience against you, of course, unless you are earning an extraordinary amount of respect.

One trick, I realize, is that changing the rules should explain something that previously had not made sense. You give people one card, you can take away five. It's magic and misdirection.

One of the big surprises is that, for a movie about teenagers, this film has a much broader-than-usual sense of how long life really is. And it manages to nod to many tropes while becoming something truly new.

HOME

My Neighbro Totoro (1988)

I don't think I can argue there is a movie made that is objectively "better" than Totoro. Of course, I also think that there as a certain category, GREAT, in which better/worse judgments hold no meaning, so all I'm really saying is that Totoro is a GREAT movie. But it's true: Totoro is a GREAT movie.

I wasn't watching very closely the first half, coming in permanently at the rain scene, but what other movie could make me cry is pain and sorrow and joy in such rapid succession?

It's such an honest movie, and it won't let us forget what it is to be children. Which I, for one, seem to have made a life goal.

HOME

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

I had always assumed Young Frankenstein was based on the first two Universal films, but then I read a story that said the first three and especially #3. Having finally watched Son of Frankenstein, it is certainly true.

First, although this Igor looks nothing like that Igor, this is the first time that name makes a debut and this assistant (played by Bela Legosi) is the first to play a truly major role.

Second, the Inspector finally made a distinct appearance. And I was shocked how almost directly lifted he is. My kids laughed at some of the same moments that they've never seen in Young Frankenstein but which are funny here as well, in a less exaggerated appearance.

Third, the plot is pretty dang similar. And this is the first, best I know, to address the name confusion.

As a movie, it's not bad. The creature is less sympathetic, but he's not the antagonist either. He's almost an afterthought in his own movie. HIs death is the most gruesome and the most seeming-difficult to bounce back from, but hey! He's done it before! Now: on to Ghost of Frankenstein.

THEATER

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

The new print was beautiful.

Although I was too sick to be sitting for a three-hour movie, I think I can still say it improves with each viewing.

And now I'm back to seeing it more times in theaters than without. I'm not sure I'll be motivated to watch it without again.

HOME

9 to 5 (1980)

I finally felt the need to see this because a sequel's been announced. We're talking a forty-year gap, which is crazy, but I thought I might as well finally watch it.

Of course, I know plenty about it, but it didn't play out just as I expected. But with charming leads, that hardly matters. I was along for the ride.

The biggest surprise is now ... moderate the Dabney Coleman character is. I'm not making excuses for him, but I assumed that for a man to count as a notable cad in 1980 he would have to be much worse than the fellow here. Honestly, he's just a couple steps beyond what I would expect normal 1980 office boss to be. So good on those women for being fully aware of how lousy he is.

HOME

The Saratov Approach (2013)

It took me a while to finally see this, but now I have. And I liked it. It relied on a couple techniques I don't like, but used them well. I don't know how "accurate to the real events" it might be, but I don't care that much. I really liked the solution to the problem, which was aesthetic and apparently, the movie wants me to believe, what really happened. So that's great.

I'm still not sure, however, what the title means. I think it was just to make us imagine it was based on a Robert Ludlum novel....

HOME

Everybody Street (2013)

The Big O will be watching this film sometime this year as part of his photography class. The syllabus made it sound outre enough that we decided to prescreen it. Lady Steed found it beyond the pale. I thought it was fine. I think this largely comes of how much more time I spend at a high school than she does.

The film brought in quite a few photographers, but ultimately it was a little tired because of its New York fetishism. According to Everything Street, the only place in the world street photography can really be done is in New York City. I'm so over that attitude. Get over yourself, New York. Geez.


NOTE: I'm not sure why I included Finding Dory but not Son of Flubber (1963) or Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1992) when I probably watched/heard as much of them. Such are life's little mysteries.

Previous films watched

LATEST POST

2018

jan feb mar apr may jun jul&aug sep oct nov dec

2017

qu1 qu2 qu3 qu4

2016

qu1 qu2 qu3 qu4

2015

qu1 qu2 qu3 qu4

2014

qu1 qu2 qu3 qu4

2013

th1 th2 th3