Wendy and Lucy ***1/2

Released 2008.
Directed by Kelly Reichardt.
Written by Jonathan Raymond.
With Michelle Williams, Will Oldham, John Robinson and John Breen.
Seen on DVD.

This is a very lovely film in its simplicity. The acting is restrained and subdued and the story is heart wrenching.

A young girl, Wendy (Williams) and her dog Lucy are travelling cross country from Hammond Indiana to Alaska to take advantage of some perceived lucrative work opportunities. It's implied that she is moving to better her life and not for adventure or short term, between semesters work. She's a girl on the margins of society, yet not completely down and out as she has a car and some cash to help her make it there. It's clear that she was not in good financial shape previous to the trip because in a desperate phone call to her sister and brother-in-law, they tell her that they can do nothing to help her and seem, especially her sister, unsympathetic. Her car breaks down in Portland Oregon and she finds herself stuck there for a while. When she goes to the store to pick up a few items, she attempts to shop lift some very minor items and is taken to the police station. Meanwhile her dog disappears and the rest of the film is about her search for her dog (Lucy) a la "The Bicycle Thief" and her attempts to get her car functioning. Like the neo-realism of the post war Italian films.

This film is a realistic portrayal of people on the edge of losing it all. It's easy to see how one can be homeless and destitute. We're all just a stone's throw away from poverty. Ok, those with less education anyway are much more susceptible to it. Even in today's economy, if a white class worker loses his job, he or she usually has something stowed away (excepting present company - If I were to lose my job, I might end up on the streets).

My eight year old daughter watched it with me (she's been mentioned before in other films I've discussed and is always an interesting measure of a film's quality) She "liked" it though she thought it was sad. I suspect she is struggled with the fact that she liked it at the same time as she was being made sad by it. It's also a testament to the simplicity of the story if she could follow and understand it well enough to appreciate it.



And here is an interview with the director and actor.

Shark Girl **1/2

By Kelly Bingham.
Published 2007 by Candlewick Press.
276 pages.

I "chose" this book as it was the only one left. The librarian at my school asked the teachers to do some reading over the summer and create questions about the books so that her Battle of the Books team can prepare for competition.

The book did not look so interesting. It has a cover of a young girl with a bikini on showing only ( this is relevant) one side of her torso. I was thinking when I saw it that it would be a 'tween romance.

It is better than I thought it would be. It is a story about a girl that was attacked by a shark (not a spoiler since this happens on the 3rd page of the book) and her efforts to cope with the changes in her life that resulted from losing her arm.

I think the young girl was a realistic character. Her concerns seemed real. She was not painted as a hero. She was moody and bitter. She was frustrated about her abilities and afraid to go to school with her friends. Eventually she does learn to cope with these issues, but it is a difficult struggle. For that reason, I think she was portrayed in a realistc way.

It is a quick read. The story is presented a variety of ways. The author uses letters, poems and newspaper articles to tell the story. Though the majority of the tale is told in poem form. Each poem has a title, but I would say that the poems are more terse and truncated prose than poetry.



A reccomended book for any young teenager in your family, even for boys.


Here's another summary about the book.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 1 **1/2

Written by Alan Moore.
Drawn by Kevin O'Neil.
Color by Benedict Dimagmaliw.
Lettering by William Oakley.
Published by America's Best Comics, 2000.

Alan Moore is known for such well known comics such as "The Watchmen" and "V is for Vengeance" (or is it Vigilante?). I read in an interview, in the magazine "Under the Radar", that though he's now retired from comics, he still likes to keep involved with this book and continues work on it. So he holds a special place in his heart for this one.

So the story goes is that some mysterious government man in turn of the century recruits a bunch of misfits and washed ups for some operation that is never clear. These misfits include some infamous chracters such as Alan Quartermain, Captian Nemo, Miss Mina Murray, Dr. Harry Jeckyll/Edward Hyde and Hawley Griffin (AKA The Invisible Man). What is interesting about these characters is that while Moore keeps the legends intact, he makes them incredibly human anf flawed. Flawed in an almost epic manner. Quartemain is an opium addict, Edward Hyde is particularly gruesome in his monstrousness, and Griffin (The Invisible Man) is a particularly untrustworthy character, what with his power of invisiblity and all. He uses that power to gain an advantage for himself, let's say on an all girls school in which some of the young ladies think that they have acheived Immaculate Conception.

There's a lot of mistrust and bickering within the group, yet they manage to acheive and come through for each other when necessary.

After the group is finally assembled (this is an origin story after all) they set off on a mission to recapture a substance which will allow anyone the power to fly. Being still in the 19th century, this power seems too incredible and dangerous if it were to get in the wrong hands, which the league is told has happened. But there are double crosses and backstabbing and the government man does not appear to be who he says he is. An airiel attack is emminent over London, and the League does their best to stop it.

Apparantly, he also did a traditional serial adventure story starring Alan Quartermain, which I liked less becasue it involves other worlds and different realms of existence. I've never been one for that transcendental other/alternate world stuff. It always involves the invention of a new mythology which has to be understood with in the limited time and space of the text. It's too much for me to keep up with. And the language can be silly in those kinds of stories.

I liked better the grittier and violent main story of the book. It's more realistic (well as realistic as a story with ape monsters and invisible men can be).

So whats interesting is the blend of modern and old. The language of the book is old fashioned. Moore's clearly having fun with it. On the title page of the book which is set up like an advertisement in an old fashioned newpaper, the creators are introduced with interesting language and not just listed. For example, "At tremendous expense we are proud to present M. Alan Moore. The World famous Northamptonshire Nightingale famed for his verbal recitations and comical narratives."

So there's this old fashioned language paired and contrasted with a fairly violent and bloody narrative. The monster Hyde, tears people apart, limb from limb in a type of demon rage.

And as any one who follows comics know, Moore is know for his writing and this narrative is well written. The characters are developed and complex.

I look forward to volume 2 and 3.

A trailer of the movie.



And an excellent interview with Alan Moore with examples of drawings.

Rear Window ***1/2

Directed by Alfred Hithcock.
Released 1954.
Based on short story by Cornell Woolrich - "It Had to be Murder".
Screenplay by John Michael Harps.
With James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter and Raymund Burr.
Seen in theater.


I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, and when I did, I believe I saw it on video. It was nice to see the camera work on the big screen with its vivid colors of the bulildings and gardens, etc.

Most people already know this film, but this might provide a reminder about what a great film this was. For that reason, I 'll keep the summary short.

A photographer and adventurer, James Stewart, is stuck in his apartmant all day becasue he has a broken leg. He spends all day watching his neighbors through the rear window of his apertment. Meanwhile Grace Kelly's character, an upscale high falutin' fashion executive, is trying to convince him to marry. The photographer is not so sure since he's a rough and ready adventurer after all.

While looking at his neighbors, he starts to invent narratives for them and watches them to see if his invented narratives come true. Eventiually, he begins to think that in one of the house holds something very fishy is going on. He's convinced that the husband, played by Raymond Burr, has killed his invalid wife and disposed of her in a particularly gruesome way. He becomes an amateur sleuth to get to the bottom of the mystery.

One minor complaint I have with the film is that it is kind of slow moving. It almost has to be becasue the narrative and the character development of the neighbors is almost played out in pantomime, like a silent film. So things take a while to develope. It's quite an inventive film technique that Hitchcock uses and there is no way that a film, with this pacing, could be made comercailly in these days. It's both intrigueing and a little slow at the same time. I admired it for this, but I was simultaneously getting antsy, and like i've said in a recent past blog entry, I feel my patience for films is way above the average film goer of today.

There are also some inetersting moral themes being discussed and presented. The whole concept of privacy is an issue. It's funny to me that it seems that the characters don't think that it's bad to spy on their neighbors. Stewart's character makes no bones about his spying, though he doesn't want to get caught, and is quite obvious about it. Grace kelly's character only seems bothered by it, becasue it makes her boyfriend distracted. The characters do discuss th eissue of privacy briefly, but seem to laugh it off.

But... this spying on the neighbors leads Stewart to make some judgements and conclusions about his neighbors based on sparse and imcomplete evidence that he has garnered from his watching. The privacy of the neighbors is being invaded and they are being judged on how they behave in certain contexts. I think that this is the moral of the story. Remember, this was also around the time of Jospeph McCarthy. I don't know if privacy was one of the issues at the time, there might have ben more immediate threats to people's civil rights, but i I would bet that the accused communists were not too thrilled to have their private lives and values exposed to the nation.

Death at a Funeral **1/2

Directed by Frank Oz.
With Mathew McFayden, Keeley Hawes, Andy Nyman, Ewen Bremmer, Daisy Donovan, Jane Asher and Peter Dinklage.
Released 2007.
Seen on DVD.

Vulgar but with some very funny bits. As the title says, there is a funeral which is set at the house/mansion of the the dead man's son's home/mansion. At this funeral a variety of unfortunate and embarrassing disasters happen. And that's the plot.

It's an ensemble effort. There are at least 6 or 7 characters that share time on the screen. Some of the better characters and bits include the young fiance of woman who's father is brother of the deceased. The father hates him and the fiance is a bit of a neurotic wussy. They pick up her brother who is an aspiring pharmacist and deals with illicit drugs too. The woman gives the fiance a little Valium to calm his nerves, but it's actually a powerful hallucinogenic. So this wimpy guy is totally stoned at the funeral. He is very funny, and his eyes actually look like he's stoned.

There is another character who is hypochondriac and is totally annoying at first, which of course is the point. But he starts becoming really funny when the events of the funeral start overwhelming him. He starts to have this glazed eyed look of resignation.

The movies not a life changing event nor is it important or art, but it is fun.

Balkan Ghosts - A Journey Through History **1/2

By Robert D. Kaplan.

Published by First Vintage Departures 1994.

Hard Cover - St Martin's Press 1993.

287 pages.

From the title, it's easy enough to surmise the content of this book. It's the history of the Balkans. But it does have a slightly weird premise. It's not only history but it's a travel book. Now, when I think of travel books I think of tour guides. The ones that tell you which places you need to see and visit, so I was confused when the author called this a travel book, because he definitely is not recommending places to visit, though you could certainly visit some of these places if you wished.

I guess there is a difference between a travel book and a tour guide. In this book anyway, the author does travel, but he writes about the history and the politics of each place he visits as he visits those places. So it's a historical book.

I like a book, especially non-fiction, that is highly readable. Not too dry, or confusing. I like a well written, well told story when it comes to non-fiction. This book partially succeeds. There are some pockets of very interesting passages in the book, but it does get a little hard to follow at times too. This may not be completely the fault of the writer, since the task he takes on is so huge.

He write about all the Balkan countries. They include Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia territories (which include Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia). He does not include Hungary which is included in his map, perhaps because , as he briefly mentions, it's culture is too European, though it is geographically part of the Balkans (I make that assumption since he includes Hungary on his map). He also spends the most time on Romania and Bulgaria.

It's no wonder the text can be so confusing. There are multitudes of characters, organizations, political parties etc., in each country. He does try to focus on one or two characters in each chapter (The chapters are divided by countries) and on the more recent events of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. That is helpful for the flow of the narrative, but he needs to give background, so he has to go further into that long and almost ancient past and to discuss a multitude of characters and events. All these places and characters are what makes the book confusing. He could have written about any of the countries during a specific time and have enough detail in information to fill a whole book. But he covers (almost) all the countries and several hundred years of history. Maybe a more specific thesis for the book might have been helpful.

So here's what I got out of the reading. Only the most basic concepts are what stick with me during this writing.

There are three religious groups all mixed together in these lands, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Closer to Europe (Austria borders Croatia) are the Catholic Christians - hence Croatia has more European feeling. As one goes further south-East , there are more Orthodox Christians - the ancestors of the Byzantine Empire. And the areas furthest East (Albania for example) are of course mostly Muslim - ancestors of the Turkish Empire. And these three Empires, throughout history have been constantly at war with each other and the hostilities continue until contemporary times. Especially in the East where Turkish and Byzantine groups were constantly at war. The details are different in each country, but the basic idea is the same. The Balkans, because of their location, was and still is the original battleground between the East and the West. This is of course all a generalization.

To be more specific, his travels through Romania, especially the Eastern part are particularly grim with tales of poverty , corruption and prostitution. He was constantly approached by prostitutes when he was there.

Everyone knows about Greece and their classic Hellenic background, but the author makes the case that their many years under Byzantine domination make that country more culturally Byzantine and hence, more Balkan than European.

I requested this book through the Chicago Public Library and I requested an older edition since there were more copies available. Again, this book was written when many of the crises in the Balkans still had not been resolved. I would have liked to have seen a later edition, in which I am sure there would have been updates. I wonder what's going on there now?

The following videos are neither exciting nor well produced and the narrator is almost incomprehensible. Who chose the music! But there are some pictures and maps which are based directly on the book.





P.S. I noted something interesting while looking for appropriate videos. There were lots of videos showing future maps where some countries disappeared and and others grew at their expense. In the comments were lots of cursing and racial name calling. The hate is still there even today.

Europa / Zentropa (In the states)***

Directed and written by Lars Von Trier.
With Barbara Sukowa, Jean-Marc Barr, Udo Kier and Max Von Sydow.
Released 1991.
Seen on DVD.

This is a difficult film. I'll start with a summary. An idealistic young man, played by Barr, from New York decides to come to Germany after the war had just ended to help out in the post war reconstruction. He gets a job as a sleeping car conductor. He meets a German girl (Sukowa) who is daughter of the train company and they fall in love. Meanwhile there is resistance againts the American occupation and these resisters are called Werewolves. It seems that everyone wants something from the young man. The Americans want him to"keep his eyes open" about Nazi resistance. The werewolves want him to do terrorist work for them. The werewolves force him to do a job and the movie becomes a bit of a thriller.

The director's previous films were very arty but clearly also very visually dynamic. I could see that from some of the extras that came on the DVD. He says that this movie is more accessible, (though it's still clearly an art house film). It is because he uses a lot of classic movie motifs. When the protagonist is about to bed the girl, he shoots her face in a hazy profile that looks like it came from a film in the 40's. There are a couple of scenes in which their are large letters, "werewolf" in the background of the lone anguished figure. The film has a lot of clasic film elements embedded in it's arthouse modernism.

The film is mostly in black and white, but the director uses some color in certain important places. He actually mixes the black and white with the color on the same screen. It makes for some beautiful effects. He does this by filming the background and foreground seperately. He then superimposes the foreground onto the background. Frequently there were several layers of background. This means that actors had to be in very specific and exact places. There is not a whole lot of room for organic change and discovery in the acting. The whole film is very precise. For that reason, the film lacks a bit of an emotional appeal. It's a little difficult for the viewer to get emotionally involved with the characters.

But it is a very beautiful film and very well worth seeing if it comes to the theaters, though enjoyable on DVD too.



Note: The director has a spanking brand new film out called "Antichrist", which is supposed to be brutal, but beautifully shot also.

Man on a Wire **

Directed by James Marsh.
Main protagonist - Phillippe Petit.
Released 2008.
Seen on DVD

I've been accused of only liking movies that the critics like, and for the most part, that's true. Though I trust some critics or publications more than others. Well this is a film that got critical acclaim (it even won an Oscar for best documentary), and I would have to disagree with the critics, though not entirely.

Basically it's about an infamous stunt Phillippe Petit pulled back in August of 1974. He broke into the fledgling World Trade Center, set up his equipment and walked a tight rope between the two towers. Some of us older people might actually remember the event.

I'll start with what I liked. The whole concept and the actual performance are quite intriguing - there's no denying that. It's set up like a caper movie. After all, they are trespassing on property and breaking the law. Everything has to be planned, practiced, organized and studied, before performing the stunt.

Another little subplot which becomes relevant for a small portion of the film is that after the big successful event, the small crew that were also close friend and lovers (they did bring on a couple of guys just for this caper to help out) become estranged from Petit. Apparently he gets a bit too big for his britches. He even sleeps with a woman while still being in a relationship with his girlfriend who was there through out the whole process. The celebrity had gotten to him. This is not explored very much which leaves the actual events of the estranging and feelings of the friends a bit ambiguous or unclear. Though I kind of like that because it makes the viewer have to contemplate what happened and why. There are some clues that something went wrong even before we learn about the affair. In a handful of interviews, his best friend breaks down and I'm thinking what in the world is wrong. Nobody dies or gets hurt (at least physically) so whats the big deal. Something for us to think about... or maybe the film makers needed to explore this idea more. Could go either way.

And some of the images of him were beautiful, like he was floating in air.

Now as for my complaints of the film, it was way too slow. I tried showing this film to my eight year old daughter and she had trouble staying focused on the film. Not that the attention span of an 8 year old girl is a proper test for determining what a good pace for a film should be, but I found myself restless, and I consider myself a very patient film watcher. Even the "caper" part of the film though it was interesting, was just too slow. In a fiction caper or heist film, they don't seem to drag on for so long. There's more dramatic urgency and tension. This film seemed to lack that urgency and tension, though they tried. I think that they were simply unsuccessful at creating it.

I also found Petit to be kind of grating. I mean it's logical since he is basically a street performer who specializes in high wire walking. Think of the old saying or idea that when people see a mime, they want want to slug them because they are so annoying. Petit certainly is smug and cocky. He's arrogant. He really thinks way too much of himself, even before he did the World Trade Center.

I'd be curious to see the documentaries that this film beat at the Oscars.

Here's a trailer.



And here's an interview with the man.

Mr. Lincoln's Wars - A Novel in Thirteen Stories **1/2

Written by Adam Braver.
Copyright 2003.
Published by Harper Collins Publishers.
Pages 303.

The title is deceiving because I really would not call this book a novel. Like the subtitle says, its a book of stories, that happened to be themed around Lincoln and the Civil War.

The stories are not typical fictional war stories about bravery and such. They are not typical fictional stories about politicians. The stories are gritty, as a Civil War story should be, but in a more modernist kind of way. The stories get into the feelings of the characters. Such as when Lincoln visited the aftermath of a battle fields or when his wife Mary Todd, visited a soldiers hospital.

In some way the stories are almost so real and yet at the same time they seem so fantastical. I mean here's a Civil War book with actual sex scenes. True, one is about a woman raped by her no-account husband. She then gets off when she has sex with the soldier who delivers the news of her husband's death. She pleads with the young soldier to give details about his death, and the gorier the details, the more aroused she becomes. This is certainly not typical of 19th century sensuality. There's a another sex scene, much more tender and conventional in some ways except for the fact that it happens to be with Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Boothe.

On the more fantastical side, in one story, an elderly father who is partially senile, tries to find Lincoln ,because Lincoln wrote him a letter explaining the death of the father's son. Of course it was a form letter, so when he presents the actual letter to Lincoln (who happens to be sitting alone on a park bench after one of his speeches - weird right? What president would be left on his own, even in those days), Lincoln feels sorry for not actually being the author of the letter. Lincoln tells the father about the death of his own son and the two men bond as they share the common loss of losing beloved sons.

I liked this book. The author gives some twists on what we know about history and makes it more personal as well as more poetic and mysterious. Lincoln's sadness, in contrast to his accomplishments and legend, is a mysterious thing in itself.

A Face in the Crowd ***

Directed by Elia Kazan.
Story and screenplay written by Budd Schulberg.
Released 1957.
Seen on DVD.
With Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Anthony Franciosa, Walter Matthau, Lee Remick

I think the thing that sticks out to me are the over the top performances of Andy Griffith. and in contrast, the much more real-like performance of Patricia Neal. I am very impressed with Neal's performance. In fact I have to say, I have now fallen in love with the second woman who is more than twice my age (Gene Teirny was the first woman from another era that I had fallen in love with). Her smile and twinkle of her eyes just warm my heart. But isn't that what acting is in a way? At least the more realistic acting. An actor plays a character that says and does certain actions. The actor becomes the character, but I also believe the character becomes the actor. In other words, the actor says and does things that the character does, but with the actor's personality intertwined. Patricia Neal played Marcia Jeffries, but Marcia Jeffries was Patricia Neal.

Evidently Neal is a little older in this film. I saw some shots of her when she was younger, like in her early twenties, but that would have been in the decades of the late forties or early fifties. I guess the makers of the movies needed a slightly older actress, since the action covers a decade or two.

Here's a nice tribute. As beautiful as she is, I think that she was actually prettier in her 30's and 40's. Though no one under the age of 50 knows who she was, you can see that worked with some pretty big names.



So a young radio programmer (Neal) from a local Arkansas radio station goes to a jail to record some stories for her show, "A Face in the Crowd". Hence the title of the film. She discovers Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, a unemployed hobo with violent and lecherous tendencies (Andy Griffith). But he can sing and tell stories and jokes, and Neal's character (Marcia Jeffries) is completely charmed . So she convinces him to do a local show on a regular basis. And he does great with his down home country charm. Basically from here it becomes a rags to riches story with "Lonesome" becoming a nation wide craze. But there's a dark side to this story, and I believe the film fore shadows it a bit.

Earlier I said that his performance was over the top a bit. And in these contemporary times, that, I think is the reason many people don't watch old fashioned, classic films. The films don't seem real to them, especially the acting. The acting can seem artificial and melodramatic. Now in Griffith's case, I think that this is a plus. It makes him a scarier character. He seems even more manic. His wild, yet lovable charm is intrinsically tied in with this dark mania he possesses.

The film ends when "Lonesome" gets too big for his britches. He thinks he is so powerful that he can control events including politics and governmental policy. He gets involved with a right wing senator and tries to get him elected using his popularity. And this is where everything comes tumbling down.

Here's a trailer from the film.

The Road ***

By Cormac McCarthy
Copyright 2006
Published By Alfred A. Knopf
Pages 241.

This is dark, dark stuff, but it's great. Basically it's a post-apocalyptic book. The interesting thing is that it's done from the viewpoint of the protagonists who are a father and son trying to make it south, where it's warmer and to the sea.

There is no explanation of why the apocalypse happened or how it happened. The only thing that the reader knows is everything is burnt and they are living in a world of ashes where there are no living things. All is dead except for a very small handful of survivors. The lack of food, remember there is no plant or animal life, makes their situation particularly grim and hopeless. In fact hopelessness is pretty much the theme here. There is no escape from certain death for the father and son, and certain extinction for mankind and the Earth itself.

The hopelessness is oppressive. What little hope there is is usually crushed. There are a few holes or errors in the narrative. For instance, I can't imagine that no plant life had survived if some animal life had survived. And even if everything was killed, wouldn't there be seeds buried in the ground that could sprout later? The book never tells us if this destruction is worldwide or only regional. Perhaps there are people living in other continents or even in more distant parts of the U.S. How could flames engulf an entire world and still have survivors? But those are flaws, and perhaps glimmers of hope that the author does not directly state, that we have accept as part of the narrative if we want to enjoy the book. A suspension of belief. It is after all a post-apocalyptic story, so some suspension of believe is always required.

Besides this is really a story of a man and his son and the love they have for each other even in the most hopeless and severest of situations. The grim setting amplifies these feelings of love for each other that the characters have. The father is very clear in his desire to do anything to protect and feed his son. He'll kill to protect his son. Note how I said kill and not murder. Through out the whole book, the father and son are trying to be the "good guys". They are trying to civil in a world gone horribly awry.

There is a movie coming out and I am very excited by it. I read that Nick Cave is doing the Soundtrack. On that basis a lone this will be a must see film.

here is an interview with Oprah. By the way this was an OOprah Book Club book. Interesting choice for Oprah.



And here is a trailer for the upcoming movie.

The Hurt Locker ***

Directed by Katherine Bigelow.
Written by Mark Boal.
With Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Evangeline Lily
Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, Christian Carmargo, Suhail Aldabbach, Sam Sprell.
Released July 2009
Seen in Theater

I liked this film - a lot! But I'm looking for that something extra, that something that will put this film over the top into 4 star levels, and I can't. It's directed by one of my favorite directors - Katherine Bigelow, who also directed one of my all time favorite films "Near Dark", about punk rock cowboy vampires.

The movie's intense, in that there is a lot of tension. I am on the edge of my seat almost the whole time, especailly during the combat scenes. The action scenes were well shot and the acting was well....acted. So perhaps I should give a summary so that I can explain the "tension" idea a little more.

The Movie centers around a bomb squad that defuses IEDs in Iraq. Every moment in the easy half dozen scenes is frought with worry or concern. Of course one worry is whether the bomb will go off. But there are also hostile Iraqi's observing who can shoot at them or ignite the bomb themselves. Add to this the arrival of a new bomb expert that has a gung-ho cowboy attitude and the tension mounts even more. His colleagues are sure that they are endangering not only himself, but their own lives when he refuses to follow protocol.

So I''m looking for some thematic ideas here, and there is only one that Bigelow makes fairly obvious. That is that these men are addicted to the rush of adrenalin. The new bomb expert is the one who epitomizes this idea. That's why he behaves as he does. Of course war is hell, but that doesn't really need to be mentioned for its obviousness. That's it. Basically this is a film about men in combat and how it feels - and in that sense, the film does quite well. But it doesn't really seem to have anything more to say.

Bigelow is know for her extraordinary lighting effects. In this one, it's a scene in which the men are investigating a bomb after it had exploded. It is night time and it looks like Dante's inferno with flames and fire in the night sky. There are some powerful shots in this scene.

Bigelow being a woman and an action director, usuallly has strong female lead. All the major characters here are all men. No strong female lead. I wonder why. It could have just been the material, but there are woman in the military, so certainly she could have included one.

Here's a clip.

Moon ***

Directed by Duncan Jones.
Released 2009 - seen in theater.
Written by Duncan Jones, screenplay by Nathan Parker
With Sam rockwell, Kevin Spacey, Matt Berry, Robin Chalk,


I really enjoyed this movie. It's a science fiction film, but it is more like the sci-fi films of the 70's. More about psychological drama and less about aliens and explosions.

The plot is a little convoluted, especially since the film reveals information in a rascally way. It only lets you know things when it wants you to know. That said, the film is not that hard to follow.

An energy company has found that they are able to obtain fuel from Moon rocks. Something to do with their ability to absorb energy from the sun. The actual science is besides the point of the story. All that we need to know is that there is a worker, Sam, that works the operation, seemingly alone, which is in my opinion a plot flaw because I would think that they would want more than one person and a computer, voice by Kevin Spacey, to operate such a large operation. But I'm ready to suspend belief for the sake of the film.

So Sam has a three year contract and is excited to go home to see his wife and child back on Earth. He begins to have visions and his sanity is beginning to unravel, and so it would since he's been alone for three years now. When he's out in his lunar vehicle, he has a vision of a woman out on the moon scape, (his wife or daughter) and crashes because he's so distracted.

He wakes up in the infirmary. He wants to go check on one of the energy collectors, but the computer won't let him. He fools the computer into letting him outside and comes across the crashed lunar vehicle. He finds the man (himself) injured in the vehicle and brings him back to base.

So now there are two Sams on ship, one that is injured and one that is healthy and fresh. Clones. It takes them a while, but eventually they figure out that they are clones, and that they all have the memory of the original Sam "injected" into their memories. It turns out that the corporation has grown clones to work the moon, so when the 3 years are up, they wake up a new clone. Of course, we know that clones are human beings and not robots and the two are quite distressed and the rest of the film is the two Sams trying to figure out what to do.

Kevin Spacey has a nice part of the computer voice with an ability to show human emotions - demonstrated by emoticons on his screen. He's like a Hal from 2001 Space Odyssey, but he turns out to be nicer.

A highly recommended film.


A trailer of the film...

The Proposal **1/2

Directed by Anne Fletcher.
Written by Pete Chiarelli.
Released June 2009.
With Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds, Mary Steenburgen,
Craig T. Nelson, Betty White, Denis, O'Hare,
Malin, Akerman, Oscar Nunez, Aasif Mandif

All in all, this is a fun little movie. Basically, it hearkens to the time of the screwball commedy. It tries to be like a Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn movie. It tries, but of course Billock's not Hepburn and Reynolds is definately not Grant.

Bullock plays an executive of a publishing house who is a total bitch on wheels. Reynolds is her smart alecky assistant who wants to be a real writer. It seems that Bullock's character, Margaret, is going to lose her job becasue she is Canadian and is not in the states legally. She's going to be deported. She decides that Reynolds will marry her so that she can stay. Reynolds squeezes some promises from her and they reach a deal. They have to go to sceptical immigration officer who sees through their plot and intends to get to the bottom of it.

Meanwhile, Reynold's character, Andrew, takes her to a weekend back home in Alaska to meet the parents. The parents get all excited and insist on having the wedding there and from there all sorts of whackiness and comedy ensue.

Sure it's predictable, we all know whats going to happen to this mismatched couple, just like we know that our team is going to win whenever we watch a sports film. But it's well written, the shots of Alaska are beautiful the chracters are engaging. There is an unfortunate scene in Which Bette White, the grandmother, does some sort of nature Native American dance in the woods upon which Margaret finds her and does her own bootie shaking dance.

It's no Grant and Hepburn, but it's a good time.

The Night of the Hunter ***1/2

By Davis Grubbs
Copyright 1953
This edition 1999 By Prion Books Limited, London
Pages 266

This is some dark stuff, which is why I totally loved this book. A movie was made of this book, which was also great, which was directed by Charles Laughton (of Hunchback of Notre Dame fame) and starring Robert Mitchum and Shelley Winters.

Now I saw the film first and it was a while ago, but it caught the feeling of the book. Of course the book was more detailed, but in this case the movie suffered little for that. The movie seemed to get the gist of the plot and the feeling object terror). The only thing that the movie lacked which was the setting (almost a character really) of the river. Constant references were made to the river (the Ohio I believe) and it became a menacing element of the book.

So the book opens up with a man in prison talking to a priest on the day before he was to be hung. He had shot and killed two men in a bungled robbery attempt during the Great Depression. The priest was trying to find out where the money he stole was, but the man wouldn't tell. The man had hid the money and only his children knew where it was.

So after the man's death, the priest goes to find the widow. Now this priest is special in that he wanders and preaches where he can find a place to stay a bit. he has no parish to call his own. He also chases weak, susceptible widows for their money. And when God gives him the word, he kills the widows and takes her money. Oh, and he has tattooed on the knuckles of his hand, LOVE and HATE.

So this priest finds the widow of the hung man and ends up marrying her. He tries to find where the money is hidden and his "cover" becomes more and more unveiled as time progresses. He eventually ends up chasing them down the river. The children are found on the river bank by the matron of a small orphanage-like household where she takes care of the children. Eventually the priest finds them and there is a confrontation.

Now what's interesting about this book was that I was trying to decide what the author's opinion on religion was. I mean he has this insane killer priest. That at first tells me that perhaps the author is cynical about religion. The priest uses the trust that comes with being a priest to pry his way into the lives of innocent people, and people supported him, even if they had heard rumors of conflicting reports (from the older boy that was eventually chased for example). This would seem to mean a bias against religion. But, the priest was not simply using his priesthood as a ruse. Whether he was officially a priest or not is not known, but he was constantly quoting scripture and giving sermons. Even within his interior dialogue he spoke to and of God. He believed he was a preacher. After all, It was God who gave him permission to steal and kill from widows.

But... the woman of the orphanage was also a religious person. And very strict with the children. Perhaps better said, she was firm but fair. She took care of the kids and defended them. So you have that contrast of two religious people. This character would seem to demonstrate the author's positive feelings toward religion.

I guess one way to look at the religion question is to look at the types of religion that each character practice. The preacher represents a more organized or traditional religion, perhaps one that has gone horribly awry, while the matron represents a more pragmatic and family values oriented religion. Perhaps, the author's preacher character is a criticism of organized religion.

There were two children that were being chased or "hunted" by the priest. One was an older boy, maybe about 10 years old. The other was a small girl, maybe about 5 years old. The boy was the one who had all the responsibility of taking care of his sister and keeping the secret. What's interesting about the book is that after the conflict is resolved, the boy regresses. He turns from a intelligent Kid who always is aware of everything to a boy that can't remember who is who. He gets confused at the trial on the witness stand of whether they are talking about the priest or his dead father for example. I am assume that the intense pressure of what had transpired simply make him break down.

Here's a trailer from the movie.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian ***

by Sherman Alexie
Illustrated by Ellen Fornay
copyright 2007
Published by Little, Brown and Company / Machette Book Groups - First Edition
pages 230

This is a book for teenagers, a coming of age book. And in that sense, there is nothing new here. You have the nerdy main character who's trying to escape his impoverished community. You have the bully/tough guy character who none the less is friends with the nerdy Indian (Junior, which is the name of many Indians on the reservation). But the twist is that it all happens on an Indian reservation and a small town high school. So he's torn between his people and his new friends and opportunities. His tough best friend, Rowdy, is enraged and heartbroken that Junior would leave the 'Rez'.

So the story is basically how he gets along with his Native American peers in the rez and how he gets along with his white peers at the white high school he decided to go to. Along the way, some tragic event happen, that help him reunite and rebond with his estranged tribe.

Like I said, nothing new here except the characters being Native American, the setting being on a reservation. The funny illustration, he wants to be a cartoonist, good writing and a well crafted story.

Highly recommended to any teenagers you might know (warning - there is some language issues and sexual concepts are discussed).

here's a video where Mr. Sherman speaks.

Oracle Night ***

by Paul Auster
Copyright 2003 First Edition
published by Henry Holt & Company
pages 243

Paul Auster is one of my favorite authors. His stories are quirky and a little weird. And lately I have noticed, at least in his later books, that he seems to really like and respect his characters. He seems to especially like his women characters. In this book, the narrator spends a lot of time describing how marvelous his wife is, even when their marriage is troubled and he suspects some foul play, he doesn't entirely blame her for that. Even the prostitute in "The Music of Change" is portrayed as kind of a saving angel to the poor gentlemen entrapped in their predicament. I imagine his earlier books were probably a little edgier like most art done by artist/writers in their youth. I haven't read most of his earlier work, so it should be interesting to see if this trend in regards to the characters is there also.

The book is set in New York City, as most of his work is. He is a writer who definitely loves his surroundings and he uses NYC often, if not exclusively, in his writing. The book starts out as the narrator is recovering from some serious accident. One in which he was predicted not to survive. During one of his walks in which he tries to exercise, he walks into a stationary store and buys a beautiful Portuguese notebook. He goes home and is inspired to write in it, which is something he hadn't done since his accident several months back. He makes his living by writing, so it is somewhat important that he start again as he needs to start contributing to the finances of his household. The notebook seems to make the words spill from his pen with ease.

This notebook seems to be the catalyst of several strange events. His wife breaks down and cries in a cab, and she never cries (imagine that!) This happens after they visit a mutual writer friend who also happens to have the same notebook. He warns the narrator that the note book can "be cruel". So the rest of the story is the narrator trying to get to the bottom of his wife's sudden outburst. Also the stationary store suddenly disappears and the writer's friend 's son is having emotional and drug problems. I don't want to go too much further into the story, even though I know most of you won't read it (well maybe you will, if you're reading this -which most people don't! -maybe you're the type who might be interested in reading this book - so I won't spoil it for you).

There are a couple of interesting ideas that Auster uses in this book. First of all, his writing in the blue notebook is the idea he has for a novel, which he calls Oracle Night (hence the title of this book) . So we have a novel within a novel. Not only that, but within this novel (Oracle Night) in the blue notebook, there is yet another novel. Consequently there is some interesting detail on the writing process. It speaks to where writers get their ideas and how they work on these ideas. For instance, he discusses how he writes the skeleton of the story first, and then he plans to go back and fill in the detail (ie. is the woman character single, involved or married? Who does she work for and what does she do? etc.)

Also Auster uses footnotes. He uses them mostly as character development. The present action is part of the story, the past action and background information about the characters is told in the footnotes. This is a little different then the way Junot Diaz used them in "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao". I wonder if this is where Diaz got the idea from.

As usual Auster likes to go off on tangents and wax philosophical, which are trips that I enjoy, because, i guess I like his insights into life. So for me, any Paul Auster book is a worthwhile and enjoyable read.

In the following video the Q & A atarts at about the 40 minute mark. Up to then, it is simply him reading from his latest book.

Team of Rivals - The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln ***

by Doris Kearns Goodwin
copyright 2005 by Blithedale Production Inc.
First Simon & Shuster edition 2006
pages 754


This is a fairly long tome and I had to check the book out twice to finish reading it. The second half of the book, which focuses on the Civil War, is a faster more engaging read. I think it's worth the while to read it, though I know barely anyone reads any more, and few are willing to take the time and make the sacrifices necessary to read a book this size - too busy checking their Facebook status (guilty here too, but I still find time to read). Sigh...

The summary about this is fairly simple, so I won't waste too much time on this and perhaps delve deeper into the details. This book is a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It tends to focus on his political activity and especially his cabinet (rivals).

I may be mistaken, but I believe that President Obama has been seen carrying this book around, so clearly he is influenced by Lincoln, as he himself has said in the past. Perhaps I'll get back to that idea after discussing some of the details of Lincoln's life.

I believe most people take for granted that Lincoln is one of the greatest president ever, and very few people would disagree. But except for the obvious freeing of slaves and the winning of a long, difficult and harrowing war, I would wager few people could tell you why he was great.

In fact the beginning of his presidency had an auspicious start. He was thought of as a yokel - a prairie lawyer from the frontier. To be certain, he was much less connected than most of his rivals. In fact he was not the favorite to win the nomination of the party. But the favorites had made so many political enemies, that Lincoln ended up winning the nomination. And the start of his presidency he was clearly naive.

One major mistake was allowing his generals to delay the attacking of the confederate army in the beginning of the war. General McClellan, a dandy officer from the east, had his soldiers drilled and in fine uniforms, but when it came time to mount an offensive, he always found a way to delay it. Not only that, but he seemed to blame everyone but himself for the problems that the Union army had. Some have surmised that if the Union army had attacked earlier in the war, the war might have ended quicker and less death, pain and suffering would have been the result. Thge North always had supierior man power and technology. I always thought the industrial power of the North came later in the war, but it was always there. Lincoln refused to get rid of McClellan (It amazes me that there is a school in Chiago named after this pompous, arrogant guy). People saw Lincoln as too kind or too patient or perhaps even intimidated to do what needed to be done.

And he was a kind and generous man, and some people thought that was a fault and that he was too simple. But he began to get his footing, and his genorisity of spirit remained, yet he was definately in charge of the administration.

The rivals are the memebers he chose for his cabinet. Most presidents picked men who agreed with their policies. Lincoln felt it was best to pick the best men for the job, whether they agreed with Lincoln or not. I believe President Obama attempted the same kind of thing when picking his cabinet.

He gave the most important positions to his biggest rivals who not only felt they were more qualified to be president, but were bitter after losing the party's nomination. The two main rivals were Chase and Seward (The same Seward that later purchased Alaska and was ridiculed for that decision). In fact Seward, expeceted he would pretty much run the show as Secretary of State and that Lincoln would just be a puppet. But Lincoln proved them wrong. Lincoln proved to be shrewd and savvy when dealing with these rivals, at times placating them and at times standing his ground when he wanted something, and he always seemed to have the right balance of generosity and firmness.

Now some people are aware of his feelings toward the slaves and African-Americans. He was a Republican, and the Republican platform was anti-slavery, but Lincoln was a moderate. He did have some moderate rascist feelings torward the slaves, which can be expected for a man of his time. For example, he believed that the freed slaves would not be able to get along with the white population and wanted to set up a colony in Africa. But he proved to be a man who learned his lessons well, and when he finally did come around on some of these controversial race issues, his support for these issues did not waver. When he decided to make the Emancipation Proclamation, he not only did it for political expediency (which is what he told certain moderates in the party), but he also did it because he truly believed (eventually) that all men should be free. He was a man that didn't make rash descisions and took his time thinking about what was best. When he finally did make those descisions, he stuck to them becasue he had put so much effort and thought into those decissions,and truly believed in whatever decision he made.

An interesting thing I learned about Lincoln that they don't mention in the text books I grew up with, was that his assassination was a plot. There were three assassins and each assassin had a person to attack and they were all to attack at the same time. One, John Wilkes Boothe, of course killed Lincoln, another tried to kill Seward. He was unsuccessful, but he seriously wounded Seward and killed a couple of Seward's friends and family memebers (a son I think). The third assassin was supposed to kill Johnson, the Vice President. I believe he was in the same hotel and his vicinity at the appointed time of the attempt. He didn't go through with it. It was more that he had bargained for.


One of the saddest aspects of Lincoln's life as a president was that the Civil War started only days or weeks after his election. And he died less than one week after the end of the war. He never knew peace as a president. His whole presidentail experience was hardship and grief. His innate melancholy character became even more so during this period. He felt he had the blood of too many people on his hands. I wonder what he would have been like in his second term, being a president who ruled under peace instead of war.

He was very in tune to public sentiment (hence he waited on some crucial policies, to the chagrin of the more Radical Republicans who wanted things to be done immediately). His waits always seemed to be justified after the results of his decisions were found out.

So why was Lincoln a great President? He had a knack for making the right political decsions at the right time. He was very concerned about the public sentiment and tried to time certain policies to match that sentiment. He learned from both his moral and political mistakes. He did have comand of his various underlings, though it wasn't always outwardly apparent. And then there was his kid and generous heart.

In that sense, I think Obama has chosen an excellent model to base his presidency on. It's going to be nice to have a president that loves and care the poelpe for once. It will also be nice to have a president that makes thoughtful and intelligent decsions. We haven't seen that in the most recent years. I see Obama balancing his strong leadership with his generosity of spirit. And like Lincoln, Obabma is more concerend about putting good people into offices and not just people who agreed with his policies. It may be too early to see, but I think we got another great one here.

it might be worth an hour of your time for this.

The Black Flower - A Novel of the Civil War **1/2

By Howard Bahr
1997 By Picador Books / Henry Holt & Company licensed by Pan Books Ltd.
pages 267

It's been a while since I've done any writing in the blog and several weeks since I finished reading thisbook. I won't go on for ever, simply because I forgot a lot of details, though usually I like to write a lot of details so as to get all my various ideas down.

Being a Civil War book, it's violent, which is the reason many people like to read war books. It's kind of like looking at a train wreck. It horrible and grotesque, but you can't stop looking/reading. In this sense the book does not fail.

But it also seems to have a spiritual aspect that is not seen in many war books. There's a lot of dreaming and people going in and out of conscience so as to make the reality of the book a little unclear. The injured soldiers are drugged and delusional with pain. There are ghosts in this book. One of the characters, when she goes back to visit the site, senses the souls and the personalities there buried in the bushes and the trees and the ground. It's quite poetic and beautifully done at times.

So basically, the story is based an event in the war that took place at the Tennessee/ Kentucky border. A large battle was to commence there, so the officers of the Confederate ask to use a large mansion in the vicinity as a hospital. The cousin of the mansion's family is one of the major characters as she helps to tend the wounded. Not surprisingly, it's a harrowing experience for her. One of the soldiers she takes interest in.

The other main character, a soldier, is wounded in the hand. He is looking for his friend, convinced he is still alive. So he spends his time wandering around the hospital looking for him until the two main characters meet. His wound is on the hand and seems relatively minor compared to the other wounded at the 'hospital'. The two characters seem to form a bond while helping each other with their various problems.

Suprisingly enough, the battle is a very short part of the battle. All the gory stuff happens in the hospital/mansion.

Let Me In ***

by John Ajvide Lindquist
2004 by John Lindquist, 2007 Translation by Ebba Segerberg
Published in Sweden by Ordfront, Published by Thomas Dunne Books
472 pages

A Window Across the River ***1/2

by Brian Morton
published by Harcourt Books
2003
289 pages

The river of which the title speaks of is the Hudson, so that would make this story set in New York City. All of this authors books (at least the ones that I have read) have been based in NYC, so anyone who is a New Yorkaphile would enjoy this book. I really enjoyed the last book written by this author was Starting Out in the Evening which the wonderful film by the same name is based on.

The story started out decently enough, but it looked to be nothing special. Two ex-lovers attempt to hook up again. Nora was a short story writer who felt she was in a professional rut. Her problem was that she can only write quality pieces when she uses people she knows and loves in her books. The problem is that she tends to dissect their personalities and hurt them when they find out. She ends up destroying her relationships. She is torn between writing and hurting her friends and family or not writing and taking care of people.

So she calls her ex, Isaac, a photographer to help her figure her way out of her situation. Nora looks to Isaac because she feels that he is a pure artist and can advise her, plus she's interested in reviving their relationship - perhaps.

Isaac on the other hand has a 9-5 job and is comfortable, but feels as if he has lost that vision and vitality. He feels embarrassed by Nora's admiration since he is not what he once was. He tries to get back on track to doing real art/photography.

Isaac has a couple of protege's. When they become successful, he is basically jealous of their youth, vitality and the fact that their future lies before them. He wants to be happy for them but he seethes in the light of his latest disappointments.

There are lot of themes that are interesting to me . Perhaps the most interesting is the youth vs aging theme. Youth will always pass up their elders, and that's difficult fort them. Aging myself, I can certainly relate. But there's also discussions about writing and art and those worlds and what it takes to make it in those worlds. And like the characters, I once had some half-assed pipe dreams of living that sort of exciting, Bohemian, intellectual life. But then one grows up, doesn't one.

Morton's strengths seem to be character development and the use of setting in his stories. His dialogue is direct and engaging. His books are a quick and enjoyable read, yet still give plenty of food for thought.

Origin **1/2

by Diana Abu-Jaber
First Edition 2007
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
pages 364

This is a story about a forensic scientist who solves a mystery. And that's about it. OK ,there's more. She believes that she was raised by apes until she was "rescued" and brought to her foster parents. And her memories are fond memories of matted fur and loving long arms. She daydreams of birds and foliage constantly. This "questionable" origin is closely tied to the case she is trying to solve.

She seems to be a tightly wound woman, and she blames her past partly for that. This neurosis affects her relationships with men and she blames on her "past".

The story takes place in Syracuse New York, where it seems to constantly snow. She, Lena, is so out of it that she tends to wander in the snow and several traumatic events happen in the snow.

As mysteries go, it wasn't that hard to figure out. I figured it out about midway through the book, once it became clear exactly what was happening. All that was left was to find the culprit. Sure there were a couple of Red Herrings thrown my way, but not enough to stop me from figuring it out. perhaps more mysterious was the question of her origin.

And the story of her origin was probably the better story in the book. It was interesting the affect it had on her when she learned who she was and who she wasn't. I like the pshyodrama aspect of the book. The pain and confusion that she suffered through.

Lena became tiresome to me. If she was functioning in a forensic science lab, why did she have so much trouble functioning elsewhere? I suppose there are instances when people feel best when they are working and feel at a loss when left on their own. I just didn't buy it here completely.

Overall, this was an interesting, fun read with some interesting things to say about identity and sanity, but not enough meat to really go deep into the book.

Goodbye Solo ***

Directed and written by Ramin Bahrani,

with Souleymane Sy Savane, Red West, Carmen Leyva

2008

A story about a charming Sengalese immigrant who befriends an old man who seemingly has suicide on his mind. He knows this because he is the cab driver who is hired to take him to his rendezvous with fate on the planned day. The cab driver worries and tries to make him part of his own family, though his family life is not picture perfect either. But family is important to our cab driver (Solo) and he states that early in the film. For the rest of the film he practices what he preaches. For the most part. the old man seems to be weakening from his his hard position. But the drop off for that fateful day is still planned and needs to be carried through.

The photography is beautiful. There are many portraits of characters' faces. Silhouettes and closeups of some faces with a lot of charcter. Also some beautiful shots of the Appalachians in North Carolina.

And the character Solo is very charming. Sometimes it was hard to understand how someone could be so upbeat. But he kept fighting, even when things were not going his way. Quite admirable. His litle stepdaughter is quite adorable. She's the one that the old man seems to be attached to. This give hope to Solo seeing that the old man's attachment might forstall his suicide.

Hellboy - Seed of Destruction *1/2

by Mike Mignola
Script by John Byrne
Published by Dark Horse Comics
1st Edition 1994
2nd Edition 1997
3rd Edition 2003
pages 80?

I was interested in this because the Hellboy movies got real good reviews, especially the latter one because of the director who also did Pan's Labyrinth.

Hellboy is a kind of super hero. He's a paranormal detective, which he is perfectly suited to since he comes from the bowels of hell. This story includes his origin which runs into and is related to the second story. An evil wizard conjures Hellboy to aid the Nazi's in their quest to spread evil throughout the world. Of course he has his own reasons to work with them since he's much more powerful that any petty dictator. Hence Hellboy is born, but he's a good guy. He even poses with the American soldiers for a snap shot. So then there's this stroy about monster frogs. The upshot is that there is some kind of sprit in the northpole and the wizard is back changing people into monster frogs so that he can take over the world.

It all seems hair schemed and none of it really makes sense. During the fighting, the preacher is incanting some mumbo jumbo. So what is the basic story here? Evil guy wants to take over the world. A very unimaginative plot in my mind. But its so convoluted that its hard to figure out the plot.

This is typical of what happens to my students when they try to summarize the fantasy books for me that they read. Usually they are too detailed and I cant understand their summaries. When I ask probing questions, "Why did so and so do that?" for example, the upshot is that they are usually evil. No reason that they are evil, they are just evil. I'll try to get some back ground info, "why does the guy do bad things? Did something happen in the past that turned him into a bad guy?" No overbearing mother, no humiliating defeat at the wizardry school. Nope, he's just evil.

So there is no character development and that makes, in my opinion, for a lousy story. A sin that much of the fantasy genre is guilty of. There are some exceptions, so one must not give up on the genre entirely, but this book is no exception to that rule. I did not like the story, though Hellboy himself was an interesting character. I still intend to see the movie. One thing that film provides is someon's imagaination on how other worlds might appear.

And here's what the film looks like.

The Gathering **1/2

By Anne Enright
Random House UK 2007
paperback Black Cat U.SWinner of 2007 Booker Award
260 pages

This is a story of an large Irish family who are "gathered" after the death of of one of the brothers. The gathering could also refer to the gathering of the body, which the main character is charged with doing.

The family is a dysfunctional one, for reasons which may or may not be traceable to the marriage of their grandmother. This is also a book about memory, because the narrator often tells stories about her family's past, and then the narrator isn't sure if that story actually happened. Which make for some pretty ambiguous reading. Why would the author tell us a detail and then claim, through the narrator, that is might not be the case and is ill remembered? It might have something to do with where the blame lies. The blame for the dysfunction in the family and the blame for the death of her favorite brother. The narrator tries to lay the blame at the feet of the other suitor of her grandmother. He wanted her, but she chose the other man who is the narrator's grandfather. This other suitor had some power over the family as he was the grandmother's and grandfather's landlord. He was also in love with the grandmother. The narrator as a child, had witness this man, Nugent, molest her brother and this is what she claims is the reason for her brother's suicide. And consequently for the problems of the whole clan.

And the problems of the family are not clear and cut problems. The brother, Liam, of course, was an alcoholic and was sexually loose sleeping with probably both men and women. The narrator of the story is unhappy in her marriage, but it is unclear why. The mother of the story almost seems vegetable like, but it is never explained. And the uncle is in an asylum.

The book presents the reader with two conflicting ideas at once. The fault of all the family's problems stem from the Nugent character, long ago, (though even before him, grandma was an orphan and probably a prostitute.) On the other hand, the ambiguity of all these details and the faulty remembrance of them make blaming of Nugent debatable. Could he really be responsible for all this?

This is an very introspective book. A psychological drama. I enjoyed it very much, but it took a while to get going. It's not a linear narrative, and jumps around a lot. It's also very slow to reveal key elements of the plot. Add that to the intentional muddying of the details though the narrator's faulty memory and this is one difficult read. If the book would have been just a little less opaque, I probably would have given it three stars. It's really a dark and sad book, which I like of course.

American Born Chinese ***

by Gene Luen Yang
Color by Lark Pien
Publishes by First Second 2006
234 pages

A clever little book with lots of charm. It interweaves three seemingly unrelated stories until they all combine at the end to tie everything up. The tie-in I thought was a little weak and felt forced, but the individual stories are very charming and poignant.

The first story is a folktale about a monkey king who is denied into a party where all the cool deities are because he is a monkey and doesn't wear shoes, even though he has trained to be immortal and god-like. He doesn't like this and vows to become powerful and unmonkey like.

The second story is about a boy living in the United States and going to school. He encounters racism and loneliness, until another Asian friend comes along. That friend confronts him when it comes to a girl.

And the third story is a riotous story about a loud, obnoxious overly stereo-typed Chinese cousin who comes to the states and embarrasses his Americanized cousin. The stereotype is so overboard that it is absurd and very funny.

The one common theme to the book is that of being one's self. Even in the Monkey King story, the monkey learns to be a monkey and is okay with that.

The drawing style is clean, and the color is bright and vibrant. Not draw in the typical alternative comic style but very nice to look at and the stories are good.

here are some images from the book.

And here is someone else's opinion, far more eloquent than mine.

Leap Years **

by Ian Bennett
Published by Candle Light Press
2005

This is an okay little graphic novel. It's a story about a lonely young teenage boy going through high school. The story last exactly through his High School career. He meets this imaginary toad, and things start to go right under the toad's tutelage. He becomes a basketball star (the toad makes sure all his shots go in), he starts dating, runs for president and gets accepted to Northwestern University in Evanston. He does less well in school but everything else is going so great that it doesn't matter. He's untouchable. It's a little inconsistent. The toad preaches learning for learning sake but then preaches about cheating. I guess it's okay to cheat since as the book says several times, "what you learn in High School is not taught to you". So it's anti establishment. He even has the last say at the graduation ceremony.

I'm not sure what the lesson was, but the book had it's moments.

Very crudely drawn figures and art. Though I think that was the point.

Let The Right One In***

2008
Direncted by Tomas Alfredson,
Script by John Ajvide Lindqvist
with Kare Hedebrrant, Lina Leandersson
Seen On DVD

This came right out at the same time as the film Twilight and the comparisons are instructional. But I wont make that my entire discussion.

This is a vampire movie. The two main characters are a wisp of a boy who is not vampire, and his neighbor, a girl who only comes out at night, is of course the vampire. They fast become friends because they are about the same age - but of course they aren't, she's ancient.

They become friends and arguably fall in love. They make sacrifices for each other. Some of the bonding scenes are very touching and tender.



Spoiler Alert! Scroll down to the end if you don't want to know how it ends.

In the end, the boy runs off with the young/ancient girl. The director of the film thinks that this is a happy ending. He states some people disagree with him becasue now the boy is bound to the girl/vampire. I tend to agree with the latter opinion. In the beginning of the film, the girl arrives with a "guardian", but really he is her procurer. He procures victims so that she might feed and survive. My opinion is that this boy will take his place, and it is a nasty, violent business. This older procurer meets a violent and tortuous end. I don't think anyone would wish this boy to follow in his footsteps.

Now I know that boy and girl are romantically attached, and the first thought is that the vampire won't put the boy through what the old man went through becasue she loves him. He was just her procurer and was expendable excepting the service he provded for her. But she loves this boy. She is actually indebted to the young boy. So no - this boy won't follow in the path of the older man.

But this is my argument. How do we know that the older man him self wasn't a former lover of the girl. What else would compell him to do her grotesque bidding for her. Sure he's old now, but she's a vampire and remains eternally young. Perhaps he was young too and had grown older. In fact the old man seems to show some jealousy. Early in the movie he asks the girl not to see the boy. I thought it was to protect their identity, but I now believe that it was jealousy. As in any vampire book/film, the vampire always has her minions. I think that she just recruited her self a new one.

And it doesn't help that the boy seems to have a streak of violence in him. Perhaps because of all the bullying he endured, but even the vampire points this out to him. She saw him fantasizing killing his attackers with a knife againts the tree. This propensity for violence should come in handy when trying to procure victims for his vampire lover.

End of Spoiler Alert!

One has to compare this film to the blockbuster
Twilight because it came out at the same time and it has a similar story. Young vampire falls in love with mortal. It is slower moving and less action packed, so my daughter informed me and the people are less beautiful. But the story is so much better. And let's face it, the Twilight film has some really stupid parts and the obnoxious Hollywood formula of having obligatory knock-down, drag-out fight to near death ending. This is an intelligent film which demands a little more attention from the viewer, but it's worth the extra effort.

And here is someone else's opinion.