Jesus! I received a letter from the Newark Municipal Court today, informing me of my New Court Date: August 11th. This happens to be my very last day of school, on which I will no doubt need to be taking tests and presenting projects and the like, and also the day when the boy is coming up for our next day departure. Thankfully, the date is not set during the time I will be in California. ... Yet . Christ.
My mother suggested that I simply pay the ticket, which, no. I will not Plead Guilty(!) to something that I didn't do. Because that's lying. But also, this is actually considered a traffic ticket, which would be recorded on my license, or something like that. I only have a vague understanding of motor vehicle penalties, because I figured I wouldn't need to know about it . Christ.
So, anyway, I have already notified my attorney*, and counsel* and I will be meeting tomorrow over lunch to discuss my defense strategies. And he's taking me for more bloodwork. And maybe some tennis. Christ.
*father
Thursday
Monday
I'm being hassled by The Man!!
Dude, nice html stuff, Blogger. There's all buttons and stuff, much like writing emails. It cannot defeat my monkeys, though!
So, anyway, about being hassled by The Man. Everday that I go to school, I ride the Newark subway system to Penn Station. It's not actually a subway, it's a "light rail vehicle." Several years ago, before I started using it anyway, they changed from having ticket collectors on the trains to automated tellers at every station stop. You purchase a ticket, then validate it, and the validated ticket is good for 45 minutes. Using the machine usually takes about five minutes, in which time a train might come and go. So I but tickets in bulk, 10 or 5, or however many I have the money for after I've run out. I keep this small bundle of tickets in the front pocket of my little purse. A few of you know what I mean. Anyway, there are never any people to check the tickets either on the train or at stations. And by "never" I mean, well, there have been maybe five times since the beginning of the summer that I have been asked to show my ticket. This is a somewhat disheartening state of affairs, so while I used to go the whole ride holding my ticket eagerly in my hand, I've taken everyday to pulling a ticket out of my purse, stamping it, and then shoving it back in my purse. My downfall, as it happens.
So, I have these used and unused tickets floating around in my purse. Usually at the end of the week or so, I clear out the ones I've used and throw them away. I thought I did this on Thursday. There was, I believe, one unused ticket in my purse, which is why I entreated some funds from my father, so that I might purchase more. So I felt around in my purse, stuck the ticket in the stamper, and put it back in. Lo, this was one of those magical days when three Fare Enforcers came on the train, acting very obnoxious as they demanded tickets in an accusatory tone. I immediatly retrieved my ticket for presentation. And as soon as I saw it, I saw something wrong. It was a ticket I'd already used, and I'd stamped it twice. I looked, and found the unused ticket, sans stamp. This is not the first time this has happened, at least once and possibley twice, I have noticed while throwing the tickets out that one seemed to be stamped twice. I thought this was a fluke, and I didn't have much impetus to go checking all my tickets, because I'm lazy, and no one ever checks them.
I point out my error to the fare enforcers. I show him the double-stamped ticket, and the unstamped one, and offer him both. He asked my age. I told him, and then he demanded indentification from me. I gave him my license, which he then grabbed and moved to the opposite end of the train. I spoke with one of the other guys, explained that I made a mistake, and tried to explain why. His decision? I was trying to evade payment of my ticket. Essentially, I told him it was an accident, and he told me he didn't believe me. I was then handed a $71 ticket, and they spouted out instructions about appearing in court, and by this point I had begun to cry. The little old man sitting next to me asked them if I couldn't just give them a dollar (the cost of a ticket), and the girl in front of me began rubbing my shoulder. The fare dudes refused to accept my unstamped ticket, and one told me to keep it for use on another ride, like he was giving me a gift or something.
When I got to the train station, I immediately went outside and called my father, bawling. Because, you know, I'm a girl. He calmed me down in a very practical way, which helped me get through class, and then he took me out to dinner, where we discussed the system and its stupidity. So on August 30th, I'm going to court to contest my ticket, and my father will act as my legal counsel. He's good at that. After speaking to all my family members about it, I've moved past the phase of kicking myself for being an idiot (I mean, it is my fault, but I didn't commit any crime. I'm not trying to defraud NJ Transit or the City of Newark or anything, I made a mistake.) and have moved on to being pissed off at the unsympathetic asscarts.
Yes, I'll be checking my tickets every day from now on. And as my father said, it's not their job to be sympathetic. It's their job to write tickets. So we'll take it to a judge, and let him decide if he believes me or not. And the worst thing that can happen is he doesn't. And then we've payed $71 for an engagement at the courts. Like an outting or something. But I'll be doing my darndest to Fight the System. Damn The Man. Fuck City Hall. Power to the People.
I'm still kind of upset. Comfort me.
So, anyway, about being hassled by The Man. Everday that I go to school, I ride the Newark subway system to Penn Station. It's not actually a subway, it's a "light rail vehicle." Several years ago, before I started using it anyway, they changed from having ticket collectors on the trains to automated tellers at every station stop. You purchase a ticket, then validate it, and the validated ticket is good for 45 minutes. Using the machine usually takes about five minutes, in which time a train might come and go. So I but tickets in bulk, 10 or 5, or however many I have the money for after I've run out. I keep this small bundle of tickets in the front pocket of my little purse. A few of you know what I mean. Anyway, there are never any people to check the tickets either on the train or at stations. And by "never" I mean, well, there have been maybe five times since the beginning of the summer that I have been asked to show my ticket. This is a somewhat disheartening state of affairs, so while I used to go the whole ride holding my ticket eagerly in my hand, I've taken everyday to pulling a ticket out of my purse, stamping it, and then shoving it back in my purse. My downfall, as it happens.
So, I have these used and unused tickets floating around in my purse. Usually at the end of the week or so, I clear out the ones I've used and throw them away. I thought I did this on Thursday. There was, I believe, one unused ticket in my purse, which is why I entreated some funds from my father, so that I might purchase more. So I felt around in my purse, stuck the ticket in the stamper, and put it back in. Lo, this was one of those magical days when three Fare Enforcers came on the train, acting very obnoxious as they demanded tickets in an accusatory tone. I immediatly retrieved my ticket for presentation. And as soon as I saw it, I saw something wrong. It was a ticket I'd already used, and I'd stamped it twice. I looked, and found the unused ticket, sans stamp. This is not the first time this has happened, at least once and possibley twice, I have noticed while throwing the tickets out that one seemed to be stamped twice. I thought this was a fluke, and I didn't have much impetus to go checking all my tickets, because I'm lazy, and no one ever checks them.
I point out my error to the fare enforcers. I show him the double-stamped ticket, and the unstamped one, and offer him both. He asked my age. I told him, and then he demanded indentification from me. I gave him my license, which he then grabbed and moved to the opposite end of the train. I spoke with one of the other guys, explained that I made a mistake, and tried to explain why. His decision? I was trying to evade payment of my ticket. Essentially, I told him it was an accident, and he told me he didn't believe me. I was then handed a $71 ticket, and they spouted out instructions about appearing in court, and by this point I had begun to cry. The little old man sitting next to me asked them if I couldn't just give them a dollar (the cost of a ticket), and the girl in front of me began rubbing my shoulder. The fare dudes refused to accept my unstamped ticket, and one told me to keep it for use on another ride, like he was giving me a gift or something.
When I got to the train station, I immediately went outside and called my father, bawling. Because, you know, I'm a girl. He calmed me down in a very practical way, which helped me get through class, and then he took me out to dinner, where we discussed the system and its stupidity. So on August 30th, I'm going to court to contest my ticket, and my father will act as my legal counsel. He's good at that. After speaking to all my family members about it, I've moved past the phase of kicking myself for being an idiot (I mean, it is my fault, but I didn't commit any crime. I'm not trying to defraud NJ Transit or the City of Newark or anything, I made a mistake.) and have moved on to being pissed off at the unsympathetic asscarts.
Yes, I'll be checking my tickets every day from now on. And as my father said, it's not their job to be sympathetic. It's their job to write tickets. So we'll take it to a judge, and let him decide if he believes me or not. And the worst thing that can happen is he doesn't. And then we've payed $71 for an engagement at the courts. Like an outting or something. But I'll be doing my darndest to Fight the System. Damn The Man. Fuck City Hall. Power to the People.
I'm still kind of upset. Comfort me.
Saturday
The *real* review of King Arthur.
So today I went to the movies with my mother again, and we saw King Arthur . Her choice. This is highly odd, as my mother is completely averse to gore and violence. She liked it, which is even more bizarre. I will be checking under her bed and in her closets for pods, I assure you.
So since the film did give me some thoughts, I shall write some stuff, which may or may not have to do with the film. The parts that may will contain major spoilers, so watch out for that.
[Begin Spoiler for King Arthur. — Highlight to view]
I must proclaim first that I appreciate any movie where the Germans are evil and the heroes kill them. The two head Germans were played by Stellan Skarsgård. (! Dude, Stellan Skarsgård is evil? Totally a positive point!) and Til Schweiger playing his son, whom I remember from the totally awesome film, SLC Punk! . His acting is exactly the same, only in this movie, he has a shaved head and a braided goatee! That's actually pretty awesome. For a further note on the cast - Gawain, whom the IMDb tells me is played by a boy called Joel Edgerton, is pretty darn hot. I will add him to the list of husbands I plan to acquire. Also - how typical is it that I zero in on the blond one? Am I that predictable! I mean, Ioan (hey Stephenpat - cool "I" name!) Gruffudd I found kind of pretty, but he just didn't do that much for me. Also, the kid that played the little pagan was so freaking cute. He has the sort of look that tells me he is going to be wickedly hot in approximately ten to fifteen years. I hope I'm not going to hell for these thoughts. So I seriously hope he continues to be cast in movies.
Okay, so my main pickle with this movie is the fact that it proports to be the "real" story of King Arthur. This is more than slightly disingenuous. The premise for the movie is pretty soundly historically based. There was a Roman general named Artorius in Britain, son of a Roman officer and an Angle woman, who commanded a ... thing ... of knights from Russia. (Incidentally - least Russian looking people to be cast as Russians since Antonio Banderas. Also, the names Lancelot and Gawain really do not bring to mind images of Siberia. Call me crazy!) I have no trouble believing that these are the people from whence the Arthurian legends sprung. However, that's pretty much the extent of what's know about the real Arthur. Whether he actually united all the Britons is completely up for grabs. I don't know. This movie claims to clear up the plot line of the myths, however all it does is create a replacement mythical plot. While the people themselves may have been real, the entire plot line of the story is fictional. Sure, it might have happened that way, but then again, any one of us could come up with a King Arthur story and our chances of being correct would be just as great. Also suspect is the fact that certain parts of the movie are completely false. There was no tribe called the "Woads." The people in the film are based on the Picts, a warrior tribe that lived in the highlands of Scotland. They did tatoo themselves and use blue war paint that they produced from the woad plant. They did not have any deep or important mysticism, and they did not live in the woods. There are no historical records for anyone who might have been Guinevere or Merlin. Guinevere, in fact, probably didn't exist, as she didn't show up in the legends until the 1500s, and even then you'll note, she's not in the story very long, she runs off. I suspect she was invented because someone decided that Arthur needed to have a queen. Which, I mean, he probably did, but her name wasn't Guinevere. I also suspect that the "Woads" were created in the film because the name sounds very Olde English, and it suited their purposes better. But the tribe as a whole, and the specific purposes portrayed are fictious. Another chink in the armor is the fact that the Saxons actually did conquer Britain! Oops! Granted, they only show one battle one in the film, but it's sort of depressing to think that what they don't show you after is how they all lose.
So, if you can put all that aside, and I'm not so uptight that I can't, the movie itself is pretty decent. It's not great, though. It's not as epic as I think it would have liked to be. If you're going to provide a replacement legend for what is arguable the most famous legend of all time, you need to come out with something better than this. This should have been the culmination of years of historical research, not a pet project of Antoine Fuqua. I mean, come on. The acting was pretty decent, though. But nothing really happens. There is nothing that epic going on. Perhaps they were going for "understated" but it came off more as lacking something.
I've decided that I do like Keira Knightley. She's attractive if you don't look at her body, and there's nothing about her acting that offends me. She's actually rather good. And she got that problem with her jaw fixed! I think what was causing it was an underbite. Often when she talked, her bottom teeth showed prominently, and her jaw appeared to protrude too much, and it caused her to have a slight whistling lisp. It's not very pronounced, more like the sort of thing you'd only notice after an hour of watching her: "Hey, is there something kinda wrong with her jaw?" But in this movie it seemed to be just about completely gone. Either she got a jammin' speech therapist, or maybe she had corrective surgery. Either way, definite bonus point. I also liked her character in the film. I liked that Guinevere wasn't a stupid slut, as I feel is how she's typically portrayed. She zones in on Arthur, and she's pretty set on him. Even though he's a lot more reserved and soldierly. The expression on Clive Owen's face when she goes to see him at night is awesome. And Lancelot, who is supposed to be Arthur's closest friend, does like his girl, but instead of fucking her, dies saving her life. Now that's the kind of friend I'd like to have. It's really kind of a downer when Arthur's girl and best friend betray him. I mean, dude! You don't do that shit to King Arthur! What's the matter with you? So this version was, I felt, definitely an improvement. The relationships were carried out with much more subtlety. Incidentally, the most played line in the movie, "I won't let them touch you" is actually not in the film. Probably because the real line would be hard to market.
The one scene on the river was pretty sweet. It's the sort of scene that's so well done it could and should become classic. If the whole movie carried the feel of that one scene, it might have achieved the epicness it was going for. As for the battle scenes, perhaps the reason my mother was fine was that they weren't really gorey at all. For the amount of people that die in the movie, there's actually very little gore shown. There's some blood splattered on faces, but when there's an axe blow to the chest, there's not much blood and they cut away quickly. Most of the injuries occur under the camera. Oh, there is another scene that's really great, when the Saxon infantry is standing in the fog, and the arrows appear in front of them, and then the horsemen sweep through them and disappear into the fog. Very well shot. This movie also displays some pretty good battle tacits, so that was cool.
[End Spoiler]
In think that's all. I'm gonna go look up pictures of Gawain.
Ex cellent.
So since the film did give me some thoughts, I shall write some stuff, which may or may not have to do with the film. The parts that may will contain major spoilers, so watch out for that.
[Begin Spoiler for King Arthur. — Highlight to view]
I must proclaim first that I appreciate any movie where the Germans are evil and the heroes kill them. The two head Germans were played by Stellan Skarsgård. (! Dude, Stellan Skarsgård is evil? Totally a positive point!) and Til Schweiger playing his son, whom I remember from the totally awesome film, SLC Punk! . His acting is exactly the same, only in this movie, he has a shaved head and a braided goatee! That's actually pretty awesome. For a further note on the cast - Gawain, whom the IMDb tells me is played by a boy called Joel Edgerton, is pretty darn hot. I will add him to the list of husbands I plan to acquire. Also - how typical is it that I zero in on the blond one? Am I that predictable! I mean, Ioan (hey Stephenpat - cool "I" name!) Gruffudd I found kind of pretty, but he just didn't do that much for me. Also, the kid that played the little pagan was so freaking cute. He has the sort of look that tells me he is going to be wickedly hot in approximately ten to fifteen years. I hope I'm not going to hell for these thoughts. So I seriously hope he continues to be cast in movies.
Okay, so my main pickle with this movie is the fact that it proports to be the "real" story of King Arthur. This is more than slightly disingenuous. The premise for the movie is pretty soundly historically based. There was a Roman general named Artorius in Britain, son of a Roman officer and an Angle woman, who commanded a ... thing ... of knights from Russia. (Incidentally - least Russian looking people to be cast as Russians since Antonio Banderas. Also, the names Lancelot and Gawain really do not bring to mind images of Siberia. Call me crazy!) I have no trouble believing that these are the people from whence the Arthurian legends sprung. However, that's pretty much the extent of what's know about the real Arthur. Whether he actually united all the Britons is completely up for grabs. I don't know. This movie claims to clear up the plot line of the myths, however all it does is create a replacement mythical plot. While the people themselves may have been real, the entire plot line of the story is fictional. Sure, it might have happened that way, but then again, any one of us could come up with a King Arthur story and our chances of being correct would be just as great. Also suspect is the fact that certain parts of the movie are completely false. There was no tribe called the "Woads." The people in the film are based on the Picts, a warrior tribe that lived in the highlands of Scotland. They did tatoo themselves and use blue war paint that they produced from the woad plant. They did not have any deep or important mysticism, and they did not live in the woods. There are no historical records for anyone who might have been Guinevere or Merlin. Guinevere, in fact, probably didn't exist, as she didn't show up in the legends until the 1500s, and even then you'll note, she's not in the story very long, she runs off. I suspect she was invented because someone decided that Arthur needed to have a queen. Which, I mean, he probably did, but her name wasn't Guinevere. I also suspect that the "Woads" were created in the film because the name sounds very Olde English, and it suited their purposes better. But the tribe as a whole, and the specific purposes portrayed are fictious. Another chink in the armor is the fact that the Saxons actually did conquer Britain! Oops! Granted, they only show one battle one in the film, but it's sort of depressing to think that what they don't show you after is how they all lose.
So, if you can put all that aside, and I'm not so uptight that I can't, the movie itself is pretty decent. It's not great, though. It's not as epic as I think it would have liked to be. If you're going to provide a replacement legend for what is arguable the most famous legend of all time, you need to come out with something better than this. This should have been the culmination of years of historical research, not a pet project of Antoine Fuqua. I mean, come on. The acting was pretty decent, though. But nothing really happens. There is nothing that epic going on. Perhaps they were going for "understated" but it came off more as lacking something.
I've decided that I do like Keira Knightley. She's attractive if you don't look at her body, and there's nothing about her acting that offends me. She's actually rather good. And she got that problem with her jaw fixed! I think what was causing it was an underbite. Often when she talked, her bottom teeth showed prominently, and her jaw appeared to protrude too much, and it caused her to have a slight whistling lisp. It's not very pronounced, more like the sort of thing you'd only notice after an hour of watching her: "Hey, is there something kinda wrong with her jaw?" But in this movie it seemed to be just about completely gone. Either she got a jammin' speech therapist, or maybe she had corrective surgery. Either way, definite bonus point. I also liked her character in the film. I liked that Guinevere wasn't a stupid slut, as I feel is how she's typically portrayed. She zones in on Arthur, and she's pretty set on him. Even though he's a lot more reserved and soldierly. The expression on Clive Owen's face when she goes to see him at night is awesome. And Lancelot, who is supposed to be Arthur's closest friend, does like his girl, but instead of fucking her, dies saving her life. Now that's the kind of friend I'd like to have. It's really kind of a downer when Arthur's girl and best friend betray him. I mean, dude! You don't do that shit to King Arthur! What's the matter with you? So this version was, I felt, definitely an improvement. The relationships were carried out with much more subtlety. Incidentally, the most played line in the movie, "I won't let them touch you" is actually not in the film. Probably because the real line would be hard to market.
The one scene on the river was pretty sweet. It's the sort of scene that's so well done it could and should become classic. If the whole movie carried the feel of that one scene, it might have achieved the epicness it was going for. As for the battle scenes, perhaps the reason my mother was fine was that they weren't really gorey at all. For the amount of people that die in the movie, there's actually very little gore shown. There's some blood splattered on faces, but when there's an axe blow to the chest, there's not much blood and they cut away quickly. Most of the injuries occur under the camera. Oh, there is another scene that's really great, when the Saxon infantry is standing in the fog, and the arrows appear in front of them, and then the horsemen sweep through them and disappear into the fog. Very well shot. This movie also displays some pretty good battle tacits, so that was cool.
[End Spoiler]
In think that's all. I'm gonna go look up pictures of Gawain.
Ex cellent.
Tuesday
I'm just a squirrel.
1991. Age: the same age you were. 
I didn't really plan to write reactions to, or reflections of, every year in the nineties, and the fact that VH1 is showing two episodes a night is really going to make this fall apart ... sometime tomorrow, probably. Anyway.
I seem to remember infinitely more about this year than I do the previous one. I wonder if this is cause or effect of the theory I've had for some time: that six is the last age that you're "little." You're still a kid, you're just not a little kid. Seven just sounds older. According to my recollection, it feels older, too. Memo to the Stephenpat: your child is turning seven. I guess I'll have to start writing to her about stock reports, or something.
This year, according to television, was the start of Gulf War I. That seems about right, but I don't remember anything about it. All I remember was that it was always on television, though I wasn't sure what was happening. That, and my jean jacket with the button on it that said "Don't Mess With The US." I was adorable walking propaganda.
More importantly, that year I started taking jazz and tap lessons in addition to ballet. Or maybe it's just when Miss Diana began to play the C&C Music Factory song *repeatedly* as we warmed up. Even then, I was pretty sure that the "rap" of the song was perhaps the stupidest thing ever. I can't count how many times I heard that, and "Rhythm Is A Dancer."
Speaking of music, this was also the year that I first saw the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit." Or maybe it was '92. I always thought it was, but the show, placing a segment on grunge in this year, has made me doubt that recollection. Anyway, no matter what year it actually was, it's interesting to me that it actually did change my perception of music. I remember my cousin Denise hurrying excitedly to where I and her brother were, telling us that we had to check out what was on MTV. (I think this was '92. Oh well.) We all quite literally had the reaction of "what in the hell is this?" Only, we probably said heck. Because we were small and innocent. After that dispelled, I had the distinct impression that this music was new, and that it just might be great.
I didn't really plan to write reactions to, or reflections of, every year in the nineties, and the fact that VH1 is showing two episodes a night is really going to make this fall apart ... sometime tomorrow, probably. Anyway.
I seem to remember infinitely more about this year than I do the previous one. I wonder if this is cause or effect of the theory I've had for some time: that six is the last age that you're "little." You're still a kid, you're just not a little kid. Seven just sounds older. According to my recollection, it feels older, too. Memo to the Stephenpat: your child is turning seven. I guess I'll have to start writing to her about stock reports, or something.
This year, according to television, was the start of Gulf War I. That seems about right, but I don't remember anything about it. All I remember was that it was always on television, though I wasn't sure what was happening. That, and my jean jacket with the button on it that said "Don't Mess With The US." I was adorable walking propaganda.
More importantly, that year I started taking jazz and tap lessons in addition to ballet. Or maybe it's just when Miss Diana began to play the C&C Music Factory song *repeatedly* as we warmed up. Even then, I was pretty sure that the "rap" of the song was perhaps the stupidest thing ever. I can't count how many times I heard that, and "Rhythm Is A Dancer."
Speaking of music, this was also the year that I first saw the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit." Or maybe it was '92. I always thought it was, but the show, placing a segment on grunge in this year, has made me doubt that recollection. Anyway, no matter what year it actually was, it's interesting to me that it actually did change my perception of music. I remember my cousin Denise hurrying excitedly to where I and her brother were, telling us that we had to check out what was on MTV. (I think this was '92. Oh well.) We all quite literally had the reaction of "what in the hell is this?" Only, we probably said heck. Because we were small and innocent. After that dispelled, I had the distinct impression that this music was new, and that it just might be great.
Monday
I love the 90s.
1990. Age: 6
So, I forgot that the VH1 series started tonight, and I missed the first fifteen minutes of it. Oh my God! Do you think they'll show it again?
Had to get that out of the way. My life, at this point in time, can pretty much be summed up by two things: slap bracelets and New Kids On The Block. I'm glad I found out what happened to the slap bracelets.
I never knew where that "I've fallen and I can't get up" thing came from.
I think I do love the 90s. The first half, anyway. I wonder where the switch occurred, and I stopped being fond of the decade. I guess I'll find out! I'm betting it's when I became more cognizant.
So, I forgot that the VH1 series started tonight, and I missed the first fifteen minutes of it. Oh my God! Do you think they'll show it again?
Had to get that out of the way. My life, at this point in time, can pretty much be summed up by two things: slap bracelets and New Kids On The Block. I'm glad I found out what happened to the slap bracelets.
I never knew where that "I've fallen and I can't get up" thing came from.
I think I do love the 90s. The first half, anyway. I wonder where the switch occurred, and I stopped being fond of the decade. I guess I'll find out! I'm betting it's when I became more cognizant.
Tuesday
Jesus! Harry Potter again ?
Yes. It's like a floodgate! You cannot close a floodgate once it has been opened! Today I would like to discuss three distinct points. They range in topic from book and movie three to book five. The other books I've pretty much ignored. You have been warned. For those of you sick of reading about Harry Potter, here is a monkey: 
[Begin Spoiler for Harry Potter. Really. — Highlight to view]
• Point the first. The comparison between Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in the role of Albus Dumbledore.
First of all, let there be no mistake, Richard Harris is dead whilst Michael Gambon is alive. This is undoubtedly the first difference between the two actors. This seems to be more than just an ill advised quip, though, it speaks to the way they portray the character. I have said before that I prefer Michael Gambon, and this is to some extent true. I feel he better captures the inner life of the character. He gets the sort of quirky humor that makes me like Dumbledore so much. Because he's like me!! Weird yet funny! So, yes. However, another important part of the character is the figure he cuts: FULL OF AWESOME AND FEARFUL POWER! This is important. He's silly and fun, yet if you blink at him wrong, he will fucking kill you! He also reminds you of the grandfather you liked. This is a very complex combination of traits, and it's understandable that one actor couldn't get it. But it occurs to me that both men, melded together, would make the perfect Dumbledore. I would never instinctly run to Michael Gambon for protection against my enemies - I would to Richard Harris. I would not be immediately charmed and impressed by Richard Harris - I would by Michael Gambon. I've worked it out: Harris had the better beard and the better height. You see what going silver did for Gandalf, right? In the beard, there is power. So someone needs to get Michael Gambon somes lifts and some frosting gel, and he'll be all set.
• Point the second. Why the time-turner scenes in the movie were far superior to the ones in the book.
I know, right? The movie better than the book? I must be ill. But no, think about it. Now, I don't know that much about time-continuum paradoxes, but it seems to me that the events in the movie are far better resolved in the movie, and it boils down to one thing: Macnair's axe. In the book, his axe is not felled in the second go round. This is important! Hermione is constantly gibbering about how they can't change time, that bad things will happen, but more changes in the book than in the movie, where they seemingly do more to affect the past. In the movie, time seems to be on a loop. The past selves are affected by what the future selves have already done. Or, er ... will do. I don't know, man. Buckbeak is never actually killed in the movie; the axe was always falling down on a pumpkin (ack!). Time is already on a loop, and things have already been resolved. This of course, brings up the question of, "what if Harry and Hermione realized everything had already been resolved and decided not to be that .. active? Since they knew things would already have worked out?" But then, of course, that would have already have happened in the past and ... well, you see the paradox. Anyway, in the book, Macnair's axe does not fall in the revised version of events. This means that something has definitely changed. Buckbeak was actually saved from being killed. So, how does this affect the present-time Macnair, and Fudge? Would he suddenly lose the memory of having killed Buckbeak? Lost the memory of swinging the axe? Wouldn't the alteration in the fabric of time have MADE HIM EXPLODE?!?!? So, in conclusion, while I cannot say with certainty that the logic of the time loop in the film is flawless, it's already improved on what's in the book. Also, you may note that time does loop in both at the scene on the lake. That's just bad continuity on the book's part.
• Point the third. Why Hermione is totally destined to have twenty of Ron's red-headed babies.
Okay, so I'd first like to point out that any debate as to whether Hermione should be eventually shagging Harry or Ron is completely dependent on not knowing who Hermione likes. It should be really really obvious that Ron likes Hermione that way , and if you didn't figure that out well, you're lying about having read the books. I will explain at length the difference between Ron's dislike of Viktor Krum and his dislike of Ginny's suitors if you need me to. You shouldn't. Harry, from everything I have scoured over (er, not that I have) seems to have no interest in Hermione. As more than a friend. I honestly do not believe that J.K. Rowling has planned on writing in a love triangle situation, and believe that though this is kind of obvious foreshadowing, that this is what the foreshadowing predicts. The case then, is proving who it is Hermione likes. It's totally Ron, people. Observe the following from Book 5:
Hermione is counseling Harry on his relationship WITH ANOTHER GIRL. When she gets upset, is she jealous? Hardly. Page 505. "'Harry, you're worse than Ron .. well, no, you're not,' she sighed." Ron is blind to that fact that Hermione TOTALLY WANTS HIM TO ASK HER OUT!
[End Spoiler]
I should stop writing now. I have failed to prove my point!
[Begin Spoiler for Harry Potter. Really. — Highlight to view]
• Point the first. The comparison between Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in the role of Albus Dumbledore.
First of all, let there be no mistake, Richard Harris is dead whilst Michael Gambon is alive. This is undoubtedly the first difference between the two actors. This seems to be more than just an ill advised quip, though, it speaks to the way they portray the character. I have said before that I prefer Michael Gambon, and this is to some extent true. I feel he better captures the inner life of the character. He gets the sort of quirky humor that makes me like Dumbledore so much. Because he's like me!! Weird yet funny! So, yes. However, another important part of the character is the figure he cuts: FULL OF AWESOME AND FEARFUL POWER! This is important. He's silly and fun, yet if you blink at him wrong, he will fucking kill you! He also reminds you of the grandfather you liked. This is a very complex combination of traits, and it's understandable that one actor couldn't get it. But it occurs to me that both men, melded together, would make the perfect Dumbledore. I would never instinctly run to Michael Gambon for protection against my enemies - I would to Richard Harris. I would not be immediately charmed and impressed by Richard Harris - I would by Michael Gambon. I've worked it out: Harris had the better beard and the better height. You see what going silver did for Gandalf, right? In the beard, there is power. So someone needs to get Michael Gambon somes lifts and some frosting gel, and he'll be all set.
• Point the second. Why the time-turner scenes in the movie were far superior to the ones in the book.
I know, right? The movie better than the book? I must be ill. But no, think about it. Now, I don't know that much about time-continuum paradoxes, but it seems to me that the events in the movie are far better resolved in the movie, and it boils down to one thing: Macnair's axe. In the book, his axe is not felled in the second go round. This is important! Hermione is constantly gibbering about how they can't change time, that bad things will happen, but more changes in the book than in the movie, where they seemingly do more to affect the past. In the movie, time seems to be on a loop. The past selves are affected by what the future selves have already done. Or, er ... will do. I don't know, man. Buckbeak is never actually killed in the movie; the axe was always falling down on a pumpkin (ack!). Time is already on a loop, and things have already been resolved. This of course, brings up the question of, "what if Harry and Hermione realized everything had already been resolved and decided not to be that .. active? Since they knew things would already have worked out?" But then, of course, that would have already have happened in the past and ... well, you see the paradox. Anyway, in the book, Macnair's axe does not fall in the revised version of events. This means that something has definitely changed. Buckbeak was actually saved from being killed. So, how does this affect the present-time Macnair, and Fudge? Would he suddenly lose the memory of having killed Buckbeak? Lost the memory of swinging the axe? Wouldn't the alteration in the fabric of time have MADE HIM EXPLODE?!?!? So, in conclusion, while I cannot say with certainty that the logic of the time loop in the film is flawless, it's already improved on what's in the book. Also, you may note that time does loop in both at the scene on the lake. That's just bad continuity on the book's part.
• Point the third. Why Hermione is totally destined to have twenty of Ron's red-headed babies.
Okay, so I'd first like to point out that any debate as to whether Hermione should be eventually shagging Harry or Ron is completely dependent on not knowing who Hermione likes. It should be really really obvious that Ron likes Hermione that way , and if you didn't figure that out well, you're lying about having read the books. I will explain at length the difference between Ron's dislike of Viktor Krum and his dislike of Ginny's suitors if you need me to. You shouldn't. Harry, from everything I have scoured over (er, not that I have) seems to have no interest in Hermione. As more than a friend. I honestly do not believe that J.K. Rowling has planned on writing in a love triangle situation, and believe that though this is kind of obvious foreshadowing, that this is what the foreshadowing predicts. The case then, is proving who it is Hermione likes. It's totally Ron, people. Observe the following from Book 5:
Hermione is counseling Harry on his relationship WITH ANOTHER GIRL. When she gets upset, is she jealous? Hardly. Page 505. "'Harry, you're worse than Ron .. well, no, you're not,' she sighed." Ron is blind to that fact that Hermione TOTALLY WANTS HIM TO ASK HER OUT!
[End Spoiler]
I should stop writing now. I have failed to prove my point!
Saturday
Those tigers are typecast, man.
So today I went with my mother to see the movie about the tigers who are brothers. So fucking cute. Wait, I'm getting there. So, this is the Wellmont theater in Montclair, which is run by the same people who run the movie hut where we saw the Harry Potter picture and I had a hideous time. However, since this is Montclair, it's a trillion times better than anything in my town. That's just the way of things. I think the kids who worked there were retarded. Not physically, or anything. They were just Bertin' around like nobody's business.
Until about ten minutes before the movie started (don't ask - my mother gets anywhere at least half and hour in advance. You just never know!) we were alone in the house. Then! This German couple came in with their four small children. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Anyway, the largest blond, bespectacled boy announced "This theater is very small!" I felt like saying "So are you." Anyway. He and his smaller brother proceeded to be very odd, but the girls were fine. And they quieted down once the movie started. Then another group with about five small children came in and sat in front of us. The extremely small viewing group made it feel like a casual environment, so I was almost at ease with asking the children in front of us had emotional problems, as they kept emitting strange noises at interverals. Anyway, this did not make for an unpleasant viewing of my movie about tigers. It was just neat people watching. Of the movie itself...
[Begin Spoiler for Two Brothers. — Highlight to view]
If you plan to see this movie, know, it's all about the tigers. They were awesome. They had such great emotional range! Really! Far more than Guy Pearce, at any rate. They would totally do well in romantic leads! And I cried when they were reunited. I know! I know, I'm such an utter girl. Also - something you need to know going into pictures about baby animals is that there's inevitabley going to be parent murder. So, that was real depressing.
Actually, the whole movie, aside from the tigers, was real depressing. There was not a single likable human character. It was enraging. If it hadn't been for the tigers, it would have been a crap ass movie about very unlikable people. And one scene of artsy tiger sex. Which was just confusing and disorienting.
[End Spoiler]
After dinner we were out wandering about and we saw a girl I took an acting class with my first semester. She was from Israel. It was neat and fun. She introduced me to her fiance, with whom she was having dinner. He seemed of an amiable sort.
My next trip to the cinema will be tomorrow, when, on our nation's birthday, I will be taking my mother to see Fahrenheit 911 . This should be a blast. Wish me luck! And remember, everyone except resident aliens, vote Kerry 2004.
In other news, Sharapova beat Williams. SO FUCKING GLAD!
Until about ten minutes before the movie started (don't ask - my mother gets anywhere at least half and hour in advance. You just never know!) we were alone in the house. Then! This German couple came in with their four small children. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Anyway, the largest blond, bespectacled boy announced "This theater is very small!" I felt like saying "So are you." Anyway. He and his smaller brother proceeded to be very odd, but the girls were fine. And they quieted down once the movie started. Then another group with about five small children came in and sat in front of us. The extremely small viewing group made it feel like a casual environment, so I was almost at ease with asking the children in front of us had emotional problems, as they kept emitting strange noises at interverals. Anyway, this did not make for an unpleasant viewing of my movie about tigers. It was just neat people watching. Of the movie itself...
[Begin Spoiler for Two Brothers. — Highlight to view]
If you plan to see this movie, know, it's all about the tigers. They were awesome. They had such great emotional range! Really! Far more than Guy Pearce, at any rate. They would totally do well in romantic leads! And I cried when they were reunited. I know! I know, I'm such an utter girl. Also - something you need to know going into pictures about baby animals is that there's inevitabley going to be parent murder. So, that was real depressing.
Actually, the whole movie, aside from the tigers, was real depressing. There was not a single likable human character. It was enraging. If it hadn't been for the tigers, it would have been a crap ass movie about very unlikable people. And one scene of artsy tiger sex. Which was just confusing and disorienting.
[End Spoiler]
After dinner we were out wandering about and we saw a girl I took an acting class with my first semester. She was from Israel. It was neat and fun. She introduced me to her fiance, with whom she was having dinner. He seemed of an amiable sort.
My next trip to the cinema will be tomorrow, when, on our nation's birthday, I will be taking my mother to see Fahrenheit 911 . This should be a blast. Wish me luck! And remember, everyone except resident aliens, vote Kerry 2004.
In other news, Sharapova beat Williams. SO FUCKING GLAD!
Friday
The number one reason why I need to become famous and work prolifically.
The people I've always dreamed of working with keep dropping dead at random times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
