On a slightly less partisan note than my two other blogs today, I invite my readers to take a look at the Nov/Dec 2008 issue of Archaeology magazine (their website is here).
Now, any issue of Archaeology is interesting (almost by definition, in my opinion) but I particularly liked one in this month's issue about a 12,000-year-old complex of stone circles in Turkey that shows evidence of extensive and coordinated activity from hunter-gatherer societies 6 thousand years before the city of Ur arose on the plains of Sumer. It's tantalizing and frustrating evidence for a complex spiritual side to pre-urban civilization that we'll probably never understand. That and it also is evidence of just how much we'll never really know about our history, and why the people who think visitors from Zeta Reticuli or Atlanteans gave the Ancient World all of its technology will never go away.
There's another article in this issue about gladiators and their diet based on remains found in a cemetary at Ephesus (also in Turkey). Turns out, gladiators did not follow the Atkins diet plan - they ate lots of carbs and were definitely on the "beefy" side. On the plus side, however, they appear to have received the best in medical care: Bone fractures show very clean healing (unlike similar fractures found in the bones of the general population).
While I'm recommending stuff: If you're a fan of the B-movie horror genre, I recommend Dagon. Ostensibly it's based on H.P. Lovecraft's eponymous short story but it's more a retelling of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" by the same author (the Spanish village where it takes place is called "Imboca" > "Innsmouth"). It's well plotted, has a reasonably intelligent script, and isn't too gory.
And, of course, you should read the originals as Lovecraft wrote them.
26 October 2008
Mr. Monika's 2008 Voter Guide (w/ especial emphasis on California)
The week after next, the country goes to the polls once again. More than ever, we really might be determining the fate of the world for a generation to come
Considering our batting record the last four election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006), I recommend prayer...lots of it...to any benevolent deity you can think of. (Forgive me, I'm feeling particularly snarky at the moment. I'm actually quite optimistic about the long-term survival of the species, I just think the next few decades are going to be brutal. More brutal for us, anyway, it's always been brutal for far too many people in this world.)
But on to my recommendations for the interested. Except for the presidential vote, I'm afraid they're quite California-centric for the simple reason that I happen to live in the Golden State but as my "follower" is also a Californian, I don't feel too bad about that.
President/Vice President: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
9 - NO: For all their bleating about "the rule of law," I sometimes wonder if Republicans and your rank-and-file conservatives know what it means. This gem would allow victims' input during the entire criminal justice process - from bail to parole. Part of the appeal of the rule of law is that it's an impartial system - at least as impartial as anything can be - and I cannot countenance allowing the least impartial element of a crime to have any say over how the system treats the suspect (and felon, if convicted).
10 - NO: This is T. Boone Pickens attempt to get the state to subsidize his move into renewable energy (to the tune of $5 billion in bonds).
11 - NO: Here's another good end arrived at via suspect means. We desperately need to reform the way districts are apportioned but I don't trust Schwarzenegger.
12 - NO: A $900 million bond to subsidize homes and farms for veterans. Why can't we subsidize the homes and farms of nonvets? Don't they work just as hard? Don't they deserve the chance to make a decent living and dwell in a decent home?
It's nice that there are people willing to defend me if America suffers an invasion and that there are people willing to assist the National Guard and the fire department in case natural disasters get seriously out of hand but America hasn't needed defending since at least 1941, and the subsequent career of our military has been an unending march of imperial domination since then. Why should my hard-earned cash and that of my descendants go to support the legions of Caesar?
And while we're on the subject, why aren't firefighters included here? Doctors? Teachers? The latter three groups do far more to make this country a decent place to live than the military.
County Measures
Considering our batting record the last four election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006), I recommend prayer...lots of it...to any benevolent deity you can think of. (Forgive me, I'm feeling particularly snarky at the moment. I'm actually quite optimistic about the long-term survival of the species, I just think the next few decades are going to be brutal. More brutal for us, anyway, it's always been brutal for far too many people in this world.)
But on to my recommendations for the interested. Except for the presidential vote, I'm afraid they're quite California-centric for the simple reason that I happen to live in the Golden State but as my "follower" is also a Californian, I don't feel too bad about that.
President/Vice President: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
- All right, if I thought there was any chance for their victory, I'd be voting Green, McKinney/Clemente, but there isn't, and we need to so overwhelm the Republicans with numbers that there's no way they can steal the election again in any state. California is fortunate to have a decent secretary of state in Debra Bowen, who's done what she can to make sure the voting machines are on the up and up.
- While I like Nader's positions on many of the issues, he would go down in history as one of our worst, least effective presidents solely based on his personality. The man is not a politician. And then there's the fact that he has even less chance of winning the White House than McKinney.
- So I'm "stuck" with Obama, who (I think) would much rather rule as a second Clinton than a second Roosevelt. He's about as much a socialist as he is an Arab or a Muslim - i.e., he isn't! He's a centrist Democrat. I'm worried about his votes on the telecom immunity and bailout bills, and his eagerness to escalate the occupation of Afghanistan. I'm worried that he's so much a product of the last 30 years of neoliberal economics in this country that he'll be unable to experiment like FDR. But he's our best hope, so he's got my vote.
United States Representative: Hilda Solis
- This district is so safe, the Republicans didn't even field a candidate. Solis is a mixed bag: Sometimes she votes with the angels; other times, with Satan. But the only way I can get somebody in the office with whom I'm in total agreement is to run myself, so I'll vote for her without serious problem.
Member of the State Assembly: Ed Hernandez
Judicial (for the Superior Courts):
- Steven A. Simons (72nd)
- Cynthia Loo (82nd)
- Lori-Ann Jones (84th)
- C. Edward Mack (94th)
- Rocky L. Crabb (154th)
It's difficult to get information on these offices, though the Internet has made it far easier, assuming they have a website. My guiding philosophy is to read their blurbs if available and vote for anyone who isn't a prosecutor. Thus, Simons is a consumer-rights attorney, Loo is a court referee, Mack is a trial attorney, etc.
State Measures (propositions) (In California, it's far too easy to get a proposition on the ballot and, thus, we tend to legislate through them, taking Sacramento off the hook. And it doesn't help that these propositions are written by special interests and often in nearly opaque legalese or so poorly that they'll be litigated to death in the courts and never even have a chance to prove worthy or unworthy.)
1A - NO: This is a $9.95 billion bond measure that will (supposedly) fund high-speed rail lines. Now, I find the idea of high-speed rail very attractive but my problem is with the method of financing. If we want something or feel it's necessary to continued well-being, then we should be willing to pay for it up front. Despite the lessons of the Asian meltdown in 1987, the Mexican meltdown in 1995 and our meltdown in 2008, we are still operating under the insane assumption that we can simply continue to borrow money and pass off the costs to our descendants, and that we don't have to raise taxes (and make them more progressive, to boot). California is already under such a debt burden that we're constantly threatened with a lowering of our bond status, and the interest payments are becoming oppressive.
If we want high-speed rail, let's raise a tax somehow. Perhaps via gas sales, perhaps a sales tax, perhaps we'll have more funds if we simply close loopholes and spread the burden more fairly. And it doesn't have to be permanent - we tax for 5 years, and all the proceeds go to the rail fund. If we need more money, the legislature can revisit the issue at the end of 5 years. It's why I'm voting "yes" for Measure R below because it's funded via a 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax.
2 - YES: This measure requires the animal-husbandry industry to humanely treat their animals. No brainer.
3 - NO: Another worthy cause (renovating children's hospitals). Another bond measure, though (only $980 million).
4- NO: Waiting period and parental notification of teen-age abortions.
5 - YES: I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks our penal system would benefit from a concentration on redemption rather than retribution. Most assuredly isolate violent offenders and even nonviolent ones may deserve some prison time but when we strip a felon of every chance to redeem himself, why are we surprised that things don't get better?
I was pretty definite about my "yes" vote for this one but when I saw the "No on 5" commercial where Diane Feinstein endorsed their position then I knew I would be voting well. Another one of my voting tenets is that anything Feinstein is for, I'm against, and vice versa.
6 - NO: A bond measure ($965 million) to pay for more police. If we need more police, then we need to pay for them up front (see above).
7 - NO: This measure is supposed to force government and private utilities to be 50% renewable energy by 2025. Good "ends" but the "means" are suspect. I've read both sides' arguments and still don't know if this measure would do any good, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the environmental groups, most of whom don't support the proposition.
8 - NO: This vile measure would strike down the recent CA Supreme Court ruling making same-sex marriage possible (and possibly invalidating the marriage of a friend of mine) and enshrine it in our state constitution. Like 2, it's a no brainer.9 - NO: For all their bleating about "the rule of law," I sometimes wonder if Republicans and your rank-and-file conservatives know what it means. This gem would allow victims' input during the entire criminal justice process - from bail to parole. Part of the appeal of the rule of law is that it's an impartial system - at least as impartial as anything can be - and I cannot countenance allowing the least impartial element of a crime to have any say over how the system treats the suspect (and felon, if convicted).
10 - NO: This is T. Boone Pickens attempt to get the state to subsidize his move into renewable energy (to the tune of $5 billion in bonds).
11 - NO: Here's another good end arrived at via suspect means. We desperately need to reform the way districts are apportioned but I don't trust Schwarzenegger.
12 - NO: A $900 million bond to subsidize homes and farms for veterans. Why can't we subsidize the homes and farms of nonvets? Don't they work just as hard? Don't they deserve the chance to make a decent living and dwell in a decent home?
It's nice that there are people willing to defend me if America suffers an invasion and that there are people willing to assist the National Guard and the fire department in case natural disasters get seriously out of hand but America hasn't needed defending since at least 1941, and the subsequent career of our military has been an unending march of imperial domination since then. Why should my hard-earned cash and that of my descendants go to support the legions of Caesar?
And while we're on the subject, why aren't firefighters included here? Doctors? Teachers? The latter three groups do far more to make this country a decent place to live than the military.
County Measures
R - YES: As I mentioned in my diatribe under Measure 1A, this measure to reduce traffic congestion and fund rail extensions is going to be paid for by a 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax, and will be subject to public review and audits.
Community College Measures
RR - NO: A $353 million bond measure.
Municipal Water District: Andrew M. McIntyre
Well, that's it. If you're a Republican, stay home Nov. 4, it'll be for the best.
He's baaack!
After an extended absence, I have returned (hopefully my "follower" will be well pleased; I have a "follower" - I have to be careful I don't develop a messiah complex).
For my loyal fan, my absence was not the result of illness, vacation or any other cause than that I am fundamentally lazy. There's certainly enough "crap" going on right now to raise my ire.
For example, this so-called bailout of Wall Street. I was excited when the House quite properly voted the first incarnation down; but realized it was business as usual when they approved the Senate's version, which added $150 billion in pork and ill-considered incentives.
Had the loyal opposition any backbone or guiding philosophy other than getting re-elected, Congress would have shelved any comprehensive scheme to aid the economy until we knew who would be in the White House come January and what kind of majorities the Dems would enjoy in the House and Senate. In the interim, they could have put a moratorium on foreclosures and, perhaps, granted a small measure of funds to shore up the worst-off investment banks. The latter was floated by Schumer (I believe) but disappeared in the panicky frenzy to be seen as doing "something."
Instead, Congress handed the most incompetent, most corrupt, most power-hungry administration since the Reagans were reading their Tarot cards $700 billion and carte blanche to do anything it wanted with it.
Words continue to fail me.
Speaking of incompetence and corruption, I direct my reader to October 23's Tom Dispatch by Michael Schwartz, Iraq in Hell.
For my loyal fan, my absence was not the result of illness, vacation or any other cause than that I am fundamentally lazy. There's certainly enough "crap" going on right now to raise my ire.
For example, this so-called bailout of Wall Street. I was excited when the House quite properly voted the first incarnation down; but realized it was business as usual when they approved the Senate's version, which added $150 billion in pork and ill-considered incentives.
Had the loyal opposition any backbone or guiding philosophy other than getting re-elected, Congress would have shelved any comprehensive scheme to aid the economy until we knew who would be in the White House come January and what kind of majorities the Dems would enjoy in the House and Senate. In the interim, they could have put a moratorium on foreclosures and, perhaps, granted a small measure of funds to shore up the worst-off investment banks. The latter was floated by Schumer (I believe) but disappeared in the panicky frenzy to be seen as doing "something."
Instead, Congress handed the most incompetent, most corrupt, most power-hungry administration since the Reagans were reading their Tarot cards $700 billion and carte blanche to do anything it wanted with it.
Words continue to fail me.
Speaking of incompetence and corruption, I direct my reader to October 23's Tom Dispatch by Michael Schwartz, Iraq in Hell.
26 August 2008
Book Review: "Who's Been Sleeping in Your Head: The Secret World of Sexual Fantasy"
Who's Been Sleeping in Your Head is a bit of a departure for me. Most of my nonfiction reading tends toward the historical or the "hard" sciences (astronomy, evolutionary biology, etc.) but one of my GoodReads friends marked this as a "to-read," I read the publisher's blurb and a few of the reviews, and it looked intriguing. Fortunately, one of my libraries possessed a copy and the inevitable ensued: I obtained and read it.
Brett Kahr is a Freudian psychoanalyst who's realized that there is a dearth of studies of what constitutes sexual fantasies - what's "normal" (if that can be measured) and what's "perverse" (also a slippery concept) - and how those fantasies might affect people in their lives.
Being a Freudian, Kahr believes that most, if not all, of our fantasies arise from childhood traumas. "Trauma" here does not necessarily mean something horrible like being raped by your father when you're 10 years old or having a group of boys sodomize you in the public restroom when you're 13. It can mean relatively unfortunate events or circumstances in an otherwise good childhood. Circumstances like an emotionally distant father or an overbearing mother or (as in the case of one woman) the loss of an older brother in a car accident. Kahr argues that "trauma functions as a key ingredient in the genesis of adult sexual fantasies" (p. 393) and that these fantasies help master "trauma through eroticization, rendering the terrifying and unprocessable into something sexy and manageable." (p. 383)
A "perverse" fantasy is one that eroticizes hatred (p. 418) and that "requires sustained perpetration of sadism toward oneself or one's 'love object'" and "becomes so all engrossing it prevents one from forging intimate relationships." (p. 420)
There are a number of conclusions he arrives at (if some are only tentative):
1. What is a sexual fantasy? An image, thought, drama, usually thought about during sex (coital or masturbatory) and that results in orgasm. (This makes it a different phenomenon than the sexual dream.)
2. What is a "normal" fantasy? There is no normative fantasy. People who appear quite "normal" might have some of the most sadistic, misogynistic, bestial fantasies but as long as they avoid the two criteria for "perversion" I mention above, they're no more abnormal than fantasizing about making love to one's partner that never departs from the missionary position.
3. Why fantasize? Kahr doesn't really know. From an evolutionary point of view it may help arousal and, hence, propagation. In terms of human psychology, it eroticizes and makes harmless traumas in our lives.
4. Does everyone have fantasies? Despite some negative responses in Kahr's survey, he feels that everyone has a fantasy of some sort even if they don't recognize it as such.
5. Should we share fantasies/act them out with our partners? Maybe. He recounts cases where exposing and/or acting out a fantasy did wonders for a relationship; alas, sometimes they torpedoed a relationship.
6. Are fantasies dangerous? Sometimes. See above about what a "perverse" fantasy is. Actually, in relation to this subject, Kahr gets into some potentially scary "Big Brother" stuff where he envisions mental-health experts "tagging" potential rapists, pedophiles, etc. based on their sexual fantasies - sort of a "Minority Report" world without the ESP.
7. If we don't fantasize about our partner is that a "bad sign"? Maybe; maybe not. Since a fantasy is a defense mechanism from past trauma, the absence of one's current partner is not unusual.
8. If we fantasize about something illegal (i.e., rape, pedophilia, incest, murder, etc.) will we eventually act it out? Probably not. Most - the overwhelming majority - even if their fantasies involve raping the cheerleading squad or murdering their partner don't go through with it. As Kahr wants to emphasize, even the most vile fantasy is a defense mechanism against some childhood trauma. Now, fantasizing about gang rapes or murder probably indicates a fairly serious trauma and the person should seek some form of therapy and it may make a person's intimate relationships ultimately unsatisfying but it doesn't mean we have a future "Ted Bundy" on our hands.
9. Can we control our fantasies? Always a good Freudian, Kahr doesn't believe so. At least not to any great extent.
One of the best aspects of this work is that Kahr doesn't try to create an all-encompassing theory of sexual fantasy. He tries to identify some broad generalizations but doesn't apply them to explain fantasy.
Though I don't have the background to assess just how valid psychoanalysis is or what competing theories may be out there, I found this book fascinating and interesting.
Brett Kahr is a Freudian psychoanalyst who's realized that there is a dearth of studies of what constitutes sexual fantasies - what's "normal" (if that can be measured) and what's "perverse" (also a slippery concept) - and how those fantasies might affect people in their lives.
Being a Freudian, Kahr believes that most, if not all, of our fantasies arise from childhood traumas. "Trauma" here does not necessarily mean something horrible like being raped by your father when you're 10 years old or having a group of boys sodomize you in the public restroom when you're 13. It can mean relatively unfortunate events or circumstances in an otherwise good childhood. Circumstances like an emotionally distant father or an overbearing mother or (as in the case of one woman) the loss of an older brother in a car accident. Kahr argues that "trauma functions as a key ingredient in the genesis of adult sexual fantasies" (p. 393) and that these fantasies help master "trauma through eroticization, rendering the terrifying and unprocessable into something sexy and manageable." (p. 383)
A "perverse" fantasy is one that eroticizes hatred (p. 418) and that "requires sustained perpetration of sadism toward oneself or one's 'love object'" and "becomes so all engrossing it prevents one from forging intimate relationships." (p. 420)
There are a number of conclusions he arrives at (if some are only tentative):
1. What is a sexual fantasy? An image, thought, drama, usually thought about during sex (coital or masturbatory) and that results in orgasm. (This makes it a different phenomenon than the sexual dream.)
2. What is a "normal" fantasy? There is no normative fantasy. People who appear quite "normal" might have some of the most sadistic, misogynistic, bestial fantasies but as long as they avoid the two criteria for "perversion" I mention above, they're no more abnormal than fantasizing about making love to one's partner that never departs from the missionary position.
3. Why fantasize? Kahr doesn't really know. From an evolutionary point of view it may help arousal and, hence, propagation. In terms of human psychology, it eroticizes and makes harmless traumas in our lives.
4. Does everyone have fantasies? Despite some negative responses in Kahr's survey, he feels that everyone has a fantasy of some sort even if they don't recognize it as such.
5. Should we share fantasies/act them out with our partners? Maybe. He recounts cases where exposing and/or acting out a fantasy did wonders for a relationship; alas, sometimes they torpedoed a relationship.
6. Are fantasies dangerous? Sometimes. See above about what a "perverse" fantasy is. Actually, in relation to this subject, Kahr gets into some potentially scary "Big Brother" stuff where he envisions mental-health experts "tagging" potential rapists, pedophiles, etc. based on their sexual fantasies - sort of a "Minority Report" world without the ESP.
7. If we don't fantasize about our partner is that a "bad sign"? Maybe; maybe not. Since a fantasy is a defense mechanism from past trauma, the absence of one's current partner is not unusual.
8. If we fantasize about something illegal (i.e., rape, pedophilia, incest, murder, etc.) will we eventually act it out? Probably not. Most - the overwhelming majority - even if their fantasies involve raping the cheerleading squad or murdering their partner don't go through with it. As Kahr wants to emphasize, even the most vile fantasy is a defense mechanism against some childhood trauma. Now, fantasizing about gang rapes or murder probably indicates a fairly serious trauma and the person should seek some form of therapy and it may make a person's intimate relationships ultimately unsatisfying but it doesn't mean we have a future "Ted Bundy" on our hands.
9. Can we control our fantasies? Always a good Freudian, Kahr doesn't believe so. At least not to any great extent.
One of the best aspects of this work is that Kahr doesn't try to create an all-encompassing theory of sexual fantasy. He tries to identify some broad generalizations but doesn't apply them to explain fantasy.
Though I don't have the background to assess just how valid psychoanalysis is or what competing theories may be out there, I found this book fascinating and interesting.
16 August 2008
The Limits of Power
Just a short post to publish links to two essays on TomDispatch taken from Andrew Bacevich's latest book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism:
The American Military Crisis
The Lessons of Endless War
He's also appearing on the Aug 15 episode of Bill Moyer's Journal so you should look him up there as well.
I'm probably (no, definitely) more radical in my solutions to our imperial overreach but even his reasonable, even-handed voice is inaudible in the current discussion about foreign policy and America's future role in the world (from both parties and candidates).
The American Military Crisis
The Lessons of Endless War
He's also appearing on the Aug 15 episode of Bill Moyer's Journal so you should look him up there as well.
I'm probably (no, definitely) more radical in my solutions to our imperial overreach but even his reasonable, even-handed voice is inaudible in the current discussion about foreign policy and America's future role in the world (from both parties and candidates).
Remaking Some Classics
One should learn not to procrastinate. Case in point: I've been meaning to suggest here that two classic SF films deserve to be remade only to discover that "they" have already done it for one -- The Day the Earth Stood Still. Klaatu (Michael Rennie) comes to Earth to warn us that if we take our aggressive tendencies off planet will spell our doom, and the first thing we do to him when he lands is shoot him. It's a great film -- both thematically (dissecting the Cold War paranoia of the time and the futility of violence) and in terms of writing and acting (though "Billy," the kid, is truly annoying). But it is getting a bit long in the tooth, and would have benefited from a producer/writer/director team that cared about the material.
Alas, this new version (due out in December from what I've read) stars Keanu Reeves (not as Gort, the blank-faced robot and a natural choice, but as Klaatu) so I'm not sure whoever conceived this project really knows what they're doing. On the upside, they have cast Jennifer Connelly as the mother (originally Patricia Neal's role) so it'll be nice to look at for those moments she's on screen.
I will wait, with low expectations, and hope for the best.
The second film that I think deserves a remake is the equally classic Forbidden Planet. The SF genre's retelling of Shakespeare's The Tempest, with Leslie Nielsen, Ann Francis and Walter Pidgeon. Again, in the hands of someone who cared about the material, a really fine, quality film could be produced.
Of course, it should go without saying, that if you haven't seen either original yet, you should.
Alas, this new version (due out in December from what I've read) stars Keanu Reeves (not as Gort, the blank-faced robot and a natural choice, but as Klaatu) so I'm not sure whoever conceived this project really knows what they're doing. On the upside, they have cast Jennifer Connelly as the mother (originally Patricia Neal's role) so it'll be nice to look at for those moments she's on screen.
I will wait, with low expectations, and hope for the best.
The second film that I think deserves a remake is the equally classic Forbidden Planet. The SF genre's retelling of Shakespeare's The Tempest, with Leslie Nielsen, Ann Francis and Walter Pidgeon. Again, in the hands of someone who cared about the material, a really fine, quality film could be produced.
Of course, it should go without saying, that if you haven't seen either original yet, you should.
05 August 2008
Film Reviews
I was browsing in the library's video shelves the other day and was seized by an impulse to check out a few horror-movie classics. To whit (to wit? -- I can never remember): Tod Browning's Dracula and Hammer Film's version of The Mummy.
Dracula: The last time I saw Dracula must have been nearly 30 years ago so I figured it was time I reviewed the classic. Overall, I must say I didn't like it much, and it's not because I'm jaded by the over-the-top gore of modern horror. It's more because the movie just doesn't create an atmosphere of suspense or terror. Outside of Renfield and his maniacal laugh, it's just not that interesting. And Dracula's destruction is almost laughably easy -- This man terrorized his countrymen for 400 years? What a bunch of wusses!
It's always been a pet peeve of mine that vampires are always so easy to kill in these movies. Supposedly at the top of the undead food chain, it's still possible for a bunch of teen-agers to slaughter the vampires by smashing a few windows and letting the sun shine in.
The Mummy: Hammer Film's version of The Mummy wasn't too bad. It wasn't terribly suspenseful or frightening but it told the story in a straightforward and competent manner, and Cushing and Lee were good.
I also checked out another in the BBC & Time-Life Films' series of Shakespeare adaptations; in this case: Julius Caesar. These adaptations are usually pretty good and this version of Julius Caesar was no disappointment. I'd also recommend their versions of Henry V and Richard III. I don't remember their names, but the actors in the leading roles were both excellent.
I can't say I liked Olivier's version of Henry V. I was turned off by what I might call the "prissy arrogance" of his Henry, and, in my opinion, he compares unfavorably with Branagh's king. On the other hand, I think Olivier was brilliant in his version of Richard III. I thoroughly enjoyed watching that video.
One final note: I highly recommend the PBS Mystery series Foyle's War. I stumbled upon these gems while channel surfing one weekend. I had known of their existence but had never been particularly interested in watching them. Oh, what a fool I was. In terms of stories, the series is not so different from other police procedurals like Prime Suspect (also highly recommended), Inspector Morse or The Inspector Lindley Mysteries, except that it's set in southern England during WW2. What makes it a marvelous series is solely Michael Kitchen's portrayal of Christopher Foyle: A man of high principle, incisive intelligence and compassion who doesn't let the war compromise those qualities. It's impossible to verbally describe how he carries off the role since it's invoked by his manner and tone of voice but you'll enjoy watching this series.
Dracula: The last time I saw Dracula must have been nearly 30 years ago so I figured it was time I reviewed the classic. Overall, I must say I didn't like it much, and it's not because I'm jaded by the over-the-top gore of modern horror. It's more because the movie just doesn't create an atmosphere of suspense or terror. Outside of Renfield and his maniacal laugh, it's just not that interesting. And Dracula's destruction is almost laughably easy -- This man terrorized his countrymen for 400 years? What a bunch of wusses!
It's always been a pet peeve of mine that vampires are always so easy to kill in these movies. Supposedly at the top of the undead food chain, it's still possible for a bunch of teen-agers to slaughter the vampires by smashing a few windows and letting the sun shine in.
The Mummy: Hammer Film's version of The Mummy wasn't too bad. It wasn't terribly suspenseful or frightening but it told the story in a straightforward and competent manner, and Cushing and Lee were good.
I also checked out another in the BBC & Time-Life Films' series of Shakespeare adaptations; in this case: Julius Caesar. These adaptations are usually pretty good and this version of Julius Caesar was no disappointment. I'd also recommend their versions of Henry V and Richard III. I don't remember their names, but the actors in the leading roles were both excellent.
I can't say I liked Olivier's version of Henry V. I was turned off by what I might call the "prissy arrogance" of his Henry, and, in my opinion, he compares unfavorably with Branagh's king. On the other hand, I think Olivier was brilliant in his version of Richard III. I thoroughly enjoyed watching that video.
One final note: I highly recommend the PBS Mystery series Foyle's War. I stumbled upon these gems while channel surfing one weekend. I had known of their existence but had never been particularly interested in watching them. Oh, what a fool I was. In terms of stories, the series is not so different from other police procedurals like Prime Suspect (also highly recommended), Inspector Morse or The Inspector Lindley Mysteries, except that it's set in southern England during WW2. What makes it a marvelous series is solely Michael Kitchen's portrayal of Christopher Foyle: A man of high principle, incisive intelligence and compassion who doesn't let the war compromise those qualities. It's impossible to verbally describe how he carries off the role since it's invoked by his manner and tone of voice but you'll enjoy watching this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)