Since Hollywood has decided that books, radio series and TV miniseries are not enough we now have a feature film based on Douglas Adams' masterpiece. I re-read the book in anticipation of the film so that I would be able to comment and discuss a little better. I must say I enjoyed it a lot and I'm very glad I went to see it. The cast acted very well. I especially liked the way Mos Def played Ford Prefect. He was very good at being otherworldly. I was also very impressed by the way Martin Freeman played Dent. He was a perfect stereotype of a Brit.
Also the trailer shown right before the film surprised the heck out of me.
RATING: 4/5
Well I had to read it in preparation for the movie. I'm glad I did. I totally forgot about Marvin! This book is a classic. Anyone who hasn't read it really should. It's laugh out loud funny and a quick read. Go read it and go see the movie.
RATING: 5/5
This is Danny Boyle's latest film and it is different from his previous work. Most of his other films have a very dark tone but this one is more of a family film. The main story surrounds two young brothers whose mother had died recently. They have just moved to a new house in a new neighborhood with their father. They are very different children. The older brother is very pragmatic and knows how to be a con man. He acts tough on the outside but is hurting deeply on the inside. Damien the younger boy is obsessed with the lives of saints. He has their lives and deaths memorized in only the way an absolutely obsessed child can. The story's time period is not known exactly but it takes place in the not too distant future. It's about a week before the UK abandons the Pound Sterling for the Euro.
Their lives seem to be moving along as normally as possible until a bag of money falls from the sky. One boy wants to spend it to buy stuff and friends. The other boy wants to give it to the poor and make good come of it. When the money turns out to be stolen and the owners want it back the plot thickens.
RATING: 3.5/5
My boss loaned me this book yesterday and it's a hoot. It's the only one of these books I've ever read. My understanding of the basic premise of this book is that the young lads are given a magic book. But being boys they don't bother to read the directions for how to use it. They just use it and end up being transported through space and time.
In this story they boys are about to begin summer vacation when one of them accidentally slips the entire school's summer reading list into the magic book. At that point all heck breaks loose. There are characters from many different stories (appropriate for Kindergarten through 8th grade) turning up in Hoboken. It's a hoot.
The author started this series of books because he wanted to provide easy-reading fiction that would appeal to younger boys. As a teacher he was dismayed by the lack of fiction for young boys. So he decided to do something about it. I don't know if he succeeded with that since I have never been a boy but it is a fun read and I'm going to have to get the rest of these books to read them.
My Rating: 3/5
This is a pretty neat book for a kid's book. It draws on mythology from the Norse, Native Americans, East Asians and the Greeks. It tells us how one little league player in Washington State (along with a few friends) can use baseball to prevent Ragged Rock (The End of the Universe as we know it--HA!)
I must say that the middle of the book was a bit slow moving but those familiar with Chabon's other works would expect that. I don't know how well young readers would take to that though. Another downside to this book is the ending. It's just a bit too saccharine. Everything ends up far too neat and happy in the end.
On the other hand the book has a lot of good qualities too. The story shows how a widower tries to pick up the pieces of his family after the death of his wife. How he tries to use baseball as a means to reach out to his only son. It's also amazing what this man is willing to do to save his son's life. The book also makes many nods to Negro League Baseball and the Homestead Grays in particular. Which I thought was very cool. That's not a very surprising fact though since many of Chabon's books have Pittsburgh area references.
All in all, I recommend this book. I'm not sure what children think of it. Especially since the story moves so slowly in the middle and at 500 pages it's not something that the average third grader is going to whip out in a single evening. If you are a Chabon fan this book is no Mysteries of Pittsburgh or Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay. Those books are hard to beat but this book is definitely better than most of the kids books out there.
My Rating: 3/5
This book may not seem worth buying to most people. I first heard about it while watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." The author appeared as a guest on the show to promote the book. It seemed like a riot so I finally got a copy.
First of all this book is short. It's more like an essay. But its mere 67 pages are filled with very interesting questions and information. I'm no expert on philosophy but this book makes me wish I were. First of all the entire premise of the book borders on the ludicris1. Second This baby is filled with quotes that you never thought you would find in a serious work. Such as:
"Is the bullshitter by his very nature a mindless slob? Is his product necessarily messy or unrefined? The word shit does, to be sure, suggest this. Excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted, or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case certainly not wrought."2
I highly recommend this book to anyone who has ever wondered how bullshit is different from humbuggery or balderdash. I also recommend it to anyone with a childish sense of humor who will get a kick out of so much use of the word "shit" in a semi-serious context.
My Rating: 4/5
NOTES:
1: ludicris is the way to spell ludicrous with street cred.
2. Frankfurt, Harry On Bullshit Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ 2005 pp 21-22.
I almost didn't go to see this film. I usually go to The Oaks Theater in Oakmont, PA for their Monday night discussions. But I was really tired and the trailer for this film didn't do anything for me. The only reason I went to see this was that the director, writer and star of the film (Michael Pressman) was to be there for the event.
I'm very glad that I saw this film. First of all the film is based on a true story. Michael Pressman and his wife (Lisa Chess) really did finance their own project of a play. They really did do Frankie and Johnny in the Clare de Lune. Both of these fine actors play themselves in the film. Alan Rosenberg also plays a character by his own name though Mr. Pressman insists Rosenberg was not the actor that nearly ruined their project together.
This movie is a romantic comedy that actually works. That's a rarity these days. Most of them are too sappy or just go for the cheap laughs. I highly recommend this film. I know its distribution has been limited but the film will be out on DVD in November. I will be adding it to my shelf.
My Rating: 4/5
Wow. Double Wow. Triple Wow.
It's upsetting to me that the only reason I knew about this new ranslation of Under The Glacier coming out was that the New York Times printed Susan Sontag's introduction a few Sundays before its release. This should have been much more publicized. This is an important work.
I think I can say that Laxness deserved his Nobel Prize for Literature. Not only does this novel cross into many genres. It's sci-fi, it's fantasy, it's romance, it's historical fiction, it's political and social commentary...(the list can go on forever). This book is very engaging and yet a crazy read.
The style of writing is a bit different than most novels. The young man working for the bishop is referred to as Embi (Emissary of Bishop, I guess) and he uses a tape recorder to conduct his research. Much of the book is written as if it is a series of interview transcriptions. The translation seems quite good. I have heard that many of Laxness' works had been poorly translated to English. I think this is done well. There are probably things that wouldn't please the author himself, but it is better than many other works of translated literature I've read.
RATING: 4.5/5
MORE INFO AND SPOILERS FOLLOW
In this story the Bishop of Iceland is concerned about rumors he has heard about goings on in Snaefells Glacier. If that name sounds familiar it is because that location plays an important part in Jules Verne's classic novel Journey to the Center of the Earth. The Bishop sends an emissary a student who has not yet been ordained to observe the goings on at "Glacier" and report back to him. It turns out that the Pastor at Glacier is an old-style Christian Mystic who no longer says mass and spends more time working as a handyman for the community than as a man of cloth. The Pastor remains married to a mysterious woman who disappears for over 30 years.
Strange things happen at Glacier. There are women who never seem to eat or sleep. Corpses disappear or are taken up to the glacier and a strange building is built next to the boarded-up church.
This film had an interesting premise. The year is 2142 and the world's environment has been ruined. Some people believed that climate change was coming so they built a living city that could support them. The people left on the outside were not allowed in. They either died or became workers in the mines supplying the great city of "Ecoban." In the film these miners were terribly exploited by the people of Ecoban and the miners finally revolt.
I recommend this film. The animation was well done and I felt like I was being drawn into the story. There were some plot holes and such, but it was still a very fun film.
Rating: 3.5/5
This turned out to be a bit of a dud. The animation was well done but the story was a bit hokey. My sister said it was a bit too Matrix-like. I can definitely see what she was saying there. It seemed that there was a lot of opportunity for a good storytelling in this feature but most of that opportunity was missed.
Rating: 2/5
I'm probably not qualified to write a review of these performances but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.
Saturday night my husband, Derrick, and I went to see the The Pittsburgh Symphony. The title of the concert was "Bartok and Shostakovich (In the Face of War)." Andrew Druckenbrod of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette ("PSO Tests Bartok" B-7 4-3-2005) seemed unhappy with the pairing of Bartok and Shostakovich in one concert. When I saw that Bartok's Viola Concerto and Shostakovich's 7th Symphony (Leningrad) were on the schedule in a single concert I was happy. I'm used to modern pieces being paired with "classical favorites" that I don't really need to hear again. You know...Shostakovich's 10th Symphony followed by something boring by Mozart or Brahms.
I really enjoyed Randolph Kelly's performance of the Bartok Viola Concerto (*). The orchestration of the piece was left undone when Bartok died. His student Tibor Serly finished the piece. This is a never-ending source of controversy with the piece. So maybe it's not exactly how Bartok would have done it, but I'm glad he finished it. It was fun to listen to and fun to watch. Mr.Kelly was obviously enjoying playing the piece. I would say his performance was contemplative and engaging. I certainly didn't want it to be over.
The performance of Shostakovich's 7th Symphony was also fantastic. The symphony was inspired by the siege of Leningrad during World War II. I found the symphony to be moving. One thing I never thought would happen though is that several times during the performance I thought it was too loud. I really wished I had earplugs. I guess I really am getting too old for rock-n-roll.
(*) Contrary to popular belief Concerto for Viola and Orchestra by Bela Bartok is not the world's longest viola joke. That distinction belongs to Hector Berlioz's Harold in Italy.