Dancing Bread Rolls

I was sitting in the Wash Room a few days ago, diligently reading my copy of Little Women. Upon realizing exactly what book I was reading, a guy sitting near me exclaimed:

“Oh! I hate that book! My mother made me read it when I was seven and I couldn’t stand it!”

So this proves three things.

1) While it is possible that a father giving his daughter Little Women will result in a positive experience for her, the reverse is not true. Boys just don’t seem to enjoy this book, even if given to them by their mothers.

2) Even people who don’t like this novel care intensely about it. It wasn’t just a mediocre “Oh, I had to read that once and didn’t like it too much.” It was an angry, passionate response!

3) His mother may have been in denial. Or sadistic. Or both.

And the results…

ACTOR: Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland)

SUPPORTING ACTOR: Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) (yay, my long shot won!)

ACTRESS: Helen Mirren

SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Jennifer Hudson

ANIMATED FILM: Happy Feet (Ha! Take that, Cars! Reserving judgment until I manage to see both.) (Robyn may be right.)

ART DIRECTION: Pan’s Labyrinth (Hooray!)

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Pan’s Labyrinth (Huzzah!)

DOCUMENTARY: An Inconvenient Truth

FOREIGN FILM: The Lives of Others (sniffle)

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP: Pan’s Labyrinth (!)

ORIGINAL SCORE: Babel

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: The Departed

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Little Miss Sunshine

BEST ANIMATED SHORT: The Danish Poet

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT: West Bank Story (I’d like to see this–it looked pretty good!)

SOUND EDITING: Letters from Iwo Jima

SOUND MIXING: Dreamgirls

COSTUME DESIGN: Marie Antoinette

VISUAL EFFECTS: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT): The Blood of Yingzhou District

ORIGINAL SONG: An Inconvenient Truth (Melissa Etheridge)

FILM EDITING: The Departed

DIRECTOR: Martin Scorsese (The Departed)

BEST PICTURE: The Departed

…

So, overall–

Pan’s Labyrinth won three out of the six it was nominated for! That’s not bad at all! (Plus, it will look very pretty and symmetrical on the DVD case, which is always good.) It also got the second-most number of Oscars this year, just behind The Departed, which won four. *shakes fist* A few surprises were Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) for Best Supporting Actor, Happy Feet for Best Animated Film, and Little Miss Sunshine for Best Original Screenplay.

My real reason for watching the Academy Awards, which is lacking in many respects as an institution for judgment of films (true objectiveness being one of them), is to discover new movies that look interesting. I’m ashamed to admit that I haven’t yet seen The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, Babel, or Happy Feet. I am therefore a complete disgrace and shall attempt to rectify this situation as soon as possible. Other films that look fascinating include Notes on a Scandal (yay, Judi Dench!), Children of Men, The Lives of Others, Water, West Bank Story, and The Blood of Yingzhou District.

Finally, I’m going to continue to shamelessly plug Pan’s Labyrinth. It’s indescribably superb. I think it may even be my favorite recent foreign film, though it’s difficult to beat Amelie. I’ll have to give that one some thought. Anyway, please, please, please see it as soon as you have the chance. You’ll love it. I promise

.

Why is it that nobody watches the Academy Awards anymore? Even my MOST film-obsessed friends have responded to the suggestion with a disdainful look or roll of the eyes. Granted, it’s not the most reliable source of film judgment, but it’s fun to watch! (Not all the red carpet stuff. That’s boring.) But for years now, I’ve had a tradition of watching the Academy Awards. It’s always interesting to see which clips they pick for each nominee, watch the host crack bad jokes, and root for films you want to win. Am I the only one who still enjoys this? Bah.

Tonight, I am watching the Academy Awards alone. I will cheer, I will laugh, I will glare, I will even throw things at the TV if necessary. And it will be glorious.

That being said, I haven’t even seen half the films that have been nominated. But I’m going to make predictions all the same! (There’s nothing like uninformed attempts at future-reading.)

ACTOR
Leonardo Di Caprio in “Blood Diamond”
Ryan Gosling in “Half Nelson”
Peter O’Toole in “Venus”
Will Smith in “The Pursuit of Happyness”
Forest Whitaker in “The Last King of Scotland”
Likely: Forest Whitaker
Wishful Thinking: Peter O’Toole

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Alan Arkin in “Little Miss Sunshine”
Jackie Earle Haley in “Little Children”
Djimon Hounsou in “Blood Diamond”
Eddie Murphy in “Dreamgirls”
Mark Wahlberg in “The Departed”
Likely: Eddie Murphy
Wishful Thinking: Alan Arkin

ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz in “Volver”
Judi Dench in “Notes on a Scandal”
Helen Mirren in “The Queen”
Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada”
Kate Winslet in “Little Children”
Likely: Helen Mirren
Wishful Thinking: Judi Dench (I always root for Judi Dench. Always. She is fabulous.)

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Adriana Barraza in “Babel”
Cate Blanchett in “Notes on a Scandal”
Abigail Breslin in “Little Miss Sunshine”
Jennifer Hudson in “Dreamgirls”
Rinko Kikuchi in “Babel”
Likely: Jennifer Hudson
Wishful Thinking: Abigail Bresun

ANIMATED FILM
“Cars”
“Happy Feet”
“Monster House”
Likely: “Cars”
Wishful Thinking: “Happy Feet”

ART DIRECTION
“Dreamgirls”
“The Good Shepherd”
“Pan’s Labyrinth”
“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”
“The Prestige”
Likely: “Dreamgirls”
Wishful Thinking: “Pan’s Labyrinth” (I’m rooting for this film for all 6 categories it was nominated in. It deserves to win everything it possibly can. If you haven’t seen it already, go out and do so immediately. It is spectacular.)

CINEMATOGRAPHY
“The Black Dahlia”
“Children of Men”
“The Illusionist”
“Pan’s Labyrinth”
“The Prestige”
Likely: “Children of Men”
Wishful Thinking: “Pan’s Labyrinth”

DOCUMENTARY
“Deliver Us from Evil”
“An Inconvenient Truth”
“Iraq in Fragments”
“Jesus Camp”
“My Country, My Country”
Likely: “An Inconvenient Truth”
Wishful Thinking: “An Inconvenient Truth” (The only one I’ve seen, and while I do have some complaints with it, it’s pretty well-done and effective.)

FOREIGN FILM
“After the Wedding” Denmark
“Days of Glory (Indigenes)” Algeria
“The Lives of Others” Germany
“Pan’s Labyrinth” Mexico
“Water” Canada
Likely: “The Lives of Others”
Wishful Thinking: “Pan’s Labyrinth” (pleeeaaase…)

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
“Apocalypto”
“Click”
“Pan’s Labyrinth”
Likely: “Apocalypto”
Wishful Thinking: “Pan’s Labyrinth”

ORIGINAL SCORE
“Babel”
“The Good German”
“Notes on a Scandal”
“Pan’s Labyrinth”
“The Queen”
Likely: “The Queen”
Wishful Thinking: “Pan’s Labyrinth”

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
“Borat”
“Children of Men”
“The Departed”
“Little Children”
“Notes on a Scandal”
Likely: “The Departed”
Wishful Thinking: “Children of Men”

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
“Babel”
“Letters from Iwo Jima”
“Little Miss Sunshine”
“Pan’s Labyrinth”
“The Queen”
Likely: “Babel”
Wishful Thinking: “Pan’s Labyrinth”

DIRECTOR
“Babel” Alejandro González Iñárritu
“The Departed” Martin Scorsese
“Letters from Iwo Jima” Clint Eastwood
“The Queen” Stephen Frears
“United 93” Paul Greengrass
Likely: Martin Scorsese
Wishful Thinking: Alejandro González Iñárritu

BEST PICTURE
Babel
The Departed
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen
Likely: “The Departed”
Wishful Thinking: “Little Miss Sunshine”

…

…

Reactions to final results will be posted later :)

Another thing that I thought would make an interesting class discussion is the question of the creative commons license. Nokuthula Mazibuko published her book under this license, which basically gives permission for anyone else to add to it as long as it’s not offensive in some way. She explained that her reason for doing this is that it’s not just a story that can be told by one person–many people are involved with stories, and they should be allowed (and encouraged) to add to this. Also coming into play is the idea of a South African tradition of storytelling. In oral traditions like this, stories go through many people and consequently many versions, but gain meaning rather than losing it by this experience. This is an interesting idea to apply to literature, or any form of art. Think of a piece of music under a creative commons license and the transformations it might undergo as various composers change it and build upon it. On the one hand, the original composer might feel a little resentful that his or her work is being taken away from its original form and intent. (Though if he/she puts it under creative commons, I’m assuming that this feeling wouldn’t actually be a factor.) On the other hand, consider what an amazing work of art it could become after scores (no pun intended) of musicians have their way with it.

I’m not sure if I’d be able to put any of my work under a creative commons license. However, I think that the decision to do that would be primarily based upon what type of work it was. If it’s non-fiction or biographical, or even opinion, then I probably wouldn’t have as many reservations in that area. But I’m not so sure how I’d feel about other people tampering with a work of short fiction or a piece of artwork. Does willingness to put something under a creative commons license simply depend on context and subject matter, or is it more a general frame of mind?

I’m copy/pasting a reaction I wrote for another class on this, because I think it ties in well:

Having attended both the film screening on Wednesday and the reading on Thursday, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about Nokuthula Mazibuko’s work. What I was expecting for both was very different from what it ended up being, at least for me. I thought that the film would be centered on the violence and injustice of apartheid and the specific student protests that ended tragically. However, the compilation of interviews and photographs that the documentary consisted of seemed to emphasize individual experiences of the events and people involved. It’s difficult to describe the exact angle of the story she was attempting to capture, but I would say that it was much more about the experiences and individuals rather than the event itself. There was no emotion involved, for the most part—merely statement of fact. This is interesting to me, because I expected the people who experienced the events to have more extreme feelings about it, I suppose. At the same time, I think this reflects the world view that she was trying to emphasize about everyone being connected, and the importance of not attaching blame and moving forward, rather than focusing on something in the past. This must be a fairly foreign concept to most western audiences, but it really is a wonderful and unique concept. Emphasis is placed on the present and future; the past is simply a collection of experiences that can be learned from and improved upon, not a source of negative emotion or blame. Usually when I view a film or documentary, I look for a main point. Not finding one initially, I was a little disappointed. However, upon further thought I realized that it wasn’t supposed to be about the event itself, but the people. And not even about their reactions, really—just how they are now. How it shaped them. And what they’re doing with their lives as a result. The excerpts from her novel were similarly focused, even when quoting a woman who was tortured in prison and lost her husband to a car bomber. The tone wasn’t angry, depressed, or regretful—it was all very matter-of-fact. The past is important only in the context of the present and future. This idea, while definitely foreign—and even jarring—at first, is growing on me.

I’m curious–what are everyone else’s thoughts on this? What did you think of her documentary and/or writing? I wasn’t sure I liked the film at first, but now I’m wondering if it was simply because I was looking for the wrong point…

After giving it a full class session and five minutes of thought, I’ve decided to say that all four girls are essential to the novel. Not because this is necessarily what I believe, but because I’m stubborn and contrary. On the whole, a rather excellent reason for doing something, in my opinion.

Youngest to oldest. (Saving best for last, obviously. Can you tell I’m an older sibling?)

Amy: Every family needs a whiny, misguided, pretentious, but occasionally adorable little girl. But she represents more than pure entertainment value. Jo is altogether too perfect, and like all perfect people, must therefore be tormented. Amy accomplishes this beautifully. Also, what better way to plague the occasional obsessive-compulsive reader than a character who consistently mispronounces every other word? Splendid.

Beth: While Jo’s personality represents absolute perfection (as proven by the number of readers dying to be her) (dying…hm…that’s not a bad idea for some of the creators of those online quizzes) (capital punishment seems fair for bad grammar and spelling), Beth’s temperament is ideal. You know why it’s ideal? Because she doesn’t have one, to speak of. She is shy, quiet, compliant, and well-behaved. She might as well be a chair. Or one of her beloved dolls. Not the one without arms, legs, and half its head though. Really, Beth doesn’t exist. She is therefore an ideal part of the scenery. Just think how empty the March house would look without Beth sitting silent and motionless in the corner. And that’s why we need Beth.

Jo: Because this book needed a cult following of rabid, giggly preteen girls. Instigating, feminist book-giving mothers optional.

Meg: Eye candy! Just kidding. She’s not that pretty. Her ultra-feminine, conformist personality is too distracting for that. However, she is a rather important plot device. Just think–Meg takes away Mr. Brooke so that Laurie has more time on his hands than he knows what to do with, and ends up making passes at Jo, causing widespread emotional turmoil. Excellent. Meg is The Eternal Source of Conflict. This also occurs when she sprains her ankle at the dance, forcing Jo to cease happily cavorting around with Laurie. In fact, it can be traced even further than this. Meg is the reason that Jo meets Laurie in the first place, due to her insistence that Jo stays on the side and doesn’t dance at the party. Jo meets fellow lurker, he falls in love with her eventually, she breaks his heart. Therefore, Meg is indirectly responsible for the complete emotional destruction of a fellow character! And who was the first one to refuse going to the Hummels’ in chapter 17? That’s right. Beth DIES because of Meg. Pure (accidental) evil. And the best part is, Meg has kids! Screwing up a whole new generation of the family is a definite plus. She appears sweet, highly domesticated, and easily pleased, but leaves chaos and misery in her wake. This novel badly needed a villain, and I think we’ve found a spectacular one in Meg.
.

Fin.

First, quizzes! We can settle this “who do you identify with the most” question with a truly ungodly number of internet quizzes!!! (WARNING: some of these are ridiculously bad and/or horribly spelled.)

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

Eleven

Twelve

Thirteen

Fourteen

Fifteen

You can even comment with all 15 of your results! Really, you can ;)

Come on, you know you want to… especially you, Dr. Campbell.

I first read Little Women when I was seven. (Given to me, surprisingly, by my dad. But he’s a feminist. So that makes sense.) I was so fond of it at the time that my parents bought me the book on tape (with a full cast!) for my eighth birthday. I spent a whole summer listening to it over and over and over.

I’d forgotten most of it until I picked up the book again yesterday. Suddenly, I was remembering exact passages and dialogue. Apparently I still have huge chunks of this book memorized, even after 12 years. Wow.

I’m going to wait until I finish the entire thing (again) before I identify myself with a particular character. When I was little, however, I considered myself to be a combination of Jo and Amy. My personality matched Jo’s fairly well, and–let’s face it–I wanted to be her, just like everyone else. However, Amy is the artist, something that I also identified with. There was something about her personality that, while not always positive and frequently self-serving, also reminded me of myself. So I guess we’ll soon see who I am now….

Re-reading Little Women is eerie, in a way, because I find myself anticipating specific lines and mental images that I didn’t know even existed anymore are flooding back with each scene. I also remember the tones of the actresses in the full-cast tape version for certain lines. It’s a very weird feeling, and also slightly distracting. I find myself putting the book down every couple of pages and gazing off into space, remembering what it was like reading it before. It hasn’t changed as much as I expected it to, though the idea that it would change is irrational. Perhaps my original attitude towards it is so cemented into place that it hasn’t changed in twelve years. Hmm…

Because I just couldn’t stay away from Hammett…

Length of sentences in the first paragraph of each chapter:

The Body in China Street: 14, 12, 21

The Hat Trick: 33, 27, 19
The Cyclone Shot: 20, 11, 8, 6, 40
The Dog House: 20 (dialogue)
The Hospital: 9 (dialogue)

The Observer: 12, 14 (dialogue)

The Henchmen: 11, 9, 14, 49, 19
The Kiss-Off: 49, 32
The Heels: 35 (dialogue)
The Shattered Key: 4, 13, 12, 6, 6

I also decided to look at Hammett’s initial descriptions of each character. (Do whatever you like with this data. It’s too early in the morning for my mind to be functioning properly.)

I plotted each one so you can see the individual trends, then stuck them all on one graph for comparison.

–

**One interesting thing that I ran into is that both Ned and Janet aren’t really given formal, initial descriptions, unlike the other characters. This suggests (once again) that Ned and Janet are on equal footing not only in terms of intellect, but also as far as Hammett’s attitude toward them is concerned. They are both treated as main characters by omission of the usual introductions.

I have decided, possibly foolishly, to analyze text patterns found in The Glass Key. The idea was raised that a pattern should be explored not only in a single paragraph of text, but across the whole novel. I chose to do this because:

1. I have no life.

2. I’m sick, and therefore have no desire for a life, despite it being Friday night.

3. Hammett is my substitute for a life.

4. I feel a little guilty about being so far behind on blog posts last week.

5. This numbered list is ending now.

I have utilized the handy random number table found here to select 10 page numbers, and then simply analyzed sentence word count in each page. (I considered doing it for the first paragraph on each page, but the paragraphs are frequently filled with dialogue, which makes it a little difficult to identify real paragraphs.) *NOTE: I am using my copy of The Glass Key, which I borrowed from the library (resulting from an irrepressible desire to save money) and is, in fact, a collection of all of Hammett’s works. Therefore, the page numbers are not the same as the ones in the class copies of the novel. The Glass Key is on pages 591-777. This difference is unimportant and won’t change the data significantly. I knew there was a reason* I took AP Stat in high school.

*other than masochism

Here are the graphs of each page…

655:

641:

637:

713:

692:

747:

673:

734:

715:

718:

So there it is. Let me know if you want me to do anything else with the data; it’s only 8pm and I’ve got the rest of the night to fill with similarly geeky pursuits…