as part of our first official meeting of the "pdc dance moms book club", we decided to watch the film "eat pray love" becauser we read the book. i don't know if it's hollywood or just the way life goes but most of my book club meetings are viewings of movie versions of the books we read. so i checked it out from the library for us to watch.
if you read my post on the book, you know that i avoided the movie when it was in theaters because it knew it would give me the traveling bug. i also avoided it because i absolutely love "dog days are over" by florence and the machine and was worried the movie would ruin my love for it because it was in the trailer. (surprisingly it was not in the film.)
if you read, you would also know that i didn't care for the book. and not surprisingly, i didn't really care for the movie. i mean i will always love julia roberts (but i mean she was a little too old for this role, gilbert was supposed to be in her early thirties) and all the men in the movie were hot (more on this later), but it was still kinda whatever. the only thing that i did enjoy was the forgiveness/wedding flashback scene with julia and billy crudup (by the way when did he get so gross? he is not the golden god from "almost famous".) i was worried that that scene was going to be melodramatic especially since there was that emotional but i saw as awkward scene about richard from texas' alcoholism. i loved richard from texas in the book, and in the movie, but that scene was too much. i mean they could have set up that scene using the book version (and thus real-life version) and it would have been fine. but i thought it was very tender that they got their "real" first dance. it was sweet and sentimental. and not at all cheesy . . . in my opinion.
i also did not agree with some of the actors/actresses picked. i mean all of the men were hot and gorgeous. james franco, swoon! i would have been a basketcase in india for him! and giovanni, double swoon! and so enjoyed that. but thought wayan was a little oldish and not as pretty as i imagined her in my head as i read. also the swedish guy was not drool worthy enough, i mean swedes are hot!
all in all, the film was ho hum. i mean the india part bored me, just like it did in the book. she also annoyed me too, just like in the book. i guess i kinda had high hopes, julia roberts! plus ryan murphy directed and adapted the screenplay. i mean everything he makes is amazing. but his magic was missing from this, maybe it was because of elizabeth gilbert's lameness. i'm not sure who to blame. but all in all, if you haven't seen it, don't stress out about life, just wait til tbs starts airing it every weekend.
yes that's the dvd cover. i don't get it either. when i picked it up, i thought to myself, isn't this supoose to be about a couple coping with the death of their young son? so what's with the pornographic photo? and with hole in the title, it sounds like some sick twisted sequel to "eyes wide shut'. but it's not.
but let's get serious cos this is a serious film. the other day while googling to see when "midnight in paris" came out in theaters. i found a list of movies released in may 2011 and came across "rabbit hole". i wanted to see it in theaters but for one reason or another never saw it. i loved "hedwig and the angry inch" and wanted to see a john cameron mitchell film with a more serious screenplay. (not that "hedwig" wasn't but you know, mitchell minus the camp. also i haven't seen "shortbus".) "hedwig" is one of my faovrites, so i was game to see another one of his films.
mitchell did not disappoint. though i am not a parent and though i have never lost someone unexpectantly in my life, this film had me in tears. like barely five minutes into the film kinda tears. the screenplay is very well written. it is by David Lindsay-Albarie who also wrote the award winning play 'rabbit hole" on which the movie was based. again though i have never experienced it, i feel this film is a an honest portrayal of life after losing a young son or daughter. it shows that there really isn't one way to cope or even a right way to cope. also one should expect to experience a full spectrum of emotions.
without giving too much away, i will say that i appreciated how nicole kidman's character was anti-religion when it came to coping. i have never found and probably will never find comfort in god when tragedy strikes. i have explained to friends that i hope there isn't a god because human suffering shouldn't be justify by the idea that "this is what god wanted." really god wanted horrible events to happen? also how can one have faith in a god who lets horrible things happen to innocent people. i can't believe in a god that places souls into families where sexual abuse happens or to parents with drug habits. how do you justify that? i always say i can't be job; i will question god about my suffering. and for me i don't want to justify the horrible things that happen to me as something that god orchestrated. who can have faith in someone who creates horrible situations for the people he love and created. i think kidman's character summed it up best by calling god a "a sadistic prick." a god that causes suffering would be one.
the film touches on other topics but this is one i was left with after watching. i was also left with puffy eyes from tears. i think if i watch it after i have childern, i might have a different impression. i could sympathize with the characters but i couldn't empathize with them. this movie was good and i recommend it. but make sure to have some discuss handy cos it is very emotional.
i normally hate oprah but i have to admit i owe her one. auntie tracey has a subscription to her magazine and while reading the june issue in the water closet, i came across a recommendation for rosecrans baldwin's "paris, i love you but you're bringing me down." i normally would not trust oprah but my love for lcd soundsystem is stronger than my hatred of oprah, so i decided to judge a book by a title and give it a go.
and yes the title is an lcd soundsystem reference. how could it not be? for you purists, it was confirmed when baldwin mentioned running to "north american scum" and thanked the band in the acknowledgements. also here's the video for the inspiration for the title "new york, i love you but your bringing me down":
so i was a little hesitant about the book. though i have never been to paris, i am in love with it. thanks to "midnight in paris" (and of course cole porter, hemingway, the fitzgeralds, and gertrude stein), "an american in paris" (the gershwin definitely helped), "funny face" (i want to do a fashion shoot with balloons), "amelie" (and maybe bring a gnome with me), "je'taime paris" (i want to visit oscar wilde's grave) and of course "sex and the city" (though carrie did realize paris was not all it was cracked up to be), i am nostalgic for a paris that i have never experienced. so when i saw the title i was worried it might crush my love. but it didn't. i mean an lcd reference and sloan crosley (love her book "i was told there'd be cake") gave an endorsement quote for the back. it couldn't bring me down.
though baldwin did not have the easiest time in paris, it still filled me with a desire to go. for every shitty experience he had, there was an amazing one. and even he admitted that, a bad day in paris is still kinda great because you are in paris. it seemed like the worse part about his life there was the langauge barrier. but i think i could deal with that, i mean the french would hate my bad accent and my inability to speak french but everything else would make up for it.
his book actually made me wish i was married. well more like married to someone who would have an opportunity to find work in paris, so i could move with them. or maybe just to married to a french. oh and before i go on, i'm glad that baldwin discussed how his friend charlie's gaydar was thrown off by the french. i have the same issue. i always wonder, is he gay or is he french?!?!? lol glad to see that i'm not the only one with that issue. but back to marrying a french, in a perfect world, he would be a french chef, i mean reading about the food baldwin ate was driving me insane. every italicized macaron mention made me sad that i was not eating one. i mean i was jealous of his description of french air economy food! but back to this imaginary french chef, he would also have to be childless. the book discussed that every french man has a child, so i must magically find one that is childless. so aside from dreams of going to paris, it also gave me this lofty goal in life. lol
random sidenote. not really because marriage would be the link. but i enjoyed how baldwin included stories of sarkozy and carla bruni. it reminded me about a discussion i had with a friend's cousin from france one night. i alluded to bruni, who i had just discovered on the "(500) days of summer" soundtrack. he told me the french hated her, but i didn't understand because i liked her music (kinda like baldwin's co-worker) but after reading this book i got it.
actually, marrying a parisian or living there would not be enough. after reading this novel, i kinda wish i had been born a parisian. i always tell people that i'm extremely grateful to have been born in california. i believe that we do have a sunnier look out on life. i mean imagine growing up in the midwest. gag me with a spoon. (that reference was intended). but to have been parisian would have been exciting. i want to to be a coquette by blood like little adele from jane eyre (who was described as "coquetry runs in her blood, blends with her brains and seasons the marrow of her bones.") to have a french look on love, to be have wild love affairs, and be crazy. it all seems so romantic and a little neurotic. and at the risk of sounding insane, i would also be french since it is apparently acceptable to make black jokes, jew jokes and comments about penis size. i hate how americans are so pc. i like dave chapelle, am a equal opportunist when it comes to make fun of people. also i would want to be french for the work day. i mean how often did baldwin's day end in a random potluck with drinks? though that could be an advertising thing.
but enough of my odd dreams and back to the book. i thorougly enjoyed this book. i had to interrupt my reading of "war and peace" because i was unable to renew it, so started after reading part 1 of "war and peace." i found it interesting how both works have a french theme. but baldwin's work was a nice break. it was a great read and i couldn't put it down. i finished it in a weekend. baldwin is a great story and i would totally be friends with him in real life. i share stories here but you should really read it for yourself. my only regret is reading this after "eat pray love" cos now i want to add paris to my list of places to travel. i also plan on putting in a request for a "how to speak french" book. and last but not least, seriously, when is picard coming stateside?
i had no desire to read this book when it first came out. i also had no desire to see the movie. i knew that i wouldn't enjoy it because a) i would be jealous the whole time and b) i would be super sad that i was not traveling. but when two PDC dance moms (cassie and colleen) and i decided to start a dance moms book club, we copied colleen's friend's book club and started with "eat pray love." but i was right, i was jealous but was more inspired than sad when it came to the traveling.
i hate to admit this, especially since her book was inspiring travel-wide, i thought elizabeth gilbert was annoying and a horrible person. at the risk of sounding like a bitch, i understood why she had some many problems, she was neurotic. when i first started reading i couldn't take her seriously, with her bathroom crying and notebook writing to herself. maybe she it was all hyperbole for the book but it was a bit overdramatic. and i know she addressed this but i am always very skeptical of people who turned to god only in a time of need, i mean he is there when good things happen too. (and please know i am guilty of this too and always feel silly due to it.) and i get it, life is hard but deal with it, just don't throw yourself a pity party. i hate to be insensitive and i understand that depression is a disease but gilbert didn't appear to be pro-active about getting herself better but simply wanted to wallow in her self pity. and i know that this book was about her change, kudos to her. but it felt like her prior life was filled with #whitegirlproblems and #firstworldproblems. and again i know that not all people have grandiose and serious challenges in life and that a challenge is a challenge but her complaints of life were not equivalent to her actual challenges. i could not stomach her whining. okay you are getting a divorce, you don't want to have kids like you thought you did and you suffer from depression, these things are survivable. all gilbert was going through was her return of saturn, the point in everyone's life where they re-evaluate their lives and values, it is not the end of the world. in retrospect it had to be hammed up for the book, because anyone good friend would have given her a good swift kick in the ass and told her to get over herself.
i feel like a mean girl for being so judgmental but gilbert was extremely selfish, and the proof is all in the india portion. when she explained that the ashram had an application process my first thought was how the hell did they let you in. seriously thought how did she get in? with a history of mental illness and just going though a divorce? i knew she was going to be a negative energy and i was right. and i understand that the point of the ashram is to challenge yourself to center yourself but she didn't seem ready for that challenge. the girl was still mopping over david (don't get me started on that relationship) and had not come to terms with her divorce. and i understand about personal growth but i was scared that her negative energy would interfere with the growth of others. thought it seemed that her neediness presented opportunities for other to aid which helped with their personal growth but even then it felt like people were stating the obvious to her. i took a history of religion course in college so i was familiar with most of the concepts she explained. and so when richard (who i adored) explained things to her i thought to myself, seriously this is like hinduism 101 and how did they let you (gilbert) in?!?!?
i think the incident that epitomized her selfishness was the gurugita. i was appalled by her writings about it. she is in india and the whole point of her trip is personal growth and change and she is going to bitch about a prayer?!?!? being righteous in any religion is a challenge. god didn't make things easy for humans, he wants them to work for their salvation. his demands are simple which leads many to think they are easy but that is not the case. and her inability to see this still left me questioning how the hell do you get in?!?! again hope it was hyperbole for the book, she could not have been that clueless.
sorry that was a really a mean rant but but i could not handle her. but that aside, i did love reading about the people that she met on her journey. i sincerely enjoyed them and enjoyed her tales with them. she met some amazing people.
i was also seriously inspired to travel. ask my sister she received a number of texts asking her to go places. i want to go to italy and eat! and of course to rome to see the foundations. and my bucket list now includes getting pizza from that place in naples. i was also inspired to learn italian, so i requested a book from the library.
i also want to go to bail to have ketut liyer read my palm. (i googled it and you can get a session with him for $28!) this is a possibility because my family is looking to go to singapore next year and if it happens i am going to fly over to bali too. so in the end this book was inspiration and may ultimately lead me on a new path if i get my palm read. lol
and i will say that i did value this book for all of its theological thought. i was raised mormon but after taking that college course, i had a fondness of eastern religion due to the emphasis on balance versus goodness. and i have always had this theory that in christianity, god and satan are one, for if god is all knowing and all powerful that means he must also know all that in terms of "evil" which would therefore make him satan. god is like a beast with two heads. and so when ketut shared his beliefs of heaven and hell it made sense. and this made sound odd but i am not one for religion personally, however i have always had a deep appreciation of the rituals and theories of religions. i love learning about religions but from an anthropological or historical viewpoint. i am also tolerant of all religions (except for fundamentalists) and have take on a viewpoint from the novel "what dreams may come" by richard matheson which accepts all religions as true. in the novel, it is realized that your faith calls into existence the afterlife you end up with, so the christian gets heaven, the buddhist gets nirvana, even the viking get valhalla. at the end of the day, what's important in life is one's faith and not what is true. as seen in "eat pray love" it's about finding what works best for you personally so that you can be the best version of you.
so in the end, this book did inspire me so i guess i would recommend it. just don't hold it against me when elizabeth gilbert annoys you.
like i mentioned before, i also check out books for grandma bea. grandma bea was running low on books by her favorite authors so i googled "if you liked harry potter, you should check out" to find books for her. (grandma bea is a huge potter fan, she got me into the series) i came across "the magicians" and decided to check it out. my friend saba had read it before and said it was supposed to be harry potter for grown ups. in fact that is what is says on the back cover.
i gave to grandma bea but she didn't like it. i think she read the first 50 pages or so and stopped because she couldn't get into it. even though it lacked her endorsement i decided to give it a chance.
unsurprisingly, i couldn't get into it as well. after 100 pages i wanted to give up. i didn't like quentin, he was too negative and an unlikely hero but not in charming endearing way but in a wow-this-kid-is-a-real-asshole way. he was and is no harry potter. i didn't want to read because i didn't care about him. but i couldn't give up for the following reasons: a) the junto diaz endorsement on the back, i loved "oscar wao" so i respected his opinion and thought that maybe i should wait it out, b) this blog, if i didn't finish it would i be able to blog about it (i decided i could, because occasionally i'll check out a stinker), c) i don't like giving up on books, even if i don't like it, i figure i should finish it so my hatred is at least founded. so i texted my friend juliana (who i saw had read it on good reads) for her opinion on my quitting. she said she loved it. but i should stop. since she loved it, i decided to continue. plus quentin was entering his fourth year and what occurred was cool so i thought it was on the up and up.
i was wrong. due to my already judgy-ness about this book, reading it was like pulling teeth. i wasn't interest in the plot, especially with their post-brakebills lives. don't get me wrong, i would have love to live their bohemian lives but as a magicians they could do so much more. (this was a huge subplot so maybe my restlessness with their lives was what grossman was trying to create?) i absolutely loved the story plot that penny introduced and was excited for what was to come but even that was a letdown. what it boiled down to is that i thought all of the characters were assholes, in addition to being useless. the only character i liked was alice and would have preferred the story from her perspective because she was the only one with integrity. and i get it. grossman was trying to be realistic. the teens and twentysomethings of this generation (and i guess any generation) are jaded, selfish, unmoral, and cowardly. it was hard to become invested in them when i thought they were all pieces of shit. i wish he had characters of better substance, like harry potter, i mean grown up harry potter probably had heart, these kids had nothing. in addition to having bad personalities they were also bad magicians. i admit that if i had to encounter all that they did in their adventure, i would have be unable to utilize my magic skills but these kids sucked. they couldn't do anything, which made their schooling seem pointless. and who wants to read a book about bad magicians? or bad teens? this book is a fantasy, but i still want heroes i can believe it.
but i guess the real problem was that grossman is a bad storyteller. i didn't get lost in his book like i did in the harry potter series. and i know that the first two potters were not all that and since this was the first of the magicians books there was a lot of set up, so i can't have too high of expectations. but those excuses aside it was still bad writing. i felt like i was just reading words on a paper instead of being transported to a different world. even the fighting scenes were a snoozefest. it was kinda like when someone tells a funny story but then they and you realize in order for it to be funny you had to be there. i felt like that while reading "the magicians", i had to be there cos grossman was not a strong enough writer for me get it via his words. i mean chatwin stories in the book seemed a lot more interesting and i kept wish i was reading those instead.
also i hated that this wasn't a book within a book. it would have been better if it was.
i mean with the right director this could be a great movie. the premise was good it was just the writing that was bad and a screenplay adapter can fix that right up. if they do make a movie, i would go see it but read the second book? probably not.
ps though i am an alcoholic, i thought their drinking was excessive. i mean i did my fair share of drinking in college but it was always fun and adventurous. their drinking was boring and sad.
