paths of glory.

so i had never heard of "paths of glory" before but came across it while searching the library catalog for "kubrick". after watching "barry lyndon", i was a little weary of watching what looked like a war film. but kirk douglas was in it so assumed it couldn't be that bad. plus it was an hour and 27 minutes, i could survive that.

and what a gem this film was! it was a sad and tragic story but done extremely well. it raised questions of morality, humanity and war.

the movie centered around a french colonel, dax, played by kirk douglas. dax was given a suicide mission to take ant hill, however since it was a suicide mission, he did not succeed. his troops saw that it was a lost cause, so they did not advance and retreated. colonel dax's superior general mireau played by george macready, who saw the capture of ant hill as an opportunity to advance his career was outraged when the troops did not advance. mireau even attempted to fire at his own troops because they did not advance. since the mission was a fail, mireau wanted to execute 100 men for being cowards but this could not be done, instead, three random men were placed on trial and charged with cowardice and mutiny.

of course, the charges against the men are ridiculous. it was a suicide mission, they retreated because it was impossible to advance. because the charges are preposterous, colonel dax, who was an attorney prior to the war, decided to act as counsel for the soldiers. sadly, just like the mission, the odds were stacked against them. for example, one of the men was unable to advance because he was unconscious because another solider and fallen on him and knocked him out. however, the court wanted him to produce witnesses to prove that he was in fact unconscious. since they were in the middle of battle, he was unable to produce witnesses. in the end, colonel dax gave a compelling closing argument about how unjust the trial was, the soldiers were never formally charge, there was no record kept of the court proceedings and all in all, it was obvious that charges were made to prove a point versus seeking justice. but in the end, the soldiers were executed. also mireau was punished for his attempt on his troop, this resulted in dax being promoted which he did not want because he was insulted that his superior assumed that advancement was the reason he wanted to defend the soldiers, not justice. it demonstrated how immoral war really is.

"paths of glory" is an compelling anti-war film, which is why i think i enjoyed it. in fact, i learned on wikipedia that "paths of glory" was rumored to be banned in france because of its portrayal of the french army. in actuality, there was pressure put on the studio to not release it and as a resulted it wasn't released until 1975. germany did not allow it to be released in alliance with france and spain did not because of its anti-military stance (franco was not a fan.)

aside from the corruption among the generals. it was also sad to see innocent men killed for no reason. but if one thinks of it in a larger scheme that is what war is, innocent men being killed for lofty ideas like freedom or justice. i want to clarify that i support us troops and servicemen but i do not respect the governments that puts them in the position of war. i always think of "all quiet on the western front" when it is discussed why kings and leaders do not battle when they are the ones that benefit most directly from the winning of wars. instead wars are fought by young men who do not completely understand why they are at war. wars are fought but does anyone truly understand why? this reminded me of "1984" and how the "war" was fought as the means of economic benefit than the gaining of power, and the only ones that knew this truth was the inner party and not the people fighting the war.

soldiers are the ones that fight and suffer the most but governments treat them as insufficient. in the film, in the trials for the soldiers it was known that one of the soldiers did not advance because his general did not give orders too, yet that general was not charged for anything. why was this general not charged with mutiny? and we knew this solider to be a coward and drunk yet he was not placed before the court. he got away with due to the politics of military status. it sad because one associates the military with being upright since it fights for our freedom but there is corruption within it as well.

i think one of the most haunting scenes from this film is the image of the solider who was injured yet was tied, stretcher and all to the post to be shot for execution. all of this to make a point about mutiny and cowardice. here these men were willing to give up their life for france by being in the army but were executed because they could not complete a suicide mission. so sad and powerful.

i have been really impressed with kubrick's story lines and have started to realize that his works are based on novels. this was as was the shining, barry lyndon, a clockwork orange and lolita. i am not hating just observing. he is telling these stories filtered through his own eyes and adds to them so it's not like he is simply stealing someone else's genius. but with each film i find myself more and more excited about his othe films. i would just like to reiterate how much i enjoyed this film and looking forward to completing his catalog.

flimsy little plastic miracles. ron currie jr. (98)

"flimsy little plastic miracles" is another book i came across via emma robert's instagram. the cover definitely enticed me with its books in a bookshelf. it's actually quite clever because the titles used for the books on the cover are reference to events, people, and themes in the story. the author also used one book to namedrop his debut which was a nice spin on "author of". i also noticed there was a book on the bottom shelf that reminded me of "a million little pieces" which i think was a sly reference given the premise of the novel.

"flimsy little plastic miracles" is a novel within a novel. one needs to get into a charlie kaufman frame of mind for a reading. so the book is a book written by ron currie jr. (which is also the name of the author) and his supposed to be the truth about his faked suicide. confused? you should be. another similarity between the author and hid character is that both their father are dead.

so what happens is that the author in the story, ron currie jr., tried to commit suicide and survived but decided to fake his death. the book that he was working on was published and out of nowhere the book becomes a huge success (partially due to his suicide letter going viral). due to it's success, it was then turned into a movie. (btw: i would have never read that book, you know me and the media hype.) then of course it is discovered he is alive. so he writes the book that we are reading "flimsy little plastic miracles" to come clean.

(this is why i noticed the cover that looked like "a million little pieces" because the author of that book, james frey, turned out to be a liar. his book was supposed to be memoir but it was discovered that he made most of it up. and it was an oprah book so the alot of the public was tricked. i picked it up for $1 but then heard it was a lie so never read it. but imagine the backlash especially from mama oprah!)

so this whole book within a book got me googling but the real ron currie jr. never faked his death. so the book was not true in that sense. but it doesn't mean that it wasn't capital T truth in general. all novels has to have a bit of the author's real life in it and contain some capital T truth because if not people would not be able to relate to characters.

currie addresses this opposite the title page. he starred "true" in true story:

it is true though all novels are based on real events. inspiration has to come from somewhere.

he also has a clever blurb about epigraphs. i personally love them but they have become cliché. in high school, one of my favorite books "girl" by blake nelson quoted "breaking the girl" by the red hot chili peppers. once i read that i knew i would love it and i did. so i started trusting epigraphs. one of my recent favorites is the sandra cisneros quote that junot diaz used in "this is how you lose her". but yeah epigraphs are great if used correctly.

another thing that i loved about this book was the format. there were no chapters. instead each time a new idea or story was presented a new page was started. so some pages were only a paragraph.

the story bounces back and forth between four topics: currie's side of his story, the love of his life, emma (who is also the reason he got caught up in his mess), his dealings with his father's death and singularity (when machines take over because they are more perfect than us).

i don't want to give too much but will
say that ron currie jr. in the story was a coward when it came to love but once he was caught reacted with heart and did the right thing. there was one occurrence in the story that broke my heart. i had no idea that it was going to happen. it made me sad because it shouldn't have happened to that character.

i also have to add that i was weirded out by ron and emma's love. not the violent aspect of it but the fact that they first met when they were in jr. high. i am skeptical when people fall in love so young.

last but not least, singularity was a topic discussed. but it's a future i hope that is never achieved. who wants perfection? life is life because of its mistakes. perfection would mean boredom while our errors and imperfections is what gives life it's color. as we see in "flimsy little plastic miracles", it's the errors in life that helps is grow as a person.

barry lyndon.

i had never heard of "barry lyndon" prior to the kubrick exhibit at the lacma. after viewing the caravaggio exhibit, my friends and i wandered the gift shop and checked out the kubrick items. i started to point out what i haven't seen and when i pointed to "barry lyndon", my friend lisa said it was boring. even with that warning i decided to give it a watch.

and lisa was right. it was boring. it was also three hours long. three hours long!!! so the movie is about the rise and fall of barry lyndon. the first half is a snoozefest but it started to get interesting when he meets lady lyndon. so pretty much the last hour of the film was good. also there is some foreshadowing that he dies childless and penniless so i looked forward to seeing how fate change for him. i also wanted to see his stepson get his revenge on him. so all of that got me interested in the movie whereas the first half did nothing to keep my attention.

the thing that surprised me is when i looked up this movie on wikipedia, the critics were all for it. magazines like time and village voice took polls and listed it as one of the greatest films of all times. scorsese said it was the best of kubrick's films! and the cover listed it as a winner of 4 academy awards: best art/direction, cinematography, costume design and scoring. i was surprised because like i said before the first half was quite boring.

but regardless of context the film was visually beautiful. the back cover explained that lens were pioneered to shoot interiors and exteriors in natural light. and that is one thing that is amazing in this film is the lighting. also all of the interior scenes with candlelight. everything looked like an oil painting from that era. some of the scenes seemed more like a work of art than a scene in a film. i bet sofia coppola would have given her left kidney for scenes like that in "marie antoinette".

the most beautiful scenes were with lady lyndon who was played by marisa berenson. she reminded me of emma rossum. here are some of my favorite scenes:

i am actually looking forward to see some of her costumes in the exhibit. i hope they have some. they should since those costumes won an academy award.

overall, i am glad i watched it once but will prolly not watch it again. i also feel that some of his other films are stronger contenders for "kubrick's greatest film".

the shining.

we didn't watching scary movies growing up. so never saw "the shining" until i was in high school and caught half of it on ktla one sunday afternoon. but i still knew all of the pop cultural references from "the shining" ie redrum, scary twins, "all work and no play makes jack a dull boy" and "here's johnny!!!" thanks in large part to that simpson's parody. so when i saw pictures of the twin's blue dresses at the lacma exhibit i figured i should finally give it a real watch and i did.

this movie is so freaking scary!!!! mind you, i knew how the story ends and i have seen all of the signature scenes and i was still scared. so scared that i kept lowering the volume and considered pausing the DVD because i didn't want to see what was going to happen next (and i knew what would happen next so there was really nothing to be afraid off.) i was relieved when danny covered his eyes during his second confrontation with the twins because i wanted to cover my eyes. lol. and i felt better knowing he was scared because to be honest his whole talking finger "tony" was creepy and if that creepy kid was scared than i shouldn't be embarrassed about my fear.

what made the movies so scary and suspenseful was the soundtrack. the music for the scenes were just too eerie. and kept me scared about what waited behind a door or down a hallway. also the lack of sound which reminded you just how empty the hotel was, like when jack was throwing the ball against the wall. one of the creepiest sounds was danny riding around on his big wheel, and when it went from carpeted sound to loud sound on the wooden floor. it was so scary because you knew those creepy twins were going to show up. (i hope the big wheel is on display at the lacma.)

wikipedia described this as psychological horror and that is the best way to describe it. it's not scary because things jump out at you but because it gets you thinking. you know what is going to happen and there is nothing you can do to stop it, you just have to watch it all go down. you know from the beginning during jack's interview with the story of the previous caretaker that the same fate is going to meet them. having this knowledge is what makes it torture to watch.

kubrick did a great job of building suspense and then cutting to random scenes. there were so many times that my heart was racing and then the next scene was "tuesday" and nothing more. and if you think about it other than the scenes of the twins hacked in the hallway, the creepy lady in room 237, and the killing of dick hallorann (which broke my heart when he died), there aren't many gory scenes. the scariest scenes are when you realize jack is going bat shit crazy. jack nicholson really did an amazing job, he was a cold hearted sociopath. when tells wendy, "i'm gonna not to hurt ya, i'm just going to bash your brains in", he said so matter of fact like it was a logical explanation (which it was in his twisted head). i also loved the scenes when wendy discovered his "writing" and i think what made it creepier was that the typing wasn't perfect but had typos and then when it was typed as if it was dialogue and paragraphs, it was like wow! he is insane!

and i remember jack's picture being in the 1921 photo from my first ktla watching of the movie. however, this time i interpreted the ending has jack being the reincarnation of the crazed caretaker. one reason being that jack told wendy how he felt like he was returning home when he first came to the hotel. and then jack's interaction with the ghost of the caretaker made it seem like his previous self was guiding him to repeat his fate. it seems far fetched but after looking on wikipedia, kubrick did mention that jack was a reincarnation.

regardless, of how you think the movie ends its still scary. and i will say one of the scariest movies according to me.

last but not least, i have to add what a fashion icon, shelley duvall was in this film! i wanted to wear everything she had one! the yellow native american jacket was my favorite! i loved the detail of brooch on her blazer when she first walked through the grounds. the purple coat she has on when jack screams at her was great. i also love her overall outfit too, i wish i could find a better pic but no luck. but so many cute outfits! i will have to copy some looks!

the love song of johnny valentine. teddy wayne (98)

i can't remember where i first read about "the love song of johnny valentine" but the cover definitely caught my eye. you know me and shiny things. also the title reminded me of one of my favorite killers' song "the ballad of michael valentine". however, i quickly lost interest when they referenced justin beiber.

but when i saw it on emma robert's instagram, i decided to give it a chance. and though emma was spot on for "where'd you go bernedette?. she was way off based on this one. but maybe her celeb-status, resulted in it being a good laugh for her.

the novel is the tale of 11 year-old, johnny valentine who is a pop sensation was discovered via youtube and has great hair plus a fake romance with a famous latina tween actress (see: justin beiber). his mother is his manager, she loves to party, screws guys in the tour crew and i guess has a coke habit (see: lindsay lohan's mom). johnny's dad went AWOL when he was a kid, but what might be him pops up on random message boards (see: deadbeat dads that want in on the action.)

the book is the supposed to be a coming of age story. johnny's maturity comes via his search for his father. however, just like johnny lacked any depth, so did this novel. as a 30-year-old woman, i really shouldn't identify with 11-year-old boys, but this character was too shallow, naive and just plain stupid for anyone to sympathize for, let alone identify with.

i really have no idea how i finished it. i was intrigued about his father's message board posts because i was sure it was a child molester posting. but that story line wasn't enough to make this book interesting. johnny's life was so sad and boring, the most exciting parts of his days included passing levels on a video game and masturbating. maybe that was the point? to prove how depressing celeb's lives really are? but who wants to read about insanely rich first world problems? also it didn't provide any provocative insight on the music industry. thanks to behind the music, reality tv shows and entertainment magazines/tabloids, we know how the music industry is just screwing everyone over. they have also shown us how shitty celebrities are.

i guess i also kept on reading because the cover touted the author as the winner of some award. and the writing wasn't bad, it was just that context wasn't good. i mean he did have some random interesting insight and the hipster in me loved the latchkeys. but other than that the book was lame and i'm not sure how i finished. i'm actually getting annoyed that i wasted time reading it. it was so bad, i am going to stop here because i don't want to waste anymore time on this book.

where'd you go bernadette? maria semple. (97)

of course with a cute cover like that, "where'd you go bernadette?" caught my eye while browsing amazon. however, i didn't give it much thought until i saw it on emma roberts' instagram:

really emma roberts?!?! i haven't seen any of her tween movies but loved her in "it's kind of a funny story" and "celeste and jesse forever". and i know it sounds silly but girl is literary. she is always posting pics of books she is reading so i started to follow her instagram. and yes i plan on reading the books she posts. (ps she also has really good fashion sense, i purchased a pair of rhinestone cat ears because she posted similar headbands on instagram. i know i need help.)

but seriously i have nothing to be embarrassed about because this first book i read because of emma roberts was amazing!

to start the book was written by maria semple who wrote for "arrested development". and of course, anything associated with the show has to be brillant. i am not sure how important of a writer semple is/was (i'm a fan but not a fanatic). but i could totally see bernadette as a character on the show. bernadette would be an architect michael hired to redesign the homes.

anyway back to the story. so the title best summarizes the story. bernadette fox has disappeared and her daughter bee branch (real name: balakrishna, because she was born with a heart condition and was blue when she was born) is determined to find her. the book is actually a book written by bee and is a complication of emails, letters, and other paperwork bee hopes lead her to her mom..

there are a bunch of subplots that lead up to bernadette's disappearance. first, is the family trip to antarctica that bernadette and her husband, elgin branch, promised bee based on her grades. due to this, there is the virtual indian assistant that bernadette hired to help with organizing the trip; bernadette is a recluse (the story explains why, it's quite sad and broke my heart when i found out). there is bernadette's feud with the gnats (what she falls the moms at her daughter's
school), especially audrey griffin, who is one of those self-righteous my child can do no wrong that i absolutely hated at first. last there is soo-lin, audrey's BFF and elgin's assistant, and who by the end i hated though she was quite pitiful. all of their lives crash into one another and results in bernadette's disappearance. (i don't want to give too much away because i want you to read it!)

all in all, bernadette is such a delightful character, she is a bit of mess but that is part of her charm. i really want to be her best friend. she seemed like a great person to get coffee with and talk shit about what is wrong with the world. se goes on these random rants which annoyed her husband but i found hilarious. she is also this amazing architect that was green and a dumpster diver before it was cool! her best piece was "the twenty mile house" in which she had a plot of land and the house and the furnishings were made up of items that were found within a twenty mile radius and all the materials had to be source locally. what a cool idea! she won a genius award for it!

also she wasn't the only genius of the family. her husband worked for microsoft and had this super famous TED talk. his project is a robot and i won't give you details because the TED talk was one of my favorite parts.

i can't express how much i enjoyed this book. so many great pop cultural references in it too. it will have you smiling and laughing to yourself. if there is one book you read this year because of this blog, this is it! i absolutely loved and am sure you will too!

the casual vacancy. j.k. rowling (96)

i should have wrote that letter to j.k. rowling suggesting her next book be the story of harry potter but from the prospective of professor snape! it would give snape a chance to be the hero in his own words instead of via flashbacks. give him a chance to tell his side! but alas i never wrote that letter and even if i did and j.k. somehow read it, it would have never convinced her, because she was determined to write the anti-potter.

if you are a potterhead and looking to get a fix, look elsewhere. if you are a heroin addict, looking to get a fix, you should actually read this book because it will show you how heroin will ruin your life.

at first, i was hesitant to read "the casual vacancy" because i am not interested in politics. i am ignorant of what goes on in washington and the world because let's face it even if you are informed on the political affairs of the world, you are still ignorant. i believe the government only lets us know what it wants us to know. also i am one of those skeptics that believe that the masses can vote but it doesn't really count for anything. i vote for the sticker. so when i read the premise, i was certain that 500 pages of small town politics would bore me to death.

but guess what, it didn't. but also because it wasn't a political novel. well it was but in the sense that it is a novel about the class divide which is ultimately political. this novel actually reminded me of zadie smith's "nw" (amazon should consider doing a deal where you get both books for at a discount prices), both focus on the slums of england. oddly enough, i didn't like any of rowling's characters just like i didn't care for anyone in "nw". interestingly enough it was for the same reason, they were all horrible people who were selfish and only out for themselves. the only character i cared about was krystal weedon because she was dealt a bum hand by life. and yes there were some life choices she made that i didn't agree with but she dealt with her problems the only way she knew how.

quick digression. so the book is about the town of pagford and the divide within their middle due to the slums aka "the fields". interesting those those affected by the issue aka the lower class did not strive to keep their homes. this could a) be an analogy about how in politics the upper classes rule the lives of the lower without their knowing or b) the lower classes do not care about their own well being (which makes me question, why do the upper classes care than?)

this divide actually kept me interested in the book. my personal opinion on government assistance and welfare programs are that they have gone to shit. people abuse them. (see me on unemployment for 3 years). and there's no checks and balances on any of these programs. most people on assistance to not use the money properly. they buy iphones or ipads instead of what that money is allotted. plus a lot of time and energy is spent on people who would never spend the same amount of time and energy on themselves because let's be honest their lack of motivation in life is the reason why they need the assistance in the first place.

however, once i saw the story of krystal and how she could have a better life if she had the resources, i realized that life and assistance isn't so black and white. these welfare programs were put in place to help those in need. but sadly instead of doing that it has created a culture of dependence in which people abuse the aid. i have no real solution to this problem other than bitch about it. but i if i ruled the world, i would reform the programs to give assistance to those who truly needed it instead of junkies and teens that use their bastard children (sounds harsh but i am a bastard so it is kosher) as their meal ticket (krystal weedon planned on doing this).

at first glance, krystal seemed like the anti-potter. she was a girl born to a junkie mother who grew up in the slums. she skipped school, smoked, cussed, and had unprotected sex. but though rowling was trying to get away from her wholesome teen heros from hogsworth, krystal and harry both share a heart of gold. well krystal's was probably tainted a little, but she did try to sacrifice herself (via the attempt at pregnancy) to keep her family together. kinda like harry sacrificed himself for the world. also they are both searching for love due to lack of a home; krystal's single mom is a junkie and we all know what happened to harry's parents. both are also outsiders whose reputations proceed them, krystal is known as a hoodlum but she is actually a good kid. and well harry was a super star than a liar in the press about the return of he-would-at-that-time-couldn't-be-named and he really was the savior (not like blasphemous savior but he did save the world from evil.) so those rowling may have wanted her characters to be edgier, she still created a character you could care about.

however, her supporting characters were the opposite of the b-list characters in potter. whereas i loved ron, hermione, sirius black, remus, snape, and dobbie, i could have lived without all the other characters in "the casual vacancy". i absolutely hated simon and kept on wishing someone called the police about his abuse. he was such an asshole, i would have been okay with him dying. fats was another character i could not stand with his smugness and abuse of sukhvinder. (oh i forgot , i did like sukhvinder, she was a hero and had a heart of gold too.). i also couldn't handle gavin the coward. but everyone else were just sad.

also there were so many characters, it was overwhelming. like it was cool to see how they were all interconnected because that is how life is. but after a while, there were too many people. i could have done without knowing every detail of everyone's life.

overall, it was a good book but it wasn't great. i will not walk around singing its praise like i did once i gave harry potter a chance. i definitely would not recommend it to kids that read the series. this book talks about sex, drugs, affairs, and abuse, just to name a few. there is no denying that rowling is a good storyteller, she kept me interested with her plot twists. i was also shocked by her endings but without a person to truly care about or a cause to support, i did not get completely lost in the book. if you miss harry and the gang and looking for something to fill the void, just reread the series.