the calder game. blue balliett. brett heloquist. (228)

while at the albany park library, when subbing, the book spine for the calder game caught my eye.  was it about the artist, alexander calder? i amazoned it and was, so i put in a request at the library.

the lacma had a calder exhibit a while back and i remember being in awe of the mobiles.  just like the characters in the novel, i was impressed by their balance and the movement.  there was not too much movement with all the pieces though in its little own little pocket, a slight flow of air moved the mobile, "snow flurry" which i thought was magical and my favorite!!  so i was excited to see what the novel had to offer.

i have to say that right off the back the bat, the epigraphs were a quote from alexander calder and banksy!!!

the calder game is actually the third in a series that center around a preteen boy named calder and his bests friends petra and tommy.  they are like a mini mystery solving team and a little reminiscent of harry potter and his gang down to petra and hermione both having hair issues.  calder is name for alexander calder, (which i thought i was adorable and i might steal if i ever have a boy) his parents loved alexander calder's work around chicago, where they live.  i have been to chicago but was unaware of the massive calders that are there.  i would like a trip back to see them especially universe in the sears tower.  i think i went to the sears tower but i do not recall universe. oh well.  i have been to the mca which is where the calder exhibit takes place in the novel.

the calder game opens with the calder and his friends on a class trip to visit the exhibit.  they are with a strict teacher and so are unable to fully enjoy it.  i have to add that these kids were also some serious deep things for their age.  however, i hope that their love and insight about the art would inspire kids that read this work to visiti museums.  calder discovered a room in which guest were invited to create their own mobiles as part of the calder game.  sadly, their strict teacher does not allow them.

then, calder received exciting news that he is going to england with his father.  his father is going for work and calder to gets to tag-a-long.  they are both in shocked when they arrive because in the square of the small english village they are staying in is a calder sculpture, the minatour (which the author made up).  calder explored the village on his own,  which i found shocking because he was only twelve but it was a small town.  in his defense, he is very bright for his age though he can not spell for the life of him which i found out of character.  but i guess the author wanted him to seem his age.  as calder explored he began to learn that the village is not friendly toward americans and hate the calder sculpture which was donated by an anonymous donor.

then one day, calder and the minatour go missing.  they are two events seem unrelated.  it should be added that there is suspension banksy might be behind the missing sculpture. sadly calder's mother became injured on while packing for her trip over there so unable to come.  due to this, mrs. sharpe, a friend from previous adventures (aka books) decided to go to england and bring tommy and petra.  due to this mrs. sharpe reminded me of mrs. basil e. frankweiler.  however, mrs. sharpe is a bit uptight which is odd because she suggested taking the kids.

once in england, they all set on their ways to find calder.  i assumed that with the name game in it there would be sort of game that kids solved but there wasn't.  what caused the sculpture and calder to go missing was simply a series of random events.  in the end, calder is saved and the sculpture recovered.  i won't ruined the surprise.  but if you are anticipating something like the westing game look elsewhere.

i have to add the illustrations in the novel have calder code (a code the kids made up) hidden in it but i couldn't find them so gave up, so there is that for kids.

all in all, i think this is great book to hopefully get kids excited about art! i think it's great that it is filled with so much information on calder.  it is also filled with the history of that area of england.  i hope the other novels are like this and plan on reading those soon.

stanley kubrick retrospective. lacma.

if you are an avid reader of this blog (thank you if you actually exist!) then you know that i have spent the last couple of months checking out as many kubrick films as i could in preparation of this exhibit.  prior to this exhibit, i was a huge fan of "a clockwork orange" (i loved the book as a teen) and "full metal jacket", but after watching his catalogue, i became a fan of his work.  i did not see all of his films but luckily i did see the ones that were featured in this retrospective.

the retrospective covers his early career as a photographer, his films: the killing, paths of glory, spartacus, lolita, dr. strangelove, 2001: space odyssey, a clockwork orange, barry lyndon, the shining, full metal jacket, eyes wide shut, and the never made, aryan papers.  there was also a portion dedicated to the film A.I. which i skipped because i didn't see the film nor have a desire too.

as i watched and researched about kubrick's films, i learned that they were based on literary works.  as a result, there were so many amazing bookish pieces in the retrospective.

letters between vladimir nabokov, author of "lolita" and kubrick about the screenplay.

bookcase filled with books for research for "barry lyndon".  he really wanted it to be true to the era and did an extensive amount of research for it.

kubrick's copy of "the shining" filled with his notes.  these pages demonstrated kubrick's attention to detail, he had notes for the set based on the setting from the book.

the books that "full metal jacket" were based on.

i loved kubrick a little bit more based on his bookwormness.

here are some of my other favorite parts of the exhibit:

mitchell mbc camera.

i was so excited to see this camera.  i had read about it on wikipedia after watching "barry lyndon".  this camera was engineered by kubrick and his team, i am not sure how it works (they had some lenses from NASA) but i do know it resulted in a beautiful film.  all of those beautiful scenes lit by candlelight or daylight, all thanks to this camera.

continuing with the "barry lyndon" room:

a letter from audrey hepburn.  kubrick had asked her to be in "barry lyndon" but sadly she was unable to act in it.  marisa berenson ended up with role and was beautiful as lady lyndon.  my friend shawn pointed out the letter to me and we both decided that the film was better off without a big name like hepburn in it.

"a clockwork orange" was the first kubrick film i saw.  so was excited about all of the props from that film:

love the eyeball cuffs!!!!!

in the clockwork orange room, i attempted to give my friends, shawn and chrissie, a quick tidbit about kubrick's adaption of the novel but forgot how it went.  i googled to refresh my memory.  so here it goes:  kubrick's film omits the ending of the novel.  burgess had this whole theory about cycles and numbers and wrote the novel as three cycles of seven chapters.  however, american publishers did not think americans would buy the ending in which alex reforms of his own will, so they omitted it. the version that kubrick read was the american was so his adaption does not have the compete ending.

"the shining" room was seriously creepy with all of its props.  though i have to admit that i was disappointed that the big wheel was not in there.

if you read my shining post, you know i loved the fashion in it.  so was excited to see this:

dr. strangelove:

this picture is from a pie fight scene that was cut.  even though this photo is amazing, i do agree that the pie fight would have caused the film to lose some of its edge.

full metal jacket:

and last but not least, "eyes wide shut":

i also made some instavideoes which i will post later.

but as you can see the exhibit was amazing and i hope you were able to see it (if you live in la).

1984. george orwell. (99)

george orwell's "1984" is on flavorpill's "30 to read before 30" and since i am two months away, i decided i need to crack down on my reading. so i picked up a copy of "1984" at the library. and before i go on, how great is this cover?!?! there was a paperback version i could have checked out but after i saw this cover, i had to read this one.

i guess i should clarify, this was my first reading of "1984". i never read it in high school, it wasn't assigned to us. my sister read it in college and i remember borrowing her copy to read but could never get into it. i tried twice. and thanks to apple and cbs, i knew about "big brother is watching" so was okay on the pop culture front. but in order to get its literary significance i needed to read it.

this book is always noted as a revolutionary novel and it is especially considering the time it was published. i remember checking the publishing year and surprised to find it was 1949. to question and portray governments in such a manner had to be shocking. however, as interesting as the concept of this novel is, i still became bored with it, there were points were i was like, get on with the story already.

let me clarify, i was not bored by the segments on oceania but by some of the story plots. i loved learning about the society of "1984" and how it worked. being a history major, it was interesting to see how the world we know could develop into oceania. for example, i believe that war has become more of a means of economic growth than anything else. just like in the novel, the boundaries for our countries are set, which is why we now fight for concepts like democracy and freedom and against terrorism and islam, fighting wars that truly do not have a means. i know we captured osama bin laden, but are we still at war with afghanistan? honestly, i do not know. can someone clarify this for me? my confusion is also an example of how majority of the united states is now like the "proles" when it comes to being informed about the war. we know nothing other than we need to support it and we have an enemy. also the switching back and forth between the enemies in the novel, foreshadowed what happen with the us and 9/11. i was always confused as to who our patriotism and nationalism was supposed to be directed against because i thought it was al-queida and then all of sudden, saddam hussein and iraq were targeted as enemies. another thing from the novel that reminded me of 9/11 was the labelling of things like "victory" gin or "victory" cigarettes, just like we had our "freedom" fries. and though we did not have "hate week" or "two minute hate" after 9/11, i did feel this odd peer pressure to demonstrated my patriotism via a flag. remember how everyone had flags on their cars and it was unamerican not to have one? it's scary to think of how simlilar the world was post-9/11 to "1984".

another way our world is similar to "1984" is the news and stastistics. part of winston's job was to change the figures that big brother had projected in terms of production so that production was recorded as over what bb had predicted. in the novel, winston pondered how these numbers were all arbitrary. first of all, a prediction is a prediction so if it was not accurate that is fine. why go through the point of lying especially since people know that production is low because whatever was being produced was scarce. this reminded me of our news and the stastiscs it spews at us especially in terms of health. there is always some study that shows this or that but in real life, disease strikes whoever. there is j real means of preventing things. i mean explain ozzy osborne, with how he treated his body, yet he is still alive and kicking. stastiscs are just a means of manipulating society.

last but not least, i am worried that history would be lost like in "1984". not so much because it is being rewritten but because it is not being taught. i recently subbed for a fifth grade class and they only worked on social studies for 15 minutes. i worry that the youth today do not understand the importance of history. because as orwell wrote and zach de la rocha from rage against the machine sang "who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past", so if they learn nothing, they will control nothing.

this is all praise but there were also aspects of the story that i did not enjoy. for one thing i did not like julia. it just seemed so random that her character feel in love with winston. i thought she was part of the thought police and was going to betray him. (also the fact that the shopkeeper was a thought police totally took me by surprise though in the back of my mind, i wondered how his shop was still in existence). once i figured out she wasn't, i didn't care for her character. she wasn't a rebel because of any inner longing for a better life like winston, she was a rebel just to be against the system. i hate to get all women's lib but i felt julia was an unjustly portrayal of women in revolutionary movements. julia was not fully committed to the ideologies against the party and her primary act of resistance was sex. and i am all for women gaining liberation via fulfilling their sexual appetites versus following societies virtues. however, julia demonstrated no intelligence or knowledge when it came to protest against the current system, she often became bored by what winston had to share. she even feel asleep during his reading of the book. it just seemed like a copout to make her so shallow once the real revolting started especially since she was smart enough to get goods like real coffee and sugar and had came up with routes for them to meet. and sadly throughout history women's roles in revolutions sadly get reduced down to their sexual experiences.

since we are on the topic of sex, i was shocked by how much sex was discussed in the novel. and wonder how high schools that teach this present this. or is "1984" one of those banned books? and the sex is why "1984" is banned. anyway, i found it interesting how sex is a means of control. the party takes away the sensuality of sex and turns it into a duty. i know i have discussed it before but i really feel that being raised mormon, the emphasis on purity and chastity resulted in my obedience as teen. i was so focused on being pure, i didn't date in high school. i am not saying that as a teen one should have sex. i am just saying that for me, my abstinence from sex may have been a reason for my obedience as a teen.

also i did not buy that winston was so naive about o'brien. i thought it was too convenient how it all came together. it seemed too easy to become apart of the brotherhood and felt like a trap. but i guess winston was so hopefully that he was too gullible.

last but not least i did not like the ending. i was hoping the human spirit would have prevailed. i didn't expect winston to spark a revolution but i didn't want him to give in. it was also pathetic that he gave in because of rats. i would hope that the human spirit would have been stronger. it was heartbreaking to see all hope lost. i would have been happier with winston committing suicide versus loving big brother.

i enjoyed the appendix on newspeak. it is interesting to think of how important vocabulary is in terms of expressing our views. it is also interesting to think
how lack of a vocabulary restricts our thinking. the focus on language also demonstrated how important it is to read and expand our vocabulary. it is true with my recent reading of classics, i have been about to better expressed my view of the world by using literary examples. so let this be a lesson!

after reading all of that analysis, you are probably wondering, but you said you got bored. i did simply because though
"1984" raises important questions about politics, war, government, and history for someone that is already skeptical about their government it doesn't present anything new. i was a history major and so many of the trends discussed were not new for me. however if i had read this book while in high school or during college, it would have blown my mind. so i guess instead of being a book one reads before they are 30, it actually before 25.

last but not least at the lacma, while looking at the bcam elevator, i was able to imagine what it would like to have big brother watching:

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.

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!

2001: space odyssey

what does it all mean?!?!? this was my initial thought i had at the end of stanley kubrick's "2001:  a space odyssey".  my second thought was what was with the weird baby in the sphere?  that was creepy.  i of course googled and it turns out (according to my favorite, wikipedia) kubrick didn't want there to be a meaning.  he wanted it to be open to interpretation.  so here is mine:

god is not like the judeo christain god.  also heaven is not some spirit realm but simply jupiter.  on jupiter, time faster than on earth, an earth year the same as like a 15 jupiter minutes.  this is why bowman ages so quickly after he lands on jupiter.  the home that looks like a persian home (if you have persian friends you know what i mean) that bowman enters is god's home.  god collects souls from earth and puts them on jupiter and then sends them back to earth as spirits as creepy babies. a little part hinduism and a whole lot of sci-fi.  also those black monoliths.  god throws them down whenever he needs life to accelerate aka creatures are lagging, so life can advance within a time frame he deems appropriate.   

so that is my explanation of "2001 space odyssey", please share yours in the comments!

continuing with my interpretation, the first monolith appeared because the prehistoric primates were not working at the pace god need them to.  at the rate they were going, we would have never became humans.  but what i really enjoyed that portion because it demonstrated what was needed in order for man to progress.  and that is meat. i read at the natural history museum of los angeles that the introduction of meat into prehistoric man's diet caused for their brains to grow.  and of course brain growth is important in the development of any species.  so meat actually is very important.  all vegans and vegetarians you should reconsider your current diets.  and of course this was seen in the film, first they discovered tools to help with hunting.  then with meat being their primary source of food, they became stronger and then ruled that little area!

ps one of my teachers had us watch the above clip.  it may have been mr. myovich.  i remember being like what, are we watching?  but now it makes sense.

and yes that cut from the bone floating in the air to the spaceship floating in space was spectacular.

sadly, kubrick's vision of 2001 was a lot better than actual 2001 did not include commercial space trips to the moon, or even spaceships that looked cool like his sets.  but there were some things that we now have in 2013, so we aren't that pathetic in terms of our technology.  though we didn't have any of this stuff in 2001.  first of all, skype/facetime!  seeing people facetime today is amazing, i can only imagine how amazed audiences were back in '68 when dr. floyd had a video phone chat with his daughter.  another thing is navigation, though not in spaceships but in cars.  i mean honestly imagine having to get directions from a map?  how tedious and confusing, navigation has seriously changed the world and how we drive.  last but not least on board the spaceship, i noticed that astronauts watched the news on tablets.  and i mean we kinda beat 2001 in terms of this, their astronauts had them but today our average joe has one, well if he can afford it.  the last thing i noticed, though it wasn't too technological was the food service for the flight to the moon.  it was juice. and oddly, enough juice is quite a trendy thing right now. with the diet crowd, juicing is the way of the future.  i think of all of the juiceries in la right now.  it might only be a fad but when you are drinking it, ti's kinda like the future.

this film was great because its a psychological thriller.  i mean HAL is scarier than that any villain, monster or killer.  it's a machine and when it kills, it has absolutely no remorse, cos it's a machine.  the scene where it kills the astronauts that were hibernating was simple yet brilliant.  all we watched were their vital signs diminishing but it scared me.  imagine being murdered while hibernating, you have no knowledge of your death.  you have no idea you are dying, how scary is that.  it's a lot when you think about it.  or when it killed the other astronaut that went to fix that battery thingy.  i mean i think that is the scariest death, floating out in space for all eternity.  can you imagine that?  it's endless, you just have to float.  i would hate to end up like that.  again too much to think about.  this is what i enjoyed most about HAL and his evil, was that on the surface it was weird but when you think about it, it's seriously frightening.

i am often told that this movie is boring but i thought it was brilliant.  and that is just the content.  visually and musically, this movie was amazing.  all of the scenes in space soundtracked by waltz are perfection.  i mean even with it being referenced so many time in pop culture, i still got chills when i listened to the music and watched the spaceships float through space.  it was just beautiful.

all in all, an extremely enjoyable film. and i look forward to seeing the "2001: space odyssey" portion of the lacma exhibit.

the killing.

currently, the lacma has a stanley kubrick exhibit.  i heard it's amazing but i haven't seen it, the reason being that i haven't seen all of his films.  i've seen "the shining", "a clockwork orange", "full metal jacket" and "dr. strangelove" but figured the exhibit would be pointless if i haven't seen them all.  now i am on a personal mission to see all of his films before the end of june (when the exhibit closes). 

to start my mission, i typed "stanley kubrick" into the catalog search engine and "the killing" was one of the first to come up, so i decided to check it out.  i wasn't sure what to expect.  considering the "ultra violence" of kubrick's films i have seen, i imagined that this movie was going to be quite gruesome.  but in fact it wasn't.  without giving too much away, there is some killing but nothing horrible.

"the killing" is the story of johnny clay, who is fresh out of jail and planning a heist.  sounds like "ocean's 11", the premises are the same but this is darker and better, but with less attractive men of course.  johnny plans on stealing money at the peak of a pony race.  i know, a pony race?  but he got 1.2 million which back in 1953 was a lot of dough.  the movie is how the heist goes down.  i don't want to ruin it for those of you who haven't seen it but let's say the ending was surprising, great, very clever and well done.

at the risk of sounding dumb, at first i thought the movie was a nod to the noir films of the 50's, kinda like "chinatown".  i loved that it was in black and white and the narrator's voice was perfect, very gumshoey.  however, it turns out that kubrick made movies for a time and that "the killing" was made in 1953.  and though i'm not an expert, it seems to embody film noir perfectly.  i took a history of los angeles course at ucla and film noir was covered in it. from what i can remember, film noir always has a femme fatale.  "the killing" continued with this traditon of women as evil, the heist goes awry because of woman, (played by marie windsor, who i thought was perfect and lovely).  

the dialogue and narrator definitely gave it that gumshoe, film noir vibe.  it was quick paced and clever and filled with great lines.

my favorites:

johnny to sherry: "you like money.  you've got a great big dollar sign there where most women have a heart."

sherry:  "it isn't fair. i never had anybody but you. mot a real husband. not even a man. just a bad joke without a punch line."

the film is really well done.  visually it is stunning, there are so many great scenes.  SPOILER WARNING:  STOP READING WILL RUIN THE TWIST IN THE MOVIE FOR YOU.

for example, when george shot sherry and he stands there with the birdcage next to him.  i also love when george falls and the birdcage does too and they lie side by side. that would make a lovely picture

or when clay changes into his outfit for the heist and he takes his time to make sure that the flower box is covered properly and placed carefully into the locker.

and of course the last scene with all of the money whirling around the airport.  amazing.  i have to add, i knew something was up, i wasn't sure why we watched that silly woman and her stupid dog at the counter, but then it all came together.

also the music was great, added an element of suspense and drama.  it made the most mundane scene interesting, like when johnny left his jacket and guitar case in the motel room.

i highly recommend it, especially if you plan on seeing the kubrick exhibit.  and if you hate it, it's fine, it's only 84 mintues so not that long of your life wasted. 

the edition i checked out also had "the killer's kiss" on it, i tried to watch but sadly had to return the dvd before i could.  (i had the dvd for two weeks, and didn't feel like checking it out for the third time.)

i watched like half of it.  i'm not sure the premise, i think it's about a boxer who falls in love with his neighbor.  i will say that it looked good.  the visuals were great, especially the b-roll around new york, like the store windows, especially the one with the doll swimming in the bowl of water. that series of scenes could be a collection for art gallery.

i also loved how when the neighbor shared her story (which was sad and beautiful) it was a voice over while the audience watched her sister, who was a ballerina dance.

i will prolly look for it online to watch and see it before the exhibit, so if you get the criterion version, please watch the second dvd.

the secret book of frida kahlo. f.g. haghenbeck (78)

this book is another example of library kismet. while amazoning for a frida kahlo doll, i came across this book and made a mental note. later that day i went to the rabobank arena in bakersfield to buy tickets to barry manilow. since we were by the beale library, i decided to visit it. and i kid you not, this book was waiting on a shelf right where i walked it. it seemed too perfect. so i checked it out.

though i dressed up as frida kahlo for halloween:

and i have seen her art at the lacma. both from their permanent collection and their recent exhibit on women surrealists, "in wonderland". i would not call myself a frida expert. in all honesty, most of what i know about her i learned from her biopic starring salma hayek. i didn't even know about her accident until the movie. i am a bit of a whimp when it comes to blood/injuries so i skipped that part of the book because it made me nauseous. the idea of her accident made me so squeamish that had to be down the book when i started reading about it. also after reading this book and the bits of her real life, i now want to read a proper biography or autobiography (i requested her diaries from the library.)

so in addition to this being a novel, it is also a cookbook. each chapter contains frida's "favorite" recipes which related to the story that was told in the chapter. we all know i can't cook but i plan on trying some of the recipes like horchata and pumpkin tamales. (so look for a post about that in the future).

and it doesn't stop there! the book also
had book club questions at the end! i think it would be cute to read this as a book club and have each person make a recipe for the meeting, maybe i can convince the PDC dance moms! we'll see.

since there are book club questions i thought i would utilize them for this blog. there are 13 but i chose my top 3. so here we go:

1. the novel begins when frida is close to the end of her life. why do you think haghenbeck chose to order the narrative this way? how does beginning the story with death affect the rest of the novel?

when i first started the novel, i thought that haghenbeck decided to start off with frida's death because it was more theatrical than starting with her birth. however, when her death did arrived at the end, i saw that he did it to give some "it's a wonderful life" flair actually more like "click" flair (yes the adam sandler movie). because you realize what you had read did not actually happen but was a peek into the future, a session with the ghost of christmases to come. and though it is very cliche (see: twilight breaking dawn part 2) in this novel it worked. i thought it was very clever, i was not expecting it. it reinforced the idea of life as suffering.

2. after the accident frida must convince her godmother to allow her to continue living. what is frida's deal with death? what would you do if you were offered a similar deal? discuss what you think about the warning frida's godmother gives before she wakes up: "you will always wish you'd died today. and i will remind you of this every day for your life." (61). at the end of her life, does frida regret living past this first death?

frida's deal with death is that she will paint a self-portrait (which explains her painting of self-portraits in real life), that will hold her place in the afterworld so she can return to life. however, death can still take her, she is not immortal. i would strike the same deal. i don't believe in an afterlife so once i die i will be worm food. since i think death is the ultimate end, i would make the same deal with death. better to be alive and suffering than dead. frida's godmother's warning just demonstrated that no one can truly cheat death because you will always be haunted by the fact that you could have died. in my opinion, death did not make frida suffer more, what magnified her suffering was that it was now filtered through a "if i died this would have never happened to me" lens. also wishing for death is not something limited to just frida (we see in this in the story with the section about dorothy hale). when times get tough most people probably do wish for death to end their suffering. death as a relief is nothing new, suicidal tendancies is more than just a band. and euthanasia does exist. frida did not regret living past this first death. if she did, she would have committed suicide earlier in the story.

9. frida is in a constant struggle to continue living her painful life. why does she choose this painful life over an easy death? think about the words "have the courage to life, because anyone can die." (7, 95, 129) how do you interept this maxim?

i think this is kind of a dumb question. why does anyone choose a painful life over death? because death is forever and life is short, so thus more valuable. she didn't chose to have a painful life, she simplt chose life. no one is exempted from pain in life, jesus, buddha, krishna, mohammad, all founded religions as a means to escape pain and suffering of their lives. why should we mere mortals be any different? and isn't that the goal of all religions, to stop the pain of life? i do believe in the maxim, anyone can die but not everyone can live. in the novel, death explains to frida that it is a true communist because regardless of class, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, and age, death will take you, it is blind to your status. also death is easy it takes much more effort to life that it does to seize being.

sorry, just realized all of my questions were about death but those questions were the most interesting one.

one last enhance activity:

1. look up one of your favorite frida kahlo paintings and find a passage in the novel that you feel relates to the painting. discuss how the aesthetic of the painting aligns with haghenbeck's reimagining of frida's life.

one of favorite kahlo painting is "two fridas":

i saw it this summer at the lacma. and i
originally wanted to dress up as the frida in white for the halloween (bleeding heart included) but it didn't happen. what i love about this painting is the heart. it reminds me of the glowing crowned heart that is in jesus paintings. also as a gemini, i get the whole twin thing. i do feel like i have two personas, so i enjoyed seeing frida pay homage to hers.

to be honest, as i read about the godmother and frida, i had a feeling that "two fridas" would be referenced. and i was right! in the end, the veil of the godmother is removed and the painting of "two fridas" is described:

"the women removed her veil. frida the tehuana took the hand of her godmother, who was frida the death and connected the atery to her heart so that it would beat again."

i think the later half of this question is not well thought out. all and every kahlo's paintings are capable of being described as aligning with haghenbeck's reimagining, because they are art and opened to intereptation. however, i do believe that this painting does align well. since this is a favorite of mine, i was ecstatic when it received a shout out. it was interesting how he interepted one of the fridas as death especially since she did have that early brush with death. i am not sure of the actual motivation behind the painting. and though i think of the two fridas more as a discussion on how we as
individuals some contain binary options within ourselves i.e. lover/hater, virgin/whore or just different titles i.e. sister, daughter, one's occupation, etc. we are all so complex, it's like the Fiona apple song, "i'll make the most of it, i'm extraordinary machine".

there were other paintings that were alluded to and i had to google because i did not know them. though i have seen the dorthy hale painting in person it was interesting to learn the history of it via the book (wikipedia backed up the story though there was some embellishment).

the book was very enjoyable and i look forward to learning about her life in her diaries than reading it again. i feel that there are probably a bunch of inside jokes that went over my head because i am not as familiar with frida's life.