Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Saturday, June 30, 2007
A Glow of Candles
This is a collection of short stories by Charles L. Grant, a dark fantasy writer. The cover art is eyecatching, having a waxwork mime bowing on a stage, and slowly melting while a woman's hand is parting a curtain in the background. Now comes a little bit of commentary on several of the stories for starters, and then at last my impressions about the book in general.
The contents are:
A Crowd of Shadows
Hear Me Now My Sweet Abbey Rose
Temperature Days on Hawthorne Street
Come Dance With Me on My Pony's Grave
The Three of Tens
The Dark of Legends, The Light of Lies
Caesar, Now Be Still
White Wolf Calling
The Rest Is Silence
When All the Children Call My Name
Secrets of the Heart
A Glow of Candles, A Unicorn's Eye
The first thing about these stories that I noticed was, they weren't scary at all. This was unlooked-for, since the back cover clearly hinted at there being scariness within. Does this mean the author failed? I don't know. Most of the tales would ultimately end up being entertaining, particularly the ones exhibiting a Twilight Zone-like quality to the plot.
The scariest stories - or most closely approaching scary - for me were Crowd of Shadows, Temperature Days, and Legends/Lies. The cheesiest tale I found had to be Glow of Candles, although that's not at all to say it wasn't a good story. In fact it was the most iconic of the bunch, being set in a futuristic world of the author's that is just vaguely anti-utopian and is thus so seemingly probable as to set a mood of subdued dread that builds throughout the piece.
Temperature Days was the most gory of the stories and I found myself enjoying that aspect of it. It wasn't gory except by suggestion, but that's the kind of writing that really freaks me out. The mysterious figure of the Milkman is a powerful symbol of the unknown, something that provides a darkly contrasting backdrop to the tentative uncertainty to which most everyday humans are subject.
The Three of Tens to me seemed like it had potential to be a lot longer and more moody. I don't know why Grant decided to stuff that story into a mere 12 pages, but the characters weren't all that sympathetic to me anyway. Another story was a complete knock-off of an episode of TZ, where an omnipotent kid torments some adults. It's a fascinating enough subject to warrant a revisiting, I suppose. But the end seemed to me a tad too muddled to be satisfying.
This author seems fixated on some misadventure he'd had during his teaching career, involving Julius Caesar (the play) and his department's administration. At least two of the stories were inspired by that incident, and I seem to recall it being mentioned elsewhere. The Rest Is Silence is a fictionalized recount of what must have been the events Grant experienced. As it is "based on a true story", the reader becomes that much closer involved in the events portrayed, which quickly turn fantastical. A pretty unique monster is created in the place of an angry man, that was the counterpart of the author himself. But instead of just retiring from teaching, the character goes all-out and pulls some strange stunt. And also kills the guy that was holding him down.
More than half the stories ended up featuring mysterious deaths that are revealed to be the work of supernatural forces. I suppose that is what characterises this "dark fantasy" genre, or at least supplies much of the darkness. The rest comes from ruminations on the dubious nature of mankind. As I see it, that is a tendency of authors who are uninterested in exploring the nobility of the race.
I think the best quote comes from the end pages of the other Caesar story, Now Be Still: "We've withdrawn into a shell not of sophistication born of learning, but of fear born of knowing." This is an example of a fictional narration that is in fact meant to apply to the real world. Grant seems to be talking about people's attitudes of independence which merely serve to isolate them from each other. (Leadership is a lonesome task, etc.) Dependence on the other hand is still some type of a relationship, and binds people together. In the western world, chasing an ambition of your own is associated in a variety of ways with freedom. But while freedom is a harmless and downright worthy thing to pursue, unrestrained ambition seems to me a form of gratification which in effect extends free will into something that assumes powers and insights which simply don't exist.
My own opinions on this subject have wavered chaotically almost, as I have learned over the years the staggering dimensions of human greed and selfishness. And I keep coming back to fear as the cause behind everything. The fear that through carelessness, if not ambition if not malice, those others around us mean to rub us out. Yet how much do you really care about those people? How readily would you entrust to them your special values? Or take to heart even a little the values which they would sacrifice good sleep and more for? It's not being too dependent on our fellow man that we should be wary of, but rather not needing him at all, until you are the only thing left and your whole existence then boils down to little more than a mar on a rational universe.
So these stories probably won't make you gasp out loud or see visions in the dark but they're good food for thought, and entertaining as fantasy goes.
The contents are:
A Crowd of Shadows
Hear Me Now My Sweet Abbey Rose
Temperature Days on Hawthorne Street
Come Dance With Me on My Pony's Grave
The Three of Tens
The Dark of Legends, The Light of Lies
Caesar, Now Be Still
White Wolf Calling
The Rest Is Silence
When All the Children Call My Name
Secrets of the Heart
A Glow of Candles, A Unicorn's Eye
The first thing about these stories that I noticed was, they weren't scary at all. This was unlooked-for, since the back cover clearly hinted at there being scariness within. Does this mean the author failed? I don't know. Most of the tales would ultimately end up being entertaining, particularly the ones exhibiting a Twilight Zone-like quality to the plot.
The scariest stories - or most closely approaching scary - for me were Crowd of Shadows, Temperature Days, and Legends/Lies. The cheesiest tale I found had to be Glow of Candles, although that's not at all to say it wasn't a good story. In fact it was the most iconic of the bunch, being set in a futuristic world of the author's that is just vaguely anti-utopian and is thus so seemingly probable as to set a mood of subdued dread that builds throughout the piece.
Temperature Days was the most gory of the stories and I found myself enjoying that aspect of it. It wasn't gory except by suggestion, but that's the kind of writing that really freaks me out. The mysterious figure of the Milkman is a powerful symbol of the unknown, something that provides a darkly contrasting backdrop to the tentative uncertainty to which most everyday humans are subject.
The Three of Tens to me seemed like it had potential to be a lot longer and more moody. I don't know why Grant decided to stuff that story into a mere 12 pages, but the characters weren't all that sympathetic to me anyway. Another story was a complete knock-off of an episode of TZ, where an omnipotent kid torments some adults. It's a fascinating enough subject to warrant a revisiting, I suppose. But the end seemed to me a tad too muddled to be satisfying.
This author seems fixated on some misadventure he'd had during his teaching career, involving Julius Caesar (the play) and his department's administration. At least two of the stories were inspired by that incident, and I seem to recall it being mentioned elsewhere. The Rest Is Silence is a fictionalized recount of what must have been the events Grant experienced. As it is "based on a true story", the reader becomes that much closer involved in the events portrayed, which quickly turn fantastical. A pretty unique monster is created in the place of an angry man, that was the counterpart of the author himself. But instead of just retiring from teaching, the character goes all-out and pulls some strange stunt. And also kills the guy that was holding him down.
More than half the stories ended up featuring mysterious deaths that are revealed to be the work of supernatural forces. I suppose that is what characterises this "dark fantasy" genre, or at least supplies much of the darkness. The rest comes from ruminations on the dubious nature of mankind. As I see it, that is a tendency of authors who are uninterested in exploring the nobility of the race.
I think the best quote comes from the end pages of the other Caesar story, Now Be Still: "We've withdrawn into a shell not of sophistication born of learning, but of fear born of knowing." This is an example of a fictional narration that is in fact meant to apply to the real world. Grant seems to be talking about people's attitudes of independence which merely serve to isolate them from each other. (Leadership is a lonesome task, etc.) Dependence on the other hand is still some type of a relationship, and binds people together. In the western world, chasing an ambition of your own is associated in a variety of ways with freedom. But while freedom is a harmless and downright worthy thing to pursue, unrestrained ambition seems to me a form of gratification which in effect extends free will into something that assumes powers and insights which simply don't exist.
My own opinions on this subject have wavered chaotically almost, as I have learned over the years the staggering dimensions of human greed and selfishness. And I keep coming back to fear as the cause behind everything. The fear that through carelessness, if not ambition if not malice, those others around us mean to rub us out. Yet how much do you really care about those people? How readily would you entrust to them your special values? Or take to heart even a little the values which they would sacrifice good sleep and more for? It's not being too dependent on our fellow man that we should be wary of, but rather not needing him at all, until you are the only thing left and your whole existence then boils down to little more than a mar on a rational universe.
So these stories probably won't make you gasp out loud or see visions in the dark but they're good food for thought, and entertaining as fantasy goes.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
A Bio through Speeches
The Eloquent President: A Portrayal of Lincoln through his Words by Ronald White isn't a comprehensive biography of Lincoln, but rather analyses of various speeches Lincoln's made during or before his presidency. While pretty accessible to people without an English or Communications background, it is more a rhetorical analysis than a standard biography. On the other hand, there's plenty of biographical detail for someone who wants snapshots at various figures or events of Lincoln's time, including Lincoln himself. For instance, White spends pretty significant time on emphasizing the partisan role of newspaper editors then (they didn't worry about media bias at that time because they didn't seem to see bias as a bad thing ;)).
However, in the end, the main emphasis is on analysis of Lincoln's speeches- his process in writing them, their relations to one another, their word structure. Two things that White did well in helping people appreciate the speeches are: 1) he'd stack up phrases one after another, sometimes with slight indents, to help people see how each phrase builds on the other and also to enhance their poetic quality; 2) he'd compare earlier and later speeches' line by line to help people see the progression of ideas from one speech to another.
White also picks a good selection of different speeches by Lincoln, all related. One of the primary themes is the progression of Lincoln's ideas on slavery. Another theme, if I understand it correctly, is Lincoln's move from rationalism to a deeper appreciation of divine will. The two intersect; Lincoln early in his presidency tries to avoid the topic of slavery, but toward the end of his presidency, sees the Civil War itself almost as divine punishment for America's sin of slavery. Hence, the selection of speeches doesn't just include Lincoln's major (and some minor) public addresses, but also Lincoln's private "Meditation on the Divine Will."
Like that private musing, many of the selections were not actual speeches given by Lincoln but addresses written by Lincoln to be read by someone else (for instance, a letter at a rally, or his addresses in Congress- at that time, presidents didn't give State of the Union speeches in person). However, White helps us appreciate how Lincoln, being attentive to speaking to an audience, wrote with a live audience in mind. Thus, even Lincoln's addresses are like speeches, especially in how he writes for the ear, rather than just writing for quiet reading.
Other than being an interesting study of Lincoln on its own, the book is also pretty good at helping a novice learn how to speak or write well. It's not written as a manual, so it's not something that can be picked up directly. But if someone had a mind to it, he could use the book as a reference while reading Lincoln's addresses, and in that way, develop a good speech and writing style.
One thing about Lincoln that makes his eloquence relevant to today's is that Lincoln liked plain speech, so his metaphors and his words were usually accessible to a lay audience. That's especially applicable in today's mass society, since today, people prefer plain to florid speech.
However, in the end, the main emphasis is on analysis of Lincoln's speeches- his process in writing them, their relations to one another, their word structure. Two things that White did well in helping people appreciate the speeches are: 1) he'd stack up phrases one after another, sometimes with slight indents, to help people see how each phrase builds on the other and also to enhance their poetic quality; 2) he'd compare earlier and later speeches' line by line to help people see the progression of ideas from one speech to another.
White also picks a good selection of different speeches by Lincoln, all related. One of the primary themes is the progression of Lincoln's ideas on slavery. Another theme, if I understand it correctly, is Lincoln's move from rationalism to a deeper appreciation of divine will. The two intersect; Lincoln early in his presidency tries to avoid the topic of slavery, but toward the end of his presidency, sees the Civil War itself almost as divine punishment for America's sin of slavery. Hence, the selection of speeches doesn't just include Lincoln's major (and some minor) public addresses, but also Lincoln's private "Meditation on the Divine Will."
Like that private musing, many of the selections were not actual speeches given by Lincoln but addresses written by Lincoln to be read by someone else (for instance, a letter at a rally, or his addresses in Congress- at that time, presidents didn't give State of the Union speeches in person). However, White helps us appreciate how Lincoln, being attentive to speaking to an audience, wrote with a live audience in mind. Thus, even Lincoln's addresses are like speeches, especially in how he writes for the ear, rather than just writing for quiet reading.
Other than being an interesting study of Lincoln on its own, the book is also pretty good at helping a novice learn how to speak or write well. It's not written as a manual, so it's not something that can be picked up directly. But if someone had a mind to it, he could use the book as a reference while reading Lincoln's addresses, and in that way, develop a good speech and writing style.
One thing about Lincoln that makes his eloquence relevant to today's is that Lincoln liked plain speech, so his metaphors and his words were usually accessible to a lay audience. That's especially applicable in today's mass society, since today, people prefer plain to florid speech.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Brothers
This review of the Star Trek TNG episode "Brothers" (ep 3, season 4) focuses on the character of Lore (portrayed by Brent Spiner), the android predecessor and figurative brother of Lt. Commander Data. I'll begin with a short summary of the episode.
One day on the bridge of the Enterprise, for unexplained reasons, Data begins reprogramming the ship computer. He removes the air supply from the bridge area (forcing the rest of the crew down to the engineering headquarters of the ship) and uses various means to disable the captain's control and prevent interference. He then pilots the vessel to a mysterious planet, where its sole inhabitant is revealed to be Dr. Noonien Soong, his creator. He had sent out a signal which turned on a sort of auto-pilot mode inside Data and made him come to the scientist, who then restores Data's normal state of self-awareness. He introduces himself and then laments Data's career choice of working in Starfleet. Data asks why he was created, and Soong replies that it's a lot like the human urge to procreate, and that he hoped Data would follow in his footsteps.
After a brief time, Lore also shows in Soong's lab, having responded to the same homing signal. Despite a warning by Data, Soong returns him to normal as well, and a bitter confrontation ensues. Lore blames his father for disassembling him and Data for setting him adrift in space. Lore was about to storm out when Soong tells him he summoned them because he was sick and didn't have long to live. Dr. Soong shows Data an emotion chip, which is supposed to enable him to experience basic human emotions. He then takes a nap, and on waking, installs the chip into what appears to be Data. But in fact it was Lore who had disabled his brother and switched clothing. Soong tells him the chip's effect would be unpredictable, since it was specially designed for Data's use (he hadn't known that Lore was "alive" until that day). But Lore ignores his words and hurls him across the room and then teleports away. At this point the Enterprise crew has managed to regain enough control to beam down to the planet and collect Data.
In a side story throughout the episode, a kid played a practical joke on his brother that resulted in him being infected by some contagious disease. The cure could be administered only at a nearby starbase facility where he needed to be taken within 3 days. Data's commandeering of the ship places the boy's fate in great peril, heightening the drama. However when the ship gets to the starbase on time, the sick boy seems to have forgiven his brother and they are shown playing together again.
The way that Brent Spiner executes the part, one couldn't help but sympathize with Lore. The wicked android has been shown in an erlier episode to be capable of indirect mass murder, when he lured a giant space crystal entity to his homeworld to eat all the humans. Dr. Soong has called him unstable and said he "wasn't functioning properly", hence the need to disassemble him all those years ago. But when in this episode he looked pleadingly at Dr. Soong, and said, "Why didn't you fix me?" I had a chilling feeling. I don't know too many people whose behavior borders on the sociopathic the way that Lore's does, but everyone has imperfections of character or an emotional weakness here and there. His inquiry to his creator was akin to a prayer to God himself, asking why he is plagued by weakness and inadequacy. The bitterness eating away at him comes out later when he accuses Soong of using sub-standard parts to make him, and says "you owe me." But by then the emotion chip was working in him, and appeared to be amplifying his anger.
It's interesting how if you liken the emotion chip implantation to a reverse-lobotomy, the scene could be viewed as a statement about psychological "treatments" (albeit in the context of androids and positronic brains). At one point Lore says that Data would be more like him if the latter had the chip installed. Dr. Soong also points out that it would make Data more trusting of Lore. But as it turns out, Data was right all along to have distrusted his brother. Soong seemed to think that familial harmony was more important than being right. Certainly the emotion chip appears to make Lore more dangerous, since earlier he seemed genuinely upset upon hearing of his builder's anticipated death, while after getting the chip he thinks nothing about weilding his android strength in shoving the sick scientist. But is that purely because the chip was not "prescribed" for him, but for Data? Or would Data - a reliable, rational and ultimately stable individual - lose all of these traits in becoming more human? It seems that when brains and personalities are concerned, there aren't any cures: only a trade-off is possible.
I have a sister who I've had a historical animosity with. I would liken her to Lore, in terms of having an unstable "evil" personality. (I suppose she viewed me the same way for much of her life.) As pushy and demanding as she was, it was difficult at best to coexist with her in our little apartment. At one point she moved in with our grandparents so as to put distance between her and myself, and I was real grateful for that sacrifice on her part. But I think always in her mind I was an evil brother, without regard for her personal space, her things or her comfort while living together (never mind being protective and caring the way an older brother ought to have been.)
More recently she has been behaving quite civilly when I was around, and helping me out with such things as I need and even seems to appreciate when I do things for her. I've grown as a person too, I like to think... Although really it was her realization that there's more to life than antagonizing those who annoy her that is bringing peace back into the relationship. I guess I have to ask myself whether logic winning out every time was worth the absense of brotherly love as such. It's a hard question to consider. In the extreme case of Lore it was just as well, since fewer people got hurt that way. But Dr. Soong seemed to think that he knew what was best for his creation, and would have preferred it if Data could give compassion to his evil twin.
And in a final sense, I would agree that compassion is the most important psychological ability that a person has at their disposal. It may come easy as in the case of a father for his child or siblings for each other, or it may be difficult, as when trying to understand the viewpoint of a villain. But even more so than logic, it has a great potential for making the galaxy a better place.
One day on the bridge of the Enterprise, for unexplained reasons, Data begins reprogramming the ship computer. He removes the air supply from the bridge area (forcing the rest of the crew down to the engineering headquarters of the ship) and uses various means to disable the captain's control and prevent interference. He then pilots the vessel to a mysterious planet, where its sole inhabitant is revealed to be Dr. Noonien Soong, his creator. He had sent out a signal which turned on a sort of auto-pilot mode inside Data and made him come to the scientist, who then restores Data's normal state of self-awareness. He introduces himself and then laments Data's career choice of working in Starfleet. Data asks why he was created, and Soong replies that it's a lot like the human urge to procreate, and that he hoped Data would follow in his footsteps.
After a brief time, Lore also shows in Soong's lab, having responded to the same homing signal. Despite a warning by Data, Soong returns him to normal as well, and a bitter confrontation ensues. Lore blames his father for disassembling him and Data for setting him adrift in space. Lore was about to storm out when Soong tells him he summoned them because he was sick and didn't have long to live. Dr. Soong shows Data an emotion chip, which is supposed to enable him to experience basic human emotions. He then takes a nap, and on waking, installs the chip into what appears to be Data. But in fact it was Lore who had disabled his brother and switched clothing. Soong tells him the chip's effect would be unpredictable, since it was specially designed for Data's use (he hadn't known that Lore was "alive" until that day). But Lore ignores his words and hurls him across the room and then teleports away. At this point the Enterprise crew has managed to regain enough control to beam down to the planet and collect Data.
In a side story throughout the episode, a kid played a practical joke on his brother that resulted in him being infected by some contagious disease. The cure could be administered only at a nearby starbase facility where he needed to be taken within 3 days. Data's commandeering of the ship places the boy's fate in great peril, heightening the drama. However when the ship gets to the starbase on time, the sick boy seems to have forgiven his brother and they are shown playing together again.
The way that Brent Spiner executes the part, one couldn't help but sympathize with Lore. The wicked android has been shown in an erlier episode to be capable of indirect mass murder, when he lured a giant space crystal entity to his homeworld to eat all the humans. Dr. Soong has called him unstable and said he "wasn't functioning properly", hence the need to disassemble him all those years ago. But when in this episode he looked pleadingly at Dr. Soong, and said, "Why didn't you fix me?" I had a chilling feeling. I don't know too many people whose behavior borders on the sociopathic the way that Lore's does, but everyone has imperfections of character or an emotional weakness here and there. His inquiry to his creator was akin to a prayer to God himself, asking why he is plagued by weakness and inadequacy. The bitterness eating away at him comes out later when he accuses Soong of using sub-standard parts to make him, and says "you owe me." But by then the emotion chip was working in him, and appeared to be amplifying his anger.
It's interesting how if you liken the emotion chip implantation to a reverse-lobotomy, the scene could be viewed as a statement about psychological "treatments" (albeit in the context of androids and positronic brains). At one point Lore says that Data would be more like him if the latter had the chip installed. Dr. Soong also points out that it would make Data more trusting of Lore. But as it turns out, Data was right all along to have distrusted his brother. Soong seemed to think that familial harmony was more important than being right. Certainly the emotion chip appears to make Lore more dangerous, since earlier he seemed genuinely upset upon hearing of his builder's anticipated death, while after getting the chip he thinks nothing about weilding his android strength in shoving the sick scientist. But is that purely because the chip was not "prescribed" for him, but for Data? Or would Data - a reliable, rational and ultimately stable individual - lose all of these traits in becoming more human? It seems that when brains and personalities are concerned, there aren't any cures: only a trade-off is possible.
I have a sister who I've had a historical animosity with. I would liken her to Lore, in terms of having an unstable "evil" personality. (I suppose she viewed me the same way for much of her life.) As pushy and demanding as she was, it was difficult at best to coexist with her in our little apartment. At one point she moved in with our grandparents so as to put distance between her and myself, and I was real grateful for that sacrifice on her part. But I think always in her mind I was an evil brother, without regard for her personal space, her things or her comfort while living together (never mind being protective and caring the way an older brother ought to have been.)
More recently she has been behaving quite civilly when I was around, and helping me out with such things as I need and even seems to appreciate when I do things for her. I've grown as a person too, I like to think... Although really it was her realization that there's more to life than antagonizing those who annoy her that is bringing peace back into the relationship. I guess I have to ask myself whether logic winning out every time was worth the absense of brotherly love as such. It's a hard question to consider. In the extreme case of Lore it was just as well, since fewer people got hurt that way. But Dr. Soong seemed to think that he knew what was best for his creation, and would have preferred it if Data could give compassion to his evil twin.
And in a final sense, I would agree that compassion is the most important psychological ability that a person has at their disposal. It may come easy as in the case of a father for his child or siblings for each other, or it may be difficult, as when trying to understand the viewpoint of a villain. But even more so than logic, it has a great potential for making the galaxy a better place.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Cakes-a-plenty, and other edibles
As my copy of Moby Dick appears to have sounded to the unfathomable depths, I now bring you the first of what I hope will be many informative food reviews. Below you will not find a detailed comparison of steak from steakhouses, or intelligent discussions of fois gras or vodka & caviar... Just regular foods that regular people can buy at the supermarket.
First on our list are the Yoplait yogurts. But not just any Yoplait - the custard style ones, having the gold lid and called "thick and creamy" on the container. To my knowlege, they come in at least 3 flavors: banana, strawberry, and peach. Yoplait has long been the king of blended yogurts, with their products being rather devoid of texture (we call this "smoothness" though, and desire it) compared to the similarly packaged LaYogurt. But their thick & creamy style yogurt is unique in being almost jello-like in consistency, and just as fun to eat. To the eye, when the lid comes off (with some tiny bubbles sometimes showing at the edges of the unbroken surface of the yogurt) it suggests white or pink chocolate, and always makes me feel a little giddy deep inside. I will admit having sometimes dreamt of eating half a dozen of the banana flavored cups in one sitting, although that would of course be an excessive quantity of yogurt!
The next item I want to talk about is Stop & Shop apple bread. This is a typical loaf of sliced white bread, except with little bits of apple throughout. Say what you will about store brand food products (you could begin by saying that they try to compete in price alone), but this bread delivers some really great taste. For anyone that loves raisin bread, and is not aware of the possibilities of other lightly flavored fruity bread, this will come as a welcome eye-opener. But while toasted raisin bread goes great with peanut butter and breakfast tea, the great topper for apple bread, I found, is pepper jack cheese in a sandwich melt. What I mean by this is simply, I would melt the cheese for a few seconds in the microwave, until it's a bit sweaty looking and the edges of each slice are rounded. Of course neither would compare to something similar bought fresh from a bake store... But as far as being an economical and convenient alternative, Stop & Shop apple bread is a winner!
Next up is a product that has been close to my heart for many a year. Entenmann's makes two kinds of cheesecake: The Deluxe French Cheese Cake, and the Pineapple Filled Cheese Cake. While some detractors will claim that Entenmann's - with it's mass-production style and highly processed ingredients and preservatives - has no business selling cheesecakes, the reality is that both of the aforementioned cakes taste fantastic. The french style cake is very soft and features a creamy, slightly tart flavor; while the pineapple variety is made more in the New York style: with a subtly browned outer membrane covering the top of the relatively firm cake, and a crumb crust holding it up from below. Especially exciting is the pineapple filling that lies between the cheesy part of the cake and the crust. Not only is it of a great quality, but the moisture from this filling eventually imbues the crumb crust with a sponginess that makes it very palatable indeed (favorably comparing with more expensive bake shop cakes, whose crusts often are much too dry and/or too sweet to complement the cake properly.) A strawberry topping for cheesecake may be much more common in New York, but the pineapple jam is a fantastic idea and a pairing well worth sampling.
While we're on cakes I will round out the review with an ode to carrot cake. Some of you may be thinking, "Carrots? What, in a cake?" Well if that's the case, then you've truly been missing out. Carrot cake may just be the best cake this poor race of man has ever achieved! It's dense yet light, flavorful yet not oppressive, and doesn't require any particular mood or occasion to taste just right. There are several variants available, the more heathenish ones being "plain" or icingless carrot cakes. But a good carrot cake is easily recognizeable by the characteristic aroma, and very often the appearance of a "white-topped brick-like" construction. Now, it's a little known fact, but the best parts of carrot cakes are the nuts and the raisins... Foolish is the carrot cake-maker that doesn't pay great homage to raisins! The cream cheese icing obviously is integral as well, as it highlights the complexity of the dessert (a complexity which otherwise may not be duly appreciated...) Which is the reason why - and I'll not bring up my secret sweet tooth then - personally I disdain the plain carrot cakes, though they are still worthwhile if skillfully baked with the aforementioned necessary components.
First on our list are the Yoplait yogurts. But not just any Yoplait - the custard style ones, having the gold lid and called "thick and creamy" on the container. To my knowlege, they come in at least 3 flavors: banana, strawberry, and peach. Yoplait has long been the king of blended yogurts, with their products being rather devoid of texture (we call this "smoothness" though, and desire it) compared to the similarly packaged LaYogurt. But their thick & creamy style yogurt is unique in being almost jello-like in consistency, and just as fun to eat. To the eye, when the lid comes off (with some tiny bubbles sometimes showing at the edges of the unbroken surface of the yogurt) it suggests white or pink chocolate, and always makes me feel a little giddy deep inside. I will admit having sometimes dreamt of eating half a dozen of the banana flavored cups in one sitting, although that would of course be an excessive quantity of yogurt!
The next item I want to talk about is Stop & Shop apple bread. This is a typical loaf of sliced white bread, except with little bits of apple throughout. Say what you will about store brand food products (you could begin by saying that they try to compete in price alone), but this bread delivers some really great taste. For anyone that loves raisin bread, and is not aware of the possibilities of other lightly flavored fruity bread, this will come as a welcome eye-opener. But while toasted raisin bread goes great with peanut butter and breakfast tea, the great topper for apple bread, I found, is pepper jack cheese in a sandwich melt. What I mean by this is simply, I would melt the cheese for a few seconds in the microwave, until it's a bit sweaty looking and the edges of each slice are rounded. Of course neither would compare to something similar bought fresh from a bake store... But as far as being an economical and convenient alternative, Stop & Shop apple bread is a winner!
Next up is a product that has been close to my heart for many a year. Entenmann's makes two kinds of cheesecake: The Deluxe French Cheese Cake, and the Pineapple Filled Cheese Cake. While some detractors will claim that Entenmann's - with it's mass-production style and highly processed ingredients and preservatives - has no business selling cheesecakes, the reality is that both of the aforementioned cakes taste fantastic. The french style cake is very soft and features a creamy, slightly tart flavor; while the pineapple variety is made more in the New York style: with a subtly browned outer membrane covering the top of the relatively firm cake, and a crumb crust holding it up from below. Especially exciting is the pineapple filling that lies between the cheesy part of the cake and the crust. Not only is it of a great quality, but the moisture from this filling eventually imbues the crumb crust with a sponginess that makes it very palatable indeed (favorably comparing with more expensive bake shop cakes, whose crusts often are much too dry and/or too sweet to complement the cake properly.) A strawberry topping for cheesecake may be much more common in New York, but the pineapple jam is a fantastic idea and a pairing well worth sampling.
While we're on cakes I will round out the review with an ode to carrot cake. Some of you may be thinking, "Carrots? What, in a cake?" Well if that's the case, then you've truly been missing out. Carrot cake may just be the best cake this poor race of man has ever achieved! It's dense yet light, flavorful yet not oppressive, and doesn't require any particular mood or occasion to taste just right. There are several variants available, the more heathenish ones being "plain" or icingless carrot cakes. But a good carrot cake is easily recognizeable by the characteristic aroma, and very often the appearance of a "white-topped brick-like" construction. Now, it's a little known fact, but the best parts of carrot cakes are the nuts and the raisins... Foolish is the carrot cake-maker that doesn't pay great homage to raisins! The cream cheese icing obviously is integral as well, as it highlights the complexity of the dessert (a complexity which otherwise may not be duly appreciated...) Which is the reason why - and I'll not bring up my secret sweet tooth then - personally I disdain the plain carrot cakes, though they are still worthwhile if skillfully baked with the aforementioned necessary components.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Two out of Three Ain't Bad
So a few months ago, Meatloaf came out with Bat out of Hell III. I don't think it has quite the grandeur or creativity as I and II, but like Meatloaf sang in the first Bat out of Hell album, "two out of three ain't bad."
In I, the world was introduced to Wagnerian Rock, composer / songwriter Jim Steinman's mix of rock and opera in epic excess.
But while known best for the excess of the title track, Bat out of Hell III wasn't just about excess. It was also about campy teenage love (Paradise by the Dashboard Lights) and lost romance (Two out of Three Ain't Bad). The lyrics sometimes bordered on the ridiculously overblown, and that was part of the charm. Basically, if you like simple melodies, you will never like a Jim Steinman song. But if you don't take things too seriously and just want to enjoy the camp, then it's great.
Bat out of Hell II - actually produced by Steinman this time- and coming more than 10 years after Bat out of Hell- was even more excessive than Bat out of Hell. Bat out of Hell featured 3 songs clocking over 7 minutes. Well, Bat out of Hell II featured 6 songs longer than 7 minutes. Those songs featured long and weird titles like, "I Would Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That)," "Life is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back," and "Objects in the Rearview Mirror May Appear Closer than They Are." Some of the lyrics were so ridiculous that you'd just have to laugh. For instance, there's:
"What about your childhood?
Its defective!
Its dead and buried in the past"
which doesn't seem too strange. A bit excessive, but fairly normal. But it's followed by:
"What about your future?
Its defective!
And you can shove it up your ass!!"
What the... I mean what .... there's *no* transition there.
Now after another hiatus of ten-odd years, we have Bat out of Hell III, where some of the songs were written by Jim Steinman, but where he's otherwise been almost uninvolved. And when you're missing Jim Steinman's touch, you just don't have a great Meatloaf. Meatloaf's voice has held up well over the years. The songs are still bombastic and excessive, but somehow, the thrill is gone, and I'm afraid we can't take it back.
The signature songs on this album are "The Monster is Loose," which is kind of metal-y. It isn't *bad* but it doesn't quite add anything to the Meatloaf canon. He already sung the ultimate epic with "Bat out of Hell," and he already sung the ultimate long and overdrawn but seemingly not dragging out love ballad with "I Would Do Anything for Love," and he's already sung a hard-rock Meatloaf in "Life is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back," so what was the point of "The Monster is Loose?"
So Meatloaf tries his hand at a love duet, which traditionally he's been quite good at, "It's All Coming Back to Me Now." Now I probably won't say this for any other song, but Celine Dion already did the definitive rendition for that like 10 years ago. Meatloaf's version is actually *not* excessive enough. It's actually kind of quiet. And his duet partner's role is basically to echo him, rather than contributing significant verses on her own. Meatloaf's best duet was in "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights." Even though the two singers certainly sound much older than teenagers, they push off 70's drive-in teen angst very well, and the transition from professions of love to can't stand the hell out of each other is quite convincing.
All in all, still a very listenable album- that is, if you're into Wagnerian rock. Meatloaf has the balls to sing and Jim Steinman has the balls to write lyrics that are so absurd that only someone with straight out moxy can, such as "Your love is blind- blind as a bat!" And I think that's gotta count for something. Better than the endless verses ending in "hold me tight" with most other pop songs. And there's something much more fun about the emotional overwroughtness of Wagnerian Rock, which is even more overblown than most 80s power ballads, as opposed to the empty mechanical songs that usually get cranked out now, where the singer has no conviction.
In I, the world was introduced to Wagnerian Rock, composer / songwriter Jim Steinman's mix of rock and opera in epic excess.
But while known best for the excess of the title track, Bat out of Hell III wasn't just about excess. It was also about campy teenage love (Paradise by the Dashboard Lights) and lost romance (Two out of Three Ain't Bad). The lyrics sometimes bordered on the ridiculously overblown, and that was part of the charm. Basically, if you like simple melodies, you will never like a Jim Steinman song. But if you don't take things too seriously and just want to enjoy the camp, then it's great.
Bat out of Hell II - actually produced by Steinman this time- and coming more than 10 years after Bat out of Hell- was even more excessive than Bat out of Hell. Bat out of Hell featured 3 songs clocking over 7 minutes. Well, Bat out of Hell II featured 6 songs longer than 7 minutes. Those songs featured long and weird titles like, "I Would Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That)," "Life is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back," and "Objects in the Rearview Mirror May Appear Closer than They Are." Some of the lyrics were so ridiculous that you'd just have to laugh. For instance, there's:
"What about your childhood?
Its defective!
Its dead and buried in the past"
which doesn't seem too strange. A bit excessive, but fairly normal. But it's followed by:
"What about your future?
Its defective!
And you can shove it up your ass!!"
What the... I mean what .... there's *no* transition there.
Now after another hiatus of ten-odd years, we have Bat out of Hell III, where some of the songs were written by Jim Steinman, but where he's otherwise been almost uninvolved. And when you're missing Jim Steinman's touch, you just don't have a great Meatloaf. Meatloaf's voice has held up well over the years. The songs are still bombastic and excessive, but somehow, the thrill is gone, and I'm afraid we can't take it back.
The signature songs on this album are "The Monster is Loose," which is kind of metal-y. It isn't *bad* but it doesn't quite add anything to the Meatloaf canon. He already sung the ultimate epic with "Bat out of Hell," and he already sung the ultimate long and overdrawn but seemingly not dragging out love ballad with "I Would Do Anything for Love," and he's already sung a hard-rock Meatloaf in "Life is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back," so what was the point of "The Monster is Loose?"
So Meatloaf tries his hand at a love duet, which traditionally he's been quite good at, "It's All Coming Back to Me Now." Now I probably won't say this for any other song, but Celine Dion already did the definitive rendition for that like 10 years ago. Meatloaf's version is actually *not* excessive enough. It's actually kind of quiet. And his duet partner's role is basically to echo him, rather than contributing significant verses on her own. Meatloaf's best duet was in "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights." Even though the two singers certainly sound much older than teenagers, they push off 70's drive-in teen angst very well, and the transition from professions of love to can't stand the hell out of each other is quite convincing.
All in all, still a very listenable album- that is, if you're into Wagnerian rock. Meatloaf has the balls to sing and Jim Steinman has the balls to write lyrics that are so absurd that only someone with straight out moxy can, such as "Your love is blind- blind as a bat!" And I think that's gotta count for something. Better than the endless verses ending in "hold me tight" with most other pop songs. And there's something much more fun about the emotional overwroughtness of Wagnerian Rock, which is even more overblown than most 80s power ballads, as opposed to the empty mechanical songs that usually get cranked out now, where the singer has no conviction.
Friday, March 30, 2007
If you wanna hang out, you've got to take her out; cocaine!
Cocaine, the Energy Drink, that is. I would *never* advocate illegal drug use.
(OK, now that the disclaimer's gotten out of the way, so if I work for a politician or run for office, this post can't be used against me)
Cocaine Energy Drink is certainly very *distinct* from other energy drinks. It's probably mostly because of the 280 mg of caffeine; it may also be their use of Dextrose rather than high fructose corn syrup (although I think that's the least distinctive marker- how much difference can using a simple sugar versus a complex sugar make?); but the most noticeable difference off the bat is that it's *spicy.* Spicy like Jamaica Ginger Beer (aka Ginger ale but with noticeable amounts of ginger). That's probably what I like most about Cocaine energy drink, the spiciness. I don't think any other energy drink is spicy. The flavor base, I believe, is something like pomegranate, so it's also got a mild sweet and tart taste.
Along with huge amounts of caffeine, you may expect a crash. They advertise that you won't feel such a crash, and that effect certainly is very reduced. I didn't feel much of a crash today, anyway. I drank one at around noon, and I'm still feeling pretty alert now, so the added caffeine does help (sleeping 10-12 hours the night before because I'd been chair-sleeping for a few days in a row probably helped more, though ;)). This was *not* a well-controlled experiment.
There's no "mediciny aftertaste" or not a really noticeable one, something bevnet always complains about for energy drinks. In other words, unlike most energy drinks, Cocaine is not just a knockoff of Red Bull.
The case of cocaine cost me about $44 bucks on ebay, including shipping. The cost, retail, however, is nearly $4 / 8 oz can. The cost on their website is pretty reasonable, coming to under $2 / can when you don't account for S&H. So I think if you buy it at the right places, you are getting a fairly reasonably priced energy drink, since it also has about 2-3 times as much caffeine as most other energy drinks (this depends on how we're supposed to interpret how energy drinks list "caffeine" and "guarana" as ingredients; if they're double counting, then most energy drinks have between 80-100 mgs of caffeine; if they're not double counting, then some energy drinks may have about 200 mg of caffeine).
Cliffs:If you like sweet and spicy drinks without a Red Bull aftertaste, and you like getting a caffeine kick, then Cocaine Energy Drink is worth a try.
(OK, now that the disclaimer's gotten out of the way, so if I work for a politician or run for office, this post can't be used against me)
Cocaine Energy Drink is certainly very *distinct* from other energy drinks. It's probably mostly because of the 280 mg of caffeine; it may also be their use of Dextrose rather than high fructose corn syrup (although I think that's the least distinctive marker- how much difference can using a simple sugar versus a complex sugar make?); but the most noticeable difference off the bat is that it's *spicy.* Spicy like Jamaica Ginger Beer (aka Ginger ale but with noticeable amounts of ginger). That's probably what I like most about Cocaine energy drink, the spiciness. I don't think any other energy drink is spicy. The flavor base, I believe, is something like pomegranate, so it's also got a mild sweet and tart taste.
Along with huge amounts of caffeine, you may expect a crash. They advertise that you won't feel such a crash, and that effect certainly is very reduced. I didn't feel much of a crash today, anyway. I drank one at around noon, and I'm still feeling pretty alert now, so the added caffeine does help (sleeping 10-12 hours the night before because I'd been chair-sleeping for a few days in a row probably helped more, though ;)). This was *not* a well-controlled experiment.
There's no "mediciny aftertaste" or not a really noticeable one, something bevnet always complains about for energy drinks. In other words, unlike most energy drinks, Cocaine is not just a knockoff of Red Bull.
The case of cocaine cost me about $44 bucks on ebay, including shipping. The cost, retail, however, is nearly $4 / 8 oz can. The cost on their website is pretty reasonable, coming to under $2 / can when you don't account for S&H. So I think if you buy it at the right places, you are getting a fairly reasonably priced energy drink, since it also has about 2-3 times as much caffeine as most other energy drinks (this depends on how we're supposed to interpret how energy drinks list "caffeine" and "guarana" as ingredients; if they're double counting, then most energy drinks have between 80-100 mgs of caffeine; if they're not double counting, then some energy drinks may have about 200 mg of caffeine).
Cliffs:If you like sweet and spicy drinks without a Red Bull aftertaste, and you like getting a caffeine kick, then Cocaine Energy Drink is worth a try.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
300
(Note: I saw this on a regular screen, so keep that in mind if you feel my take was not large enough to truly encompass this movie.)
Having recently viewed the laconically titled 300, I would say that this is a movie for everyone. It has something for each of us - burly men with popping pecs for the ladies. Lots of nipples for us men... For the children it has monsters such as a gollum-like cripple, a giant cave troll manbeast, an executioner who's a weird abomination with a cleaver for an arm, that's right. Don't forget persian shock troops that remarkably resemble Japanese samurai, and have scarred up drooly-faces underneath their masks. What's the point of making a movie for IMAX if you're not going to fill people's vision with either a popping pec, or a hideous human grotesque? I'm sure there isn't one.
Storywise, this movie achieves mixed success. It does not balk at sacrificing realism, which prevents it from becoming a dry historical snoozefest. Can we all learn something from history? Sure. But who actually wants to? There are some drama segments, with slapping and venomous looks, but nothing especially fun or surprising. Aside from those parts it was pretty solid as regards to continuity and wrapping up. Character development was kept to the barest minimum, as befits an action flick. On the other hand stuffing dead corpses into unexpected places was maximized - indeed, almost to the point of saturation. Some people may not know that the screenplay was co-created by Frank Miller, a comic book artist. Well, you can imagine how hedonistically exaggerated and how simultaneously entertaining the tone of the writing was.
A most striking feature of 300 was how it kept referencing "freedom" and the necessary defense thereof. That, coupled with the outright demonization of the Persians made it resemble old war propaganda from the 1940's. Its blatancy in that regard was dulled however by the slickness of the presentation, which made me suspect that perhaps it was merely incidental. But the irony didn't escape acute observers everywhere, of how the same arguments against imperial conquest could be applied to the US's most recent strongarming in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Helots whom the Spartans perpetually oppressed, yet relied upon all the while for economic subsistence, were not mentioned at all in the movie. It's likely they remain completely unknown to many of its viewers. This movie seems to have proved that the underdog who is resisting a menacing and greedy adversary will always have sympathizers among the human population, but only if their story is told. Because people are cursed with both ignorance and a weakness for rhetoric.
Whether a movie like this should have some respites from the frenzy of battle is an interesting topic for debate.
The main argument for would be that outside the domain of a larger story, bloodshed and violent imagery seem to benefit from some rationalization. Human nature can be seen as a balancing act, between a general distaste for violence and a seemingly paradoxical willingness to commit vilest savagery (if I may call the destruction of life that) in the name of something good. Also, if done with care, these are the scenes which will elevate your movie beyond its boundaries as one of thousands of "war movies" already made, and the predecessor of thousands more in the future. Although it's not to be assumed that such a distiction is always desired, as some movies are simply content to blaze in glory rather than bask in the refined glow of Shakespearian-caliber interludes. Further, if we recall the most gung ho fighting movies, the non-battle scenes will usually prove to be the least favorite for most viewers, often maligned for being boring or otherwise disappointing. I attribute this not to the impatience of the viewer, or his expectation of non-stop action - and embittered rebellion when the action is brought temporarily to a stop; but to the manner in which films in Hollywood are developed, with the director being pressured to prioritize the action sequences as well as scenes which directly affect the course of the battle that is ongoing throughout the movie. That is what will make or break the movie from a financial standpoint, not whether supporting actress #2 will bring eyes to tear with her lament for her absent husband.
There was however one bereavement story interwoven into the progression of 300, which was made touchingly, but forgettably. Perhaps my view is shaped by lack of personal experience in the matter. But the scene in The Two Towers is deeply rooted in my mind, where Theoden of Rohan grieves for his son, died in the defense of the kingdom but not mourned until that day. I would say Theoden is worth several hundred Leonidas's at least, and I'm sure that a few of the other non-action parts of this movie could have been stronger. For instance, I found the character of Ephialtes was treated with a high degree of indifference, given his pivotal part in the story. In the movie, when his hope of serving with the Greek forces "for honor" was dashed, he simply takes the best offer he can get, which was the promise of reward by Xerxes for betraying the Greeks. But his adventure would never attain any level of interest higher than mundane for the few scenes and fewer lines he was given. Here was a creature with little in life... On some level or other is relateable for many people, and with a sudden opportunity to wipe out all that and make something out of a sad life. He could have been given a sixty second monologue during which his heratfelt speech would have stirred the audience first to pathos, then hopefulness, and ultimately revulsion as his lack of humility is revealed as but a twin to his physical shortcomings. Instead we were treated to his timid traversal of Xerxes's court while all sorts of nakedness was going on around him. The unfortunate reason being, I imagine, that one would have looked awesome on IMAX, and the other wouldn't have.
My final word on this movie is, yeah go ahead and see it. And if you do have access to an IMAX theater, wait until there is availability there, as the added immersiveness of a truly really big screen may be likened to the chunks in chunky peanut butter - missed every time they're absent, for knowing they could be there.
Having recently viewed the laconically titled 300, I would say that this is a movie for everyone. It has something for each of us - burly men with popping pecs for the ladies. Lots of nipples for us men... For the children it has monsters such as a gollum-like cripple, a giant cave troll manbeast, an executioner who's a weird abomination with a cleaver for an arm, that's right. Don't forget persian shock troops that remarkably resemble Japanese samurai, and have scarred up drooly-faces underneath their masks. What's the point of making a movie for IMAX if you're not going to fill people's vision with either a popping pec, or a hideous human grotesque? I'm sure there isn't one.
Storywise, this movie achieves mixed success. It does not balk at sacrificing realism, which prevents it from becoming a dry historical snoozefest. Can we all learn something from history? Sure. But who actually wants to? There are some drama segments, with slapping and venomous looks, but nothing especially fun or surprising. Aside from those parts it was pretty solid as regards to continuity and wrapping up. Character development was kept to the barest minimum, as befits an action flick. On the other hand stuffing dead corpses into unexpected places was maximized - indeed, almost to the point of saturation. Some people may not know that the screenplay was co-created by Frank Miller, a comic book artist. Well, you can imagine how hedonistically exaggerated and how simultaneously entertaining the tone of the writing was.
A most striking feature of 300 was how it kept referencing "freedom" and the necessary defense thereof. That, coupled with the outright demonization of the Persians made it resemble old war propaganda from the 1940's. Its blatancy in that regard was dulled however by the slickness of the presentation, which made me suspect that perhaps it was merely incidental. But the irony didn't escape acute observers everywhere, of how the same arguments against imperial conquest could be applied to the US's most recent strongarming in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Helots whom the Spartans perpetually oppressed, yet relied upon all the while for economic subsistence, were not mentioned at all in the movie. It's likely they remain completely unknown to many of its viewers. This movie seems to have proved that the underdog who is resisting a menacing and greedy adversary will always have sympathizers among the human population, but only if their story is told. Because people are cursed with both ignorance and a weakness for rhetoric.
Whether a movie like this should have some respites from the frenzy of battle is an interesting topic for debate.
The main argument for would be that outside the domain of a larger story, bloodshed and violent imagery seem to benefit from some rationalization. Human nature can be seen as a balancing act, between a general distaste for violence and a seemingly paradoxical willingness to commit vilest savagery (if I may call the destruction of life that) in the name of something good. Also, if done with care, these are the scenes which will elevate your movie beyond its boundaries as one of thousands of "war movies" already made, and the predecessor of thousands more in the future. Although it's not to be assumed that such a distiction is always desired, as some movies are simply content to blaze in glory rather than bask in the refined glow of Shakespearian-caliber interludes. Further, if we recall the most gung ho fighting movies, the non-battle scenes will usually prove to be the least favorite for most viewers, often maligned for being boring or otherwise disappointing. I attribute this not to the impatience of the viewer, or his expectation of non-stop action - and embittered rebellion when the action is brought temporarily to a stop; but to the manner in which films in Hollywood are developed, with the director being pressured to prioritize the action sequences as well as scenes which directly affect the course of the battle that is ongoing throughout the movie. That is what will make or break the movie from a financial standpoint, not whether supporting actress #2 will bring eyes to tear with her lament for her absent husband.
There was however one bereavement story interwoven into the progression of 300, which was made touchingly, but forgettably. Perhaps my view is shaped by lack of personal experience in the matter. But the scene in The Two Towers is deeply rooted in my mind, where Theoden of Rohan grieves for his son, died in the defense of the kingdom but not mourned until that day. I would say Theoden is worth several hundred Leonidas's at least, and I'm sure that a few of the other non-action parts of this movie could have been stronger. For instance, I found the character of Ephialtes was treated with a high degree of indifference, given his pivotal part in the story. In the movie, when his hope of serving with the Greek forces "for honor" was dashed, he simply takes the best offer he can get, which was the promise of reward by Xerxes for betraying the Greeks. But his adventure would never attain any level of interest higher than mundane for the few scenes and fewer lines he was given. Here was a creature with little in life... On some level or other is relateable for many people, and with a sudden opportunity to wipe out all that and make something out of a sad life. He could have been given a sixty second monologue during which his heratfelt speech would have stirred the audience first to pathos, then hopefulness, and ultimately revulsion as his lack of humility is revealed as but a twin to his physical shortcomings. Instead we were treated to his timid traversal of Xerxes's court while all sorts of nakedness was going on around him. The unfortunate reason being, I imagine, that one would have looked awesome on IMAX, and the other wouldn't have.
My final word on this movie is, yeah go ahead and see it. And if you do have access to an IMAX theater, wait until there is availability there, as the added immersiveness of a truly really big screen may be likened to the chunks in chunky peanut butter - missed every time they're absent, for knowing they could be there.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Drumhead
A big poker win has caused me to question whether there's justice in the world. From the crouching guerilla in the jungle, to the poor Guatemalan wishing to exchange the hurricanes of his homeland for someplace nicer to raise his family, to the hunched online poker player clicking "call" - risking everything in desperate defiance of a harsh situation - all are hoping that they struggle not in vain. Could it be that for some, doom is already upon them, and their situation has no winning outcome? It seems that justice does not equally protect everyone in the world today. So what is our role in expanding justice? As I was watching "The Drumhead" (Star Trek episode 21 of season four of The Next Generation) I thought, is it not our own sense of justice that we all fight for day by day?
The story begins like this: after it was confirmed that at least one person aboard the starship Enterprise has been involved in delivering sensitive technical data to Romulan Intelligence, a subtly paranoid mood is set up when retired Starfleet Admiral Norah Satie is taken aboard the Enterprise to help investigate a possible conspiracy...
A congenial meeting between Satie and Picard takes place where she voices a profound admiration for her father (a renowned former judicator in the Federation) and expresses a desire to work together with Captain Picard on the investigation. She also predicts that Lt. Worf "will be extremely valuable in this investigation". While working on discovering their saboteur, Sabin (an aide to Satie and a telepath) tells Worf that the security chief had been a suspect due to his own family history, however his enthusiastic cooperation has earned him their trust.
Then Simon Tarses, a civilian crewman, is questioned at an "informal inquiry" and asked about J'Dan and whether he'd seen the Klingon outside of his duty as medical tech, or heard him make any suspicious comments. The Admiral dismisses him after a few questions, but Sabin sensed that Crewman Tarses was hiding a big secret. Picard points out to Satie that shadowing and restricting a person solely based on that would be treating him as if he were already a known criminal. At that point LaForge calls Picard to engineering, where he and Lt. Commander Data report that an "undetectable defect" in a new hatch casing, not sabotage, resulted in the explosion.
In the second half of the show, Adm. Satie's intentions are revealed with the statement that "just because there was no sabotage doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy on this ship." Picard is extremely skeptical but Worf echoes Sabin's interest in further investigating Tarses. To the captain's dismay, the investigation takes the form of an open hearing, where Simon Tarses is further interrogated, this time by an aggressive Sabin. But before that, Satie asks Dr. Crusher, Simon's boss, to "name names" of whom she saw around Tarses socially, who might be connected with J'Dan.
It's uncovered that Tarses' grandfather was not a Vulcan but a (genetically-similar) Romulan, and he lied about that on his personnel file application. Confronted with this, Tarses chooses not to answer on the advice of his advocate, Commander Riker. Picard, feeling that they've all moved beyond legitimate suspicion, interviews Tarses in private, and finds him a bright-eyed eager type who admires Starfleet. Insisting that Satie put an end to the proceedings against him though results in a confrontation between Picard and the admiral, where after repeating that he was her partner in the investigation, Satie states, "I have a purpose", and reveals that she had not accepted retirement, but for 4 years has been working on her own, presumably at rooting out "enemies of the Federation". On her recommendation Starfleet Command has authorized to expand the current investigation (to all the crew of the Enterprise) and that she does "not need your permission or your approval," speaking to Picard. The Captain declares that he will fight Satie, and is soon summoned to be questioned, with Adm. Henry of Starfleet Security overseeing the hearing.
At the inquest, Adm. Satie ignores Picard's opening statement and immediately begins accusing him of wilfully disregarding the Prime Directive of the Federation and facilitating the escape of a Romulan spy. When Worf speaks up in his captain's defense, Sabin repeats the claim that Worf's father had been a traitor aiding the Romulans (at Khitomer) again assaulting Capt. Picard's judgement for putting the Klingon in charge of ship's security. When finally Satie condemns Picard for exacerbating Starfleet casualties during the war against the Borg (of the last season) - a circumstance he could not have escaped - Picard rebukes her quoting her own father, and Satie explodes in an emotional tirade, at which Admiral Henry leaves the room. The trials are called off, and the episode closes with a discussion between Picard and Worf. When the latter apologizes for supporting Satie's crusade, Picard says, "She or someone like her will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness."
Analysis
Adm. Satie's view of justice had been too extreme and incompatible with the organization she hoped to preserve. I think that over time people can veer off the course they think they're following without realizing it. That is what the Captain alluded to when Satie made him admit that he would infringe on the rights of one of his crew (the right to privacy) on the advice of the partly telepathic Counselor Troi. That's why one must be willing to re-evaluate such a choice, when it becomes apparent that it contradicts a more important decision.
There is no doubt that at all times Adm. Satie thought what she was doing was the right thing. But what exactly forced her to ignore the counsel of others, namely her "partner" Picard? The admiral was trying to follow in the footsteps of her father, but primarily in being a hero of the Federation, as opposed to upholding justice per se. So pride was undoubtedly a factor. But one cannot believe in the rightness of something, yet consider it acceptable to trample all over that thing in order to save it. Or can he? In any even Satie's unwillingness to honor a Federation principle because it would interfere with her hunt for those who effectively reject ALL its principles seems a commonly-made choice. And I would guess it simply never occured to her to consider her methods in any light other than apparent effectiveness, and it's of the utmost importance for society that people realize and address this vulnerability in themselves - particularly those who undertake to be leaders or administrators.
The ominous truth spoken at the end of the show is worth considering. According to Picard, fear and those who would wield it are the enemy of democracy. I would further argue that it's an enemy to human happiness itself. Fear of death or fear of injustice is futile and pointless, because for the time being both are inevitable consequences of existence. On the other hand to take action against the fear is productive, because even if you do not usher in final justice yourself, lives will certainly be improved whenever someone's fear is reduced.
For the Federation, as with any body, not only victories can be expected, but defeats must sometimes be endured. This cannot be avoided. However if they do not foster more fear, those experiences can grant strength even while setting them back. And supporting the strength of each individual, in a democratic society, adds to the strength of the many. Thus the chaos of life is brought to a prosperous order, without resorting to fundamentalist, militant or oppressive methods. This kind of philosophy is what inspires Star Trek and is frequently encountered in the show's storylines.
The story begins like this: after it was confirmed that at least one person aboard the starship Enterprise has been involved in delivering sensitive technical data to Romulan Intelligence, a subtly paranoid mood is set up when retired Starfleet Admiral Norah Satie is taken aboard the Enterprise to help investigate a possible conspiracy...
A congenial meeting between Satie and Picard takes place where she voices a profound admiration for her father (a renowned former judicator in the Federation) and expresses a desire to work together with Captain Picard on the investigation. She also predicts that Lt. Worf "will be extremely valuable in this investigation". While working on discovering their saboteur, Sabin (an aide to Satie and a telepath) tells Worf that the security chief had been a suspect due to his own family history, however his enthusiastic cooperation has earned him their trust.
Then Simon Tarses, a civilian crewman, is questioned at an "informal inquiry" and asked about J'Dan and whether he'd seen the Klingon outside of his duty as medical tech, or heard him make any suspicious comments. The Admiral dismisses him after a few questions, but Sabin sensed that Crewman Tarses was hiding a big secret. Picard points out to Satie that shadowing and restricting a person solely based on that would be treating him as if he were already a known criminal. At that point LaForge calls Picard to engineering, where he and Lt. Commander Data report that an "undetectable defect" in a new hatch casing, not sabotage, resulted in the explosion.
In the second half of the show, Adm. Satie's intentions are revealed with the statement that "just because there was no sabotage doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy on this ship." Picard is extremely skeptical but Worf echoes Sabin's interest in further investigating Tarses. To the captain's dismay, the investigation takes the form of an open hearing, where Simon Tarses is further interrogated, this time by an aggressive Sabin. But before that, Satie asks Dr. Crusher, Simon's boss, to "name names" of whom she saw around Tarses socially, who might be connected with J'Dan.
It's uncovered that Tarses' grandfather was not a Vulcan but a (genetically-similar) Romulan, and he lied about that on his personnel file application. Confronted with this, Tarses chooses not to answer on the advice of his advocate, Commander Riker. Picard, feeling that they've all moved beyond legitimate suspicion, interviews Tarses in private, and finds him a bright-eyed eager type who admires Starfleet. Insisting that Satie put an end to the proceedings against him though results in a confrontation between Picard and the admiral, where after repeating that he was her partner in the investigation, Satie states, "I have a purpose", and reveals that she had not accepted retirement, but for 4 years has been working on her own, presumably at rooting out "enemies of the Federation". On her recommendation Starfleet Command has authorized to expand the current investigation (to all the crew of the Enterprise) and that she does "not need your permission or your approval," speaking to Picard. The Captain declares that he will fight Satie, and is soon summoned to be questioned, with Adm. Henry of Starfleet Security overseeing the hearing.
At the inquest, Adm. Satie ignores Picard's opening statement and immediately begins accusing him of wilfully disregarding the Prime Directive of the Federation and facilitating the escape of a Romulan spy. When Worf speaks up in his captain's defense, Sabin repeats the claim that Worf's father had been a traitor aiding the Romulans (at Khitomer) again assaulting Capt. Picard's judgement for putting the Klingon in charge of ship's security. When finally Satie condemns Picard for exacerbating Starfleet casualties during the war against the Borg (of the last season) - a circumstance he could not have escaped - Picard rebukes her quoting her own father, and Satie explodes in an emotional tirade, at which Admiral Henry leaves the room. The trials are called off, and the episode closes with a discussion between Picard and Worf. When the latter apologizes for supporting Satie's crusade, Picard says, "She or someone like her will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness."
Analysis
Adm. Satie's view of justice had been too extreme and incompatible with the organization she hoped to preserve. I think that over time people can veer off the course they think they're following without realizing it. That is what the Captain alluded to when Satie made him admit that he would infringe on the rights of one of his crew (the right to privacy) on the advice of the partly telepathic Counselor Troi. That's why one must be willing to re-evaluate such a choice, when it becomes apparent that it contradicts a more important decision.
There is no doubt that at all times Adm. Satie thought what she was doing was the right thing. But what exactly forced her to ignore the counsel of others, namely her "partner" Picard? The admiral was trying to follow in the footsteps of her father, but primarily in being a hero of the Federation, as opposed to upholding justice per se. So pride was undoubtedly a factor. But one cannot believe in the rightness of something, yet consider it acceptable to trample all over that thing in order to save it. Or can he? In any even Satie's unwillingness to honor a Federation principle because it would interfere with her hunt for those who effectively reject ALL its principles seems a commonly-made choice. And I would guess it simply never occured to her to consider her methods in any light other than apparent effectiveness, and it's of the utmost importance for society that people realize and address this vulnerability in themselves - particularly those who undertake to be leaders or administrators.
The ominous truth spoken at the end of the show is worth considering. According to Picard, fear and those who would wield it are the enemy of democracy. I would further argue that it's an enemy to human happiness itself. Fear of death or fear of injustice is futile and pointless, because for the time being both are inevitable consequences of existence. On the other hand to take action against the fear is productive, because even if you do not usher in final justice yourself, lives will certainly be improved whenever someone's fear is reduced.
For the Federation, as with any body, not only victories can be expected, but defeats must sometimes be endured. This cannot be avoided. However if they do not foster more fear, those experiences can grant strength even while setting them back. And supporting the strength of each individual, in a democratic society, adds to the strength of the many. Thus the chaos of life is brought to a prosperous order, without resorting to fundamentalist, militant or oppressive methods. This kind of philosophy is what inspires Star Trek and is frequently encountered in the show's storylines.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
I’m not going to bother with not revealing spoilers since I’m probably the only person in the world who has only just now watched Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. I’d have to agree with most that Revenge of the Sith is one of the better Star Wars movies… although I think Star Wars has grown into a much greater mythology than the quality of the movies themselves would indicate.
Brisk action is in general a good thing, but it does create some really abrupt changes. For instance, how does Anakin Skywalker go from “I will have you arrested” to
One of the better aspects of this movie is that what's usually considered "good" (love) is what pushes Anakin to the Dark Side (because only the Sith Lord promises a way for Anakin to save his wife from death). I thought that was a good element of ambiguity, showing that the world isn't just black and white.
Overall, I liked Revenge of the Sith. It’s definitely much darker than the previous movies, and darkness is an automatic plus. Conflict is what builds drama. Yet, Sith isn’t complete darkness, either. It contains enough hope to make Episode IV a smooth follow-up to it.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Avenue Q
The Musical
Describable as a puppet show with dramatic ambitions, Avenue Q opened in 2003 to good reviews, netting a Best Musical Tony award a year later. I have seen this show. Here is my review.
Entering the modest venue, I wasn't sure what role puppets would be playing exactly, but that was quickly revealed when a plainly dressed actor came on stage for the opening number, wearing Princeton (a fresh-out-of-college bachelor) on one hand while controlling the character's arms through attached rods which he held in the other hand. The singing voice of the actor was pleasant, and grabbed the attention of the audience. Likewise the other characters were voiced by competent performers.
So even though the cast consisted primarly of puppets, the human puppeteers would usually stand in view, and enact appropriate expressions, and did not attempt ventriloquism. One got the sense that the controllers were as shadows of the puppet characters, which served to relieve the underlying storyline out from the whimsical background drawn up by the musical's format. (This was deviated from only by a certain actress who voiced two puppets, when both puppets were on stage - the actress hid her mouth when speaking for the puppet she wasn't holding.) But at its core the show is a comedy, and of course sticks to that goal and carries it out well. In addition, some of the puppet dances were particularly well done. Also worth noting, the familiar sesame street-styled educational interludes projected on tv screens added a lot to the performance.
Contentwise, the central theme of the plot was the idea of purpose in life, and this theme was well developed over the course of the show. Also alluded to was the fact that our society is plagued by a near-universal fear of commitment. I would propose that this problem is due to excessive emphasis on individuality, and ultimately on ego. As are a lot of other problems in modern society. Past societies have dealt with it simply by NOT emphasizing the individual to this outrageous extent, but neither was there a need. Whereas modern thinkers seem to favor the theory that a laid-back approach to life leads to underproduction, whatever that means. Hence, a risky but valuable sub-moral that this show could have put forth would have been to stop viewing men as machines. But the message that the show finally conveyed was both clear and positive, and made for a satisfying experience. In fact, it's hard to imagine anyone not being charmed by this musical overall.
The American quality of forced humility that is imposed on protagonist and antagonist alike has never jived with me, but unfortunately overcomes the personalities of each character in this story. Thus the various characters end up seeming slightly too uniform, but this does not impact the telling of the story much. As far as jokes go, though hokey at times, the kind of humor that permeated the show was sufficiently entertaining. The one element that was overused was "potty mouth" humor that, while easily justifiable in light of today's customs of interaction, simply didn't do it for me. There's something about a cute puppet creature using expletives that leaves a void inside me where mirth normally resides. However the audience, whether guilted into it or simply trained to respond to cues from entertainment figures, was very much stirred every time the lecherous version of the cookie monster uttered "bitch". Go figure. (To avoid confusion, my idea of "overused" in this case refers to roughly a half-dozen instances of puppet profanity. Nothing objectionable, just noticeable because people always laugh.)
Some portions of the show were a little too "real" in my opinion. For example, the songs "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" and "You Can Be as Loud as the Hell You Want (When Making Love)". The latter was amusing enough, and caused a fair uproar among the audience. I couldn't enjoy the humor completely though. I guess the questionable grammar actually threw me, as well as my obsession with quality domestic soundproofing.
The racism - While the song in question was not excessively flip on the subject of racism, and was prompted by a conflict between the lead characters Kate Monster and Princeton over "racism against monsters" (just to show the level of seriousness the writers were shooting for). Nonetheless, the attitude it portrayed seemed defeatist, in the sense that it de-values personal progress in the area of racial tolerance, even while it recites that it is an issue for everyone. The song got plenty of laughs however, and was not unclever in its lyrics. The interracial couple fit well within the storyline, and were likeable. How true-to-life they were trying to be I couldn't decide. It's a parody after all.
The crowd in the theater was of all ages. Staff was about their business, seats were clean and well upholstered. The sound system in the John Golden Theatre was a disappointment, at times sounding akin to a cheap megaphone. It may be sufficient for amplifying speaking parts, but was much too low-end for a musical. Overall, I would say the show is well worth the time and a nice diversion to enjoy with a friend.
Describable as a puppet show with dramatic ambitions, Avenue Q opened in 2003 to good reviews, netting a Best Musical Tony award a year later. I have seen this show. Here is my review.
Entering the modest venue, I wasn't sure what role puppets would be playing exactly, but that was quickly revealed when a plainly dressed actor came on stage for the opening number, wearing Princeton (a fresh-out-of-college bachelor) on one hand while controlling the character's arms through attached rods which he held in the other hand. The singing voice of the actor was pleasant, and grabbed the attention of the audience. Likewise the other characters were voiced by competent performers.
So even though the cast consisted primarly of puppets, the human puppeteers would usually stand in view, and enact appropriate expressions, and did not attempt ventriloquism. One got the sense that the controllers were as shadows of the puppet characters, which served to relieve the underlying storyline out from the whimsical background drawn up by the musical's format. (This was deviated from only by a certain actress who voiced two puppets, when both puppets were on stage - the actress hid her mouth when speaking for the puppet she wasn't holding.) But at its core the show is a comedy, and of course sticks to that goal and carries it out well. In addition, some of the puppet dances were particularly well done. Also worth noting, the familiar sesame street-styled educational interludes projected on tv screens added a lot to the performance.
Contentwise, the central theme of the plot was the idea of purpose in life, and this theme was well developed over the course of the show. Also alluded to was the fact that our society is plagued by a near-universal fear of commitment. I would propose that this problem is due to excessive emphasis on individuality, and ultimately on ego. As are a lot of other problems in modern society. Past societies have dealt with it simply by NOT emphasizing the individual to this outrageous extent, but neither was there a need. Whereas modern thinkers seem to favor the theory that a laid-back approach to life leads to underproduction, whatever that means. Hence, a risky but valuable sub-moral that this show could have put forth would have been to stop viewing men as machines. But the message that the show finally conveyed was both clear and positive, and made for a satisfying experience. In fact, it's hard to imagine anyone not being charmed by this musical overall.
The American quality of forced humility that is imposed on protagonist and antagonist alike has never jived with me, but unfortunately overcomes the personalities of each character in this story. Thus the various characters end up seeming slightly too uniform, but this does not impact the telling of the story much. As far as jokes go, though hokey at times, the kind of humor that permeated the show was sufficiently entertaining. The one element that was overused was "potty mouth" humor that, while easily justifiable in light of today's customs of interaction, simply didn't do it for me. There's something about a cute puppet creature using expletives that leaves a void inside me where mirth normally resides. However the audience, whether guilted into it or simply trained to respond to cues from entertainment figures, was very much stirred every time the lecherous version of the cookie monster uttered "bitch". Go figure. (To avoid confusion, my idea of "overused" in this case refers to roughly a half-dozen instances of puppet profanity. Nothing objectionable, just noticeable because people always laugh.)
Some portions of the show were a little too "real" in my opinion. For example, the songs "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" and "You Can Be as Loud as the Hell You Want (When Making Love)". The latter was amusing enough, and caused a fair uproar among the audience. I couldn't enjoy the humor completely though. I guess the questionable grammar actually threw me, as well as my obsession with quality domestic soundproofing.
The racism - While the song in question was not excessively flip on the subject of racism, and was prompted by a conflict between the lead characters Kate Monster and Princeton over "racism against monsters" (just to show the level of seriousness the writers were shooting for). Nonetheless, the attitude it portrayed seemed defeatist, in the sense that it de-values personal progress in the area of racial tolerance, even while it recites that it is an issue for everyone. The song got plenty of laughs however, and was not unclever in its lyrics. The interracial couple fit well within the storyline, and were likeable. How true-to-life they were trying to be I couldn't decide. It's a parody after all.
The crowd in the theater was of all ages. Staff was about their business, seats were clean and well upholstered. The sound system in the John Golden Theatre was a disappointment, at times sounding akin to a cheap megaphone. It may be sufficient for amplifying speaking parts, but was much too low-end for a musical. Overall, I would say the show is well worth the time and a nice diversion to enjoy with a friend.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Not exactly a mission statement
The name is more grandiose than the "purpose" of this team blog. :-) There is no grand purpose, nor is there a quest for Wisdom like that of Solomon's. Just a bunch of people writing reviews and having some fun. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
