Fidget

… has to be one of the most bizarre movies I’ve ever seen. It’s just such a hodge-podge of culturally loaded concepts. For example:

- the King of Persia (Ahasueras/Xerxes) has smooth brown hair and blue eyes.

- Esther’s childhood keepsake necklace that has significance throughout the whole plot is a “magic” crystal which, when the light hits it just right, projects Stars of David around the room.

- Hamman’s vendetta against the Jews (for massacre-ing his ancestors the Agagites) is represented in his keepsake talisman which incorporates the shape of a swastika.

- The term Israel is not mentioned except in the very last scene when Esther tells of Jacob’s name being changed.

- Esther romances the King using Bible stories, specifically Jacob, Leah, and Rachel.

- Vashti’s crime, in addition to the Biblically accurate bad-example-as-rebellious-wife, is being a pacifist, opposed to her husband’s plan to attack Greece…

- … which is a threat to the greatness of Persia because of its dangerous doctrine of Democracy! I have to say I cringed every time Hamman opened his mouth because he was such a scary/cheesy fascist hater of “Democracy/the Jews and their God.” It started to feel like God and Democracy were TOO lumped together … the weirdest moment was when Hamman refers to the Jewish prophecy about Jesus, who would be the King of Kings and “set all men free.” Earlier he had quoted the Declaration of Independence’s sentiment that “all men are created equal.” But he’s quoting it to a rabble mob in attempts to turn them against their neighbors the Jews. Huh? There’s one other small Christian reference that caught my attention - Esther and the King are discussing Love and she says, “Love is the greatest commandment… no matter what god you worship.” How sweet, and vague…

As a movie, it was certainly pretty to look at, with very nice sets and costumes. The scenes didn’t flow together very smoothly, and for that reason the plot was confusing at times, and the ending seemed abrupt. One good result of watching the movie was it made us want to rush home and read the Book of Esther to get clear what’s in the original story. That’s the one I recommend…

We choose to go to the moon! says JFK, as if it’s simply a matter of making up our minds. I think if I’d been alive during the Moon decade, as an adult, I wouldn’t have felt that going to the moon was a big priority. I mean, it seems there are a lot of social issues pretty “close to home.” The Vietnam war was going on concurrently!

But, I was totally captivated by this drama-documentary (produced by Tom Hanks.) I didn’t expect to enjoy it nearly as much as I did. Twelve episodes, each exploring the Moon project from different angles and perspectives. We got to see through the eyes of the computer geeks at MIT, the wives of test-pilots-turned astronauts, the TV anchorman battling an upstart reporter, the engineering firm president whose brain child was the Lunar Module. Alan Shepard was 47 when he landed on the moon - after a decade hiatus from being an astronaut. Al Bean was a goofy young rookie along for the ride with his goofy pals - in their matching yellow corvettes, and on their journey to the moon. Jack Schmidt was a geologist who helped turn his fellow astronauts on to studying rocks, and finally got to land on the ultimate rock himself, in the last trip to date.

The miniseries is definitely dramatized, with characters and facts adapted to make a good story. Each episode was quite different - even the cinematography varied to fit the theme. I had a little bit of trouble keeping track of all the people, because they were sometimes introduced in a rapid-fire succession and each episode had mostly a different set of characters altogether. But on the whole, the acting was excellent. And, the scenes in the spacecraft and out on the moon were very convincing. I literally forgot that it wasn’t actual footage of the mission.

The “moral of the story,” which was emphasized more toward the end, is that the moon landing was proof that the human race is capable of anything - we can do anything we put our minds to. (If we all work together and have a little faith… no, just kidding, this wasn’t a Disney movie.) I guess that’s pretty inspiring, even to me, and I’m not exactly a modernist, certainly not a humanist, and not even that much of an optimist. I wouldn’t have agreed with Kennedy that making it to the moon was very essential. But, I have to wonder - if we hadn’t done it, would the world (or at least America) be a different place? Maybe the accomplishment had wider reaching effects than I realize.

If you have Netflix and are up for a fascinating educational/entertaining show, get From the Earth to the Moon!

It’s super hot today. I broke a sweat just making a salad for dinner (even using the toaster oven was too much cooking!!). It’s 8pm and it just became cooler outside than in so I opened up all the windows and turned on our tiny fan to try to move some air through the apartment. We sat in the dark all afternoon, reading and trying not to think too hard for fear of generating heat.

We spent last night in Portland, as a belated anniversary getaway. We had our 12-year-old nephew, TG, with us on our actual day (July 10th) and, though he was a wonderful houseguest, three’s a crowd on one’s anniversary. He didn’t even want a piece of the cheesecake that we were eating to celebrate, opting instead for the last of the ice cream, his reward for eating 3 tiny pieces of vegetable matter with his dinner. He promised to like vegetables when he’s a grown-up, but I figure those 6 years till he’s 18 will go by quick and he’d better start working on liking the goodies now.

So, anyway. We drove up to Portland yesterday and discovered that our motel was a bit farther from the city center than we’d thought. But it turned out fine, because we walked across the Willamette and checked out the sights (whew, the traffic! I’m glad we don’t live there)

and then on to downtown. We went to Powell’s bookstore, which is amazing – we didn’t explore the half of it. Next was dinner at PF Chang’s (score!) and a 7:45 showing of the newest installment of Pirates of the Caribbean. It was entertaining but we didn’t like the occult undercurrents and the plot was darn confusing. The first one was better. Maybe they’ll wrap it up during Round Three – apparently on its way, since Dead Man’s Chest ended in a distinctly un-wrapped-up manner. Even though it was 2-and-a-half hours long.

When we got out of the theater it was just as hot at 10:30 as it had been in late afternoon. Whew!

This morning we had breakfast at Doug Fir, a very hip establishment that was log-cabin-meets-60’s-modern. We were across the restaurant from a log wall with a sleek, space-age shaped window cut out of it. It was pretty cool. And the food was yummy! Portland has good food. I like that.

Postscript, Sunday July 23rd : it got up to 105 today. Hope we get some relief tomorrow!!!

I was a teenager in the mid-90’s, but I had never seen Forrest Gump until now in my late 20’s. I felt like I had heard all about it, mostly from my friend PF who quoted from it constantly and was an aspiring movie-maker himself. But, finally watching it for myself, I really was surprised about a lot of elements and plot events in the movie. Of course there are lots of funny parts (”So, I went to the White House, again, and met the President, again…” “What is your sole purpose here, Gump?!” “To do whatever you tell me to do, when you tell me to do it, drill sergeant”) But on the whole it’s quite tragic. I was struck with how, even after all he went through, Forrest was still so innocent and naive. Maybe he was “too dumb” to ever be bad. Also, his Mama really loved him and tried her best to start him out right. On the other hand, Jenny had such a bad start, got herself into more and more bad situations, and barely learned about what real love means before it was too late. She never had any innocence or naivete to start out with, and just went downhill from there.

Sometimes, there just aren’t enough rocks.

One thing I really appreciate about this movie is the subtle and clever connections between all its different parts. Nothing ruins a movie for me like putting emphasis on some detail or imbuing a scene with meaning, and then you never see or hear about it again. I want to see lots of witty, meaningful self-referential “inside jokes” as a movie viewer. I think this is how my sense of humour works in general, and I find it especially entertaining in movies. Forrest Gump is full of this and I love that. Here’s the perfect example: Gump’s commanding officer from Vietnam, Leutenant Dan, is very bitter and cynical after war - Forrest saved his life but both legs were amputated above the knee. In response to Gump’s plan to become a shrimp-boat captain to honor the dying wish of his comrade Bubba (”shrimp soup… shrimp gumbo… fried shrimp… sauteed shrimp…”) Dan says, “the day you become a shrimp boat captain is the day I become an astronaut.” So then, at the very end of the movie, after Forrest and Dan have long since ended their days of success in the shrimp industry and are reunited once again, Dan has new leg prostheses made of “titanium, just like they used in the space shuttle.” That, my friends, is true movie excellence.

This is the second time I’ve seen this movie, and I’m glad I did because it is very subtle so having a previous viewing (more than a year ago) helped me to enjoy it more this time.

I was all excited to watch a movie that’s based on a painting! What a cool idea. But, it’s actually based on a novel which I assume is based on the painting. Oh, well.

I really like Vermeer’s work, so the movie is a treat because many of the scenes look like paintings (Vermeers, in fact.) The composition, camera angles, and lighting are great. Even the experience of watching the movie is sort of like viewing a painting, because you really have to pay attention to the nuances as the story gradually unfolds and even so, many things are left to the imagination.

The movie is full of contrast, visual and otherwise. The most striking contrast is between the innocent, barely-there attraction and tension between the girl and the artist, and then the undisguised lust of the rich patron who is convinced that much more than painting is going on in Vermeer’s studio and really wants a piece of that action.

Beautiful visuals, good character development, and an interesting story-behind-the-famous-painting. I loved it! I’ll have to read the novel next.