I'm not voting, Day after, "Hollywoodland," and "Brick"
For the first time in 25 years of being eligible to vote, I skipped voting today. I have been so turned off by the constant barrage of junk mail and phone calls that I didn't even try to cut through the clutter to do my own homework and decide who to vote for - so I didn't bother. I don't think this is what they intended. But I had 6 messages when I got home tonight - okay, one was my mother, but that's still 5.
* * *
Yesterday was strange. I got off the subway at Bowling Green, a stop early, and crossed the West Side Highway further down, avoiding Ground Zero completely. But it wasn't possible to completely avoid it - our windows faced everything. You could hear the music even through the glass. People said that it was strangely quiet on the subways and streets; I don't think I noticed, because I myself was one of the quiet ones.
* * *
Poised at the onset of a super busy work week. My birthday is Thursday and I will spend it racing from one event to another, flying to DC for the second. I will spend my birthday night alone in a hotel room. And this is different from my typical night how? Ah, yes, feeling sorry for myself. There, I'm done.
* * *
I saw another movie on Sunday and now it escapes me. Was it that bad? Oh, yes, "Hollywoodland." No, it wasn't that bad. I liked it. I'm a fool for Adrien Brody, who is the definition of ugly-hot. Something about him just gets me. I've read several reviews that pointed to his half of the film as being the weaker, but I enjoyed it. I like him, and I liked the character he played, a detective out to solve the mystery of the death of George Reeves, the actor who played Superman on tv. Two stories run parallel - the detective's journey, and the flashback story of Reeves's career leading up to his death. I don't know why Ben Affleck, playing Reeves, has been getting Oscar buzz; he's interesting, but didn't impress me overmuch. The movie is good, entertaining, not great.
* * *
I also rented "Brick," which got some decent reviews. I am among those who just didn't get it. I don't necessarily mean I didn't follow the twists and turns of the mystery, although I admit that it was difficult to follow the noirish dialogue and know precisely what was being discussed. The conceit is a hard-boiled detective story set in a high school, with each character playing it straight as if they really are in a 1950's film noir. And that's what didn't work for me; it's too much for me to accept high schools were there are no teachers, only long empty moody hallways; where violent murders draw little attention from adults; and where femme fatale teen girls preside over parentless mansions and fast cars. The whole thing felt like kids playing at adulthood, and then someone would get beat to near death, and suddenly it wasn't a game. The "mystery" got buried behind all of the trappings of the genre: the nearly incomprehensible dialogue, the quiet tortured detective, the creepy crippled bad guy.
* * *
I'm tired and going to bed.
* * *
Yesterday was strange. I got off the subway at Bowling Green, a stop early, and crossed the West Side Highway further down, avoiding Ground Zero completely. But it wasn't possible to completely avoid it - our windows faced everything. You could hear the music even through the glass. People said that it was strangely quiet on the subways and streets; I don't think I noticed, because I myself was one of the quiet ones.
* * *
Poised at the onset of a super busy work week. My birthday is Thursday and I will spend it racing from one event to another, flying to DC for the second. I will spend my birthday night alone in a hotel room. And this is different from my typical night how? Ah, yes, feeling sorry for myself. There, I'm done.
* * *
I saw another movie on Sunday and now it escapes me. Was it that bad? Oh, yes, "Hollywoodland." No, it wasn't that bad. I liked it. I'm a fool for Adrien Brody, who is the definition of ugly-hot. Something about him just gets me. I've read several reviews that pointed to his half of the film as being the weaker, but I enjoyed it. I like him, and I liked the character he played, a detective out to solve the mystery of the death of George Reeves, the actor who played Superman on tv. Two stories run parallel - the detective's journey, and the flashback story of Reeves's career leading up to his death. I don't know why Ben Affleck, playing Reeves, has been getting Oscar buzz; he's interesting, but didn't impress me overmuch. The movie is good, entertaining, not great.
* * *
I also rented "Brick," which got some decent reviews. I am among those who just didn't get it. I don't necessarily mean I didn't follow the twists and turns of the mystery, although I admit that it was difficult to follow the noirish dialogue and know precisely what was being discussed. The conceit is a hard-boiled detective story set in a high school, with each character playing it straight as if they really are in a 1950's film noir. And that's what didn't work for me; it's too much for me to accept high schools were there are no teachers, only long empty moody hallways; where violent murders draw little attention from adults; and where femme fatale teen girls preside over parentless mansions and fast cars. The whole thing felt like kids playing at adulthood, and then someone would get beat to near death, and suddenly it wasn't a game. The "mystery" got buried behind all of the trappings of the genre: the nearly incomprehensible dialogue, the quiet tortured detective, the creepy crippled bad guy.
* * *
I'm tired and going to bed.
posted by medusa at 9:53 PM
2 Comments:
I loved "Brick", but what do I know, anyway?
I think it's a matter of taste - if you embrace the premise, you love the film. I just couldn't get my mind around it, so I wasn't able to connect. I don't think that makes either of us wrong (or right), just different.
Post a Comment
<< Home