In the article Objecting to Objectification: Re-Viewing the Feminine in The Silence of the Lambs (first printed in Journal of Popular Culture, 37.1, August 2003, pp. 1-12), Greg Garrett outlines ‘a theme that runs throughout the film’; the objectification of women. He argues that ‘by accenting Starling’s harassment, by removing male helpers present in the novel, and by stressing Starling’s resistance to the attempts of men to objectify her, the film creates… [a statement] about the various forms of female victimisation in our society.’

In his introduction Garrett refers to what he believes are the two core moments ‘consistent with [this] theme which runs throughout the film.’ The first is a scene where ‘Starling (Jodie Foster) holds up a punching target and braces herself as brawny male trainees light into her. She is no longer a woman; to her fellow trainees, she is only a punching bag.’ He believes that the fact she is surrounded by men and that they are shown to be pummeling her in this way, makes her seem less human, which makes way for the other times throughout the film in which men in her place of work objectify her because she is a woman.

This ‘verbal’ example clearly ‘reinforce[s] the idea that women must be seen as people rather than objects.’ This is what Garrett sees as something of a ‘strong… statement’.

Many examples Garrett makes in reference to this concept come in his references to things people say during dialogue with Starling. He recalls that ‘Starling is sexually harassed by Dr. Frederick Chilton’ when he is insultingly asks her for a personal ‘follow up’. Later he points out that ‘two young deputies make objectifying remarks about her.’ So through these examples Garrett shows the reader that in the scripted dialogue, the objectification of women is obvious in her male colleagues attitude and conversation with her.

Garrett argues that the ‘chief objectifier of women in the film’ is Buffalo Bill.  The main manifestation of Buffalo Bill’s objectification comes in the way he treats his victims; killing them so that he can ‘construct a costume of their skins.’  Garrett recalls Lector’s murdering method as similar in it’s objectification; (though it is not unique to women) he ‘turns people into gourmet meals’. However there is a difference with his attitude towards Starling when he ‘begins to regard her as a person, and thus is no longer capable of objectifying her,’ in the same way that Buffalo Bill was encouraged to.

Garrett describes his second reference from his description of the following scene:

…in response to a televised appeal broadcast to killer “Buffalo Bill” (Ted Levine) to release his most recent hostage alive, Starling lauds the strategy of repeating the victim’s name, Catherine, over and over. She knows that if Bill “sees Catherine as a person and not just an object” it will be harder to destroy her.

By analysing this theme in The Silence of the Lambs, we see that Garrett’s main aim is to highlight the moral importance of treating people as they should be; as humans, not as objects.

Nic Cage takes a ride with a bunch of convicts featuring Dave Chapelle, yeah this is a movie.

When the government puts all its rotten criminal eggs in one airborne basket, it’s asking for trouble. Before you can say, “Pass the barf bag,” the crooks control the plane, led by creepy Cyrus “The Virus” Grissom (John Malkovich). Watching his every move is the just-released Nicolas Cage, who’d rather reunite with his family. John Cusack plays the creator of the plane and stands by as his whole dream turns into a nightmare.

Con Air combines elements from many other films such as Airplane!, The Rock, The Dirty Dozen, and a little bit of Silence Of The Lambs. Now all of this may seem like a weird combination for a film, but it turns out to be one of my favorite action films of all-time.

First of all, the great thing about Con Air is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Scott Rosenberg’s ultra macho script knows it is having a lot of fun with the writing, and it brings in a lot of good laughs. The tongue-in-cheek approach that this film had never really dies out, cause although some of the lines may be cheesy, they are still hilarious and well worth it.

The action that takes place in this film isn’t so bad either. I liked how it was fun but it wasn’t non stop to the point of where there’s no room for a story to take place. The things that happen in this film seem very believable and the action is never too dumb to where its unbelievable.

The only problem I really had with this film was that it was working out really well by the end, and it loses itself in a routine explosive third act. Yeas, it was very good and fun to look at, but it just didn’t seem like it was needed for this film. I liked how the action took place in that scene, but when it was all said and done I felt like everything else sort of was lost cause of it.

The acting in this film is pretty good but mostly from Malkovich. He plays this slick, witty, and actually pretty smart villain that you want to hate cause he’s so crazy, but you can’t help but to love cause of his amazing apporach to the lines and the events that happen. Cage, I thought could have done a lot better, but his accent by the end just got really annoying for me, and by the end I just couldn’t stand it. Steve Buscemi plays a little side character in this film that is really funny, and by the end of the film, he turns out to be the most-liked character from the whole film.

Consensus: Con Air is full of energy and humor, that is fun to be a part of and does hit the right spots every time throughout the movie. Though the ending was a little bit out of hand, the film still holds a great place in my heart.

9/10=Full Priccee!!!

I’m not sure exactly how many films I’ve seen in my lifetime.

It is probably over a thousand, the list below barely scratches the surface of all the films I’ve seen and it was surprisingly easy to come up with. Rather than systematically list films by era or genre I got my brother’s girlfriend Dawn to call out any films she could think of.

I thought of this idea about five minutes before I began typing and Dawn rattled off films as they came to her while I typed out brief verdicts for each one. I initially intended to create a system for rating but found it too restrictive so I just wrote a brief instinctual verdict for each one.

I have included a link to Rotten Tomatoes and the score of each film, I haven’t seen some of these movies in a very long time…

NOTE: The percentages at the end are not my scores but the percentage of positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

1. Men in Black (1997) – meh (91% – seriously?!)
2. Fight Club (1999) – brilliant (80%)
3. Unforgiven (1992) – immense (96%)
4. Shaun of the Dead (2004) – decent (gets worse every time I watch it)
5. Memento (2001) – pretty good (93%)
6. The Departed (2006) – good (92%)
7. Aliens (1986) – the best sequel ever made (100%)
8. Reservoir Dogs (1992) – great characters and dialogue (95%)
9. American Beauty (1999) – uplifting, brilliant (the stupid bag scene apart) (89%)
10. Goodfellas (1990) – excellent (96%)
11. Predator (1987) – one of Arnie’s best (76%)
12. 12 Angry Men (1957) – captivating (100%)
13. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) – meh (78%)
14. Shawshank Redemption (1994) – really, really good (88%)
15. Little Miss Sunshine (2006) – better than I expected (90%)
16. Sin City (2005) – flashy trash (78%)
17. Toy Story 2 (1999) – yep, it’s good (100%)
18. Bambi (1942) – I remember it being good (much to the amusement of Dawn and Sean, many gay jokes followed) (89%)
19. Final Destination (2000) -guff (30%)
20. Edward Scissorhands (1990) – pretentious crap (90%)
21. Stranger than Fiction (2006) – Surprisingly good (72%)
22. Shallow Grave (1995) – okay (71%)
23. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1996) – facepalm (49%)
24. Man on Fire (2004) – underwhelming (39%)
25. Ocean’s Eleven (2001) – meh (81%)
26. 28 Days Later (2003) – meh (88%)
27. Casino Royale (2006) – surprisingly really good (94%)
28. Psycho (1960) – I was expecting it to be better (98%)
29. The Flintstones (1994) – Jesus wept (18%)
30. Aladdin (1992) – good (92%)
31. Jackass: The Movie (2002) – hard to class as a film really, hit and miss(48%)
32. E.T (1982) – good (98%)
33. Independence Day (1996) – a glorified B movie (61%)
34. Titanic (1997)  – Good (81%)
35. Ring (2002) – fairly decent (71%)
36. Pulp Fiction (1994) – Tarantino’s best film by a long way (97%)
37. Hot Fuzz (2007) – fun (90%)
38. Monty Python: Holy Grail (1975) – classic (94%)
39. Good Will Hunting (1997) – good (97%)
40. Heat (1995) – pretty good, not great (89%)
41. Zodiac (2007) – boring (87%)
42. Little Mermaid (1989) – decent (90%)
43. Ghost (1987) – crap (80%)
44. Dirty Dancing (1987) – utter shit – that women like this film makes me wonder if they actually deserve equal rights (67%)
45. The Terminator (1984) – the best Terminator (100%)
46. Bean (1998) – a test of mental endurance, awful (41%)
47. The Mask (1994) – rubbish (76%)
48. Frailty (2002) – ridiculous (74%)
49. The Day After Tomorrow (2004) – shite
50. Donnie Darko (2001) – overrated pish (84%)
51. Apollo 13 (1995)– crap (96%)
52. Deep Impact (1998)– more crap (46%)
53. Volcano (1997) – even more crap (40%)
54. I know what you did last summer (1997)– yet more crap (36%)
55. The Matrix (1999) – first half decent rest shite (86%)
56. Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (2002)– boring (96%)
57. Addams Family Values (1994) – some good moments (74%)
58. Nightmare before Christmas (1993) – overrated, largely guff (97%)
59. Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (1983) – (see earlier blog) (75%)
60. Three Men and a Baby (1987) – sickening  (78%)
61. Transformers: The Movie (1986) – decent (haven’t seen it in 10 years) (50%)
62. Cruel Intentions (1999) – trash (47%)
63. Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels (1998) – good if a little overrated (71%)
64. Clerks II (2006) – absolutely fucking diabolical (62%, seriously what the fuck?)
65. Baby’s Day Out (1994) – horrific (23%)
66. Home Alone 2 (1992) – decent (17% – that seems harsh!)
67. Liar Liar (1997) – pretty bad (84%)
68. Babe (1995) – Jesus wept (98%)
69. The Simpsons Movie (2007) – unfunny crap from a show that is a pale shadow of what it used to be (90%)
70. Mr Nanny (1993) – a holocaust of a film (7%)
71. The Thing (1980) – really tense, really good (80%)
72. Blair Witch Project (1999) – doing something different doesn’t make it good (85%)
73. Run Lola Run (1999) – see above (92%)
74. The Santa Clause (1994) – crap (Dawn: “What’s the film with Tim Allen dressed as Santa Claus?”) (79%)
75. Silence of the Lambs (1990) – they really should have just stopped at this one, a fine film (96%)
76. Matilda (1996) – another crap Dahl adaptation (89%)
77. A Bridge too Far (1977) – the quintessential war movie (67%)
78. Rocky V (1990) – laughable (21%)
79. The Sting (1973) – really good (91%)
80. The Sword in the Stone (1963) – good (73%)
81. The Witches (1990) – crap (100%, what the fuck?)
82. Starship Troopers (1997) – entertaining trash (60%)
83. Love Actually(2003)  – hated it (63%)
84. White men can’t jump (1992) – I liked it despite itself (78%)
85. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1999)– a pointless sequel (48%)
86. A Bug’s Life (1998) – meh (91%)
87. Hollow man (2000)– hollow is an appropriate adjective (but I like Bacon’s character) (27%)
88. Jaws (1975) – good but overrated (100%)
89. Jerry Maguire (1996)– oh Christ (84%)
90. Dawn of the Dead (1978)– awesome (95%)
91. Drop Dead Fred (1991)– mindless crap (still haunted by my little sister’s repeat viewing of this monstrosity) (9%)
92. Braveheart (1995) – good (it’s a movie, not a history lesson) (76%)
93. Saw II (2005) – crap (35%)
94. Mouse Hunt (1997)– hated it (really wanted the mouse to die) (44%)
95. The Mummy (1999)– didn’t like it (54%)
96. George of the Jungle (1997)– crap (53%)
97. Leon (1994) – ludicrous garbage (74%)
98. Death becomes her (1993)– had its moments (56%)
99. Meet Joe Black (1998) – meh (49%)
100. Dog Soldiers (2002) – entertaining (79%)
101. Cool Hand Luke (1967) – the best film ever (100%)

Yeah, college definitely just happened all over my life. Does anyone else think it’s a little barbaric that we drag children (and don’t tell me I’m an adult, because whatever the law says, I am definitely not one) out of their homes at age eighteen, uprooting them entirely, and then shoving them into a new environment and expecting them to succeed?

Not that I don’t enjoy college, because I do. I just also find it a little weird. My new friends are also weird, but that’s to be expected. I’m from Illinois, and my college is in Massachusetts (don’t stalk me, I know kung fu), so there’s a tiny bit of culture shock, mainly when we watch films in Anthropology class that involve people in the Midwest saying/doing something ignorant, and everyone else in the class (Massachusettsians, Vermonters, Connecticuters, etc) is shocked that anyone in America actually does such things, and then I just go, “Sounds like a block party in my old neighborhood,” and feel kind of like a hick even though I live within easy reach of Chicago and can both read and pronounce Goethe (It’s almost like Gerta, but you gloss over the r a little bit). One of these films was Jesus Camp, and it seems like everyone and her mother want me to watch the damn thing: Anthropology, my atheist club, etc. I couldn’t keep my damned heathen mouth shut in Anthropology (I’m always surprised by how many people don’t know about the Ted Haggard scandal, and I feel they need to be informed to get the whole irony of the experience, particularly the bit when he says, “We know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I know what you did last night. If you give me ten thousand dollars, I won’t tell your wife.”

Then he gets caught having had sex with a male prostitute and doing crystal meth. You really cannot make hypocrisy like this up. Seriously, if you did, your creative writing teacher would probably tell you it was too easy a moral.

Speaking of creative writing (which I really ought to be doing right now), if you’ve gotten fives on two English AP tests, taken two years of creative writing from an absolutely epic teacher, or anything in a similar vein, DO NOT TAKE AN ENGLISH 100-LEVEL CLASS. Even if you think creative writing is “different”– actually, you’re right. Rather then simply being boring, it’s boring and full of people who don’t want to write analytical essays for their writing requirement class. And have subject-verb agreement issues. Lots of it (I’m being funny, so don’t tell me I’m a hypocrite). 

I guess the point of that was that college has not been, at least for me, as big of a transition as everyone seems to think, or maybe I’m just sociopath-good at compartmentalizing (I’ve been accused of this, but I won’t worry about it until the accusation comes from an appropriately accredited psychologist and I’ve finally gotten rid of the last vestiges of my Protestant guilt).

And until that day, homework comes first, or at least a really close second. So in keeping with that spirit, I must be off to write Arabic words in my vocabulary notebook and fret some more about the class for which I am trying to register at another college…because I could never just take the easy path, I’m basically designing my own physical anthopology major/ back-up plan, which means essentially that Emily majors in cultural anthropology and English and unofficially minors in Bio while also taking classes at other schools for physical anthropology, trying to get in enough government credits to make back-up plan #3 (kick-ass lawyer) possible, while also learning as many languages as possible and taking kung fu in case I have a drastic realignment of politics and personality and decide to fulfill the fantasy derived from too much NCIS and Silence of the Lambs about joining some supercool government agency. The main reason I could not actually do this is that I can’t do hierarchy or gag orders.  This is also the reason kick-ass lawyer is a backup plan.

I’ve rambled on enough for today. Hopefully updates will become considerably more regular. And hopefully people will actually begin to read this…or I’ll just talk to the ether, whichever.

“I am the Dragon. And you call me insane. You are privy to a great becoming, but you recognize nothing. To me, you are a slug in the sun. You are an ant in the afterbirth. It is your nature to do one thing correctly. Before me, you rightly tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe.”

Red Dragon, the third and final film in the Hannibal series that is worth rewatching. Again, the writing, characters, acting and sets are magnificent. The direction could use a little work, but if you told me, “the guy who did Rush Hour and Xmen 3 is making the film of Red Dragon I would have slaughtered families. But no, he did a lot better than could be expected based on his other films. Rush Hour is fine, amusing, but it really doesn’t cut the mustard.

Anyway, despite the fact that I had previously felt it was my favourite, I’d say it is maybe the weakest of the trilogy (I’m not meaning to be insulting to Hannibal Rising, but it’s not worth including. Also, I’m not meaning to say that I don’t insult it, I’m just not doing so now.) The character of Francis is amazing, very well done by Ralph Fiennes, as usual. Same with Graham, I think he is a great character and Edward Norton does a really good job. Anthony Hopkins doesn’t need to be mentioned since he and Hannibal are really in another league, though in this film I can see the direction on him.

So, in hindsight, I’d say that Silence of the Lambs is definitely the best made, with probably the best Hopkins performance of the three. I still really adore a great deal of Hannibal, with only a few moments that aren’t dealt with well, plus some of my dislikes for the story which I don’t think can be avoided. I’d put it in a close second after Silence, only put back by some weak filmic techniques. Red Dragon comes in at a very memorable third, it is still a great film, but the book is not completely translated to the film. The feel is not there and while Ratner didn’t do a bad job, I would put some blame on the direction.

Anyway, all are great films, very worth a watch, very worth a read. Read and watch Hannibal Rising just because you should, but do not let it ruin the others for you.

So, I did watch Hannibal tonight. I am very fond of the film, but it certainly isn’t as well made as Silence of the Lambs. The story is subtler, slower, more classy and while the acting and set design, etc. are all fantastic, the problem was that they included all of these flashy filmic techniques: badly done, unnecessary slow mo, etc. The film doesn’t need it, you don’t need to keep us interested with these little tricks; the acting, story and script are all enough to keep us thoroughly enthralled. Less is more in this case. Not always, but for this movie it certainly is, there is so much quiet menace that Silence of the Lambs tapped into. This one still had that, but it shouldn’t have nearly as much action style filming.

Still, amazing film in most ways. Tomorrow night is apparently going to be a movie night with friends, so unless I watch Red Dragon then, it will actually have to wait until almost sunday since I have, shock horror, a social life for the rest of the week. As for the movie night, I hope we actually watch something good; we quite often choose something entertaining over something good, which is fair enough, I suppose. We’ll see.

So, on to the quote of the day: “The man who has no imagination has no wings.”

Now, on the subject of quotes, should I start saying who said each of them? I’ve been tending to leave them without context as I believe the best quotes don’t need context. Some great quotes do, but anyway. So, again I’m speaking as if people read this, but give me some feedback on this and reasons why, etc. Part of me wants to respect the person who said the words, part of me wants people to look at the words, not the mouth.

On the subject of imagination, vaguely, I had a brief discussion with a friend of mine, whose blog can be found here: http://cerasi.wordpress.com/

We were talking about war. She stated in her blog that we should celebrate the soldiers, not the war, which I mostly agree with, but I replied, “depends on the soldier, depends on the war” then she asked for an example of a war to celebrate, which isn’t something that I could do, either because of my weak knowledge of history or because it is impossible. Regardless, it moved me onto the idea of fiction vs reality, something I’m quite fond of as an escapist, a faker and a hider. I maintain that war is a beautiful thing when viewing it as a story, as art. All the brutality and horror in the world can be beautiful in this context. If it makes me weep, shake and retch then it is valuable to me. To feel is the best thing I can do.

I am a strong believer in catharsis through art, through the viewing of some kind of trauma, though not necessarily at all. Example: a film you might know about, Irreversible. Now, I don’t suggest you watch this film, unless you 1) know that you can handle some fairly strong stuff, 2) can appreciate what a film is trying to do when it makes you hurt and 3) are willing to submit yourself to something horrible and really wallow in the emotion, you should be prepared to feel horrible for the rest of the day, to just sit and think that you can never feel good again. A lot of people won’t like that, for obvious reasons, but I really appreciate it, possibly because I’m emotionally masochistic and enjoy being unhappy, but mostly because if someone can choose an emotion, try to get the audience to feel it and succeed, then that is amazing. Making an audience happy is easy, making an audience amused is easy. Making an audience upset is harder, but still not the hardest thing in the world. Making an audience frightened, fairly easy. Making an audience angry is hard, and there’s only one movie I can think of that isn’t a documentary that has done it: The Assassination of Richard Nixon. Very good movie, I recommend it. Anyway…

What Irreversible does is it aims to make the audience physically uncomfortable, the film is designed perfectly to induce nausea, to upset, to frighten, to anger, to disturb. Now, it doesn’t do these things cheaply, it doesn’t just throw in a surprise horror scene to frighten, the panic and distress builds up over time, from the very first scene.

I’m rambling and probably ruining the movie, so I’ll stop, but the point that I’m trying to make is that it is important to know that you can feel, it is important to put yourself out there, to be vulnerable for a film or any kind of art. If something distresses you, then go with it, let the emotion grow and billow because that is what is supposed to happen, you are supposed to react, to feel. So, war as fiction can be celebrated; it may be horrible, it may be wrong, but I am drawn to it, the possibilities darkness and violence open up to me. War as reality, I don’t think can be celebrated. I’ll have to think more on the idea.

Anyway, moving on from all that serious stuff.

I approve of seeing photos of my friends as kids. 21st invitations are amusing, I highly recommend putting pictures of yourself as a kid on yours when you have one, if you haven’t already.

I had something to say but now I’ve forgotten. Maybe a good sign to say goodnight to the blog.

Goodnight,

Your winged cannibal,

TDE

In preparation for — nay, in honor of — the upcoming premier of Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call in New Orleans, directed by Werner Herzog and starring the great performer Nicolas Cage, the Acme Video blog will be running a series of (at least) daily pieces on the entire Cage Oeuvre, with its startling highs and mystifying lows. It is one man’s tale… a chronicle of madness and obsession.

DAY 1: VAMPIRE’S KISS

I begin with Vampire’s Kiss because, for the uninitiated, for the non-believers, for the haters and the nay-sayers, there is probably no better single testament to Nick Cage’s truly unique, entirely reckless, batshit-crazy brand of “acting.”  This is Cage’s Last Tango In Paris. His Aguirre, Wrath of God. His Silence Of The Lambs. If you crossed Marlon Brando, Klaus Kinski, and Hannibal Lecter you would end up with something close to Peter Loew, Cage’s utterly psychotic method-acting transformation from depressed-skirt-chasing-1980’s-literary-agent to control-freak-vampire-maniac-rapist.

One is tempted to use the phrase “a descent into madness,” but Vampire’s Kiss is more like a private tour of every wing of the nut-house. Loew is mad even at the film’s outset — a spastic, giggling, sexually-charged playboy, with women and money to burn and an awesomely Gothic Manhattan apartment. Cage adopted a strange, high-falutin, vaguely English accent for part, which comes and goes depending on his mood (and in one of several phenomenal scenes with his shrink, it actually becomes contagious; see the clip below). It’s just one of several crazy-as-a-fox decisions Cage makes, choices that would have been disastrous for a lesser actor — or at least one with smaller cajones. The fun really gets started once Loew gets his first vampire bite and begins his fitful, wildly uneven mutation into a blood-starved creature of the night. A fun enough premise in its own right, but both the film — and primarily, Cage — take so many stylistic left-turns that it’s not long before you’re feeling just as lost and desperate as Loew, wandering through Robert Bierman’s fantastically cheerless Manhattan. Vampire’s Kiss then becomes a truly Kafkaesque fracturing of the Cage psyche. Donning a pair of old-person driving sunglasses, Cage’s movements become decidedly bat-like, as he leaps and flits around his office, screaming and twitching at his lowly assistant because of some completely insignificant file that’s gone missing. Much of the film is devoted to the manic-depressive head games Loew plays on this poor young woman (a perfectly mousy Maria Conchita Alonso) who fears — rightly — for her safety. Cage’s performance is truly one of the moodiest I’ve ever seen, and I mean that in the best possible sense: you can’t look away, and you never know what’s next. Few actors have ever mixed horror and comedy this well.

He eats a cockroach, people (in fact he ate three, one for each take). Gobbles it up. The final scene is an insane Cage-vs.-Cage riff, basically like watching a psychopath simultaneously prosecute and defend himself in a court of law. You MUST see this film.

Impossible to pick just one scene, but yeah… this one rules.

Quote of the Day:

“The screaming of the lambs.”

You might be able to work out from the title/quote that I watched The Silence of the Lambs today. This is one of my favourite movies and one of my favourite books. I’d say I prefer the books, but the acting in the movies is so brilliant. I also noticed for the first time how good the filming is in “Lambs,” it’s very intense and overwhelming, a lot of extreme close-ups and the actors look directly at the camera a lot. It’s intimidating, which fits in perfectly in a world so filled with highly intelligent, dangerous characters who are always watching, not missing a thing.

Meanwhile, I’m listening to Virgin Black, an amazing Australian band, from Adelaide I think. Don’t mind the wank, they really are amazing, they just like to dress up and give themselves silly names, etc. I saw them live last time Opeth came down, they sounded very good but I didn’t like their performance, if that makes sense. Regardless, I recommend them, they’re very powerful, crushing, they use the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra and choirs to back up the amazing operatic lead vocalist who also growls very well. So, take a listen some time.

I haven’t watched any more Californication yet tonight, I doubt I will. What day is it? Saturday. Sunday morning, to be more specific, but whatever. I’ll likely watch Hannibal tomorrow, then Red Dragon the day after. I won’t watch Hannibal Rising since it’s a shit of a film and I don’t care for the book at all either. I’m of the opinion that Hannibal and Hannibal Rising delved way way way too deeply into Hannibal’s character and history and removed all of the strength and mystery from the character. (spoilers) Maybe I’m being immature or something, but I don’t want to see  Hannibal dropping to his knees and being breastfed by Clarice; not that the image is something I reject for itself, it just seems like a complete simplification of the character. He has always been set up as something that cannot be defined, a mind that cannot be cracked, he was called a monster because no other name would fit. But no, turns out his mummy didn’t breastfeed him as a child or something. All the stuff with his sister is interesting, the warcrimes and everything intrigue me greatly, but I don’t want to know why Hannibal is how he is, he is supposed to be uncrackable, this unnattainable mind, but we are told everything and all mystery is gone. (end of spoilers)

Anyway, it is still an amazingly written, complex, clever, powerful series that has influenced me a great deal.

Speaking of influences, I picked up a copy of Hell’s Angels and Kingdom of Fear, both by Hunter S Thompson. I won’t read them until after Christmas, as I’m still getting through Fear and Loathing in America and I’d also like something to read when I go away to the USA for a few months after Boxing Day some time. I’ll be staying with a friend of mine over there, which should be good. He lives in Colorado somewhere, I’m not great with geography, but he has a nice little place out in the woods for a hangout. It’s generally a relaxing time, I went there last time and there was a lot of sitting, talking, bike riding, shooting, smoking, drinking, reading, sleeping, the good things in life.

Second quote of the day: “I felt like a fatter, uglier and less talented Mariah Carey.”

Anyway, goodnight,

Your screaming lamb

TDE

Cute couple.

It dawned on me after I posted the previous installment of this series that I failed to write a pithy little introduction. My apologies. It is difficult when one takes into consideration that by the time I’m finished with this project I will have written about 20 such intros. What makes it even harder is that my taste in movies tends to be so eclectic, something that is really being driven home to me as I write these little dittiess, that usually there’s nothing to tie any 5 of these movies together. Today’s entry is a perfect example. There are virtually no similarities between any of these five films. I suppose the good thing is that with such a wide variety of things that I like I am bound to touch on atleast one thing or another that’ll be of interest to everyone.

65 Airplane!

If anyone were ever to build a Mount Rushmore of parody films, the first and foremost honoree would have to be Airplane!. Made in 1980, the film is meant to spoof a plethora of 70’s airline disaster flicks. It’s cast is a brilliant collection of heretofore tough guy types known for their dramatic roles, most notably Robert Stack, Leslie Nielsen, Loyd Bridges, and Peter Graves, who are very much cast against type. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar makes a super fun cameo as himself apparently trying to live a double life as an airline pilot under an assumed name. The plot involves many of the passengers and nearly the entire crew, including the pilot and co-pilot, becoming ill because of food poisoning and a passenger who just happens to be a pilot with post traumatic stress disorder being called into action to fly and land the plane. But this is another rare case where the story takes a back seat. This time though the centerpiece of hilarity are sight gags and side-splitting word play. One has to watch Airplane! a few times to take in all the visual and verbal gags. There’s Barbara Billingsley, the mother on Leave It to Beaver, speaking ebonics. The emergency autopilot is a blowup doll. A guy who thinks he’s Ethel Merman (played, in her final appearance on film, by Ethel Merman). Co-pilots named Roger and Captain Oveur (think about it). And the great thing is, it never gets old. After over a quarter century those of us who love this movie still laugh when we watch.

64 Raging Bull

Robert Deniro is such a brilliant actor that he could take the worst story imaginable and make it halfway compelling. Fortunately as real life boxer Jake Lamotta, in a film directed by the legendary Martin Scorcese, Deniro has a good story with which to work. He also has capable support from Joe Pesci in what was his first major film. I’m not a big boxing fan, but the acting and Scorcese’s style make this a modern classic. Maybe if I’d have been born a few years earlier or if I loved boxing as much as I do other sports Raging Bull would rank higher, as it does on most lists of this ilk. However, I must remain true to my own tastes and preferences, and this is where it falls on my spectrum.

63 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Readers of this series know by now of my affection for Jimmy Stewart. I’m also a bit of a political aficionado and an unabashed patriot, so Mr. Smith falls right into my wheelhouse. The story revolves around a small town yokel (a role Stewart showed many times he could play perfectly) who is handpicked to fill an open seat in the U.S. Senate. He is chosen by a corrupt political machine who believes he can be easily manipulated so they can achieve their selfish goals. The villain in this complex web of deceit is the elder senator from Stewart’s state, played by Claud Rains, who is probably better known for playing the corrupt police official in Casablanca. Rains played the role of conflicted slimeball several times and was apparently quite good at it. I’m not sure how a Frenchman snagged the role of a United States Senator, and the fact that he doesn’t really make much of an effort to hide the accent is somewhat distracting. Adding support as a caustic adminstrative aide is Jean Arthur. She is assigned the task of babysitting the doe-eyed new Senator and gradually falls for him. The plotline specifics, in which Stewart’s character wants to build a “national boys’ camp” on land that, unbeknownst to him, Rains’ character has more nefarious and profitable plans in store, are not necessarily all that crucial. The film is about political corruption, and in its time it was groundbreaking. We’ve become a much more cynical nation now. But 70 years ago a movie that took such a dark view of the inner workings of our government was quite controversial. Stewart’s performance show’s his range. Over the course of his career, from lighthearted comedies like Harvey and The Philadelphia Story through Hitchcockian fare such as Vertigo and Rear Window to hardscrabble westerns including Shenandoah and The Rare Breed Stewart did a bit of everything and proved himself to be a fine actor. With Mr. Smith he gives a small sampling of that range within one movie, goofy and fun in some scenes and dark and solemn in others. Because of the access the masses now have through things like CSPAN, the internet, and talk radio there’s not a whole lot that goes on in Washington DC that’s unknown or all that shocking. To some degree that hurts the legacy of Mr. Smith because we don’t see what the big deal is outside of Stewart’s winning charm. However, taken within the context of its time it’s quite a cinematic achievement.

62 Meet the Parents

DeNiro makes a second appearance in today’s group, so I guess I was wrong…there is a common thread after all. This time however, he’s doing comedy…and doing it surprisingly well. Meet the Parents stars Ben Stiller as a male nurse who goes home for the weekend with his girlfriend (who he is planning to make his fiancee) to…you guessed it…meet her parents. Unfortunately for Stiller, things get off on the wrong foot and get worse from there. Hilarity ensues. This is one of those movies that has more than its fair share of memorable scenes and lines, which is its main charm. Stiller has never been funnier in my opinion, and Owen Wilson has an hysterical cameo as the girlfriend’s former boyfriend. After watching this film water volleyball, Puff the Magic Dragon, airports, and cats can never be thought of like they were before…trust me. A sequel was made a few years later called Meet the Fockers. It was okay, but as with most sequels it failed to rise to the high level of the original.

61 Silence of the Lambs

Is it a horror film?? I suppose. I’m not necessarily sure how the experts categorize it. If it is officially a horror film it is most certainly on the high end…..sort of like how Dom Perrignon and Andre Extra Dry are both technically champagne but one is $150/bottle and the other is available at 7/11. Silence of the Lambs is based on a really great book about a young FBI agent who enlists the aid of a jailed, psychotic cannibal to track down a fellow serial killer. The psychotic cannibal is Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lechter and he is one of the creepiest yet most sublime creations in cinematic history as portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Unlike most maniacal killers in stereotypical gorefests (think Jason from Friday the 13^th, Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Freddy Krueger from Nightmare on Elm Street), Hannibal doesn’t need knives or chainsaws, doesn’t wear a mask, and doesn’t have any kind of otherworldly nonsensical powers. He’s actually pretty realistic…almost like a normal person you or I may know, may work with, or who might live down the street…except for the fact that he likes to eat humans. Jodie Foster is fantastic as Clarice Starling, the agent who looks to be in way over her head. The whodunit part of the movie is secondary to the interactions involving Hannibal and Clarice, but it’s also what separates Silence of the Lambs from the rest of the cliched mass of blood-n-guts. Sure there is some violence, but there is also a compelling story and extraordinary performances. I won’t go so far as to say the movie is better than the book, but let’s call it a tie.

LIKE A VAMPIRE

A writer friend of mine just told me that “I should stop talking about writing and just write…”. Well I am just like a new vampire born into the world with a different set of eyes and I’m excited with my new found senses, though I love my writer friend and respect all her unsolicited advice, I will still talk about writing. I just read Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird and a paragraph  just really made me realize how to rearrange my daily routines as a photographer to a photographer/writer, quoting Lamott “If you’re a writer, or want to be a writer, this is how you spend your days–listening, observing, storing things away, making your isolation pay off. You take home all you’ve taken in, all that you’ve overheard, and you turn it into GOLD. (or atleast you try.)” I always have stored images through my camera for the past 10 years travelling all over the world, but now I have to develop more senses and listen more, look more, observe more, like a vampire.

NAIVE YOUNG MEN

My favorite movies and books has always been filled with dark characters, they fascinate me -vampires, psycho killers, assassins, gangsters, and junkies, because they live most of the time with no rules, Interview with the Vampire, Bourne Identity, Silence of the Lambs, Fight Club, The Godfather are possibly  my most favorite films ever.  In every walks of life there are characters that are out there waiting for writers to tell their stories –a brain surgeon, an architect, a hacker, an australian surfer backpacking, a cowboy from Ohio, a politician, a serial killer, a mother and his son, their neighbor, the prostitutes across the street, the homeless man on the other alley, the pianist living in the loft above the building and the dancers listening to his music and it goes on, their stories have been written hundreds of times in so many different versions and vantage points. If you list the names of movies about prostitutes, gangsters, doctors and serial killers, you will think maybe they are societies favorite characters, we pay to hear their stories.

The story of a naive young man or woman comes to the big city with big hopes of becoming a top model as shown in mainstream films “Zoolander” (2001), “Gia” (1998), “Stardom” (2000), the documentary “Picture Me: A Model’s Diary” (2009), the novel’s “Sex, Love, and Fashion: A Memoir of a Male Model” by Bruce Hulse, “A Model Summer” by Paulina Porizkova, “Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women” by  Michael Gross, TV shows like the recently cancelled CW series “The Beautiful Life” (2009), “America’s Next Top Model” (2003), and “Make me a Supermodel” (2008).

The story of a  naive young man or woman comes to the big city with hopes of becoming a top fashion designer, editor or photographer as shown on the films like “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006), “Bruno” (2009), “How to Lose Friends & Alienate People” (2008), books like “The Devil Wears Prada: A Novel by Lauren Weisberger”, TV shows like “Ugly Betty” (2006), and “Project Runway” (2005).

The story of that naive young man or woman who had arrived and now showcasing what validates them, like any other stories have some happy endings some don’t, like the films “Coco avant Chanel” (2009), “Rage” (2009), “The Versace Murder” (1998), “Eyes of Laura Mars” (1978), “Prêt-à-Porter” (1994), documentaries like “September Issue” (2009), “Fashion Victim: The Killing of Gianni Versace” (2001), “Valentino: The Last Emperor” (2009), “Unzipped” (1995), and books like “Vulgar Favors: Andrew Cunanan, Gianni Versace, and the Largest Failed Manhunt in U.S. History” by Maureen Orth.

NO OSCAR, PULITZER, OR NOBEL FOR FASHION

All the titles featured here are basically most of the information available out there as a general opinion that an outsider of the fashion world could access, collectively the public wants to see the bright and bubbly side of this industry, TV’s “Project Runway”, the hit comedy “Zoolander”, Lauren Weisberger’s “The Devil Wears Prada: A Novel”, tops for TV, Film and Books talking about the characters in a fashion house. Why haven’t any of the title’s mention here were critically honored and respected like the great movies about gangsters and lunatics? Why there are only few respectable books, films and tv shows out there that has more valid and real point of view about the fashion Industry, not merely caricatures. Something that will win the Oscars like Silence of the Lambs (film about serial killers) and the Godfather (film about criminals) or even a Nobel Prize.

ARMED WITH SALIVA

The film “Zoolander”,  the novel “The Devil Wears Prada”, and “Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women” by  Michael Gross are the closest honest stories about this industry that I have read and seen, they are respectable in their own rights though they can only be achieved through comedy. Actor/ Producer Ashton Kutcher was almost close with his cancelled CW drama “The Beautiful Life”, with a better writer (his writers need to research more since most model booker/agents are overweight and balding) and actors this could’ve been a more watchable show. The major characters that has been told in relatively few stories about the fashion house are models armed with their good genetics, editors, fashion designers, photographers armed with their education, artistry and talents, the model agent as we see in “The Beautiful Life” episodes is armed with his “saliva”, a side of this industry that we haven’t seen, and what my new novel is all about. The “model booker/agent” is a word you wont find in a webster dictionary, but their “specific skill set” have been around since Cleopatra’s first trick. The two oldest profession in the history of man is prostitution and  politics, welcome to a world where everyone just want to sell something -a novel about the 9 to 5 business of selling people titled “NAIVE”. Read an excerpt of the novel below…

“NAIVE” (Excerpt) 1st draft CHAPTER IV – “MASTERS and PUPPIES”

I love my pet chihuahua, Queen Alexander, he’s a well-trained dog. I always bring him at work…

…People can’t help but wonder how I can be so successful in a career that you don’t learn in Harvard or even a small town summer school. One of those days while browsing a magazine and waiting for my meat-head personal trainer at the gym, After reading the article “Get Fit Slowly » Yep, I’m Obese” I bumped into an article called “How to discipline a pet, Training a puppy may seem easy. In reality, it requires focus, consistency, and patience” After reading the damn article it dawned on me, If you replace the words “puppies/doggies/pets” with models, “masters/owners” with bookers, “punishment” with sending them to less castings or ignoring them for a period of time, “maximum punishment” kicking them out of the agency or blacklisting their ass, “rewards” with good castings and more “quality time“. Thats one of the secrets to my success. But will I tell that to anybody, of course not! Because the moment my pet becomes a bankable “supermodel”, somehow we switch roles.

HOW TO DISCIPLINE A PET.
(Training a puppy may seem easy. In reality, it requires focus, consistency, and patience. Here are a few tips for disciplining a pet that may prove useful.)

If you’ve never trained a puppy
before, you’re in for a treat. With those bright dark eyes on you and a tail wagging like mad, your new little pet will be a lot of fun to work with. And how gratifying when it learns to obey your commands and respect authority. Disciplining your puppy becomes a matter of course with results that both animal and human can expect.

But the other side of the discipline coin is the hard work that will be needed to achieve these results. Puppies, like children, require consistency. You can’t train them one day and ignore them the next. You have to do it on a regular basis. Here are some guidelines to get you started down the road to an obedient pet with a satisfied master:

1. Set up a training schedule. Start while your puppy is still young, perhaps six to eight weeks old. Aim for fifteen minutes twice a day, about the same time each day, like after the morning and evening feedings.

2. Choose a disciplinary method and stay with it. Using a newspaper to tap your puppy’s nose when he makes a mistake is effective; so is using a water bottle to spray him. Some owners opt for a simple verbal response:
“No!” “Stop!” “Heel!” These are followed by pushing the puppy out of the offensive posture, such as squatting to urinate or chewing on a sock. Be consistent with whatever you choose.

3. Teach the puppy one thing at a time. Be sure that trick or habit is completely mastered before starting another one. It may take several weeks before the puppy knows what is expected and delivers the desired behavior faithfully.

4. Discipline through rewards, too. Discipline does not mean only punishment. Discipline means training that leads to a desired outcome. When your puppy performs as expected, reward him with words of praise:

“Good boy!”

“Good puppy!”

You may want to toss him a doggy snack as well. Be sure to do this the first several times your puppy does what you tell him, and intermittently thereafter. Positive reinforcement is an effective way to discipline a pet.

5. Have one family member be responsible for training and discipline. If more than one person gets involved, your puppy may become confused. Still young yet, a puppy may not be able to discern differing voice intonations or even some word pronunciations if children are giving commands. Stick with one person, preferably an adult, who can get the animal conditioned and serve as the primary disciplinarian until your pet is well trained.

Getting a puppy can be fun for everyone. But training him requires serious effort.
Ongoing discipline means a concerted commitment by at least one adult member of the family. Keep these guidelines in mind before getting a puppy, because if you can’t follow through, you may end up with a sad puppy and unhappy owners.

Ακολουθεί τυχαία και πρόσφατη συζήτηση, σε αυτοκίνητο, πατώντας play στο cd player.

-Αυτό το κομμάτι με έκανε να αγαπήσω την disco.

-Ναι, αλλά εγώ δεν το αντιλήφθηκα ποτέ ως disco, το κομμάτι αυτό.

-Ναι, αλλά είναι disco.

-Δεν είναι ακριβώς disco. Δεν έχει το μπάσο που το συνδέει με την funk.

-Nαι, αλλά δεν έχουν όλα τα κομμάτια, που είναι disco, μπάσο. Για αυτό υπάρχουν και υποκατηγορίες.

Η συνέχεια του διαλόγου για το ίδιο κομμάτι σε σπίτι φίλου.

-Πάντοτε είχα την εντύπωση ότι το έλεγε κάποιος μελαγχολικός new romantic τύπος μέχρι που έμαθα ότι το έλεγε μία έγχρωμη γυναίκα. Και εκτός από το “Silence of the Lambs”, υπήρχε και σε μία άθλια ταινία, το  ”Married with the Mob”.

-Μμμ, θα το ψάξω. Την δεύτερη δεν την θυμάμαι καθόλου, το κομμάτι το πρωτοάκουσα τυχαία σε έναν άθλιο ραδιοφωνικό σταθμό πριν χρόνια και απλά μου άρεσε.  Και ούτε τους στίχους ξέρω. Αλλά το θυμάμαι στο “Silence…”.

Γύρω στη μία τα μεσάνυχτα της επόμενης μέρας βρέθηκα να παρακολουθώ ντοκυμαντέρ για τον Ed Gein και τον Ted Bundy. Ο Ted Levine στο “Silence of the Lambs” εμπνεύστηκε από τους προαναφερθέντες μανιακούς δολοφόνους για να ενσαρκώσει τον ρόλο του κατά συρροή δολοφόνου και τρανσέξουαλ Buffalo Bill, o οποίος έγδερνε τα θύματά του, που σύμφωνα με το μυθιστόρημα ήταν ευτραφείς γυναίκες, για να  φτιάξει την ιδανική στολή γυναίκας για τον εαυτό του. Σε ένα σημείο της ταινίας, ο Buffalo Bill,υπό τους ήχους του Goodbye Horses της Q Lazzarus, κοιτάζεται στον καθρέφτη, μακιγιάρεται και ο ναρκισσισμός μα και η ματαιοδοξία του φτάνουν στο απόγειο, λέγοντας στον εαυτό του: ” Would you fuck me? I’d fuck me. I’d fuck me hard”. Χορεύει και μπορούμε να δούμε το κορμί του γυμνό και ότι προσπαθεί να κρύψει. Ένα ακόμη ευχάριστο trivia της ταινίας είναι ότι στην προωθητική αφίσα, o σκόρος που παρουσιάζεται στα χείλη της Jodi Foster έχει ένα ασυνήθιστο πράγμα στην πλάτη του, που μοιάζει με νεκροκεφαλή. Αυτό συνήθως το παρουσιάζουν διάφορα είδη σκόρου, αλλά το συγκεκριμένο έχει στην πλάτη του ένα πίνακα του Dali, όπου διάφορα κορμιά γυναικών σχηματίζουν την νεκροκεφαλή.

Δεν χρειάζεται να είσαι τρανσέξουαλ ούτε μανιακός δολοφόνος να νιώσεις αυτό που ένιωθε ο Buffalo Bill. Το Goodbye Horses, που ομολογουμένως δεν είχα ιδέα, σύμφωνα με διάφορες πηγές του διαδικτύου αλλά και τους ίδιους τους  Psyche που το διασκεύασαν αναφέρεται στην εγκατάλειψη των 5 αισθήσεων (που παρομοιάζονται με τα άλογα σε διάφορες δυτικές κουλτούρες) λόγω κάποιας μεγάλης απώλειας και την αναζήτηση ενός πιο ουσιαστικού ιδεατού από τα κοινά και καθημερινά που προσφέρουν αυτές. Άλλοι πάλι λένε ότι το κομμάτι αναφέρεται σε ένα διάλογο ενός σοφού και ενός νέου ανθρώπου και την τελική απώλεια της αθωότητας του δεύτερου. Kαι το αστείο είναι ότι δεν συμπεριλήφθηκε καν στο soundtrack του “Silence of the Lambs”.

Goodbye Horses. Και αυτό ήταν όλο. Και μετά δεν θα θυμάσαι πως ήσουν πριν από αυτό. Θα ζεις μέσα στην ασθένεια σου που θα σου γίνει συνήθεια. Και όλα γύρω σου θα γκρεμίζονται αλλά θα παραμένεις αμέτοχος/η γιατί δεν θα μπορείς να κάνεις κάτι. Θα ξανασηκώνεσαι, αλλά θα ξαναπέφτεις όλο και πιο βαθιά. Και θα φτάσεις στον πάτο, μόνο όταν συνειδητοποιήσεις ότι δεν μπορείς να ξαναβγείς από κει. Σκέφτομαι το πρόσωπό του όταν γύρισε τότε την πλάτη του. Σε όλα. Αυτό ήταν και η ασθένεια του. Και αποφάσισε να τα παρατήσει όλα. Εκεί σβήστηκε η παιδική μου ηλικία. Σβήστηκε και εκείνος και μου έμεινε η ασθένεια. Γονίδια. Τους αρέσει να επαναλαμβάνονται.

From Rotten Tomatoes: 24% Rotten (Average Rating: 4.3/10)

Consensus: Unnecessarily violent and unflinchingly absurd, Law Abiding Citizen is plagued by subpar acting and a story that defies reason.

That quote sums up my feelings exactly. Here are some more choice words on this (wretched) film:

“Law Abiding Citizen is such a lazy action-drama underachiever, it seems unfair to target stars Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler for bringing their C game.”

And finally,

“Law Abiding Citizen could be the movie of the year, but only if you’re a big fan of stupid.”

Made you look, but Academy Award Winner Anthony Hopkins is set to join the cast of Marvel’s Thor. Variety reports the Silence of the Lambs actor will take on the role of Odin, Thor’s father, as well as father of half-brother and nemesis, Loki. With Thor cast already (Chris Hemsworth); plus Natalie Portman, Colm Feore, Jaimie Alexander and Stellan Skarsgard onboard; things are shaping out great for Marvel’s next big blockbuster.

In an alternate universe, I would so buy this album...

A few months ago, Pat sent me an email about a metal group composed of four Dallas Cowboys players called “Free Reign” and I’ve been meaning to post about it but just “forgot” about it.  (I’m sorry, Pat!)  Two days ago, Brad sent me a video link to one of the woofy band member being shirtless and reenacting a very memorable/disturbing scene from Silence Of The Lambs.  You just have to see it for yourself…

Point is, I seem tend to focus on any news concerning big guys being shirtless… 

This spectacularly beefy man is Corey Procter (Dallas Cowboys’ Center and Free Reign’s drummer).  Here’s a video of Corey Proctor and Marc Colombo promoting their debut concert at the Granada Theater:

Where does the barrier between grisly and mainstream films begin?

In the new film, “Saw” that very aspect is explored so much that for more than half the film you aren’t sure what you are witnessing.

Saw’s premise begins something like this:

Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) awakens on a decaying bathroom floor. His ankle is handcuffed to one of the bathroom’s many pipes. In the centre of the room lies a dead body that seems to have died by apparent suicide. Blood leaks from an open head wound and the victim holds a revolver.

On the other side of the room sits another man named Adam (Leigh Whannell, also the film’s co-writer) who seems to be in the same situation as Gordon.

On a microcassette, their abductor instructs Gordon to kill Adam or the two men will die and so will Gordon’s wife (Monica Potter) and daughter. Other than the microcassette, their abductor has left the men a couple clues and two badly worn handsaws that are only strong enough to cut flesh and bone. What are they to do? Who is more desperate? What would you do?

We have seen so many of these grisly horror films and some of the better made films have gone on to be critically-acclaimed horror classics which include “Se7en” and “Silence of the Lambs”. That is just it; Saw isn’t even in the same league as those classics.

What “Saw” has going for it is an unbelievable spine-tingling premise that is horrific unto itself. When the film veers away from the room holding the two men it loses its momentum and its horrific impact.

The film tries to allow the audience to see what is going on away from the room with a disillusioned detective named Tapp (Danny Glover) and even allows us to see the long drawn out history between Tapp and the abductor. Not for one moment do we care and all we want to see is more of what is going on inside the bathroom.

I loved this film’s premise and wanted it to slowly uncover the insanity of the situation and its grisly but all too human outcome.

I didn’t need to see some bloated detective chase down yet again another serial killer. I wanted more psychology and less grime.

I loved the performance of Cary Elwes as the desperate doctor and he is probably the best actor in the piece.

This marks two stellar performances for Elwes who was also incredible in the A&E film “The Riverman” where Elwes played infamous serial killer Ted Bundy. If you haven’t seen that film, seek it out.

As a premise I would give this film a perfect score but in overall execution I give it…

2.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Hmmmm…So I thought and I thought, I pondered by my bedside, I thought of it in my sleep and I reached something – at last! My top 10 Villains in Fictions. The ones that I would love to hate and love their writers for sketching them so brilliantly that they still manage to rouse goosebumps on my flesh when I re-read them..Brilliant I say…Here are my favourites:

1. Uriah Heep(David Copperfield): Well well well, he is the top of the tops. The wicked Uriah Heep of David Copperfield. The insincerity of this character is spread throughout the book. He is the epitome of sheer evil. Read this one!

2. Tom Ripley(The Talented Mr. Ripley): It is strange however I would love to go to bed with Tom Ripley. After all one doesn’t really know whether this villain is gay or straight. His crimes. His mind. The plots he schemes is beyond everyone. And yet somewhere down the line he is aware that he will get caught someday for what he has done.

3. Heathcliff(Wuthering Heights): I would not call this one a villain, but then again, what would you call a person who drives his loved one to madness? What would you call someone who loves with such a vengeance that he wants to destroy everything in his wake? You would but call him a villain, wouldn’t you?

4. Lord Voldermort (Harry Potter Series): Lord Voldermort is real. He is insecure. He wants to be liked by all. He wants to overpower. He is the trueblue villain of the times gone by and Rowling has managed just fine with him.

5. Count Dracula (Dracula): An entire book dedicated to the blood-sucking, enticing vampire. Before Twilight emerged, way before there was this Scandinavian imaginary being that was many a cause of people’s sleepless nights. Including mine – though mine came later as well with Keanu Reeve’s Dracula.

6. Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs): The hissing. The good taste for flesh. The maneater Mr. Lecter is quite a monster created by Mr. Harris. Dark and brooding. He knows what to plan and what to do with his time. Chills the spine everytime!

7. The Devil (The Master and Margarita): The devil decides to take a walk in Russia and there is but after all, hell breaking loose. Literally. Moscow is the devil’s new abode.

8. Humbert (Lolita): No matter what anyone says, to me Humbert is a villain. Probably the greatest of them all. Yes he was a pedophile. May be he loved the child, however doing what he did!! Attrocious!

9. Sauron (The Lord of the Rings): White haired, withering, full of strength, Sauron will not stop at anything to get the ring to rule them all.

10. Sher Khan (The Jungle Books): And my personal favourite, the tiger himself..Sher Khan. The one who still manages to instill fear in kids! Brilliant I say!

Last but not the least. For every anti-hero or villain ever created, you made it possible for the concept of heroes to come alive.

I’m running a little behind on week 3, but here it is none the less. Definitely one of the scariest movie villains of all time, in his most frightening scene — Hannibal Lecter, from Silence of the Lambs.

<space>

So, remember how I bought all that squash a couple of weeks ago? Like 20 pounds of pumpkins and other various edible squash varieties?

… I bought even more since I wrote that post. I HAVE A PROBLEM. It’s called I-can’t-resist-a-good-produce-sale-itis. There is no known cure.

So yes, Squashapalooza is really becoming a trend here in our house. Methinks Mr. Kitchenette is not pleased, but… I cook the food so he can shut it. Besides, I have grand plans for all of our little squashes. (Do you like how I talk about them like they are my babies? That’s because I have no children, but I have to project on something.)

I bought this giant pumpkin as part of my shopping spree. Do you remember it?

<space>

Squash. I haz it.

<space>

I mean, this sucker is BIG. I’m thinking at least 10 pounds (although I’m historically terrible at guessing weights and volumes… but it’s like, really big and stuff, so go with it.) I really just bought it for the seeds. I haven’t had pumpkin seeds in years, and I wanted to give them a try. But, in case you know me in real life (some of you do), you may not have noticed that I’m turning into somewhat of a hippie. Blame in on the proximity to Boulder. And I couldn’t trash the rest of the pumpkin just to get at the seeds! That’s too much waste. So I did some research on using pumpkin “flesh.”

(Note: what else does one call the insides of the pumpkin? I called it the “flesh” and Mr. Kitchenette made fun of me; he said I sounded like Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. What-EVER, dude.)

<space>

<space>

Basically, I found a lot of recipes that called for pumpkin puree from “sugar pumpkins,” but none that said “oh yeah, you can use the old Jack-o-lantern pumpkin that you didn’t carve this year.” So I called my mother – whom I always call for advice, she’s my oracle – to ask her whether I could use a regular ol’ pumpkin instead of a sugar pumpkin. This is how it went down:

 <space>

Me:          So, I bought this massive pumpkin but I don’t know what to do with it. Can I even cook with this thing?

Mom:      Sure, why not?

Me:          All the recipes I’ve looked at call for a sugar pumpkin. I’m wondering whether I should just use a sugar pumpkin for the recipe I’m looking at making.

Mom:      (Insert sassy Southern voice here) Well, that’s just not how we do it here in the South. When I was little, we used to just cut it in half, oil the pumpkin, and cook it in the oven cut-side-down.

Me:          Hmmm… you’re still alive, so it can’t be that bad for you.

<space> 

Well, I decided to try it. After all, I did buy my pumpkin at the grocery store. It’s not like I bought it at a massive pumpkin patch… plus, I would only eat a little bit, so that I could make sure I didn’t die as a result of eating pesticide-laden pumpkins.

I found this recipe for pasta with pumpkin, and I decided (mostly from the picture – I love your pics, Jen) that I had to try it with my massive amounts of pumpkin flesh. I’m not going to lie; I thought the recipe sounded a little weird. It sounded almost… sweet. And pasta using cinnamon? Odd. But I have faith in Jen, so I decided to try it anyways. I have a rule of trying new recipes the exact way that they’re written the first time; no modifications. After all, how can you tell what it’s supposed to taste like if you make a million changes to the recipe?

<space>

<space>

So I made this with the exact proportions called for, except that I used bulk breakfast sausage from the grocer, as I couldn’t find maple sausage this week. I suppose I could have added a teaspoon of maple syrup, but I’m glad I didn’t add it, as I think it might have overwhelmed the taste of the pumpkin. The pumpkin puree I ended up with was exceedingly delicate, not at all like what I thought it would taste like. I guess I thought it would be sweeter rather than savory, but it is a squash. The resulting pasta dish was light, delicate, not at all what I expected. First you taste the sausage, and the sage and spices in the sausage, and then you taste the pasta, and there is this all-permeating taste of squash, with just the tiniest hint of sweetness.

To roast your own pumpkin, cut it in half horizontally, and oil the cut side of the pumpkin. Cook the pumpkin cut-side-down on a rimmed baking sheet in a 400 degree oven for at least 1 hour, until the flesh is cooked through. Scoop out the flesh and puree using a food mill. My pumpkin yielded about 10 cups of pumpkin puree. The puree was quite watery, so I’ve set up the puree in a sieve in the fridge, so that it will drain some and I’ll end up with something more concentrated. I’m going to freeze the rest of the puree in 1-cup increments, but I’m not sure what to do with the rest yet. I’m on the hunt for new recipes to try, of course, so I’m excited because there are a lot of possibilities.  

<space>

<space>

Pasta with Sausage and Pumpkin

Adapted from My Kitchen Addiction

Serves 4

<space>

Ingredients:
10 ounces farfalle
1 pound pork sausage
1 large onion, diced to into medium-large pieces
1 teaspoon rubbed sage
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1 cup white wine
1 cup pumpkin puree
fresh grated parmigiano-reggiano

<space>

Directions:
Cook the farfalle according to the package directions.

Meanwhile, in a large skillet, brown the sausage, breaking it into bite-size crumbles as it cooks. Once the sausage is caramelized around the edges, add the onion, sage, and cinnamon, and saute until the onions are soft. Season with salt to taste.

<space>

<space>

Deglaze the pan by adding the white wine to the pan, and scraping up the browned bits on the bottom of the pan. Stir in the pumpkin puree. Salt and pepper to taste. Simmer for a few minutes, until a sauce forms from the pumpkin and wine.

Add the cooked pasta to the saute pan, and stir to coat. Transfer to serving dish, and top with freshly grated parmigiano-reggiano.

<space>

<space>

Now Playing in the Kitchenette: The Temper Trap / Sweet Disposition

<space>

<space>

A man kills his wife but can’t be brought down without the big factor….the EVIDENCE!!!

When Ted Crawford discovers that his beautiful younger wife, Jennifer, is having an affair, he plans her murder–the perfect murder. Crawford is immediately arrested and arraigned after confessing–a seemingly slam-dunk case for hot shot assistant district attorney Willy Beachum, who has one foot out the door of the District Attorney’s office on his way to a lucrative job in high-stakes corporate law. But nothing is as simple as it seems, including this case.

Now if Anthony Hopkins is going to play a brilliant person behind bars that has delights of playing mind games with highly intelligent lawyers you have to know that this will be compared to Hopkins” greatest Silence Of The Lambs.

The film doesn’t take itself too seriously as it does feature some tense reducing laughs. Director Greg Hoblitt and the screen writers keep us guessing. We know that Ted shot his wife but we can’t figure what ever happen to the murder weapon.

One thing about this film that really had me attracted was its two leads, and too say I wasn’t dissapointed. Gosling and Hopkins both go at each other which could have easily turned into annoyance but doesn’t as the film showed off as a sort of clash of the titans work. Gosling and Hopkins work off one another and its great to see these two work together, because each both show strong performances. The film also shows that now Ryan Gosling is not just an indie lead and can actually play with the big boys.

There were some obvious faults with this film. The story seemed to unbelievable how a smart lawyer like Gosling would be so dumb and forget about the most important factor in the case. Though the scenes with Gosling and Hopkins were great the problem was that there weren’t many more and could’ve totally added a lot more tension that the film could’ve promised. Also, the romance between Gosling and his blonde headed boss seemed like it wasn’t needed and I think its just takes away a lot of the drama the film relied so heavily on.

The film is well written although it seems to have a implausible plot, but is still overshadowed by the two strong performances by the two strong actors.

8/10=Matinee!!!

(Courtesy of High Octane Wrestling)

Announcer guy: “And now it’s time to return to the Shelly Scott program.”

Shelly Scott, a bubbleheaded beach blonde, shuffles her notes.

Shelly Scott: “And welcome back to the Shelly Scott program.  I am Shelly Scott and next, we have a wrestler who’s about to debut on High Octane Wrestling here in Chicago.  Please welcome to the Shelly Scott program- Dr. Annabel ‘The Cannibal’ Lecktor and her handler FBI Special Agent Charlize Starling!”

Polite applause.  Starling leads Dr. Lecktor, wearing a mask and hands and arms tied up in a straitjacket, to the chairs.  Starling helps Dr. Lecktor down.

Shelly Scott: “Dr. Lecktor!  Welcome to the Shelly Scott program.”

Dr. Lecktor slowly turns and stares at the host.

Starling: “It’s okay, Shelly.  Dr. Lecktor can be very non-verbal at times.”

Shelly Scott: “I see.  This should make for a fascinating interview.

Dr. Lecktor: “Oh, now you’re just being rude.  I don’t like rude people.”

Shelly Scott: “I’m…I’m sorry, Dr. Lecktor.

Dr. Lecktor: “You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition’s given you some length of bone, but you’re not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you, Shelly Scott? And that accent you’ve tried so desperately to shed: pure West Virginia.  And by the way, what is up with saying Shelly Scott every five seconds.  I know I’m on the Shelly Scott show.  The people watching know they’re watching the Shelly Scott show.  I know you’re Shelly Scott.  They know you’re Shelly Scott.  STOP SAYING SHELLY SCOTT EVERY FIVE SECONDS!”

Scott’s face is frozen in a frightened stare with her eyes wide open.

Charlize: “It’s okay.  She gets like that this time of the month.”

Shelly Scott: “O…okay…um…we’ll be back with Dr. Lecktor on the…um…this show…in a second.”

Tech. Director: “And we’re clear.”

Dr. Lecktor: “Good.  Whew!  Charlize can you pull this mask up?”  

Charlize pulls the mask up like a hockey goalie would. 

Dr. Lecktor: “Thanks.  Hey, can someone get me a drink?  I am parched.  Wow…this straitjacket is really making me sweat.”  She turns to a still stunned Shelly Scott.  “Hey, thanks for having me on the show.  It means a lot for a housewife like me to end up on a big time show like yours.”

Shelly Scott: “Y-you’re…a housewife?”

Dr. Lecktor: “In real life, yes.  I originally just did this wrestling gig as a way to make some extra money.  I actually worked at Political Championship Wrestling in the office and one night…”

Tech. Director: “Twenty seconds.”

Dr. Lecktor: “…they asked me if I wanted to play Dr. Lecktor at one of the shows.  Apparently, I had the right size and build they were looking for.  So I took the gig and made some extra cash on the side.”

Shelly Scott: “So…so now you’re doing this full time?”

Dr. Lecktor: “Yeah.  My husband lost his job and so someone has to bring home the ol’ bacon.  He’s on unemployment and such but that doesn’t remotely make up for the loss of income.  So, I had some contacts in the industry with me working at PCW and…”

Tech. Director: “Ten seconds.”

Dr. Lecktor: “…I called in a couple favors and wall-lah.  Here I am.”

Tech. Director: “Five…four…three…two…one.”  He points at Shelly.

Shelly Scott: “Hello and welcome back to the Shelly Scott show.  I’m Shelly Scott and with me is-”

Dr. Lecktor: “You’re doing it again.”

Shelly Scott: “Ah…doing what?”

Dr. Lecktor: “Saying you’re name every five seconds.  It’s annoying.”

Shelly Scott: “Um…o-kay.  Dr. Lecktor, we were talking off air about how you got into wrestling and you told me this great story about-”

Dr. Lecktor: “After your father’s murder, you were orphaned. You were ten years old. You went to live with cousins in a small village along a small waterway by the Tashkowaski Dam, built in 1931 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s WPA inititiative to provide jobs to those who were thrown out of work during the Great Depression.”

Shelly Scott: “Yes, Dr. Lecktor, that’s correct.  Now, if we can get back to-”

Dr. Lecktor: “Your cousins lived in a ramshackle cabin made of cheap wood and you could hear everything.  You could hear the water running.  You could hear your cousin snoring.  You could even hear your aunt and uncle doing their reenactment of William T. Sherman’s march through Georgia at two o’clock in the morning.”

Shelly Scott: “Yes…yes…that’s true.  But-”

Dr. Lecktor: “Then one day, a knock developed in two of the dam’s water driven turbines and the loud noise from the engines allowed you to sleep in peace at night without having to hear the water running, your cousin snoring, or your aunt screaming out ‘ravage me,’ ‘pillage me’ at the top of her lungs at two o’clock in the morning.”

Shelly Scott: “Y-yes.  I was finally able to get a good night’s sleep.”  (she whispers out of the side of her mouth)  “Your mask is up.”

Charlize quickly reaches across and puts the mask back down.

Dr. Lecktor: “Sorry.  Now, where was I?  Oh yes.  But then, dear Shelly, engineers repaired the knocking sound coming from the turbines by putting in a new efficient, state of the art turbine engine that made no sound at all.  It was quite a tramautic experience for you, wasn’t it?”

Shelly Scott: “Y-yes…it was.”

Dr. Lecktor: “And what was it, Shelly.  What was it that made your life a living hell for years as you lived with the sound of water running, you cousin snoring, and your aunt crying out “I’m burning, I’m burning,” and your uncle replying “I’ve tried to put on more lubrication dear but it’s not working!”

Shelly appears to be on the verge of tears.

Shelly Scott: “It was…the silence.  The…silence of the dams.”

Tech. Director: “Okay, we’re in commercial.”

Dr. Lecktor: “So anyways, with my husband out of work, he stays home with my three children: Allie, Jenna, and Sam.  He’s not very good at grocery shopping yet even though I try to put together a list of things to buy.  He’s good at making pizza and burgers but the kids shouldn’t eat that every day, right Charlize?”

Charlize: “Absolutely.”

Tech. Director: “Ten seconds!”

Shelly Scott: “Oh, no…”

Dr. Lecktor: “I do call my kids every night I’m in Chicago.  Thankfully, I can drive home on weekends to see my husband so this hasn’t put too much of a strain on our marriage…”

Tech. Director: “Five…four…three…two…one.”

Shelly Scott: “Okay.  We’re back.  I’m Shelly Scott.  This is Shelly Scott show.”

Dr. Lecktor: “Hello Clarice.”

Shelly Scott: “My name is Shelly.”

Dr. Lecktor: “I know because you keep saying it EVERY FIVE SECONDS!”  She starts to sniff as if she smells something.  “Are you…wearing perfume?”

Shelly Scott: “Yes.”

Dr. Lecktor: “May I?”  She takes Shelly’s arm and sniffs it up and down.  “Hmmm, your arm would go nicely with some fava beans and a nice chianti.  I do wish we could chat longer, but…it’s time to have a new friend for dinner.”

Dr. Lecktor leaps on top of Scott who lets out a high-pitched, blood-curdling scream.  Charlize tries to pull her off.

Charlize: “DOC-TOR LECKTOR!  DOC-TOR LECKTOR!  NO!  YOU PROMISED!  DOC-TOR LECKTOR!

The show cuts away quickly to commercial…

NOTE: THIS REVIEW ASSUMES FAMILIARITY WITH THE CHARACTERS OF SILENCE OF THE LAMBS which I knew even though I’d never seen it before ’cause I don’t like scary movies.

It’s not every night that you’re having dinner, casually admiring the hot guy two tables over, then find less than two hours later that you’re now able to say, “Wow! I got to see his junk!” But this was a special night, the night I went to see Silence: the Musical (as in the musical version of Silence of the Lambs), and the sexy, lanky redhead I was admiring was none other than “Buffalo Bill” in the show (Connor Brown in real life), and he had a very special number to sing with a title on the lines of “Would You Fuck Me Now.” And he performed it, ultimately, with his Beardsley print dressing gown (covet!) very much off and his lanky, tattooed, pierced body on. Phoar. Oh, and with his junk tucked between his legs, because, you know, looking like a woman is Bill’s shtick, not that the sharp eye wouldn’t have caught an eyeful (and apparently yummy Mr. Brown’s had more pierced than just his nipples).

And, really, wasn’t it such a rude show? Agent Starling (Charlie Cable) is groped regularly, makes fat jokes, and is mocked mercilessly for her lisp; Hannibal “the cannibal” sings “If I Could Smell Her Cunt.” There is nothing polite about this show in any way, right down to the poodle puppet (about which the less said the better). But really, if you’re not planning on seeing this show and having a good laugh then you’ve picked the wrong play to see – though I doubt anyone who would be attracted to it would be expecting a serious commentary rather than a stick in your eye parody.

I’m actually finding it hard to talk about how very well Silence worked in this tiny space. The show was inventive and fun, from the tap-dancing corpses to the face full of silly string to the use of a cut-out plastic mask for Lecter’s escape scene; but all that wouldn’t have added to a hill of beans if the cast hadn’t been so talented. Agent Starling had the looks and the moxie; while Bill was all sex and shamelessness. But the real star was Tom Murphy as Dr. Lecter himself, because with pipes like that he was a real treat to hear singing. I was reminded of the poor showing at Annie Get Your Gun (and for that matter Carousel). Murphy proved that, despite my fears, there are still apparently actors in London who can sing, though they’re being replaced on the West End with people who need microphones to amplify their tinny voices. And I can promise, you could hear the T that ended every single c**t that came out of his mouth. Mary Martin would have been proud.

I was also pleased that I’d somehow wound up at a musical where the words once again mattered, illuminating plot and character. Unfortunately (and this is my one complaint, though it was a problem far, far too much), in many scenes, especially where the actor had his back to the pillar that demarcated the two sections of audience (the stage was square and we each had a view from one side or the other) you could not hear what was being said, which was a shame as it was often funny and always interesting. It was also a problem for a few of the group scenes and the fault clearly lies on the electric piano, which just needs to be turned down a tad. I realize whoever set the sound levels probably has all of the lyrics memorized, but I don’t, and I would have liked to have heard them.

Overall, this was a brilliant night out (especially at £12 a head and with a two hour running time) and I recommend it heartily as likely the most fun musical on in town right now and CERTAINLY better than anything I’ve seen since Pirates at the Union Theater.

(This review is for a performance that took place on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009. It continues through October 31st. For more information see www.imperialproductions.org. I promise I’ll add in actors’ names once I can find them – any help appreciated as I didn’t get a program.)