It’s Sunday evening, and I have been cleaning out the kitchen cabinets. We got new dishes, Santiago Square green dishes by Dansk.

Those of you who are close to me know that I have been obsessing about dishes for quite a while. I’ve been wanting nice stoneware dishes, so I’ve done a fair amount of research. When I was in Buffalo, my mother and I went to Niagara-on-the Lake for her birthday. While there, we stumbled upon a Dansk store that was going out of business, selling dinnerware for 40% off. Woo-hoo for Sujal and me!

Another really cool part of that trip was that my mother and I saw two foxes. Here is a great shot I got:

I wish we had foxes in our yard. Foxes are the best.

Anyway, so I had to clean out space in our cupboards. Afterward, exhuasted and coaxed by my husband, I am now watching a documentary on fonts — Helvetica specifically. When he came and asked me if I wanted to watch a documentary on fonts, I rolled my eyes but was silently a bit interested. If he’d told me it was about helvetica — well, I’d have probaby said no. I’m not a fan of font without serifs. I know that probably sounds funny to most of you, but what can I say? I’m a serif girl. The documentary, Heletiva, was somewhat interesting, though I was writing this post through most of it. It goes through the genesis and life of the font. One aspect I found specifically interesting was one woman saw a correlation with helvetica and “right” politics. She associates the Vietnam war with helvetica. Check it out if you are: a. into documentaries b. into helvetica c. into design d. into font.

I have seen a bunch of movies since the beginning of the summer, but honestly, I have not been inspired to write much about them because they have been pretty lame. When Sujal and I went to see Get Smart, I thought it was okay, but nothing to write home about. I began thinking about movies I have really liked. I like a good comedy, and I tried to think of comedies that I thought were really funny, comedies like Little Miss Sunshine, The Royal Tennenbaums, or The Forty Year Old Virgin, Sujal pointed out that there is a degree of seriousness in them. I don’t know. I used to think comedies were really funny. And now, they often seem kind of dumb. I’m not sure if movies are just getting worse, or if a “good movie” is defined by the kinds of movies one liked in one’s youth. It’s just hard to come by funny movies that make me really laugh out loud, and just ask my mom, I laugh very easily. She used to be quite amused by me watching a movie.

So what have I seen lately? The Incredible Hulk. This was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. Granted, I would neverhave gone to see this on my own. Sujal wanted me to go. I can’t say I have ever been that impressed with computer-generated special effects. I don’t care about flashy screen moments. I prefer subtlety. But what was so badabout this film was the writing! The dialogue was so inane that it insulted its audience, no matter how idiotic the audience might be. At one point, this scientist is speaking in what I shall call “science-speak.” He was trying to sound all technical, and he said something along the lines of, “If it is off by one integer, he might die!” The scientist literally used the word “integer.” It was a ridiculous use of the word in that context. Couldn’t they think of anything more intelligent sounding? Or did they think the audience would have been too stupid to understand? Ugh!

We did see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which I did like. I am a big fan of the Indiana Jones flicks. We went to see it with one of Sujal’s co-workers. He said he thought National Treasure was better, whih I took as blasphemy. That movie was terrible! He asked me what I thought the difference was, seeing how they were both adventure flicks. 1. I don’t like Nicholas Cage as an action hero. He plays a great fuck-up, but not an action hero. 2. NT takes itself seriously. IJ pokes fun at itself for the genre it is.

We also saw Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation at Real Art Ways, which was very funny. It is a shot by shot remake of the original, shot by kids (11-17?). Here’s a review.

I saw Kung Fu Panda, which frankly had far too many “fat” jokes. It was okay, but nothing to shake a stick at.

Earlier in the week, Sujal and I saw Wall*E. Sujal was annoyed that I didn’t like it. He thought I went to the movie predisposed not to like it. But here’s the truth: I tend to really like Pixar movies, so i was thinking I’d really like it — even though I’d heard the premise and it sounded uninteresting. I told Sujal after the movie that I obviously have no problem with animals being anthropomorphized. In fact, I like anthropomorphizing animals. I do it to our cats all the time. But an anthropomorphized robot? I have a hard time sympathizing with that. I’m not 100% sure why I do, I just do. Besides, this one robot (I thought robots were genderless) — a boy robot — falls in love with a girl robot. There’s no talking for close to the first half of the movie, so when the robots start speaking (and the boy robot has trouble speaking and says next to no words), they speak English. Why? (I know it is an American film…) How the hell do robots fall in love? Then the story becomes an allegory about being good to planet Earth, again via depicting fat Americans. Always with the fat Americans. If the movie is going to go so far as to be scientifically accurate that humans would lose their bone mass in space, how do they even survive for 700 years? I often can suspend disbelief, but this movie felt contrived and preachy. Even though I agree with the message, I don’t want to be preached to. Ultimately, I could not sympathize with any of the characters. When I cannot sympathize with at least one character, I have a tough time hooking into any story.

So when Sujal wanted to see another movie this weekend (Wanted or Hancock), I just didn’t want to go see anything. I haven’t even seen Sex in the City because of the abysmal reviews it is getting, and I loved that show.

Maybe soon something good will come out.

Sujal and I saw two more movies.  This past weekend we saw Super Bad, which despite its good reviews was Super Bad.  I definitely laughed aloud in several parts, but just ask my mom — I laugh at nearly everything.  The flic seems to be aimed at a different audience, not my set of demographics. 

Then we saw The Bourne Ultimatum, another thumbs down from me, despite its good reviews.  My friend Rita said that David Lynch gave it his seal of approval, perhaps explaining why I didn’t like it.  Basically, when I saw the second Bourne film — The Bourne Supremacy, I thought it was too violent.  To say it has gratuitous violence is an understatement.  This movie was the same.

I have not yet seen, but would like to see,  Rocket Science.  It’s about a kid who joins his school’s debate team.  I figured it could be my professional development for debate this year.  ;)

This trailer for Becoming Jane makes me want to see this move with my friend Kirsten. This is in large part because we saw one of the Jane Austen novels made into a film (or was it an EM Forster novel made into film?) together years ago when we were college. We also both love Jane Austen. Then again, who doesn’t?

Kirsten, come down here so we can go see it. Better yet, I’ll meet you at the Berkshire Mall.

In the summer of movies galore, Sujal and I went to see The Simpsons Movie.  I recommend it.  I have to admit, it was a bit weird watching it on the big screen — and they made plenty of jokes about it.  Some of the jokes at the beginning were very funny!  (especially right after Itchy and Scratchy)  I laughed a lot, as I often do when watching The Simpsons.   The only characters I did not see, and I may have missed them, were the two aliens.  Go see it.  Let me know what you think.

When Sujal and I first met, he told me that he didn’t like going out to the movies — to see them in the theater. If I recall correctly, he said it was because he did not like to support the big movie corporate culture. I could respect that (through, ironically, he has the largest DVD collection I’ve seen), but I’ve always enjoyed going to the movie theater. He patiently explains the difference of seeing an action film with lots of special affects on the big screen VS a romantic comedy chick flic that loses nothing when transfered to the smaller screen of our home TV. Gee, that’s a shocking male/female point of view… Nonetheless, I have always liked sitting in the theater, with lots of strangers, the smell of popcorn surrounding us, much like the surround sound, watching a movie — be it a blockbuster or an indie flic. Over the years, Sujal has begun to embrace going to the movies as it is a great “date night” activity.

Thus, we have seen A LOT of movies lately. As I previously mentioned, we began our movie run with Ratatouille — a movie I highly recommend. It was really fun and cute. Obviously, don’t go see this if you are trying to change the world, unless, of course, you are trying to take a little break.

Next we went to see Sicko, and I wrote a post about it below.

My mother came to visit, and she wanted to see Ocean’s 13. Sujal and I had been a little curious, so we went to see it. It was quite disappointing. I know I saw Ocean’s 12, but I remember nothing about it, so it clearly was not memorable. This mvie suffers the same fate. We tried to figure out why we liked Ocean’s 11 so much more than these other two. First of all, the music in the first one just captured the zeitgeist of Vegas better. There was also more of an emotional draw into the plot and better character development — of both the “good” guys and “bad”guys. Anyway, don’t waste your time or $$ on this flic.

Finally, we went to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on opening night, because Sujal is a huge HP fan. He reads the books the day they come out. In fact, when we first started dating, he watched the first HP movie on a daily basis, a fact that almost ended our relationship. While I attempted to read the first book and just could not continue, I have seen all of the movies. I don’t love them, but they are decent. Sujal was frustrated by some of the plot changes and lack of development in the film. He raves about Rowling’s development in the novels, so he was disappointed that the film glossed over so many details. As a mere movie viewer and not a novel reader (Harry Potter novels, that is — otherwise I’d be a REALLY crappy English teacher if I didn’t read novels ), I thought the movie was fine. There were a few confusing parts, but it seemed a similar caliber of the previous movies. I was enertained.

Next on our list is You Kill Me. It’s about a Polish alcoholic hit man from Buffalo, NY. I have to see it for the obvious connections to me. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I’m sure we’ll see more movies as the summer continues. Oh — Sujal went to see Transformers with a friend. There was no way I was going to see that. Anyway, stay tuned for more movie thoughts.

While I wanted to see Sicko on opening night, we went to see Ratatouille instead. So tonight, we finally went to see Sicko, even though I pledged on MoveOn.Org that I would see it Saturday evening — Sorry, MoveOn. My first reaction when I left the theater was — I really want to feel empowered and inspired, yet I feel a sense of despair and powerlessness. It seems the lobbies in this country are magnanimously strong. But I’d like to try to get beyond an initial feeling of powerlessness.

Ironically — or not ironically, I suppose — the movie was not playing at one of the major cinemas in our area. We saw Fahrenheit 911 at the cinema in Plainville, and I was going to get tickets to see Sicko there on Friday afternoon, yet it was only playing at one of the Hartford “arts” cinemas (and a mall cinema that is fairly far from us). I was surprised it wasn’t at Plainville, and Sujal told me his theory that it might have something to do with the fact that Hartford is the insurance capital. Makes sense…

Take the time to look at Michael Moore’s website, as it has lots of info and resources.

Here’s an interesting YouTube link in which Moore responds to potential attacks on 911 rescue workers.

Finally, at the end of the film, it lists this site, Hook-A-Canuck, a dating site for Americans to find a Canadian mate so the American can get free healthcare — though it is not serious, of course.

I truly hope this does open a national healthcare debate and movement. It is high time!

In order to keep the grim tone to the week, Sujal and I watched Hotel Rwanda. My school’s Amnesty International showed it at a movie night last year, but I was unable to go, so I was glad to finally see it. It was a powerful story powerfully told. As my neighbor said today, “Anything with Don Cheadle is great.”

On a purely filmic level, it was very well executed. The actors gave believable and stirring performances, and the ineffective characters were effectively portrayed. Nick Nolte did a great job playing an overloaded and sadly ineffective general. Such is history. I found one specific scene particularly powerful. After witnessing the carnage (BTW, for a movie about genocide, the carnage is kept to a minimum, though the filmmakers clearly get their point across. Sometimes the hint of violence is more potent that watching full-blown terror, as we become desensitized and/or we shut down from the horror.), Cheadle’s character, Paul Rusesabagina, (based on the real Paul Rusesabagina) showers and tries to dress himself. It is in doing the mundane activity of tying his tie — that semblance of normalcy — that he has his emotional breakdown. It is so visceral and real. It reminds me of the character of the wife in the novel The Sheltering Sky who must put her makeup on as her daily ritual, even though she has lost her husband and cannot get home. This is like the film version of the objective correlative.

Aside from being a strong film — holy crap! While I knew there was a genocide, I had no understanding of it. What frustrates the hell out of me, and I am only beginning to learn and understand the never-ending effects of colonialism, is that Hutus and Tutsis fought with each other eventually ending up in the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis, when really, their aggression would have been better aimed at their oppressor: Belgium. Colonialism was and is such an evil institution.

The film is ultimately very inspiring. I hope you are inspired to learn more and to donate to NGO’s to try to right some wrongs put into motion by colonialism.

Amnesty International is an excellent organization.

Donate here to the Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation.

NPR’s info on Paul Rusesabagina.

Last night (during the Superbowl), I went to go see Notes on a Scandal, in which Judi Dench pulls off this horrible, horrible character with amazing ability and talent. It was a very good film — both Blanchett and Dench were great, and I loved Bill Nighy — but I left the theatre with that pit of despair in my tummy that i get when I see a movie (or read a book) with such characters of malice. I reminded me of when I saw Jean de Florette when I was in high school. The characters were just so hateful. I don’t remember the film well at all. All I remember is walking away with this horrible taste of human malevolence. The movie also made me think of the movie Closer, which i never saw — because it looked like a film solely about human malisciousness. As I was reading IMDB, I saw that Patrick Marber wrote both screenplays. I’m a bit torn. On one hand, I liked the movie because of the really great acting and the complexity of the characters. On the other hand, the characters lacked a bit of complexity, in that I found it very difficult to sympathise with Barbara. I can’t say I sympathised much with the boy involved with the teacher, either. I didn’t love it, and I didn’t hate it — but it is “sticking” with me. Then again, sometimes gum on the show does that, too.

Nonetheless, before the movie there was a preview for The Namesake, a film by Mira Nair based on the novel by Jhumpa Lahiri. A deeply sad novel (Lahiri has this way of making you feel like you’ve been kicked in the gut after you’ve finished reading one of her pieces), it is a beautifully written poignant story. I enjoy the work of both Nair and Lahiri, so I cannot wait until March 9th! Since the movie 300 opens the same day, I feel a double date coming on, as Sujal really wants to see that.

So since the wedding, Sujal has been indulging in lots of toys. I believe he is thinking the pre-kids-having rush. So he bought the GIGANTIC TV. It’s huge, plasmatic, and high-definition, which basically means it’s no better than any other TV, but it is a lot more expensive. Okay, so I may be overstating it, but as you can tell, I was not thrilled with the idea of the puchase. Nonetheless, we have it. Now we have fancy cable channels, too. Not so thrilled with that, either — and here’s why. It’s a temptation. I watch too much TV as it is. I want to throw it out the window and have us sit by a fire and read aloud to one another. Doesn’t that sound like something newlyweds would do? Doesn’t it?

So now that we have all these fancy entertainment tools, I recently watched the last 3/4 of Torch Song Trilogy on IFC, great channel by the way. I saw the flic in ‘89 or early ‘90 when I was still in high school. I recall thinking that Harvey Fierstein was an older guy, perhaps even an old man. It was funny to me to watch it now at 33, my perspective having clearly shifted. I was surprised how young he looks in the movie. He was a young, good-looking guy. What I remember about seeing the flic when I was in high school was that I thought it was a bit schmaltzy, a bit too tear-jerker-y, though I liked it for the most part. I’m not a huge fan of tear-jerker dramas, but it actually does not take the cheap emotional shots that I seem to recall from my earlier viewing. Watching it, I can see how it would make a great stage play, though it works well on film, too.

I’d forgotten Matthew Broderick was in it, or perhaps I didn’t know who he was back then. He’s a good actor, and I’d like to see him on stage. One thing that seems “missing” to some degree was mention of AIDS, but then I thought that perhaps Fierstein did not want his story to be about AIDS, to be about disease. Instead he wanted his story to be about the challenge of finding and keeping love. Mention of AIDS would have completely tainted the story. The film does a great job of portraying the universality of the challenge of finding and keeping love. I would not go so far as to say that one could merely drop in characters of different genders, but not only is it easy to identify with the characters, as many good flics aim to do, it’s easy to see similar representations in our daily lives. Nonetheless, I came across this explanation on Wikipedia:

“The combined play runs at roughly four hours in length, so New Line Cinema insisted that Fierstein restrict the film to a two-hour maximum. Despite the copious excisions, the film is also made in three distinct acts: “The International Stud”, “Fugue in a Nursery” and “Widows and Children First!”. The dates given below are the dates from the film; the plays were set two or three years more recently, but New Line Cinema couldn’t understand how a gay film in the mid-1980s could not mention AIDS, so Fierstein moved the film to before the AIDS crisis.”

It’s funny to compare how we react to films as kids vs as adults. I remember feeling very “cutting edge” for watching it as a child. Damn, was I ever cutting edge.

When I was a freshman at Bennington, Harvey Fierstein gave the commencement address. Here is a link to the text, a pretty fabulous speech. I recall sitting outside the graduation tent with some other not-yet-graduating students listening to him speak. I was pretty wowed.