Film: Everything is Illuminated, written and directed by Liev Schreiber

Everything is Illuminated is a film adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel.

I was interested in this film because the main character, Alex, is played by Eugene Hutz, who is the lead singer of the New York Gypsy punk rock band, Gogol Bordello. It’s an interesting band. Its sound is inspired by Gypsy music and the core band members are immigrants from Eastern Europe. Eugene himself was born near Kiev to a Russian-Ukrainian Roma family. They fled after the Chernobyl Meltdown, and arrived in the U.S. in 1990 as political refugees as part of a resettlement program. This immigrant experience influences Gogol Bordello’s music.

But enough about the band. Let’s talk about the film.

Everything is Illuminated centers around a young Jewish-American man, Jonathan S. Foer’s (Elijah Wood), search for the Ukrainian woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. Jonathan goes to Ukraine on a Heritage Tour, where he is aided by two guides: a cranky anti-Semitic grandfather, and his enthusiastic grandson, Alex (Eugene Hutz), who loves American pop culture. As expected, a family secret is revealed and some things are indeed illuminated, to some extent or other.

Elijah Wood’s attempt at portraying a sensitive character gets overdone, and it brings to mind a Jewish-version of Frodo Baggins, rather more than it should.

Eugene Hutz’s character, Alex, is very lively, though at times not very believable. What I enjoyed was the characterization of Alex’s family. It was laden with stereotypes, yes, but it was still amusing. The subject of the Holocaust is handled carefully and held at a distance. The humor and the beautiful countryside setting offer us a glimpse into Ukraine. I enjoyed the use of sunlight in this film. Sunlight, more than dialogue, offers us a look into Jonathan’s character in the beginning of the film. The camera also uses sunlight to “illuminate” the personalities of the other main characters. When Alex’s grandfather is remembering his past, he is covered by sunlight. Sunlight is used to “illuminate” secrets. Music is also used to set the tone of the scenes.

The ending is poignant, but yet again, it is obvious that the film is holding the Holocaust at a distance. Instead of grieving or being terrified or awestruck, the characters accept their fate. I can’t say more than that without giving away the plot.

Amazingly enough, much of the film is not sad. This is definitely one film about the Holocaust that will guarantee laughs year after year. You can even give it as a stocking stuffer.

Book Review: The Day I Swapped My Dad For Two Goldfish, by Neil Gaiman

Today, I finally read The Day I Swapped My Dad For Two Goldfish. It's one of Neil Gaiman's books that I hadn't had the chance to read till now.

Gaiman always does a great job when he's writing from a kid's point-of-view. This book was written from the POV of a boy, who loves to tease his sister and who takes his dad for granted. There are plenty of things in this book that illustrate the "innocence" and self-centeredness of the boy. The diction is stilted, too--as if coming from a young person's mouth who hasn't learned to use formal grammar yet. Plenty of run on sentences. Plenty of little jokes. Very age appropriate.

The story is simple. Yet, I think the genius of the book comes from its little jokes. Also, the illustrations by Dave McKean are subtle and sumptuous and just amazing; (I practically worship that man...LOL). The lettering the book uses is the kind of handwriting you'd see in a typical little boy's notebooks. The illustrations are mostly pen-and-ink, with plenty of ink-washes; he uses black ink and brown ink, and lots of sepia tones. Actually, the use of a sepia tone is what makes this book rather unique, because in general, children's books tend to utilize pastel shades in their illustrations. McKean wants to break away from that, and this lends it a surreal quality, turning it into a slightly nightmarish dreamscape. Without these sorts of outstanding and rebellious illustrations, this book might have been rather drab.

Film Review: Stardust

Stardust was an entertaining film which didn't stray far from the novel it was based on. These days, you expect otherwise.

In any case, the film succeeded in being what it was meant to be: a fantasy. To that end, the special effects were amazing, which was rather important in a film of this genre. If the "magic" doesn't seem magical and realistically magical, a fantasy film cannot work. The make-up and costuming were also rather extraordinary. Not only that, it maintained the fairytale "feel" of the novel, and was maudlin, desolate, and heartwarming when necessary.

Acting in such films requires acting out archetypal roles, which can lead to wooden acting, if an actor is not careful.

One would have expected that Michelle Pfeiffer's Queen Witch character would fall into the trap of becoming a "stereotypical" witch, but it somehow didn't. Not because she had good lines, she didn't, but because of her charisma and the diva traits that she brought to the role. (She was no one-dimensional Shakespearean witch!) She upheld her diva-ness to the end, even as the film progressed and her skin began to sag and her hair fell out and she went a tad bit insane. The character maintained her dignity, her wiliness, and her seductiveness. I was impressed by Ms. Pfeiffer, and this role reminded me of her previous role as Titania in Midsummer's Night Dream. I almost believed her when towards the end, she lets Yvain go free, saying that eternal life is not worthwhile without a family to share it with.

Let's now talk about the two lead actors. Clare Danes and Charlie Cox. Claire Danes' ethereal appearance lends itself well to the role of Yvain, the fallen star. But they rather made her character too nice. In the book, she's a bit conceited and tends to talk down to Tristan in the beginning. But they made her more humble in the film. I felt that she did a great job in her role. Charlie Cox's Tristan was quite a bit more assertive than the Tristan in the book, who tended to be much more passive. (Neil Gaiman's heroes tend to be like that: compassionate, witty at unexpected times, and rather submissive towards women). But at times, Cox's acting seemed youthfully enthusiastic yet wooden. He just didn't have enough good lines. Or maybe he just needs time to mature as an actor?

Where did all the good lines go? To Robert De Niro, of course! He played the cross-dressing, waltz-loving, lovable Captain Shakespeare. Who was loved both by his band of pirates (HARR!!!!) and his adopted nephew Tristan, on whom he imparts many useful gentlemanly skills, such as swashbuckling (we all need to know how to buckle a swash), waltzing, and dressing to the nines. Thanks to him, Tristan is later able to defend himself from the Queen Witch.

The only real flaw that I found in this film was that it could not aptly contain the "moral" of the book. The moral was very large and too subtle and too wise to be captured by any Hollywood film. To understand it, you will have to read the book.

Spiderman 3

Spiderman 3 was funny, heartwarming, and sweet.

I can't really compare it to Spiderman 2 because I never got around to seeing it.

But here's a quick summary.

Let's start with what I liked:
*Director Sam Raimi is AWESOME! He even brought in Joxer (Ted Raimi--Sam's brother) and Autolycus (Bruce Campbell) from Xena: Warrior Princess to do cameos in this film. They were both so good. Bruce does a good job playing a "Frenchman". Also,the humor in this film was very Sam-Raimian. I just love him. Stan Lee also does a cameo.

*Tobey is SOOOOOO Peter Parker. Come on!!! He so is! He did a great job at being slightly nerdy, sometimes clueless, self-centered yet still lovable, and entertaining. He's easy to love, I guess. I was thoroughly entertained watching Peter Parker be Peter Parker. Kinda took me back to 5th grade when I used to pretend to be sick so I could stay home, watch TV, read comic books, and dance around in my ballerina toe-shoes in the living room. And who knew Spidey could do Jazz? AWW *fawns* Though, I did want to slap him for kissing that other blond girl, and for making poor Ursula (his neighbor's daughter) bake him cookies.

*Kirsten Dunst was believable as Mary-Jane Watson. Lots of people complain that she's not pretty enough, but she has a girl next door quality to her. Also, I kinda believe in the Wabi-sabi idea of beauty. She's adorable as Mary-Jane. Somehow in this particular story/film, a supermodel type of female lead just wouldn't work right.

*Aunt May has a lovely scene when Peter visits him and she makes him tea, gives him her wedding ring, and tells him that a man has to be able to put his wife first, or he's not ready for marriage.

*Topher Grace as Eddie Brock is someone who is so funny that it's hard to hate him. Especially that scene at the gothic cathedral where he is praying for the death of Spidey. I just didn't see his character as "EVIL (TM)" enough. And then he morphs into Venom and that's hard to believe, because he just didn't seem evil enough before that. *shrugs* Evil really does turn you ugly, and gives you bad teeth too.

*Likewise with James Franco as Harry Osborn. It's hard for me to figure out exactly where his rage is coming from. Because, in most of his scenes in the film, Harry seems quite sweet. In the scene where Mary-Jane goes to his apartment and he makes her breakfast, he's so sweet and sensitive that you almost--ALMOST--want him to get the girl. So the next scene takes you by surprise when he goes psycho again. Doesn't make sense. I know, I know. His memories are coming back...and his psycho dad is talking to him through the mirror...but still...

*The Sandman storyline was sentimental. And I'm a sucker for sentimental. LOL. When Flint/Sandman first gets zapped by the deatomizer (or whatever) and he's trying SO hard to reatomize for the sake of his daughter. AWWWW...So sad... The wedding ring that Peter carries corresponds with the locket that Flint carries. "I'm not a bad guy, I just had bad luck."

*I understood the moral of the story just fine. That everybody has a choice, yadda yadda. It was fascinating to see Spidey be evil and selfish and uncaring. And of course, in this film, he created his own nemeses (is that a word?) and his own demons.

Overall, I give it four stars!

Film: 300

So, I went to see 300. Mainly because I loved Sin City and Frank Miller. It was kinda cool, yet reprehensible too.

And the Iranians were outraged over it. I don't blame them. I'd be too.

Let me talk about what's good in the movie: It has GREAT special effects. I like the look of it--it was very "graphic novel come to life". The shadows and use of silhouette. Mesmerizing. I liked the costumes. I was visually beautiful. Frank Miller films have a certain unique look to them. They are easy to identify. The storyline makes a great comic book.

What I didn't like:
1. It was historically inaccurate.
2. The film "appropriated" Greek (or more accurately, Spartan) culture and made it American/English. This is a failing of many such movies. It's become pretty standard to Anglicize Greek culture, to make everyone Greek look like they're British Anglo-Saxon, to make them speak with English/Irish accents. Here, they went even further and made them seem "American"; they were given American cowboy culture. I sometimes wonder whether anyone else ever notices this? I wonder whether people in Greece mind this phenomenon, or whether they are flattered by it. I have no idea.
3. It demonized Iranian culture by equating it with darkness, sexual promiscuity, black magic, and "blackness". It was interesting to me that the "Persians" in this movie were mostly African-looking, and King Xerxes looked more African-American and nothing like an actual Persian man. In the US, "African" stands for barbaric, slave culture--so I cannot help but think that this was done on purpose, to make the Persians seem barbaric.
4. Sparta was seen as an extension of "American culture". The Spartans didn't just look racially "American" (i.e. Anglo-celtic), but they also acted in stereotypical "American" ways. They were fighting for "Freedom"; they were individualistic; they were all free men and were anti-slavery; they were rugged pioneers; they did not believe in mysticism or magic; they had tempers and were reckless; they were idealistic. I could go on and on.
5. I can't help but feel the political connotations of this, since right now the US is thinking about going to war with Iran. This seems like a smear campaign.
6. I have to come back to my first reason. It was historically inaccurate. Of Spartan society. Of Persian society. The bad thing is that most people will go see it and believe it as fact, because world history is not really taught anymore. And that's very sad indeed.

Many people wonder why I'm so dead-set against "Appropriation". It's because I feel that one culture should not take over someone else's culture, someone else's identity, because all too often, the people who do appropriate do it solely for their own benefit, without any regard for anyone else.

Film: The Aviator

The Aviator was directed by Scorsese, whom I love and adore. And it stars Leonardo DiCaprio, who is someone I love to love. I suppose he was cast because he's a playboy much like the real Howard Hughes. But he's just too young for the part. His face is so young that he ends up looking younger than his leading ladies. And his coloring is all wrong: Hughes had brown eyes and dark hair and was more "masculine" looking. This made it hard for me to really believe he was Howard Hughes, and it kept jerking me out of the movie.

I felt that Cate Blanchett deserved the Best Supporting Actress award, because she was very believable as the playful and outspoken Katherine Hepburn (though she ended up looking much older than poor little DiCaprio). DiCaprio, Blanchett, and Kate Beckinsale did a great job with the accents of the 40s. DiCaprio's Texan accent isn't half-bad. :-) I have quite a thing for WWII films, so I especially enjoyed the costuming they used in the film. It was very glamorous.

Hughes' quirks were the focus of the film. He had Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD); also, he hated crowds and cameras. In the film, Hughes is jealous when Hepburn changes personalities whenever they're at parties or when they are at her families' house. He accuses her of acting all the time and of being disingenuous. She, for her part, is insecure when he takes all the other starlets to movie premieres and when he gets more media attention that she does. This culminates into her leaving him for Spencer Tracy. That's when Hughes' troubles start. The relationships are portrayed sensuously and with subtleness. DiCaprio's acting is nice, but it has its limits in this film.

Scorsese ingeniously tells the story of Hughes' OCD problems. In fact, if you want to know more about Howard Hughes' real problems, you should watch the DVDs Special Features, which include a History Channel Documentary and a table discussion with the cast about OCD.

Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow didn't impress me, but I liked the platinum blond hair. She seemed a tad unnecessary otherwise. Alec Baldwin as Juan Trippe was effective, as usual--I'm so used to seeing him in these sorts of top CEO roles that I never bat an eye.

What I really liked was how they repeated the message that genius comes with its quirks. I could relate to Hughes' fear of crowds and his desire to control every little thing around him.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Did anyone ever see the Wonder Works production of this book back in the 80s? This film reminded me of that in a lot of ways, as if they were basically re-filming it shot by shot.

You guys probably all know the premise of the film, so I'll just skip to my thoughts, without summarizing.

The youngest girl, Lucy, looked SO MUCH like the actress who played Lucy in the Wonder Works version that I did a double-take. Right down to the cute crooked little-girl teeth. The main actors who played the children looked very Anglo-Celtic indeed; that is to say, they looked British. I enjoyed the WWII background of planes and shelters. I thought it was lovely that they added some old period music from the 20s--very classy. And the period clothes were adorable. It's important to remember that this book was written during WWII, just like The Lord of the Rings. I think the whole epic battle between "good and evil" in both of these books was a way for the authors to deal with the magnitude of the war and the sacrifices that people had to make during that time. By this time, I've just come to expect and associate trains running through the countryside carrying children to estranged-yet-rich relatives-who-live-in-Manors as a peculiar English motif. I can't remember how many times I've seen said scenes in British movies/films/shows. Similar trains often traverse the countryside in the Harry Potter movies, too. Have you noticed?

I really liked the child actors they chose. Especially Lucy, with her charming and authentic smiles. Didn't particularly like Susan as much, because it seems like Susan doesn't really shine in this film. Yet both the brothers do--Edmund and Peter were nicely portrayed. I thought that Thomas the Faun was cutesy, a bit too cutesy, but it suited the film.

Tilda Swinton once again astonished me with her acting. I was incredibly impressed with her acting skills. She was icy, she was evil, she was haunting, she was ethereal, she was amazing!!! I was never afraid of the Witch before, but now I truly am. This was partly because of the lovely costuming and make-up jobs in this film. But mostly it was her acting. And there's just something about her face that says "Ethereal" with a capital E (she made a fabulous Lesbian Angel too in Constantine!). I think I read somewhere that she is some sort of Duchess or something in the UK. I can believe it.

Wow, she added Evil and intensity to the otherwise rather predictable and stereotypical role. The sacrifice scene was phenomenal. Realistic too. How does she do that?

Aslan the lion was okay. Yes, there are limits to computer animation.

Still, this film is about morals. It does hold up a binary of good and evil, with no shades of gray. But I'd argue that you need that in childhood. Here is a philosophical question for you. Do you think that children should be told that the world is just Black and White (i.e. Good and Evil)? Or do you think that they should be introduced to Shades of Gray as soon as possible? So they'll know that sometimes good guys do so-called evil things and that people are not perfect. Don't you think that the Edmund story of betrayal is a way of doing just that?

Film: October (directed by Eisenstein)

Sergei Eisenstein was a master filmaker in the early days of the medium. The film, October, is a historical account of the Russian Revolution in October 25, 1917. Originally, this film was silent - music was added later by Sergei's assisant, Grigori Aleksandrov. Eisenstein (1898-1948) was a seminal figure in the history of film, known for his stylistic innovations. October, which was a propagandistic celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, is an example of Eisenstein's theory of "intellectual cinema," that is, the communication of abstract thought by visual means. The viewer must read and analyze it as a reader would approach a poem or a novel, looking for metaphor, symbolism, irony, and characterization.

You can watch this film online at:
http://www.liketelevision.com/web1/movies/october/

Film: Eat Drink Man Woman

Eat, Drink, Man, Woman is a film by Ang Lee:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111797/

Eat, Drink, Man, Woman Review

This film, at first seems like a formulaic film, and in some ways it is. There is the main plot of a widowed old man whose daughters must care for him now—that is formulaic. But the plot becomes more complex, and even cartoonish, as the film progresses. First we learn that the Old Maid, Jia-Jen (the eldest daughter) has really made up a story about heartbreak to avoid intimacy—we, the audience, can sympathize for her. Yet her story is too conveniently resolved, so much so, that we want to groan. She finds a man too conveniently and too quickly—we know that the school coach cares about her, but we’re not aware that he “loves” her, and he seems so uncomfortable and surprised when she kisses him that we also find their hasty marriage suspicious.

Jia-Ning’s (the youngest daughter) quick marriage with her friends’ boyfriend seems more age-appropriate. We can easily believe that two teenagers would fall into bed and end up pregnant. So even though this resolution is clichéd, it’s still believable.

The more poignant and more nuanced plot is the middle sister’s story. Jia-Chien is the sophisticated, cosmopolitan, sexually-liberated airline executive. When her lover dumps her for someone else, that is a surprise to us, because she is obviously beautiful and desirable, and we can’t understand why this has happened. We are just as confused as she is. We can understand her apprehension to get into bed with her gorgeous co-worker—he is not “free”—he is in an unhappy marriage and has a son. And Jia-Chien is cosmopolitan enough to know that sex won’t necessarily lead to marriage. She is disillusioned by love, and knows that sexual-liberation doesn’t necessarily lead to happiness or freedom.

The film doesn’t have a forced ending. Jia-Chien isn’t forced into that stereotypical tug-of-war between Eastern and Western values (that sort of East/West dichotomy is simplistic and flawed and does not apply to this film). She chooses her path. She chooses to become the family chef, which is a role that has been denied to her for so many years. By cooking in the family kitchen, she is actually progressing—she is starting a new life and going on a new journey. The journey is both inwards and outwards and complex, just like a real woman’s life. I found this film quite compelling—in some ways, it was like a Chinese soap-opera, but in other ways, it was quite complex. It was easy to see how complex life is for the characters in this film. There were many things that were easy to relate to—such as the widower-plotline. However, there were things that were distinctly Taiwanese, such as the way Taiwanese Christianity is practiced—it is practiced in a distinctly Taiwanese way in the film. Also, I got the feeling that marriage was an “essential” thing in Taiwanese culture—unlike the US, where you can be a single-mother and nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with that. All in all, I enjoyed how modern Taiwanese life is depicted in the film.

Film: Abbas Kiarostami's "Ten"

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/movies_050222ten.html

So I saw Abbas Kiarostami's Ten. It was definitely one film that made me think about a lot of things. I don't think I can list them all.

Basically, it's an indie film about Iran and Iranian feminism. Kiarostami uses "non-actors" in his films because he is adamant about making realistic films. He insists on letting his non-actors wear whatever they want to, and speak how they want to, because he wants to capture authenticity. His ideal is Real Life, not some fantasy. The DVD version of this film came with a few extras. The extra was titled "Ten on Ten"; it was about the filming of Ten. Kiarostami is brilliant and eloquent in explaining his state of mind, and his thought processes about film and what he hopes to achieve.

And he succeeds. In Ten, the audience is a fly on the wall, watching the conversations that take place inside of a car. A mother discusses her divorce with her 10-year-old son, Amin. They both argue and simmer and rage and bicker. The subject is feminism. The mother believes that she, as a woman, belongs to herself, and not to any other person. Later on, this mother has a conversation with her sister and after that with a prostitute--and remember that all of these conversations take place inside of a car, as that car drives through the streets of Tehran.

I was very impressed by a number of things. Firstly, I was impressed by how articulate the actors (or rather, non-actors) were--they expressed themselves very well. The son says exactly what he feels. The mother says exactly what she feels. Even the prostitute says exactly what she feels. The latter talks about how "free" she is: she is free from societal mores, from the lies that men tell to their wives--she feels that she belongs only to herself. The mother listens to her and you can tell that she has a glimmer of doubt; she wonders whether she truly belongs to herself or not.

There is ambiguity in this film. There are no easy answers or black-and-white morals. All of the characters are right to an extent. It is point of view.

Kiarostami explains himself. He says that ambiguity is necessary in films. I have to say this is one of the most realistic movies I have ever seen. It has made me want to see his other films.

Christopher Rice's Light Before Day--A book review

Some thoughts on Light Before Day.

So, I’ve been reading Christopher’s Rice’s novel, Light Before Day. And I’d thought I’d post my thoughts.

Let’s begin with what I like about it so far. I’m about 60 pages away from the end, and I found that it was a very fast-paced book. The story is plot-driven by-and-large, and the main character is likeable, (and obviously based on Christopher himself). Sure, he’s an alcoholic, but you can’t help but sympathize with him. His alcoholism is the focus during the beginning chapters, but as the character sobers up, he becomes more witty, more charming, and less depressing. It’s almost as if the character changes and does a turn-around. This book is far less angsty than Christopher’s other two books, which is both good and bad. In this book, he uses a lot of similes and witticisms. He cracks jokes to make most of his points. And the feeling you get is that he’s more laid-back, more comfortable with himself, and isn’t taking this whole writing business too seriously. It’s more Neil Gaiman-ish, if you want a comparison; and you’ll be guaranteed laughs. Underwear seems to be a running theme here, too. Which was something I found hilarious! Those of you who’ve been reading my journal since the beginning will remember the little comedic skit I wrote about Christopher, which was meant to lovingly poke fun at him, and which constantly mentioned underwear. Remember how I posted it here? Well, sometimes, life imitates my art. It’s almost as if he read that little skit. There was underwear in every chapter almost.

<>
However, in spite of the humor, there are many moments of seriousness and darkness. Many of the characters have suffered from child abuse, neglectful and abusive parents, and addictions. Christopher treats these people with compassion and understanding, and not with condescension or judgment. He seems to have an inner understanding of these addictions, which seems quite extraordinary—I do know about his real life alcohol addiction, but how does he know so much about abused children and so forth? He has a slight gift for poetry, too, which we see when he describes the setting of the novel. I’ve never been to West Hollywood or to California, so I cannot say how accurate those depictions are, but they are poetic. And they did seem quite realistic.

The novelist James Wilton might well be based on his own father—or at least, that was the impression I got—wasn’t Stan Rice like James Wilton? I wouldn’t be too surprised if that’s so. It seems like he sticks his parents into every book.

And of course, a gay book wouldn’t be a gay book without poseurs like Billy Hatfill, or porn stars, or lesbians. The latter are a new addition to Rice’s psyche, it seems. He mentioned lesbians in Snow Garden, but in this book, you get the stereotypical dykes. Maybe someone complained to him about the lack of “dykes” in his previous books? Of course, most of the women seem to be strong women who can easily beat the crap out of pretty little gay boys, but I felt he overdid it with that. Why do women have to be so strong? (If anyone ever wanted to do an academic paper on his books, they can always write about the impact of strong women in his books.)

I personally don’t like stereotypes. I loved the angst of the previous two books, but I didn’t like how there were always “fag hags” (god, how I hate this term!!!) at the side of all of his gay male characters. Why use the fag hag? What purpose does it serve? Other than to confirm the stereotypes?

He dealt with the issues of pedophiles very thoroughly. I have to admire him for that. I think that was something that really needed to be addressed. Also, many of the characters suffered from self-hate. He dealt with that quite well, too.

As I said, I’ve got about 60 more pages to read before I reach the end. On the little blurb on the jacket cover, the summary lists this book as “crime fiction”, but it’s very much of a detective story, sort of a CSI: SVU type of book. There’s a Sherlock Holmes and a Watson and lots of gratuitous sex.

Brief Reviews of Mirrormask & Murder Mysteries

I sort of had a Gaimanesque Xmas.

Let's talk about Mirrormask first. The film is stunning visually, done in the style of Dave McKean's art. He was the director, you see. It's essentially a fairy tale.

Freudians say that children split their mothers in half. One half is the Good Mother, the ever-cheerful, super-loving, all-giving mother, who can do no wrong. The other half is the Evil Mother, the cynical, selfish, stingy, narcissistic, perfectly evil mother, who can and does and will hurt the child. Now, Gaiman, who wrote this film, specializes in this dichotomy. He's done a similar theme in Coraline and in Sandman. It's very fascinating for me, quite honestly, since I love archetypal connotations.

But in this film, the splitting doesn't end there. Everything has an evil twin. There is Helena and Anti-Helena. There is a good Valentine and a bad Valentine. A good queen and an evil queen....You get the idea...

Sweet little Helena can't deal with her mother's illness, so she runs away and gets lost in another world. We're not sure if this running away is just a metaphor or not. Has Helena really gone through the Looking Glass into another world? Or is it just a metaphorical way of showing that the good aspects of Helena have withdrawn themselves into her inner world because she can't handle the stress, and the evil Id has come out to play? Her Id (Anti-Helena) wreaks havoc--it smokes and snogs boys and dresses goth/punk (didn't you know that dressing goth/punk made you evil? lol) and fights with Helena's father.

Meanwhile the Good Helena is trapped within her mind, trying to wake up from this nightmare.

The symbolism in the film is quite well done. However, I was much more impressed by the computer animations, the Blue Screen backgrounds, the ethereal Scandinavian music, and the acting. I wish I could accurately word what "feeling" I had when I watched the film. There's a realism to it, it has good timing, the score suits the dialogue/storyline perfectly, the accents are quaint. It gives you a magical feeling.

------
Now, on to Neil Gaiman's Murder Mysteries.

This book, like many of Gaiman's works, begin in the Real World. It begins in Los Angeles with a man dressed in a suit, talking about his encounter with an old friend named Tinkerbell. There is a sex scene. And a I love you scene, followed by haze. The narrator (the man in the suit) finds himself on a park bench talking to an old guy. He has no idea how he got there. The old guy turns out to be an angel, who recounts a story about heaven that took place before man was created.

The story tackles the question of "why is there evil in the world if there is a loving God?" I have to admit the story lived up to its name; it was certainly a murder mystery. In fact, I didn't even know who done it, till it was revealed. (That was a treat! I love mysteries).

Then, as the mystery is solved, we are brought back to the Real World. From there, some things are revealed. But there are holes. Gaiman does not tie up the loose ends for us. We're supposed to draw our own conclusions, for better or for worse.

I rather fancy that the story was a darkly tinted version of Peter Pan, a bloodier version, one where Peter and Jack the Ripper were one and the same.

But as I said, we're supposed to draw our own conclusions. *smiles*

Edit to Add: I was thinking about all the religous topics that Gaiman always includes in his works, and I wondered why he never talks about Scientology at all. Even though his father, David Gaiman, is a prominent member of the Church of Scientology in the UK.

I wanted to go public...

I wanted to go public. Yeah. Somehow this year, I wanted to go public, after years and years of hiding out on private blogs.

I'm not really sure this is the best decision I've ever made. I've certainly made a milion mistakes over the years. Going public could prove to be one of them.

Yet, somehow, I need to grow a little. Mature. This way I cannot hide. I shouldn't want to hide in the first place. It's not my soul's requirement.