On why it is a bad idea to celebrate the year of the rabbit by rabbitifying your store

"Frank", from "Donnie Darko"

"Francine"(?) from Harajuku, Tokyo

At least Francine didn't tell me that the world would end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds.

On bloodvampiresthoughneverbuffythinglikelovetwilightwerewolvesprobablytrue

I am so confused. I have never been a fang-girl, but since vampires have been hard to avoid these last few years, I haven’t managed to escape them entirely.

I watched Buffy when I was growing up, and I sort of liked it. I didn’t *l♥ve* it like some of my friends, but I enjoyed it. Mostly because of the girl power message, and more importantly, I adored Spike and the quirky relationship between him and Buffy. 

When Twilight became a thing, I deliberately stayed away. Especially because one of the first people to tell me about these books confessed she was in love with Edward. I wanted to tap her shoulder and tell her that not only was he dead, and sort of creepy, but he was also fictional. I couldn’t bring myself to destroy her delusion, though…

However much I loved to hate Twilight, I caved this summer. I watched the first two movies in shameful solitude, and I was talked into seeing the third in a theatre with friends (which was sort of fun, because we kept laughing at unintentional jokes. This probably was more fun for us than for those who were there because they actually wanted to see the movie, though…). 

I first heard of True Blood through a friend who loves fantasy literature and movies. Thus I never really took much notice of it, because she tells me about a lot of books and shows that never really become a thing (and that definitely isn't my kind of thing). This one became one, though. I haven’t read the books (I’ve looked at them, but they didn’t strike my fancy), but I have watched the show, and I love it. Not for the vampires per se, but because of the feel of it. That swampy, creepy, clammy, vintage, Southern, sexy feel of it. The music, the lighting, the actors (“Hallå, Alexander Skarsgård!”), and sure – the vampire thing too. But mostly because the vampire stigma is used as a clever parallel to real life discrimination. The poster shown during the opening credits says it all: “God hates fangs”. Doesn’t that sound oddly familiar? If True Blood can help even a little bit to raise awareness or make someone reconsider their prejudices, it's all good in my book. 

However, there is a problem with all this vampirety we're dodging on a daily basis. 

I am getting my mythology all messed up. I can’t keep True Blood vampires from the Twilight ones. I keep thinking that Buffy taught me that vampires can be killed with a wooden stake and then they turn to dust, but in Twilight they break like porcelain (what’s that all about?) and then you set fire to them. In True Blood there appears to be several methods, but they ain't dead 'till they turn into mushy goo.

Also, as far as I can remember vampires aren’t supposed to be able to go out in daylight. In Twilight this is just a myth – they can and they do, they just don’t do it in public because then their skin sparkles. (Basically, the Twilight vampires are sparkly porcelain figurines, yes?) In True Blood they can, for a little while, but direct sun will burn their skin (however, a taste of human blood will heal them quickly). Also, they get nose bleeds if they don’t sleep during the day. Edward never sleeps, but that is probably because he is afraid to mess up his make-up. It must be tiring to wear those yellow contact lenses 24/7, though.

As for werewolves… Vampires = cold, werewolves = warm appears to be a universal truth. Everything else, however, is different from one fictional universe to the next. In Twilight werewolves never wear shirts. In True Blood they dress like bikers. In Buffy they still transform only when there is a full moon (hello, isn’t that common were-lore?), but both Meyer and Harris has their furry friends transform at will. 

Basically all the inconsistencies make me worried. How will I know how to react if I meet a real vampire? How can I be sure if the vampire is of the turn to dust/goo/porcelain variety? Will garlic work at all or will he then offer to cook? (And if he does - do I accept?) How about a cross? Or a silver bullet? The way this is going, the vampire will probably kill me before I even have time to ask for his autograph...

And yes. I got the title for this post from a Wordle. If you want to read it again but disapprove of the way I have arranged the words, I can recommend the picture below:

On confessions to a vampire

Dear Edward,


I am not in love with you. I know this must be shocking, considering all the letters your are receiving from teenage girls (and their mothers – out of curiosity, do you still consider them cougars even though you technically are at least fifty years their senior?) around the world. I am willing to bet that a good half of them start exactly like this letter, though without the “not”.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that unlike the rest of the world I don’t hate Bella (this may also have something to do with that first sentence of this letter, come to think of it). All the nasty things about how she has no backbone and how it is incomprehensible that so many boys fall for her and how her hair looks bad (hello, humid weather up there in Foggyville! Duh!) is lost on me. Give her a break – Bella isn’t so bad. She’s been through a lot, and if she wants to be a complete weirdo and not indulge in the BFF-ness that randomly and incomprehensibly is being offered her from all the cool kids at that high school of yours, I’m gonna say she’s got the right to do that. I even get why you fell for her, even though that may have seemed kind of random too. You can’t read her mind. Fair enough. Must be tiring for a guy to go around having people’s thoughts thrown in your face all the time anyway. She gives you peace of mind (ha – good one if I may say so myself).

What surprises me about her, though, is what in the world made her fall for you. No offense, mister, but you’re not actually all that hot. I mean, porcelain skin that sparkles in sunlight, spiky hair and cry-rimmed eyes – it may sound hot, but only if you’re living in Madame Toussaud’s alternative universe. And I’m not. By the way, has anyone ever told you that you look a lot like Cedric Diggory of the Harry Potter movies? That really bothered me all through the movie. But then I remembered that Diggory didn’t have this weird “I’m failing at sounding American so I’ll just go for Eastern European instead”-accent.

Also, you’ve got a seriously freaky personality. I mean, nothing to attract a girl than to look like you’re about to barf the first time you see her, right? And what’s with showing off all the time? I mean, the flying is pretty cool, but aside from that it just gets creepy. Sneaking into her bedroom to watch her sleep? Man, don’t DO that! And the part about following her? I guess it was nice if you from hindering her from being barfed at by those very drunk guys (just remember not to do so yourself), but it does make you seem kind of possessive. Chill, man!

Basically, I think the whole love affair is a bit unmotivated. But hey, who am I to talk – I watched the entire first movie without falling in love with you, so I clearly don’t know what I am talking about.

Hope you’re still eternally in love and all that!

Cruella

PS – if I didn’t know it would totally be a losing game I would sooo be on Team Jacob!

On Neil Gaiman vs Neil Gaiman

The movie Stardust came out three years ago. I was hesitant at first, being a natural born skeptic towards fantasy. Sure, I’d read all the Harry Potter books multiple times. I had also forced myself through Lord of the Rings, though I prefer the movies (shame on me). I might even have read a few more fantasy books and certainly watched several other fantasy movies, and it is safe to say that I enjoyed both. But I was nevertheless convinced that fantasy wasn’t my thing. So Neil Gaiman shouldn’t be either.

I went to see the movie anyway, and I loved it. Of course. I have yet to hear someone who has seen that movie claim that they didn’t enjoy at least one aspect of it – Robert De Niro’s part. I’ll get back to that in a bit. But Stardust has more than Oscar winning actors going for it – it is a fairytale adventure with love, sword fights, fantastic creatures, magic… Basically, it has all the splendor it takes to make an epic movie.

Since I loved the movie so much, I was definitely hesitant to read the book. I almost always love the book better than the movie whenever I get the chance to compare, and I didn’t want what I assumed would be an awesome book to ruin what was soon becoming my favourite “feel good” movie. Thus I avoided the book for a long time, even though several of my friends read it and loved it.

I had come to the conclusion, however, that I might not be as opposed to fantasy literature as I had led myself to believe. Thus I asked a good friend of mine (who is an avid fantasy fan) to recommend a book within the genre. Her suggestion was Neil Gaiman’s American Gods. Now,  American Gods may not be your typical fantasy novel, but it sure is a very good novel. After having read it, I was convinced that I wanted to read more of Gaiman’s books, and so I read The Graveyard Book (which I loved), and Fragile Things (which was okay, but I have never been fond of short stories). I still avoided Stardust. The book, that is. The movie I’ve seen a number of times.


Then, a few weeks ago I was in the market for a nice and friendly read. I went to a bookshop and the book that stood out from all the rest I looked at, was, indeed Stardust. I decided to give it a chance after all, hoping that I wasn’t ruining one of my favourite movies. As it turns out, I wasn’t.

Neil Gaiman did not write the script for Stardust the movie, but he was involved in the process. The movie still has Gaiman’s fingerprints all over it, but there were made certain changes both in plot, structure and characters. Being so familiar with the adaption I had a hard time not comparing the book with the movie when reading. Usually it goes the other way around. You watch a movie after having read the book, and you flinch at every detail the movie makers changed. This time I flinched whenever there were details in the original book that mismatched with the movie adaption.

One thing that threw me off was the ending. I knew that the book had a different conclusion than the movie, but it was different different. That's all. I'm not going to say what made it different, or why this made me unhappy (I'm going to allow you the courtesy of watching the movie and read the book yourself, and then figure out which ending you preferred. See how nice I am?).

Another thing that bothered me with the book was the action sequences. Or lack thereof. Now, I know this is a format thing. It is WAY easier to make a great action scene in a movie where you have all sorts of fancy effects (including sound), than it is in a book. It might even be argued that the failure here is my ability to picture what I read and not Neil Gaiman's lack of action writing skills. My guess, though, is that it is neither. I don't think Gaiman incapable of writing a good action scene, but I think he deliberately chose not to. Stardust the book is not packed with action. The movie is. Both are results of conscious decisions. Gaiman deliberately made the book a little less packed with action, a little more filled with philosophy. However, to me it worked better in the movie. As shallow as that may sound, I missed the swordplay and explosions when reading the book. It was simply too slow-paced for my liking. I don't have a general grudge against slow-paced books, but in this case I knew what the alternative could (should?) have been.

The final point I will adress which separates the book from the adaptation, and which is another major reason why I prefer the movie, has to do with one of the characters. According to the "Making of" video on the DVD, Captain Shakespeare is an invention of Neil Gaiman's. But he is not in the book. Robert De Niro's performance as the pirat captain makes it worth watching the movie alone. Stardust without Captain Shakespeare is like Harry Potter without Dumbledore. Just. Not. The. Same! I realize that Captain Shakespeare without Robert De Niro would not have been the same either, so in this instance the book was bound to loose even if this character had been included.

The bottom line is that I preferred the movie to the book. Partly because I saw the movie first, but probably even more because there were elements in this story that made it better told in the medium of a movie and not in a book. My verdict, then, is that if you are looking for a feel good love story, you should watch Stardust. If you are looking for a great book, you should read American Gods.

On Dirty Dozen (12 movies I will watch again. And again)

Alex J. Cavanaugh is hosting a blog hop today. It seems as though half the blogs in my Google Reader are participating in this, so who am I to think alternative, huh? Nevermind that I already did a list of favourites on Saturday - those were books, this one is dedicated to movies. Anyways, here goes - twelve of my favourite movies (and why):


12. Love Actually

I know a bunch of people who cannot stand this movie – either because it is too sweet, or because it is not sweet enough. Personally I think it has just the right amount of sweetness. I like how the different stories are interwoven, and I like both the ones that work out and the ones that doesn’t. I think two characters in particular are priceless: Hugh Grant’s Prime Minister and Bill Nighy’s Legendary Rock Star.

11. Mamma Mia

I know a bunch of people who cannot stand this movie either, but I honestly have no idea why. Alright, the actors might not be the best of singers, and for a musical that can get annoying. And yes, the story is pretty lame. But HELLO feel good movie! There are half-naked men dancing in flippers!

 10. Catch Me If You Can

When I was 13 I loved Leonardo DiCaprio. You know, before his Bad Boy period, and WAY before his Serious Actor period. I think I watched Titanic 13128943 times, or at least six. But Titanic didn’t make it to this list. Catch Me If You Can did. And it didn’t make it to this list because I love Leonardo DiCaprio anymore (because I don't. I don't know if it is because I grew up or because he did, but somewhere along the way my afections waned). But I do like his acting in this movie, and I do like Tom Hanks’ part as well. What I really, really like about it, though, is the instant feeling of being in the 1960s. It’s a very clever movie, and the sympathetic con man certainly keeps the audience rooting for the criminal.

9. Finding Nemo
On my first overnight flight (to Japan) I watched this movie three times. On my second overnight flight (from Japan, one week later), I watched it three more. This movie is so well-made, so colourful, it promotes several valuable lessons and it is funny on so many levels. The only movie that ever made me want an aquarium.

8. Ronja Rövardotter
Ronja must have been the first fictional character I ever consciously knew I looked up to. This beautiful movie adaption puts modern technology to shame by its use of 1984 hand-animated dolls (I am guessing) for the various creatures living in the forest, mini-models of the fortress that is Ronja’s home and other old-fashioned props and effects. It works like a charm! This movie certainly has a lot of charm. Also I love the (original Swedish) soundtrack, with the robber's choir.




7. Aladdin
It took years before my parents bought a VCR, but once they did our three first movies were Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, Lion King and Aladdin. I watched all of them over and over again – my copy of Beauty and the Beast barely works anymore – but the one I continued to watch when I grew up was Aladdin. I love the humour in this movie, and I think I’d watch it alone for Genie’s jokes.

6. Stardust

I almost didn't watch this one (I have a post coming up on the subject sometime, if I ever get it written), but I am glad that I did, because I absolutely adore it. The cast, the look and feel of it – it’s pure gold. If you liked Princess Bride, then you’ll love this one. It's got magic, fairy tales, difficult love and Ricky Gervais. Who can ask for more?



5. Pirates of the Caribbean. The Curse of the Black Pearl
This movie goes on the list for two main reasons: a) Johnny Depp; b) Keira Knightley’s character’s line: “If you think that hurts, try wearing a corset”. Aside from this, this movie has nearly nothing to offer. You know, aside from wicked swordfights, spectacular sets, an awesome cast, great music, brilliant humour and a wooden eye. I *heart* this movie!



4. Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain

When I took French in high school we watched this movie a zillion times. Since it’s so good, though, that did not make me loathe it (as it very well might have). The character Amélie is amazing – I just love her quirks. The portrait of Paris is gorgeous, and the soundtrack is one of my favourites of all times.

3. Billy Elliot
This movie manages something I admire greatly, both in books and in movies, to treat serious themes respectfully, with warmth and humour. The Britain shown in this movie is one with high unemployment and violent strikes. The problems of a little boy who just wants to dance (but is afraid to breach the local do’s and don’ts) becomes heart-wrenchingly difficult in the midst of these national problems that affect his family directly.






2. Saving Grace

Like Billy Elliot this one is also set in Britain, and money problems is also at the core of this movie. And it is also very funny. But this is where the similarities end. Grace is a recent widow who discovers that her husband’s finances were nothing to be proud of. In a desperate attempt to keep her house and the way of life she is used to, Grace joins her “gardener” (splendidly played by Craig Ferguson) in an illegal sort of agriculture. Especially the tea party scene is priceless.





...aaaand number one is:

1. The English Patient

I cry and I cry every time I see this movie, and it is not (just) because I know I will never get to marry Count Laszlo de Almásy. No, what makes me cry are the tragic (and epic) love stories, the hopelessness of war, how beautiful the desert looks in the yellow light, and, strangely, how sad it is that Willem Dafoe drops an egg on the ground.



















That’s it! 12 movies I am now craving to watch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the epic battle between the book and the movie

It’s an unfair competition – any booklover will tell you that the book is better than the movie in nine out of ten times. Well, this is the tenth time.

The only movie I know that I can – with all my heart – say is better in than the book it adapted, is The Talented Mr. Ripley. After having done some research for the purpose of this post (alright, I googled. It wasn’t hard work. It hardly qualifies as research. I should know), I now realize that there is more than one movie adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s 1955 novel. The one I have seen, and hence the one I shall talk about here, is the 1999 version featuring Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jack Davenport.

The cast alone should merit that this is not just any dismissible movie. Add director Anthony Minghella (The English Patient), and composer Gabriel Yared (also The English Patient, among many, many more), and it is easy to understand why the movie is a good one. However, it’s a long way from a good movie to a movie superior to its preceding book. How come I, of all people, prefer the movie?

Well, one reason I have already presented – the cast and the makers are top-class. Matt Damon delivers a superb performance, as does Seymor Hoffman and Blanchett. Jude Law’s performance is also very memorable – often I find that his acting skills aren’t necessarily why I appreciate his movies (but he sure is pleasant to look at) – however, in this movie the two go hand in hand. The part as a superficial dandy is perfect for him, but I also feel that he manages to take this to another level in this movie, as opposed to similar roles he’s played elsewhere.

Anthony Minghella’s way of setting the mood is probably why I tend to like his movies. It’s a poorly hidden secret that The English Patient is my favourite movie (and even less clandestine is my obsession with Ralph Fiennes as a result of it). What might surprise you, though, is that I don’t love the movie exclusively or even mainly for Fiennes, the story, or the fact that it has me in tears every time. I love it because of its visual beauty. That golden light, the single frames of the desert, the amazing scenery in both settings of the movie – it makes the little hairs in the back of my neck stand up just to think of it. You’ll find much of the same in The Talented Mr. Ripley too. The way Minghella and his team manage to convey the mood of the Italian countryside in the 1950s, the way they use light, shadow, camera angles and music to show the emotions of the characters – it strikes me every time I see it how brilliantly this is done.

In short, it is a good movie. However, this still does not explain why I feel it is better than the book. It is, after all, an acclaimed book, and it cannot have been completely horrid, since it made me read the subsequent four Ripley books (all five are known as “the Ripliad”, Wikipedia informs me). My main reason for preferring the movie is that for this story the movie format seems to be a better fit. Secondly, the movie has a more elegant structure. Finally, Minghella took the best elements from the book and left out the not-so-good ones.

While it’s been a long time since I actually read the book, and thus I cannot remember the specifics anymore, I do remember that I thought it started with explaining too much. The movie does this more cleverly – it starts with the end (though this is not evident until the actual end), and then it proceeds to introducing the main character, the setting, the problem which triggers the plot.

Apart from starting with the end (which can fail miserably, but in this case works), these are the absolute basics of storytelling. If done right, a movie has an advantage over a book here – while the book relies on words alone to tell its story, a movie can also use pictures, music, sounds and props. What I seem to remember from the book is that it tries too hard to introduce Tom Ripley. In the movie this is done so much more efficiently –the plot starts in scene one and it never halts, while Ripley’s character is defined in everything from his behavior to his clothes, his voice, his room, his job… It is a prime example of a successful “show, not tell” – which again naturally comes easier in a movie as opposed to a book.

I know that Highsmith’s novel has some standing within its genre, so it might be arrogant of me to maltreat it like this. Especially since I don’t actually appreciate the genre all that much. Thrillers, crime and mysteries – I personally have a fairly low tolerance for most books in these genres. There are some exceptions (Agatha Christie being the most notable one), and I’m not saying that I cannot appreciate others. It just takes more for me to read and enjoy these than general fiction. Ironically, though, I quite like movies within the same genres. It’s a matter of taste, and I simply seem to prefer my murders on screen rather than on paper. In this case, though, my criticism isn’t so much against the novel as it is one praising the movie.

The visual plays a significant role in the story – Tom Ripley’s transformation, his slipping into one character after another – this is something that is ultimately easier to show in a movie, and especially when you have a skilled actor like Matt Damon to do it. Highsmith’s idea is a good one, but a movie is a better format for execution of the idea.

Finally, I prefer the ending in the movie to the one in the book. This is where the movie leaves out some elements (possibly attempting to avoid a “Ripliad” of movies as well – though if this was the intention, it was not successful, since at least three more Ripley-movies were made, only one of which I have seen, featuring John Malchovitz as Ripley. Strangely enough I found this one terrible).

One thing I should point out is that I read the book only after having seen the movie (while I read book number two before I saw movie number two – can we see a pattern? If so I am ignoring it). While this affects how you read the book, I still think I would have preferred the movie (in fact, I think I might not have read the book if it hadn’t been for the movie, and even if I had read the book first I very likely wouldn’t have bothered watching the movie afterwards).

Bottom line – in this case there were a number of reasons why I preferred the movie. The most important one, however, was that it told the story better than I felt the original book did. This is almost never the case. Partly because very few movie makers employ all the possibilities the format has for great storytelling (it seems that entertaining is more important). Partly because many authors are great storytellers makes the most out of their format. And partly because, as a booklover, what I adore the most about a great book is that it gives me the opportunity to form my own pictures, my own details, my own soundtrack, even. A movie, even a very good one, does not allow me this pleasure. This is why the movie almost never can compete with the book.