Well, this is how my mind works. I was stacking firewood on my front porch. It was quite cold. Naturally, in the monotony of the task my mind wandered on to better things. It took the usual route. First it was food. Then breasts. It lingered there for a while, before switching to movies.
In the end I thought about the X-Men. They have two movies currently in production: one is the sequel to X-Men: First Class (called X-Men: Days of Futures Past) which is supposed to merge the prequel/reboot with the original trilogy. The other is The Wolverine. Both movies will feature Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine. And I thought, Hugh Jackman is like the definitive Wolverine. He has played the role in every X-Men feature and spinoff because not only is Wolverine everyone's favorite member of the team, but Hugh Jackman nails it. The thing is, Wolverine does not age. Hugh Jackman does. So what happens when Jackman is too old for Wolverine? I mean, he has already been reprising the role for nearly 15 years, eventually it's going to show.
I guess the answer would be to move on to another actor. It's not impossible to find someone else who could handle the role. Who knows, maybe he be an even better Wolverine. But, I've been thinking. Does that really have to happen? This is the 21st century! Nowadays, they can do just about anything with CGI. Just look at Avatar. Actually, don't. That movie was kind of stupid. Look at Lord of the Rings instead, and how Gollum is played by a dude in a green suit.
One thing they have been toying with, but haven't quite perfected yet, is creating a three-dimensional model of a recognizable human face. And they've tried a few times. In Tron: Legacy, the character CLU was played by a body-double with a computerized model of Jeff Bridges head from a 1980s movie superimposed onto it. And Bridges did voiceover work for the part. It was mostly convincing, but obviously not a real human.There is also Terminator Salvation, which did the same thing with a model of a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger's head in order to recreate the Terminator. The only other example I can think of is actually a commercial for Galaxy Chocolate, in which Audrey Hepburn's likeness is completely artificial (and quite eerie, as she smiles and eats chocolate).
So I was thinking, if Fox owns the rights to the character Wolverine, they can make him look like whatever they want, right? Even if it happens to look exactly like Hugh Jackman? So once Hugh can no longer keep up with the physical needs of the Wolverine character, they could just make a mold of his features and create a digital model that can be used whenever they need it. I suppose he'd have to contribute voice work for a while. But it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to replicate the voice too.
My point is, just like 3D, CG facial likenesses are probably going to get used more and more, for better and worse. And one interesting use would be to keep Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine for another 10 or 15 X-Men movies. What do you think? Would it be more traditional/sensible to eventually get a new actor in the role? Or should the studio just say 'what the hell' and keep Jackman in the role forever? It would be pretty cinematically groundbreaking, not just technologically, but also because it would actually immortalize an immortal character. Think about it.
And for those of you who were wondering how the wood stacking went...some of it was kind of wet. And even though it's early March, there were snails and fungus clinging to some of the downward-facing pieces. That's why it's important to wear gloves.
Oh, and here's a link to the Audrey Hepburn Galaxy Chocolate commercial.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
The Show is Written ABOUT Zombies, Not FOR Them
Look, I hate to do this before the season is over. But I am having trouble holding my breath for the rest of season 3 of The Walking Dead. And besides, I haven't written anything in a while.
What the hell is going on? The show just came back a few weeks ago from its midseason break, and absolutely nothing has happened since. The last three weeks in particular seem to have been written with the sole purpose of wasting time until the season finale. If you haven't seen them, let me recap.
GOVERNOR, to Andrea: If you go to the prison, that's it. Don't come back. You will be our enemy.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: Okay.
[At the prison]
ANDREA: I'm alive!
RICK: Meh.
ANDREA: The Governor is a good guy. I slept with him, I should know.
MICHONNE: He's crazy.
MAGGIE: He tried to rape me.
GLENN: He had Merle try to feed me to a walker.
RICK: He came here and opened fire on unarmed men and women walking around in the daylight.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: You're all wrong. He doesn't want a war. I have to go.
RICK: If you're one of us, you'll stay. If you go, that's it. Don't come back. You will be our enemy. [Andrea leaves]
RICK: We will kill the Governor, first chance we get. Nothing will change my mind about that.
[At Woodbury]
GOVERNOR: You're back.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: Did you really try to kill Glenn, rape Maggie, make Daryl and Merle kill each other, and shoot unarmed men and women?
GOVERNOR: ...
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: You're not a monster. Let's have sex.
THE END
[Rick, Michonne, and Carl are in a car.]
RANDOM, DESPERATE SURVIVOR ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD: Help me! Help! PLEASEEEEE!
RICK: Ignore him. I hate everyone. We need to learn to leave people behind. By the way, Michonne, I don't trust you.
[In some town]
MORGAN, disguised with mask: Hand over your guns, or die!
RICK: No!
[Bullets. Michonne teleports to a rooftop. Morgan walks out on the street and Carl shoots him.]
CARL: I shot him.
RICK: Carl, my helpless son who used to run through the zombie-infested woods around Hershel's farm, and then through the dark zombie-infested hallways of the prison, completely unattended, are you okay? Are you mentally scarred by any of this?
CARL: It's what mom would have wanted.
RICK: Michonne, I trust you now, babysit my son for a while. [Michonne and Carl leave.]
RICK: Morgan, it's me, Rick.
MORGAN: I don't know you.
RICK: Yes you do!
MORGAN: Okay, I know you.
RICK: Come back with us.
MORGAN: No.
RICK: I never leave a man behind! We have to hold on to our humanity.
MORGAN: What about that survivor on the highway? The one who, even though we are now over a year into the zombie apocalypse, is still helplessly running around trying to figure out what's going on, while I, a civilian, have managed to stockpile a room full of automatic weapons, carve hundreds of spears out of broom handles, as well as capture a bunch of rats and rodents to use as bait?
RICK: Okay, you're right. I'll see ya later.
[Meanwhile...]
CARL: I have to kill all the walkers in this diner that has no significance to viewers.
MICHONNE: I have a better idea. [Michonne teleports in, gets whatever Carl wanted, and teleports back.] Here you go.
[Michonne and Carl return to Rick.]
RICK: Okay let's go. I hope nothing at all of importance has been going on with the prison or Woodbury.
[As they drive away, they pass the random, desperate survivor on the side of the road, who has since been disemboweled. After a full year, he hasn't even learned to run from a walker.]
THE END
Episode 13: "Arrow on the Doorstep"
[Rick shows up at some factory, with Hershel and Daryl. The Governor is already there. Andrea arrives with Martinez and Milton.]
[Outside]
MARTINEZ: Fuck you!
DARYL: Fuck you!
MILTON: I am a man of science. Can't you tell by this notebook! We don't want to fight.
HERSHEL: Neither do we. I am missing a leg, and am therefore the sensible one of the two of us.
MILTON: We're not so different.
HERSHEL: Yea, but we're going to have to kill each other anyway because we need a season finale.
[Inside]
RICK: Who arranged this meeting?
GOVERNOR: I will gladly kill you and all of your friends, just because I don't give a shit.
RICK: I won't let that happen.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: Look, I believe that...
RICK: Shut up!
GOVERNOR: Go away!
[Andrea goes outside]
HERSHEL, to Andrea: You belong with us. If you're one of us, you'll stay with us. If you go, that's it. Don't come back. You will be our enemy.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: I think I'll come with you.
[Inside]
GOVERNOR: Okay, I am a man of my word. And I think, sitting down like this, with a table and chairs and everything, you have no reason not to trust me, even though I keep smiling maniacally every time I say something that is obviously not true.
RICK: You're right. I trust you. What do you want?
GOVERNOR: Michonne. Let me rape and torture that bitch, and you can keep the prison.
RICK: Hm, that is some noble reasoning. I'll think about it.
[Rick, Hershel, and Daryl go back to the prison. Andrea, Martinez, the Governor, and Milton head back to Woodbury.]
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent, to the Governor: How'd it go? What's the plan? Everything work out?
GOVERNOR, smiling maniacally: Ohhh yes, it's been worked out. Worked out real good. Mwahahaha!
THE END
So we have three full 42-minute episodes of characters saying one thing and then doing another for really no other reason than to take up time. I find it irresponsible that AMC or the writers or whoever would push for an extended season of 16 episodes, knowing that there's not enough story to fill it.
Now, I have also read the comics. And I appreciate that the TV series is a completely different story, and therefore I will not stress over the immense liberties being taken with the source material. But one thing that gets me is that the characters are actually more interesting on paper. In the comics, we see that the Governor is insane and not just because Michonne gets a bad feeling about him. And Tyreese, that dude who just wandered into the big gaping hole in the prison at the end of the first half of season three, is supposed to play a huge role in defending the prison. In the show, he and his group represented a huge cliffhanger before the break. But instead they tossed him and the others out after one episode, and he is only mentioned again once since then. The same goes for Morgan. Why bother mentioning the character again if you're just going to drop him at the end of the episode. What a waste of time.
In the show, they managed to drag Hershel's farm out for an entire season, when in the comics the group wasn't there for very long. And yet they WERE at the prison for a pretty long time time. And a lot of interesting stuff happened to them. But the writers opted to cut out all of the good stuff, and throw in a bunch of dead ends and plot holes. And worst of all: where are the zombies!? For three seasons, the show has sacrificed any significant character development to showcase the blood and gore. But in the last few episodes we have been seen an walkers, let alone feel threatened by or afraid of them.
I certainly hope they put the next three episodes to good use. They can only build up tension between Rick and the Governor so far without actually doing anything. And that's what everyone is waiting for.
What the hell is going on? The show just came back a few weeks ago from its midseason break, and absolutely nothing has happened since. The last three weeks in particular seem to have been written with the sole purpose of wasting time until the season finale. If you haven't seen them, let me recap.
Episode 11: "I ain't a Judas"
GOVERNOR, to Andrea: If you go to the prison, that's it. Don't come back. You will be our enemy.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: Okay.
[At the prison]
ANDREA: I'm alive!
RICK: Meh.
ANDREA: The Governor is a good guy. I slept with him, I should know.
MICHONNE: He's crazy.
MAGGIE: He tried to rape me.
GLENN: He had Merle try to feed me to a walker.
RICK: He came here and opened fire on unarmed men and women walking around in the daylight.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: You're all wrong. He doesn't want a war. I have to go.
RICK: If you're one of us, you'll stay. If you go, that's it. Don't come back. You will be our enemy. [Andrea leaves]
RICK: We will kill the Governor, first chance we get. Nothing will change my mind about that.
[At Woodbury]
GOVERNOR: You're back.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: Did you really try to kill Glenn, rape Maggie, make Daryl and Merle kill each other, and shoot unarmed men and women?
GOVERNOR: ...
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: You're not a monster. Let's have sex.
THE END
Episode 12: "Clear"
RANDOM, DESPERATE SURVIVOR ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD: Help me! Help! PLEASEEEEE!
RICK: Ignore him. I hate everyone. We need to learn to leave people behind. By the way, Michonne, I don't trust you.
[In some town]
MORGAN, disguised with mask: Hand over your guns, or die!
RICK: No!
[Bullets. Michonne teleports to a rooftop. Morgan walks out on the street and Carl shoots him.]
CARL: I shot him.
RICK: Carl, my helpless son who used to run through the zombie-infested woods around Hershel's farm, and then through the dark zombie-infested hallways of the prison, completely unattended, are you okay? Are you mentally scarred by any of this?
CARL: It's what mom would have wanted.
RICK: Michonne, I trust you now, babysit my son for a while. [Michonne and Carl leave.]
RICK: Morgan, it's me, Rick.
MORGAN: I don't know you.
RICK: Yes you do!
MORGAN: Okay, I know you.
RICK: Come back with us.
MORGAN: No.
RICK: I never leave a man behind! We have to hold on to our humanity.
MORGAN: What about that survivor on the highway? The one who, even though we are now over a year into the zombie apocalypse, is still helplessly running around trying to figure out what's going on, while I, a civilian, have managed to stockpile a room full of automatic weapons, carve hundreds of spears out of broom handles, as well as capture a bunch of rats and rodents to use as bait?
RICK: Okay, you're right. I'll see ya later.
[Meanwhile...]
CARL: I have to kill all the walkers in this diner that has no significance to viewers.
MICHONNE: I have a better idea. [Michonne teleports in, gets whatever Carl wanted, and teleports back.] Here you go.
[Michonne and Carl return to Rick.]
RICK: Okay let's go. I hope nothing at all of importance has been going on with the prison or Woodbury.
[As they drive away, they pass the random, desperate survivor on the side of the road, who has since been disemboweled. After a full year, he hasn't even learned to run from a walker.]
THE END
Episode 13: "Arrow on the Doorstep"
[Rick shows up at some factory, with Hershel and Daryl. The Governor is already there. Andrea arrives with Martinez and Milton.]
[Outside]
MARTINEZ: Fuck you!
DARYL: Fuck you!
MILTON: I am a man of science. Can't you tell by this notebook! We don't want to fight.
HERSHEL: Neither do we. I am missing a leg, and am therefore the sensible one of the two of us.
MILTON: We're not so different.
HERSHEL: Yea, but we're going to have to kill each other anyway because we need a season finale.
[Inside]
RICK: Who arranged this meeting?
GOVERNOR: I will gladly kill you and all of your friends, just because I don't give a shit.
RICK: I won't let that happen.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: Look, I believe that...
RICK: Shut up!
GOVERNOR: Go away!
[Andrea goes outside]
HERSHEL, to Andrea: You belong with us. If you're one of us, you'll stay with us. If you go, that's it. Don't come back. You will be our enemy.
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent: I think I'll come with you.
[Inside]
GOVERNOR: Okay, I am a man of my word. And I think, sitting down like this, with a table and chairs and everything, you have no reason not to trust me, even though I keep smiling maniacally every time I say something that is obviously not true.
RICK: You're right. I trust you. What do you want?
GOVERNOR: Michonne. Let me rape and torture that bitch, and you can keep the prison.
RICK: Hm, that is some noble reasoning. I'll think about it.
[Rick, Hershel, and Daryl go back to the prison. Andrea, Martinez, the Governor, and Milton head back to Woodbury.]
ANDREA, looking shocked and ambivalent, to the Governor: How'd it go? What's the plan? Everything work out?
GOVERNOR, smiling maniacally: Ohhh yes, it's been worked out. Worked out real good. Mwahahaha!
THE END
So we have three full 42-minute episodes of characters saying one thing and then doing another for really no other reason than to take up time. I find it irresponsible that AMC or the writers or whoever would push for an extended season of 16 episodes, knowing that there's not enough story to fill it.
Now, I have also read the comics. And I appreciate that the TV series is a completely different story, and therefore I will not stress over the immense liberties being taken with the source material. But one thing that gets me is that the characters are actually more interesting on paper. In the comics, we see that the Governor is insane and not just because Michonne gets a bad feeling about him. And Tyreese, that dude who just wandered into the big gaping hole in the prison at the end of the first half of season three, is supposed to play a huge role in defending the prison. In the show, he and his group represented a huge cliffhanger before the break. But instead they tossed him and the others out after one episode, and he is only mentioned again once since then. The same goes for Morgan. Why bother mentioning the character again if you're just going to drop him at the end of the episode. What a waste of time.
In the show, they managed to drag Hershel's farm out for an entire season, when in the comics the group wasn't there for very long. And yet they WERE at the prison for a pretty long time time. And a lot of interesting stuff happened to them. But the writers opted to cut out all of the good stuff, and throw in a bunch of dead ends and plot holes. And worst of all: where are the zombies!? For three seasons, the show has sacrificed any significant character development to showcase the blood and gore. But in the last few episodes we have been seen an walkers, let alone feel threatened by or afraid of them.
I certainly hope they put the next three episodes to good use. They can only build up tension between Rick and the Governor so far without actually doing anything. And that's what everyone is waiting for.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Sorry, We Already Have a George
So what's the deal with two or more movies coming out in the same year that have essentially the same premise. And I am not talking about the straight-to-DVD copycats with similar titles, like Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies and Hansel and Gretel: Warriors of Witchcraft. I mean theatrical features produced by the top studios. I suppose it's not a new concept, but it seems to be more popular this year and last. To celebrate the current lack of originality in Hollywood, which is wrought with sequels, reboots, and, parodies, I thought I would honor some of the most original unoriginal ideas.
The oldest pair that comes to mind is A Bug's Life and Antz. Do I really have to explain what they're about? Both are animated. One represents America's premier animation studio (Pixar) in the early stages of its eventual empire, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone. One is entertaining for children and adults of all ages, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone.
A year or two ago there we saw No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. And when I say 'we saw', what I mean is, 'maybe some people saw it, but I wasn't one of them'. Nevertheless they are both about friends having sex with each other and, I assume, falling in love. They both feature actresses who were much better in Black Swan. And they both feature leading men who should stop stepping in front of cameras: Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher.
A year before that, Kutcher also gave us Killers, which is the age old romantic comedy about a seemingly normal guy who is actually a secret agent, and the dumb blonde who follows him around and falls in love with him. It's a carbon copy of the Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz masterpiece, Knight and Day.
There was that period where all we wanted to see was grim, post-apocalyptic movies where the cause of the end of the world is unknown, but everything is cold, dead, and brownish-colored. Now let me just point out that all other pairs of movies in this post came out in the same year. Which is my point. And I say that, because technically The Road and The Book of Eli were released in two different years, but it was only by a couple months, so I'm still including. And yes, you can argue that they are completely different, and original movies. To which I reply: Eh, not really.
The Dark Knight showed us that not all superhero movies have to be Superhero Movies. So in one year we got a pair of films about guys who are tired of the crime around them, and so they dress up in shitty outfits and try to take down mobsters. Those films are Kick-Ass and Super.
Speaking of Christopher Nolan, The Prestige was an awesome mind-bending movie with clones and magic and David Bowie. The Illusionist was about...well, illusions, I guess.
Which brings me to 2012. It's not like a studio doesn't know that another studio is doing the same thing. So...is it a race? Is it a competition? I haven't seen Paranorman or Frankenweenie, but they both appear to be reimagined horror stories with Tim Burton-style animation, for kids. And even their covers are too similar to care if either of them are any good. Also last year we got two different interpretations of Honest Abe, one Oscar-bait biopic starring Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) and the other a what-if scenario in which the Confederates are actually vampires (the aptly titles Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). Finally, we were treated to not one, but two dramatized live-action reinterpretations of the Snow White fairy tale: Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman.
This year seems to be continuing with the fairy tales, as we have already gotten Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Jack the Giant Slayer. Okay, so maybe these movies are not quite about the exact same thing. It just seems like in the long run they are using similar source material to accomplish the same things, and are unsuccessful in both cases. Later on this year we will get two competing movies featuring A-list actors (Tom Cruise again, and Will Smith) returning to Earth after some futuristic war forced humanity to abandon it, in After Earth and Oblivion. And we'll also get two movies with the EXACT same plot -- Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down -- which, if the titles aren't clear enough, are both about terrorists taking over the White House.
Those are the only ones I bothered to come up with. If you can think of more, feel free to point them out in the comments. One could also make the same argument with TV shows. Just watch this video:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/48e76dcdab/i-can-t-believe-these-are-all-tv-shows
UPDATE:
Let's Add:
The Movie 43 and Inappropriate Comedy
Scary Movie 5 and A Haunted House
Red Planet and Mission to Mars
Colombiana and Haywire
The oldest pair that comes to mind is A Bug's Life and Antz. Do I really have to explain what they're about? Both are animated. One represents America's premier animation studio (Pixar) in the early stages of its eventual empire, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone. One is entertaining for children and adults of all ages, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone.
A year or two ago there we saw No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. And when I say 'we saw', what I mean is, 'maybe some people saw it, but I wasn't one of them'. Nevertheless they are both about friends having sex with each other and, I assume, falling in love. They both feature actresses who were much better in Black Swan. And they both feature leading men who should stop stepping in front of cameras: Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher.
A year before that, Kutcher also gave us Killers, which is the age old romantic comedy about a seemingly normal guy who is actually a secret agent, and the dumb blonde who follows him around and falls in love with him. It's a carbon copy of the Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz masterpiece, Knight and Day.
There was that period where all we wanted to see was grim, post-apocalyptic movies where the cause of the end of the world is unknown, but everything is cold, dead, and brownish-colored. Now let me just point out that all other pairs of movies in this post came out in the same year. Which is my point. And I say that, because technically The Road and The Book of Eli were released in two different years, but it was only by a couple months, so I'm still including. And yes, you can argue that they are completely different, and original movies. To which I reply: Eh, not really.
The Dark Knight showed us that not all superhero movies have to be Superhero Movies. So in one year we got a pair of films about guys who are tired of the crime around them, and so they dress up in shitty outfits and try to take down mobsters. Those films are Kick-Ass and Super.
Speaking of Christopher Nolan, The Prestige was an awesome mind-bending movie with clones and magic and David Bowie. The Illusionist was about...well, illusions, I guess.
Which brings me to 2012. It's not like a studio doesn't know that another studio is doing the same thing. So...is it a race? Is it a competition? I haven't seen Paranorman or Frankenweenie, but they both appear to be reimagined horror stories with Tim Burton-style animation, for kids. And even their covers are too similar to care if either of them are any good. Also last year we got two different interpretations of Honest Abe, one Oscar-bait biopic starring Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) and the other a what-if scenario in which the Confederates are actually vampires (the aptly titles Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). Finally, we were treated to not one, but two dramatized live-action reinterpretations of the Snow White fairy tale: Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman.
This year seems to be continuing with the fairy tales, as we have already gotten Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Jack the Giant Slayer. Okay, so maybe these movies are not quite about the exact same thing. It just seems like in the long run they are using similar source material to accomplish the same things, and are unsuccessful in both cases. Later on this year we will get two competing movies featuring A-list actors (Tom Cruise again, and Will Smith) returning to Earth after some futuristic war forced humanity to abandon it, in After Earth and Oblivion. And we'll also get two movies with the EXACT same plot -- Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down -- which, if the titles aren't clear enough, are both about terrorists taking over the White House.
Those are the only ones I bothered to come up with. If you can think of more, feel free to point them out in the comments. One could also make the same argument with TV shows. Just watch this video:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/48e76dcdab/i-can-t-believe-these-are-all-tv-shows
UPDATE:
Let's Add:
The Movie 43 and Inappropriate Comedy
Scary Movie 5 and A Haunted House
Red Planet and Mission to Mars
Colombiana and Haywire
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Silent Movies
The other day I attended a screening of the black and white silent film Sherlock Jr., starring Buster Keaton. Now, I never took a film class in college. Mainly because all of the interesting classes were upper-level and I didn't have the time or the desire to take the introductory prerequisites. So I am not really familiar with film technology in the first decades of the twentieth century, nor am I more than casually versed in the works of iconic performers like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. But, I have to say, the sophistication of Sherlock Jr. really surprised and amazed me.
First off, I personally find Buster Keaton more entertaining than Charlie Chaplin, despite the latter being generally accepted as the more influential celebrity. For one thing, Keaton wears a constant frown that perfectly mixes the gloomy moroseness of his character with an adorably juvenile innocence. It exemplifies his character much like the mustache and walking stick for Chaplin. Keaton rarely speaks; his thoughts and feelings are expressed purely through the tones of his frown, and his actions, which, again unlike Chaplin, are very subtle and contemplative.
In Sherlock Jr. what impressed me most were the visual effects that seemed decades ahead of their time. In particular, there was a dream sequence in which Keaton falls asleep in the projection room of a movie theater. A semi-transparent out-of-body Keaton appears and visualizes himself in the movie playing on the screen. To show this happening, the players on the screen are shown at the same scale as live actors on a stage. It was barely noticeable when the switch happened, and I was almost confused when Keaton, watching the movie, ran up and jumped into the scene.
What happened next was even more impressive. The scene was still set up as to be on a movie screen, two-dimensional and bordered. But as Keaton tried to go to the woman in the scene, the setting kept changing, while his body, clearly inside each scene, remained independent. It's hard to explain, but it reminded me of a black and white version of the movie Jumper. At first he is on a lawn with a bench. As he goes to sit down, the entire set changes to a desert and he falls over. It was simple and comical, but it must required an immense about of planning and editing to make his movements flow smoothly through ten or fifteen settings.
There were also some stunts, performed by Keaton, that were so quick and nonchalant they must have been real. For example, from a second- or third-story rooftop he jumps and grabs onto a railroad crossing pole and hangs on while it falls to the ground, landing perfectly in the back seat of an open-top car. The camera gives a wide, steady shot of the whole sequence, so you know there are no camera tricks, no support cables, and certainly no mattresses between the pole and roof in case he fell.
The last thing I wanted to mention was a scene where Keaton is playing pool. The gag is that his enemies have placed an explosive '13' ball on the table, hoping that Keaton will hit it. Miraculously, Keaton -- again, without every hesitating or changes his facial expression -- perfectly pockets every ball except the rigged one, which is never touched. The camera only switches away a few times, but there are several shots of Keaton taking four or five shots -- trick shots included -- and perfectly pocketing his target without moving the explosive ball at all. Either I am missing some very sophisticated camera work, or Keaton is a master pool player.
My point is, you don't really expect a black and white movie to be that entertaining. And if anything you expect the humor to be outdated and awkward. But I was surprised at how funny and relatable this story is and how well-done the creative the stunts and illusions are. It is strange to think that movies that didn't even have sound could feature convincing and sophisticated camera tricks. If you ever get the urge to watch something different, I would recommend Buster Keaton.
First off, I personally find Buster Keaton more entertaining than Charlie Chaplin, despite the latter being generally accepted as the more influential celebrity. For one thing, Keaton wears a constant frown that perfectly mixes the gloomy moroseness of his character with an adorably juvenile innocence. It exemplifies his character much like the mustache and walking stick for Chaplin. Keaton rarely speaks; his thoughts and feelings are expressed purely through the tones of his frown, and his actions, which, again unlike Chaplin, are very subtle and contemplative.
In Sherlock Jr. what impressed me most were the visual effects that seemed decades ahead of their time. In particular, there was a dream sequence in which Keaton falls asleep in the projection room of a movie theater. A semi-transparent out-of-body Keaton appears and visualizes himself in the movie playing on the screen. To show this happening, the players on the screen are shown at the same scale as live actors on a stage. It was barely noticeable when the switch happened, and I was almost confused when Keaton, watching the movie, ran up and jumped into the scene.
What happened next was even more impressive. The scene was still set up as to be on a movie screen, two-dimensional and bordered. But as Keaton tried to go to the woman in the scene, the setting kept changing, while his body, clearly inside each scene, remained independent. It's hard to explain, but it reminded me of a black and white version of the movie Jumper. At first he is on a lawn with a bench. As he goes to sit down, the entire set changes to a desert and he falls over. It was simple and comical, but it must required an immense about of planning and editing to make his movements flow smoothly through ten or fifteen settings.
There were also some stunts, performed by Keaton, that were so quick and nonchalant they must have been real. For example, from a second- or third-story rooftop he jumps and grabs onto a railroad crossing pole and hangs on while it falls to the ground, landing perfectly in the back seat of an open-top car. The camera gives a wide, steady shot of the whole sequence, so you know there are no camera tricks, no support cables, and certainly no mattresses between the pole and roof in case he fell.
The last thing I wanted to mention was a scene where Keaton is playing pool. The gag is that his enemies have placed an explosive '13' ball on the table, hoping that Keaton will hit it. Miraculously, Keaton -- again, without every hesitating or changes his facial expression -- perfectly pockets every ball except the rigged one, which is never touched. The camera only switches away a few times, but there are several shots of Keaton taking four or five shots -- trick shots included -- and perfectly pocketing his target without moving the explosive ball at all. Either I am missing some very sophisticated camera work, or Keaton is a master pool player.
My point is, you don't really expect a black and white movie to be that entertaining. And if anything you expect the humor to be outdated and awkward. But I was surprised at how funny and relatable this story is and how well-done the creative the stunts and illusions are. It is strange to think that movies that didn't even have sound could feature convincing and sophisticated camera tricks. If you ever get the urge to watch something different, I would recommend Buster Keaton.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
An Evening with James Bond and Bruce Wayne
Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of watching the movie Skyfall again, which I had seen previously in theaters over the summer. Afterwards, I made a fairly obvious but for some reason untold observation: Skyfall and The
Before I continue, let me make it clear that I think both movies are fantastic, and they are among my favorite films. I am not attacking either of them, or in any way accusing one of plagiarizing the other. But the fact is, the characters, themes, imagery, and even dialogue, is so similar that it is hard to ignore.
Now, maybe I am just having a false revelation here. Maybe all movies in this genre have the same general structure and I just never noticed. But that can't be, because for one thing, both of these movies are instant classics; they seemingly take what we already know and do something different and awesome with it.
James Bond/007 is obviously Bruce Wayne/Batman. Both are orphans who come from money, but are set on their life course by the tragic events surrounding their parents' deaths. They run off at an early age and are taken in and trained to be deadly weapons (in Skyfall, M hints at this during a conversation with Bond. In The Dark Knight, it is expounded in the prequel, Batman Begins). In a way, both of them develop dual identities from their experiences in order to hide the pain of their childhood. Bruce Wayne turns his inner fears into his outward strength, by creating the Batman. While there is an external struggle of Batman trying to be the hero, Bruce Wayne is in fact, the man bogged down by his demons. He is human, and even though he believes the Batman is a necessity, he yearns to take off the mask, and pursue a life with Rachel. Likewise, 007 is a role James Bond must play in order to be the hero, but over the course of the movie we see that his status as the poster child for MI6 is taking a significant mental and physical toll on him.
Silva, Skyfall's villain is pretty much the Joker, with less makeup. Both of them are bad guys the likes of which no one has really seen before. Gotham, a city constantly dealing with mobsters and internal corruption, is caught off guard by the lunatic Joker, only interested in chaos and misery. MI6 is unprepared for the high-tech assault by Silva. Both villains represent the antithesis to the hero. Silva was, like Bond, an agent at MI6. He points out that he and Bond are victims of M's mother-like control over them, but that they are survivors—the two remaining rats in the barrel, as he puts it. He also warns that eventually M will turn against Bond, just as she did with him. In The Dark Knight, the Joker gives Batman a similar piece of advice: "To them you're just a freak, like me. They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out. Like a leper." He insists that Batman's talents are wasted on his commitment to justice and his inability to take a life. The Joker targets Harvey Dent, in the hopes of turning 'Gotham's white knight' in a villain. Silva wants to destroy M's reputation and villainize her before the rest of England's government. Both of them are successful. Even their methods are sort of equal and opposite. The Joker believes in low-tech terrorism; he repeats how much damage one can do with dynamite, gasoline and bullets. He threatens to kill more Gothamites each day until Batman reveals his true identity. Silva, on the other hand, uses technology to terrorize England. He hacks MI6, and then uses YouTube to release the identities of their undercover operatives each week. Furthermore, Silva and Joker both come off as being overly theatrical weirdos with mysterious aliases, and then turn out to be ten steps ahead of the good guys for 90% of the movie. Interestingly, both have somewhat startling facial deformities as a result of their past transgressions, and both give disturbing accounts of how they got those deformities.
M is equivalent to Harvey Dent. Both of them represent the public face of the hero's questionable methods of justice. M at first makes the mistake of thinking 007 is expendable, and allows him to be shot. This, combined with Silva's actions, call into question the effectiveness of the '00' program, which M has to defend in court. Over the course of the film, she realizes that Bond is necessary for the security of Great Britain (and the world). Harvey Dent wants to have the Batman arrested and is suspicious of his intentions, but then realizes the value of an incorruptible symbol of justice working behind the scenes. Eventually, both become the target of the respective villains, and have to be protected by the hero throughout the movie. And (spoiler alert) both of them eventually meet their demise in the arms of the hero, but only after the villain is apprehended/killed.
Q and Lucius Fox are identical in that they are technological geniuses with humorous dispositions. They have access to, for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources. They do not work directly for the hero, and they outfit the hero with exciting gadgetry. Lucius Fox even creates a sonar-based map of the entire city, much like the subterranean map of London that Q comes up with while searching through Silva's encrypted software.
One could also argue that Mallory and Commissioner Gordon are analogous. Gordon and Dent have different methods and goals for cleaning up Gotham, and they argue over what the role of the Batman should be. When Dent eventually dies, Gordon becomes Batman's closest ally. Likewise, Mallory at first butts heads with M about the necessity of the '00' program and the usefulness of Bond. But over the course of the film, he comes to respect M and Bond, and when M is killed, he takes over M's job as the director of MI6. There is even the courtroom in which Silva attacks M, but is protected by Mallory until Bond can come to the rescue, which is fairly similar to when the Joker attacked Dent's convoy, and Gordon had to keep him safe until Batman neutralized the threat.
The supporting cast also seems to fill the same the roles in either film. For example, Severine and Rachel are love interests who represent a way out for the hero. But in both cases, the villain gives the hero an ultimatum that results in the woman's death, reinforcing the hero's rage and desire for revenge. Kincade (the man at the Skyfall estate) and Alfred, are both caretakers that have known the hero since they were children and understand the events that created the hero's inner struggles.
The settings in both movies are like characters as well. Batman's mansion and access to his bat-cave were destroyed in Batman Begins. So in The Dark Knight he is using an underground facility somewhere in Gotham. In Skyfall, MI6 is compromised, so Bond has to report to the new headquarters in a WWII bunker. In both cases, the setting represents how the hero has been stripped of what he is used to, and must retool with what is available to him. (Interesting sidebar about settings: both heroes fight and capture a minor villain in a poorly-lit -- but also kind of blue-tinted -- skyscraper in China.)
Even the themes in each movie are the same. Much like Dent's two-headed coin, Dent and Batman are opposite faces of justice in Gotham, but both of them are essential. A great line from The Dark Knight, by Dent is: "You either die the hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." In a way, he is talking about himself and Bruce Wayne alike. If he had died in the explosion that the Joker orchestrated, he would have died the white knight of Gotham. Instead, he lived, and the Joker warped him into Two-Face. Batman survived to take down the Joker and-Two Face, but was then accused of murdering Dent and became public enemy number one. The same quote applies to Skyfall. Silva is like an earlier version of Bond; he was favored by M and a hero to his country. But he became too ambitious and rebellious, and M turned him over to the enemies of MI6. After being tortured and attempting suicide, and surviving, he turned his anger and frustration against his former masters.
There are a number of more specific plot and dialogue connections that I just don't see the point of going into. But the fact is, these movies match up astonishingly well. In a way, one could argue that they deserve to be the same. Both have similar histories. Batman has been around on the big screen since the sixties, and has undergone a number of renovations and reinterpretations. He started out as a goofy hero with absurd gadgets, and peculiar villains. But has since been reborn into a much more vivid and believable world. All of this describes the history of James Bond as well. And for both franchises, these two movies in particular represent benchmarks in the story. They take the classic ideas of the franchise and reinterpret it for a modern, more realistic world.
Monday, February 18, 2013
These Pretzels Are Making Me Thirsty!
We need to talk about food chains. I mean the 'family restaurant' chains that advertise a good time with good food and friends and what not. I recently went out to one of these places and realized two things: that they are all pretty much the same, and they all suck.
I go with two other people. We have to wait fifteen minutes or so for a table. This isn't a big deal. Though it was mildly surprising, because it was Valentine's Day. I understand people taking their loved ones out for a romantic, intimate, and delectable meal for Valentine's Day, and let's just say Applebee's would not have been my first choice for that. Nevertheless the place was packed.
We finally get seated at a booth against the wall in the back. Right behind us is the register where all the waiters are tallying up their tables' bills. And here is my first wave of complaints. For one thing, why are these places always so over-staffed? There is consistently half a dozen employees standing around the register talking (and occasionally using profanity) and arguing about work and life. In my opinion, at no time should there be employees just lingering around waiting for something to do. Especially in a packed restaurant. If they want to chit chat, they can take a five minute break and go outside. I can't even hear what the other people in my booth are saying to me, over their complaints about The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Which brings me to something else: don't you dare talk about a show or movie that I have also seen, in my presence, without meeting the intellectual and analytic standards that I demand in conversation.
Anyways, our seater seats us, someone else comes over and introduces herself as waiter A, but tells us that waiter B will be serving us tonight. So what is her purpose exactly? She leaves. Waiter B arrives to take our drink order (we never see waiter A again) and asks if we'd like any of the house specials. We ask him what they are, but he isn't sure. Instead he indicates the advertisement stuffed between the condiment rack (one of about six different special advertisements sprinkled over the table. There were three in the condiment rack, one of which opened like a book; a triangle-shaped one on the center of the table; an extra sleeve that falls out of the menu when you open it; and drink recommendation on every little coaster and napkin) which states that if we are not told about the specialty drinks upon being seated, we are entitled to a free appetizer. In fact, we we were not told about the drinks, and until he pointed it out, we hadn't even seen the offer. When we asked for the free appetizer, he simply said that because it is Valentine's Day, the offer does not apply.
He leaves and comes back a few minutes later with our drinks. My glass of water had dried, crusted sauce all over it (maybe some of those morons loitering by the register should pick up a sponge), and he spilled sangria all over the table and menus. So much that he and another waitress had to bring over towels to clean it up. And he didn't so much as apologize.
Looking at the menu, I can't help but notice that they have the calorie values for each meal. I realize this is regulation. And it wouldn't be that noticeable, if they weren't so absurdly high! The most surprising and terrifying part, is that the appetizers seem to have more calories than the main dishes. And we're talking over 2000 calories! What's the adult man supposed to consume in a day? 2000-2500? Well, there is your entire intake value for the day. And it's a small bowl of chips and dip.
The menu is clearly designed for quantity instead of quality. Every meal seems to be some absurd combination of things that do not really belong together. Shrimp and chicken, shrimp and steak, steak and chicken, all of them with or without pasta and...cheese. It is just gross and unappetizing. I ordered a cheeseburger, medium, figuring that they can't possibly screw up a simple burger. (Though I should also point out that 'cheeseburger' and 'hamburger' were not options in the burger section. There were only six strange themed burgers that again tried to combine different genres of food. For example, the quesadilla burger, which is exactly what it sounds like.) When it finally arrived, it looked like something that was purchased over-the-counter at Wendy's, frozen, and then microwaved and thrown onto a different bun, just for me. Why ask how I would like it cooked when all of them are paper-thin patties that come out of the toaster the same?
The sad thing is, I would have preferred to go to Wendy's or McDonald's, gotten something cheap and tasty, and gotten out of there in 10 minutes. Instead I have to sit here for an hour and a half while I'm waited on by half a dozen blank-faced zombies, who, I assume, when they're not texting or playing minesweeper on the computer, are in the kitchen cooking the food with their eyes closed.
It wasn't even worth it to get rid of a stupid $15 gift certificate I won in a trivia contest back at school. From now on, I will do everything in my power to avoid these restaurants. And please, if you have any self-respect or respect for the people you are eating with, go somewhere else. Somewhere original. You deserve better.
I go with two other people. We have to wait fifteen minutes or so for a table. This isn't a big deal. Though it was mildly surprising, because it was Valentine's Day. I understand people taking their loved ones out for a romantic, intimate, and delectable meal for Valentine's Day, and let's just say Applebee's would not have been my first choice for that. Nevertheless the place was packed.
We finally get seated at a booth against the wall in the back. Right behind us is the register where all the waiters are tallying up their tables' bills. And here is my first wave of complaints. For one thing, why are these places always so over-staffed? There is consistently half a dozen employees standing around the register talking (and occasionally using profanity) and arguing about work and life. In my opinion, at no time should there be employees just lingering around waiting for something to do. Especially in a packed restaurant. If they want to chit chat, they can take a five minute break and go outside. I can't even hear what the other people in my booth are saying to me, over their complaints about The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Which brings me to something else: don't you dare talk about a show or movie that I have also seen, in my presence, without meeting the intellectual and analytic standards that I demand in conversation.
Anyways, our seater seats us, someone else comes over and introduces herself as waiter A, but tells us that waiter B will be serving us tonight. So what is her purpose exactly? She leaves. Waiter B arrives to take our drink order (we never see waiter A again) and asks if we'd like any of the house specials. We ask him what they are, but he isn't sure. Instead he indicates the advertisement stuffed between the condiment rack (one of about six different special advertisements sprinkled over the table. There were three in the condiment rack, one of which opened like a book; a triangle-shaped one on the center of the table; an extra sleeve that falls out of the menu when you open it; and drink recommendation on every little coaster and napkin) which states that if we are not told about the specialty drinks upon being seated, we are entitled to a free appetizer. In fact, we we were not told about the drinks, and until he pointed it out, we hadn't even seen the offer. When we asked for the free appetizer, he simply said that because it is Valentine's Day, the offer does not apply.
He leaves and comes back a few minutes later with our drinks. My glass of water had dried, crusted sauce all over it (maybe some of those morons loitering by the register should pick up a sponge), and he spilled sangria all over the table and menus. So much that he and another waitress had to bring over towels to clean it up. And he didn't so much as apologize.
Looking at the menu, I can't help but notice that they have the calorie values for each meal. I realize this is regulation. And it wouldn't be that noticeable, if they weren't so absurdly high! The most surprising and terrifying part, is that the appetizers seem to have more calories than the main dishes. And we're talking over 2000 calories! What's the adult man supposed to consume in a day? 2000-2500? Well, there is your entire intake value for the day. And it's a small bowl of chips and dip.
The menu is clearly designed for quantity instead of quality. Every meal seems to be some absurd combination of things that do not really belong together. Shrimp and chicken, shrimp and steak, steak and chicken, all of them with or without pasta and...cheese. It is just gross and unappetizing. I ordered a cheeseburger, medium, figuring that they can't possibly screw up a simple burger. (Though I should also point out that 'cheeseburger' and 'hamburger' were not options in the burger section. There were only six strange themed burgers that again tried to combine different genres of food. For example, the quesadilla burger, which is exactly what it sounds like.) When it finally arrived, it looked like something that was purchased over-the-counter at Wendy's, frozen, and then microwaved and thrown onto a different bun, just for me. Why ask how I would like it cooked when all of them are paper-thin patties that come out of the toaster the same?
The sad thing is, I would have preferred to go to Wendy's or McDonald's, gotten something cheap and tasty, and gotten out of there in 10 minutes. Instead I have to sit here for an hour and a half while I'm waited on by half a dozen blank-faced zombies, who, I assume, when they're not texting or playing minesweeper on the computer, are in the kitchen cooking the food with their eyes closed.
It wasn't even worth it to get rid of a stupid $15 gift certificate I won in a trivia contest back at school. From now on, I will do everything in my power to avoid these restaurants. And please, if you have any self-respect or respect for the people you are eating with, go somewhere else. Somewhere original. You deserve better.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Soft, White Pillow of Hell
I don't care for winter weather. It requires too much work and preparation: the extra layers of clothing that take an hour to put on and then you sweat; the moisturizer you need when your skin dries out to the point of cracking and bleeding; the rampant assault of cold and flu that forces you to wash your hands ten times a day, only making them colder and drier...
About once a year we get a really big snow storm that leaves a foot or two of snow on the ground. It's strange that even nowadays, when a big storm is pending, I experience a fleeting echo of the childish excitement I would feel when I was younger. What is it about the snow that is so enticing? It's like the human brain is programmed to equate snow with fantasy and wonder. For a kid, it means, most importantly, a potential Snow Day. That, in itself, makes it a miracle. But there are so many other quintessential snowy activities to partake in: snowball fights, snowman building, sledding, ice skating, and igloo construction. These are the things I want to do. These are things that, if my understanding of American culture is accurate, kids are supposed to enjoy doing in the wintertime.
Except, despite the exhilaration I would feel before a big storm, none of these ideas ever came to fruition. In my youth, I was a short, plump asthmatic. The weight of the extra layers of clothing, alone, would have me panting before I got to the door. On the occasion of a Snow Day, I would not be allowed to sleep in and then go play in the snow. Instead I would be woken up even earlier than I would normally get up for school, so that I could start shoveling the driveway and a path for the dogs to go to the bathroom. By the time the sun was up, I was sweating and wheezing, my face was numb, and my back was throbbing.
As for those classic American winter activities, let's see. I tried to build a snowman once, in my back yard, with my brother. The thing is, when you have dogs, there is poop and pee everywhere; and when it snows, it's hidden or harder to pick up. But, being a kid, you don't really consider this, until you have a big beautiful boulder of snow...with smelly brown and yellow patches on it. Sledding is a sick joke, I assume created by lazy parents, as a way to exhaust their children's energy while they're outdoors. You drag your sled (and your short, round self) to the top of a hill, only to slide back down again. Best case scenario, the ride last five seconds, as compared to the ten minute trek to the top. Worst case scenario, you sink into the snow at the summit and have to thrust yourself forward until gravity changes its mind, but then the sled gets offset by your foot holes on the hill and you end up tumbling off a few times on the way down. The one time I tried to make an igloo, I had to make a pile of snow first, and then hollow it out. I was so exhausted from shoveling that the made was too small. In an act of desperation I hollowed it out anyway, to find that only my head and shoulders could fit inside. Ice skating is another activity that should only be allowed for the skinny and flexible. By the time my second skate touched the ice, I was already on my ass. 90 percent of the experience was me floundering around on the ice trying to stand back up, while everyone else glided around me. As for snowball fights, well, they required a group of friends, something I never had when I was little.
The worst thing about the snow is how freaking cold it is. You're never really dressed warm enough, and no matter what, there is some amount of skin exposed that gets even colder. I wear glasses, and when the wind blows, snow curls around the edges of the frames and viciously stings my eyes. And there is always a piece of wrist that appears between the jacket and glove that inevitably gets snow on it; when I try to wipe the snow away, it just goes underneath the sleeve. I want to go out there and play around for a few hours, but after five minutes I am cold, exhausted, and uncomfortable. Why, snow? Why are you so deceiving?
About once a year we get a really big snow storm that leaves a foot or two of snow on the ground. It's strange that even nowadays, when a big storm is pending, I experience a fleeting echo of the childish excitement I would feel when I was younger. What is it about the snow that is so enticing? It's like the human brain is programmed to equate snow with fantasy and wonder. For a kid, it means, most importantly, a potential Snow Day. That, in itself, makes it a miracle. But there are so many other quintessential snowy activities to partake in: snowball fights, snowman building, sledding, ice skating, and igloo construction. These are the things I want to do. These are things that, if my understanding of American culture is accurate, kids are supposed to enjoy doing in the wintertime.
Except, despite the exhilaration I would feel before a big storm, none of these ideas ever came to fruition. In my youth, I was a short, plump asthmatic. The weight of the extra layers of clothing, alone, would have me panting before I got to the door. On the occasion of a Snow Day, I would not be allowed to sleep in and then go play in the snow. Instead I would be woken up even earlier than I would normally get up for school, so that I could start shoveling the driveway and a path for the dogs to go to the bathroom. By the time the sun was up, I was sweating and wheezing, my face was numb, and my back was throbbing.
As for those classic American winter activities, let's see. I tried to build a snowman once, in my back yard, with my brother. The thing is, when you have dogs, there is poop and pee everywhere; and when it snows, it's hidden or harder to pick up. But, being a kid, you don't really consider this, until you have a big beautiful boulder of snow...with smelly brown and yellow patches on it. Sledding is a sick joke, I assume created by lazy parents, as a way to exhaust their children's energy while they're outdoors. You drag your sled (and your short, round self) to the top of a hill, only to slide back down again. Best case scenario, the ride last five seconds, as compared to the ten minute trek to the top. Worst case scenario, you sink into the snow at the summit and have to thrust yourself forward until gravity changes its mind, but then the sled gets offset by your foot holes on the hill and you end up tumbling off a few times on the way down. The one time I tried to make an igloo, I had to make a pile of snow first, and then hollow it out. I was so exhausted from shoveling that the made was too small. In an act of desperation I hollowed it out anyway, to find that only my head and shoulders could fit inside. Ice skating is another activity that should only be allowed for the skinny and flexible. By the time my second skate touched the ice, I was already on my ass. 90 percent of the experience was me floundering around on the ice trying to stand back up, while everyone else glided around me. As for snowball fights, well, they required a group of friends, something I never had when I was little.
The worst thing about the snow is how freaking cold it is. You're never really dressed warm enough, and no matter what, there is some amount of skin exposed that gets even colder. I wear glasses, and when the wind blows, snow curls around the edges of the frames and viciously stings my eyes. And there is always a piece of wrist that appears between the jacket and glove that inevitably gets snow on it; when I try to wipe the snow away, it just goes underneath the sleeve. I want to go out there and play around for a few hours, but after five minutes I am cold, exhausted, and uncomfortable. Why, snow? Why are you so deceiving?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)