Friday, 30 October 2009
JAG is writing a bucket list. Suggestions?
L: pat a turtle
JAG: wow that was fast - a 15 sec response time I believe! ;) may have already done that - we used to rescue baby turtles that fell into our ramp!
D: eat a turtle?
L: don't eat a turtle.
D: oh ok...pat then eat?
L: ahahahaha I think not XD unless you have?
L: no turtle eating!!
E: oh my gosh! i remember those turtles jag! awwww
B: Go drinking with me!
JAG: I like that one ^^ :) one of these days...!
O: do easters 2010
O: bungee jump
O: eat escargot
O: pat a tarantula
N: eat a tarantula
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Shrek has the answer: lay-ers!
Dress: Valley Girl, $30
Boots: Tulips, $25 (on sale)
Jacket: Valley Girl, $35 (half price!!)
Belt: Vintage (my mother's, once)
Tights: school, standard issue
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Anyway, I didn't see this while I was there, but some of my friends did, wrote a question and found the answer posted on his blog. I've been perusing it, and found some very interesting insights:
Finally, the question from a couple of the Dreamers:
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Having nothing to compare it to, I'm told Inglourious Basterds is pretty par for the Tarantino course; gory, twisted sense of humour, melodramatic. However, well aware of said reputation, I was surprised as how much I enjoyed this film in all its kitsch comedy (mind you, there were many scenes I couldn't watch for the grisly bits.)
The film shifts between thriller and, at times, something resembling the cinematic equivalent of a comic book. Tarantino certainly doesn't take no prisoners with his audience, either; from start to finish the film an assault on all the senses; bloody, brutal, no-holds-barred, all set to a hardcore, rock soundtrack which, more often than not, indicates someone's going to die. The dialogue is absolutely brilliant, witty, irreverent, which is probably why it wasn't just another savage war film.
The cinematography lingers on every glorious death throe and at times is so overly dramatised (moving between characters like a tennis match except with devastating consequences) you want to shakeTarantino and say "get on with it man!"
Christoph Waltz is unwavering and disturbingly convincing as the SS Colonel Hans Landa nicknamed the "Jew Hunter" for his so-called ability to think like Jews, who well deserves the Best Actor Award he received at Cannes this year. Brad Pitt's exaggerated-beyond-belief American accents ("we're in the Nat-zi killing business") is a constant source of cringing but also amusement.
It's probably true that the film is way too long, being that's it's about 2 hr 45 min. There's lots of scenary and unnecessary dialogue that could be cut, being as a lot of it's conveyed by the subtle character interaction. An example of this - and one of my favourite scenes - is when Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent, who is fantastic as a Jew who got away, living under cover in Germany) is taken out for lunch by the SS and runs into Col Landa - the man who came after her family as a child. The tension is not only palpable, but fearful. Diane Kruger plays the femme fatale as Bridget von Hammersmark, a double agent German actress.
Although the film "provides a fascinating alternate history to aspects of the war in Europe," jdl raised an interesting point about whether the film is a disservice to the Jewish memory. It struck me throughout the film that what the Basterds were doing to the Nat-zis is on the same cruelty level as what they were doing to the Jews. Doesn't that make the Jews - or these Jews, in particular - as bad as the Nat-zis? Just look at the way barbarism is glorified in the above advertisements. Sure, we want to see them fight back, and we're cheering for them to blow up Hitler, but does that make them any more justified? The film is satirical to the point of being silly, but is Tarantino really empowering the Jews through this film or dehumanising them? There's Jewish heroism, and then there's the Basterds, who may not be a kind memory to Jewish suffering, which leads to another point: should the Holocaust genre be treated more sensitively by Hollywood? Or is nothing sacred to the cinematic money-making machine?
In other news: ZOMG IRON MAN 2!!!
Source: IMDB of course!
"President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now.""
Not that it's not amazing, but it is justified? Is it too early in his career? Is it bang out of order? Consider Obama is the second sitting President to receive such a prize since Woodrow Wilson, who, it might be pointed out, brought WW1 to an end, wrote the 14 Points for peace and helped shape the Treaty of Versailles. Though Obama is a beacon of hope - and the importance of this globally should not be underestimated - and has begun many admirable and forward-thinking policies and initiatives (see Climate Change and International Relations) - he has achieved very little of note yet. Yet. But is the Nobel supposed to be in recognition of his potential or his past?
Should he accept it?
Friday, 9 October 2009
Thursday, 1 October 2009
I sometimes wonder – more so since the National Student Leadership Forum – whether (my) optimism is a luxury I can afford because my life is good. Everything does work out in the end, more or less, for better or worse. Would I still feel the same if I were an orphan, if I were starving, if I were homeless?