Girl Detective

Earlier this summer I had good results from L’Oreal’s Sublime Glow moisturizing self tanner. The smell was light and not unpleasant, the color was barely orange, and streaks were minimal. Last summer, I tried Dove Energy Glow with little success. It had a faint unpleasant smell, plus it was orange and streaky.

On the advice of my knowledgeable sister Sydney, I tried Nivea Sun-Kissed Firming Moisturizer. I like it even better than the L’Oreal. The scent is light and pleasant, and the results are not orange at all. In fact, when I used it I became worried that I’d gotten some actual sun–I couldn’t tell the difference.

#64 in my 2007 movie challenge was the Buster Keaton silent film Sherlock, Jr. Keaton plays a poor movie clerk displaced from his girlfriend’s affections when a thieving cad frames him for stealing a watch. There is a memorable dream sequence in which Keaton and the other characters intermingle on the screen. It’s worthwhile on its own, but far more arresting given the lack of technology available, as with Citizen Kane and Rules of the Game.

Bit of trivia: One of the writer’s was Clyde Bruckman, whose name was used in the title of one of my favorite X-Files episodes.

Yesterday afternoon, 19mo Guppy was long and loud is his protest against afternoon nap. I went in to comfort him and try to settle him down. There was a great deal of snot running out of his nose.

And a noodle.

In horror, I grabbed a tissue and wiped up the mess. I confirmed that it was, in fact, about an inch or so of linguine.

Which we’d had THE NIGHT BEFORE for dinner.

“Oh,” said my husband G. Grod when I told him about it later. “THAT’s why he was breathing so heavily last night over the baby monitor.”

#42 in my 2007 book challenge was Nicholas Kulish’s Last One In, a satire of the war in Iraq. It’s a fish-out-of-water premise when gossip columnist Jimmy Stephens screws up and gets himself sent to cover the imminent US invasion of Iraq. Jimmy is a good everyman character–a little bit sleazy, a lot self-involved, but with an essential goodness that outs in the end. It’s easy to relate to his shock at the conditions and his confusion about so many aspects of his new circumstances. Last One In is dark, funny, and sad. It doesn’t descend to cruelty. It’s a thought-provoking ground-level view of the grueling mundanity of military action as well as the reasons people go, and the reasons people stay or leave.

Last week I was downstairs with 19mo Guppy, who had awakened early (pre-6am) per his usual. I heard 4yo Drake on the stairs, and called out good morning, and said I was glad to see him. He scowled at me, stomped down the stairs, ran up to me, then kicked me in the shin with his bare foot.

This is the kind of thing I think of when people, especially non-parents, get all gooshy and romantic about motherhood.

According to the MPAA:

A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a “certificate of approval,” nor does it signify a “children’s” motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

I took Drake to see Ratatouille yesterday. Within ten minutes he was terrified, and I didn’t blame him. I was offended then, and further later when I confirmed the G rating and what it is supposed to cover. To me, minimal violence DOES NOT encompass a little old lady pulling out a shotgun, shooting at main characters until her gun is empty, searching for bullets, reloading, releasing rat poison, putting on a gas mask, and continuing to shoot. This scene, about ten minutes into the movie, is loud, violent and it scared my four year old child.

I’ve long been aware that the MPAA ratings are screwed up, giving more leeway to violence than to sexuality, but I thought these errors were on the R and PG13 end of the spectrum. But as Drake found out, to both his and my dismay, the leeway on violence seems to be a pitfall of all the ratings.

Ratatouille might be a good movie for older kids and adults. It’s not for small kids. Shame on you MPAA, Disney, and Pixar. Why couldn’t the old lady simply have chased the rats with a broom–why the shotgun AND the gas? Next time I’ll consult a site like Common Sense Media to be better informed.

It’s the 75th anniversary of Philadelphia Eagles football, so the Eagles were wearing new and different uniforms today, in an homage to Philadelphia and its Swedish heritage–?

First, the yellow and blue jerseys were ugly. Second, I had a hard time remembering which team was the Eagles since the colors were so different from their usual ones. Third, isn’t Pennsylvania’s heritage German, since the “Dutch” got misunderstood from “Deutsche”? Finally, did anyone else think it odd to see a bunch of mostly African-American guys running around in the colors of the Swedish flag?

My husband G. Grod is an Eagles fan, and the season has gone rather badly until today. A few quotes from the game that amused me:

Before halftime: “The Eagles have played almost perfectly up to this point.”

On Brian Westbrook: “He’s like a Ferrari in traffic.” and “Maybe he needs to skip training every week.” (He was out of team practice this week for a knee injury.)

The Eagles’ first win of the season was decisive, at 56-21. G. is in a very good mood.

#41 in my 2007 book challenge was Karen Joy Fowler’s Jane Austen Book Club, a movie of which is coming soon to a theater near you.

When she spoke at The Twin Cities’ Book Fest a few years ago, she said she was at a bookstore reading for another author, and saw a sign for “The Jane Austen Book Club.”

She thought it was a great title, and decided to buy the book and was speculating on what the plot would be when she realized that the flyer was for a book group, not a book about a book group. Then she realized she wanted to write that book, or perhaps that she had to.

I know I’m not the only one who’s glad she did. I read this book in 2004. At the time, I’d read Pride and Prejudice once, and seen the A & E miniseries, as well as the films Mansfield Park and Clueless, which is based on Austen’s Emma. Fowler’s novel revolves through six characters, each of whom host a discussion of one of Austen’s six completed novels. Cleverly, there is also an email interlude that pays homage to Austen’s unfinished work. (Sanditon or Lady Susan, I think.)

I liked Fowler’s characters, and their development over the book. I also liked their discussion of Austen’s novels and the various interpretations. This made me want to read all six novels, which I now have done: Northanger Abbey, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion. I wondered how these readings would affect my experience of TJABC.

At first, I experienced literary vertigo and whiplash. There were now so many layers to Fowler’s writing and characters. Like Austen, she has a biting wit, and her book was full of sentences begging to be underlined and read aloud. Characters brought to mind one Austen character, then later another. The plots paralleled Austen, diverged, then came together again.

The first time I read TJABC, I liked it, and it inspired me to read six novels that I at least admired, and often enjoyed. This time, it impressed me greatly. Fowler not only wrote a book that stands on its own, but she simultaneously made it an homage to Austen’s writing, stories and characters. This re-reading of Fowler’s book makes me want to re-read Austen’s books. Fowler has created a lovely book that can keep on giving, both to current and future admirers of Jane.

In the book one character and her husband are fans of the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the movie, the husband is played by Marc Blucas, who played Buffy’s boyfriend Riley on the show.

#40 in my 2007 book challenge was A Yellow Raft in Blue Water, credited to the late Michael Dorris. It was written at a time when he and then-wife Louise Erdrich were collaborating on everything they each wrote, and it has many of Erdrich’s hallmarks: Native American female characters; difficult and disappointing parental figures; interwoven, overlapping narratives; and family secrets. The only Erdrich-ian characteristic I didn’t see was dreamy, magical realism.

The book is divided into three sections, each narrated by a different character: Rayona, Christine (Ray’s mother), and Ida, (Christine’s mother). These three strong characters are what elevate this novel. They are complex and flawed, yet still easy to like, even though some of their choices are hard to understand, especially as they relate to family secrets and emotions.

If you like Erdrich’s work and have never read this, it’s an interesting addition to her oeuvre, whatever role she played. While Dorris may have done bad things, and he came to a tragic end, this book is about the redemptive power of family and love.

If you haven’t read Erdrich, I recommend her Blue Jay’s Dance: A Birth Year, and The Antelope Wife.

Outer Life did a typically thoughtful and funny entry on book binging, and book purging. He notes that genre books are an easy target.

As a practicing purger, I recognized the value of the genre tactic a while ago. Like OL, I got rid of all my McDonald Fletch books, even though the first and second were really good. I got rid of my Anne McCaffrey dragon books that were so compelling when I was a teen. Ditto with a bunch of bodice rippers.

I’ve done a pretty good job of borrowing books from the library rather than buying them; this has significantly reduced my book expenditures.

I wonder if book binging coincide with general upswings in the retail market, and hopeful feelings of consumers for the economy? Or, more interesting, could it have an inverse relationship?

#62 in my 2007 movie challenge was Superman II. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the first movie stood the test of time. I didn’t feel the same about the sequel, though it was mostly well reviewed.

The Kryptonian villains introduced in Superman are released from their virtual prison, and terrorize the earth. They do this at the exact time that Lois Lane uncovers Clark Kent’s secret identity. The scene in which Reeve switches from his Clark Kent persona to that of Superman as he reveals himself to Lois is a wonder. In an uneasy sequence, he readily gives up his powers, though Lois looks far less certain that he’s done the right thing, even before he gets his ass kicked in a diner. Eventually he contrives to restore his powers, and is conveniently able to cause amnesia in Lois with a kiss.

I found this movie much sillier and unbalanced than the first. I don’t know if it’s because Richard Donner was removed as director half way through, or if the end result simply wasn’t to my taste. But I found myself cringing many times during the movie, and not at scenes that were intended that way. Luthor’s plan and arrogance, the myriad and shifting powers of the Kryptonians, the ridiculousness of the several super-breath blowing scenes all detracted from what I felt to be the strengths of the film: the awkward vacillation between humanity and heroism, the chilling villains played by Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas, and the doomed romance between Kent and Lane.

A Richard Donner cut of the film was released in 2006, since he shot much of the footage for the second simultaneously with the first film. This included all of Hackman’s scenes; Hackman did not return for the second film, even though he plays a prominent part. Also conspicuously absent are both the voice and visage of Brando, so the filmmakers could try to exclude him from profits. He sued, and they failed. Some of this footage was used in Bryan Singer’s 2006 Superman Returns, and is included in the Donner version of SII.

#62 in my 2007 movie challenge was the Christopher Reeve Superman, still one of the best superhero movies, ever. The more recent Superman Returns pales in comparison, proving that special effects are no compensation for the lack of the original’s compelling casting of Reeve, Kidder, and Hackman.

The beginning of the film sets the stage for the next film, and details the destruction of Krypton. Brando is a commanding presence, but his flat delivery hints at a paycheck. It is a full fifty minutes until Reeve appears in Metropolis as Clark Kent, meeting Kidder’s Lois Lane soon after. And it’s finally at the 1:10 mark that we see the title character himself, and the film takes off with him. Reeve does a fabulous job switching between the bumbling Clark Kent and his alter ego. The chemistry with Kidder is palpable, and nowhere more evident than in the rooftop interview, one of the most romantic movie scenes ever made. Unfortunately, it is followed by the cheesy Kidder voiceover as he takes her flying, set to the strains of “Can You Read My Mind,” which went on to become a high school band staple in the 80’s.

The DVD extras are worthwhile, especially Reeve’s screen tests. A relative unknown, his looks and charisma made him suited to the suit, not ridiculous in it. They also hint at the strength of character he would be known for later in life.

With apologies to Nora Ephron, and thanks to my friend A for the joke. I think I’ve pulled a muscle in my neck. I’m not sure if it was carrying a tantrum-ing Drake to the car after preschool, or struggling to pick up and hold a crying, arching Guppy in the middle of the night, but my neck, back and shoulder have seen better days.

Yesterday I went to get a massage. That afternoon, he said he wanted to watch a video.

“I think it will help your back feel better, Mom,” he announced, cannily.

Drake later announced to G. Grod that we’d been to the gym because I had a “cricket” in my back.

Today, he kept asking me if he could look at something, but I couldn’t understand his word through his lisp.

“Quick?” I guessed. “Click?” So he pulled out the back of my blouse, looked down and seemed satisfied that he’d seen something that was the “crick” in my back.

Having learned our lesson last week, our family went to the usual pizza place for dinner. After consuming a bottle of San Pellegrino Aranciata and maybe one piece of pizza (as opposed to last week’s pizza AND A HALF), 4yo Drake looked down at his distended belly and announced, “I’m fat!”

Drake has consistently been in the bottom third of weight percentiles, so he’s hardly that. G. Grod and I looked worried at one another about where he’d picked up this “fat” business, and immediately started damage control.

“No, you’re not fat. Your belly is full,” etc. Drake continued to repeat the word fat all the way to the car, so unfortunately we overdid it. Just as I gave a high sign and a whisper to G. Grod that we should drop it, Drake started chanting, “Fat, fat, fat, fat, fat!” at the top of his lungs while G. Grod and I stifled our laughs.

Wouldn’t you know it, but 19mo Guppy then joined the chorus, “Fah! Fah! Fah!”

Just when things started to settle down and I thought we were out of the woods, Drake changed subjects. He picked up the Justin Timberlake CD in the back, and crowed, “Sexy!”

G. Grod and I continued to swallow our grins, but we didn’t say a word. And because we ignored it, he stopped.

Edward Copeland explains the process in an introduction to a top-100 list of non-English language films. He kindly includes a list of the 22 runners up. (Links thank to ALOTT5MA)

Roger Ebert says the best way to become film literate is to go see great films. Thanks to Minneapolis’s Oak Street Cinema and my friends Big Brain and Blogenheimer, I’ve seen 21 of the top 100, and 6 of the 22 runners up. My love of film has grown along with my experience of it. Many more of these are languishing on our Tivo hard drive, or on our DVD shelf. I hope this list spurs us to finally watch them.

“Manhattan Project” SPOILERS AHEAD: Like Anthony Bourdain, I thought last night’s Top Chef ep was the best of the season thus far. Phil at ALoTT5MA also liked it a lot, and has good commentary. The contrasts between Casey and Hung were well highlighted, in both the quickfire and elimination challenges. Hung is the most cutthroat of the remaining competitors. He is classically trained, as he often snottily reminds us. Casey is not classically trained, but does a good job of executing modern dishes with classic influences. She is much more likeable than Hung, and she’s demonstrated over the past several episodes that she’s a talented chef.

The contrasts between the two of them and the other three were also well depicted. Brian clearly could have been either at the bottom of the tops, or the top of the bottoms, but he was squarely in the middle. And no matter how likeable Dale is–”I’m a big, gay chef, and I’m gonna outcook your a$$!”–that doesn’t account for the significant lapses he’s had, like forgetting a plate on the plane, and forgetting the sauce on his duo. Also, was he present earlier in the season when the judges derided one of the candidates for doing duets? And didn’t he learn a lesson from the boat episode, that one simple item is better than two complicated ones. To his credit, though, I don’t doubt that it’s hard, and I’m in a comfy viewing spot the day after the show and on my couch, not in a kitchen with professional chefs staring at me, and the most illustrious judging panel waiting for the dish.

I was relieved to see Sara eliminated rather than Dale, if only because he’s such a gigantic personality. Her dish looked good but sounded terrible, though I wondered if the couscous was good; I only heard it called underseasoned.

I very much enjoyed Casey’s comment on being a woman in what has been, and still largely is, a men’s club. Nowhere was this more evident than in the quickfire judge, Sirio Maccioni, saying that he’d like to pick her instead of Hung as the winner, because her dish was good AND she was pretty. Yet she faced down the stony-visaged kitchen chefs and stepped up to do a great job in both challenges. That indicated to me that she deserves to be there.

Does anyone else wonder how Lia and Tre would be doing, if they were still around? They seemed the most talented previous eliminations, to me.

The geek world celebrates Stephen Fry, a long-time gadget wonk, but a first time blogger about it. Am I the only one imagining him reading at least part of this entry aloud on Youtube?

Apparently the much-hyped Blade Runner Director’s Cut of the 90’s was no such thing. James Christopher at the Times Online (link thanks to Blogenheimer) wonders whether we needed a third version of Blade Runner, this one actually edited by Ridley Scott.

Should not such writing be subject to punishment?
–Thomas Mann, after reading Martin Heidegger

In grad school, I liked reading about Heidegger more than I liked reading Being and Time. I could tell, though, that great ideas lurked in the long, convoluted, translated-from-German sentences, which, apparently, weren’t any easier to read in German. The idea of an individual plunging into and out of the “them” of society held me in thrall. Later forgotten, that idea rose up the first time I saw The Matrix, and said, “Remember me?” I pulled down Being and Time, blew off the dust, and thumbed through for familiar sentences.

Heidegger, deservedly more than even Nietzsche, was often dismissed and derided in later academia because of his collaboration with the Nazis. This disturbing alliance also troubles Leland de la Durantaye, in an essay for Cabinet Magazine online. (link from Arts and Letters Daily) M, who blogs at Mental Multivitamin, has long favored considering work separately from its creator. Can Heidegger’s work–how can his work?–be considered apart from the political environment in which he created it? The thoughtful beauty in it, though, begs recognition on its own terms.

I visited my sister Sydney over the weekend, and she introduced me to the bizarre VH1 show, The Pick-up Artist. (Weren’t they worried that people might confuse it with the wretched Molly Ringwald/Robert Downey, Jr. movie of the same name?) The show is so sexist and staged that it’s hard to believe. A guy named Mystery instructs a cadre of young nerds in the tactics of seduction. Mystery is pierced and sports both eyeliner and black nail polish. He’s not my idea of a dream catch, but apparently he does well enough, since he has his own show and a book, too. Then again, I doubt I’m in their target market.

Each week the nerds are given a different assignment to impress women. The nerds I saw included a cute but antisocial Indian guy, an overweight but attentive guy, a good looking but painfully shy guy, and a fourth whose niche I couldn’t determine, but he seemed similar to “good looking but painfully shy” guy. The internet research I’ve done suggests the show is for real, or at least as “real” as reality-based shows get. Not recommended, unless you’re looking for a car-wreck type viewing experience.