What do Fred Astaire, SNL, and Dan Brown have in common?

...They've all been a part of my weekend. I'm once again going to pick up my goal of blogging more frequently by chattering about what's recently been in front of me. They are three mediums, and certainly three very different pop icons, but between last night and this morning, they've all been in front of me.

I honestly don't know that I've ever seen a Fred Astaire movie. I'm a big Gene Kelly fan, so I may have seen Astaire in a movie with Kelly, but as far as the famed Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers go, I don't know that they've ever actually crossed my path. Anyway, the recent abundance of oldie movies that I've been seeing in film classes have inspired me to keep it up on the weekends. Last week I watched Some Like It Hot, which I had heard of but certainly had to see it. I wanted to find out why it was being called the "best comedy of all time" by AFI. Anyway, this week, I grabbed Swing Time with Astaire and Rodgers off the library shelf. It was really quite sweet, in that old "swell romance" kind of 30's musical kind of way. And, man, can they dance. Once again I feel inspired to take tap lessons... Who knows, maybe I'll actually do it next summer. This week in my Intro to Film class, we are watching and discussing Singing in the Rain. I couldn't be more thrilled and I feel fairly certain it's going to make me want to see Anchors Away, another favorite, yet again. Anyway, that I know of, Swing Time didn't have any TOTALLY FAMOUS songs or dance numbers in it, although I can't say I really know what Astaire (and Rogers) are most famous for. Anyone know...? I guess there's the scene where he dances on the ceiling and walls, but are there any other pictures he did that are pegged on that "OMG how have you not seen ____" list?

Also, last night, my mom and I started watching Death on the Nile, a film based on an Agatha Christie novel and starring an amazing group of actors like Maggie Smith, Bette Davis, David Niven, Mia Farrow, Olivia Hussey, Angela Lansbury... and on and on. We haven't finished it yet, but the whole time we were watching the first half, I was just sitting there ABSOLUTELY loving every minute of it. More on that when I've seen the rest!

Anyway, after that came the wonderful weekly comedy fest that is Saturday Night Live. I was thinking back and I realized that i have seen absolutely every episode of SNL since around 2005 - the first episode I DVRd was when Catherine Zeta-Jones was hosting... yes, I still remember. So, yes, my family is a big fan of the show. We've watched actors and actresses come and go, the Weekend Update desk change hands, sat through skits with glazed eyes thinking 'this isn't funny,' and split our sides laughing. Last night was a good episode. It had a fabulously weird Samburg Digital Skit: Throwing things on the ground reminded me of the "punching people while eating" sketch that still makes me laugh. The host was Ryan Reynolds, although I can't say I saw him that much. It was great to see them using "what the....?" musical guest Lady Gaga, who, I must say, I appreciate in a new way after the episode. It also had the feel of a Season Finale, with celebrities popping up left and right. My mom and I were going "is that really Madonna?!" for about 10 minutes, and then it was Elijah Wood (who knows why), and Scarlett Johanson (no big surprise as she's married to Reynolds). The skits were funny, Seth's news was great, and I doubt I will ever forget Andy in a bubble outfit.

Oh, and Drew Barrymore and Regina Spektor next week... could it get any better? Drew is hilarious, and I absolutely LOVE Regina Spektor's voice.

So that was midnight last night - or rather, this morning. Anyway, when I woke up after a nice doze today, I decided to tackle the last 100 pages of Dan Brown's latest giant bestseller, The Lost Symbol. I feel a bit torn between the book, mainly between the fact that I have always like Brown's addictive writing (even the lesser known ones like Deception Point), that the man is simply an irresistible phenomenon of an author, that the book is about D.C. and the Masons (which I find really interesting)... and all the relentless teasing he's been getting lately. A prime example of this teasing is this article, which is really quite hilarious. However, I think I had that article's tone of voice a little too much in my head... to the point that I couldn't fully appreciate the book I had looked forward to and was enjoying. Anyway, I would give the book four stars out of five... it was interesting, but felt like it needed a little tightening up. It didn't have the urgency and pace of his other books, and got a bit too bogged down in the creepiness of the bad guy and the interesting-ness (I know that's not a word) of Robert Langdon. However, I really liked a lot of the points the book made, and found the information about Masons and Noetic Science particularly fascinating. It's always cool to learn some fun facts, like the bit about the recurrence of 13 on the US National Seal. Furthermore, there was one bit at the end (I don't think it really gives anything away, but here's a SPOILER warning just in case) that I want to remember, because it captures something very well:

Two heads are better than one... and yet two heads are not twice better, they are many, many times better. Multiple minds working in unison magnify a thought's effect... exponentially. This is the inherit power of prayer groups, healing circles, singing in unison, worshiping en masse. The idea of universal consciousness is no ethereal New Age concept. It's a hard-core scientific reality... and harnessing it has the potential to transform our world. This is the underlying discovery of Noetic Science. What's more, it's happening right now. You can feel it all around you. Technology is linking us in ways we never imagined possible: Twitter, Google, Wikipedia, and others - all blend to create a web of interconnected minds. [...] And I guarantee you, as soon as I publish my work, the Twitterati will all be sending tweets that say 'learning about Noetics,' and interest in this science will explode exponentially. (Brown, 504).

Yup, that's pretty much it. Articulate and interesting stuff. Feel free to comment on anything I've brought up. Cheers :)

Lighthearded Misunderstandings

I wanted to take a momentary break from studying today (I'm home for a glorious five day weekend) to review a book I finished reading last weekend and greatly enjoyed. The book I'm thinking of is Northanger Abbey, one of Jane Austen's shorter, lighter, and lesser-known works. I decided to read it now - of all times - because it is the current topic of discussion in the Austen group I participate in every Sunday night. I'm sure my opinion of it will morph and change as we discuss it - in fact, I think it already has since the time of our first meeting - but I still wanted to share a few thoughts.

Since you probably don't know unless you've read it, Northanger Abbey tells the story of the young and innocent Catherine Morland who is invited to Bath by her family's friends, the Allens. In Bath, Catherine meets the Thorpe family - befriending the girl of her same age, Isabella. She also meets a young Mr. Henry Tilney, later befriending Tilney and his sister Eleanor. The plot heats up when General Tilney, Henry's father, invites Catherine to stay with them at their Abbey home - for a reason that causes much distress and confusion by the end of the novel. Because Catherine had been reading the type of Gothic romances that were oh-so common in Austen's era, she expects (but does not find) a dark and ancient home, full of fantastical mystery. The novel was one of the first Austen wrote, but also one of the last that was published after her death.

The character Catherine is a tricky one to interpret. She's not as easily likable as Elizabeth Bennet, nor easy to immediately dislike like Fanny Price, and still not as flawed as Emma. In many ways, her naivete was what really frustrated me - the same dramatic irony that led me to call the story's end three chapters end annoyed me beyond end when the story's heroine couldn't seem to understand what was going on. That said, being a simpleton is not the greatest fault and, overall, I liked the heroine and the story.

There were two particular passages in the novel that I just knew I had to share as soon as I read them. They're in so many ways the epitome of Austen - funny, witty, and full of voice and social commentary. Northanger Abbey has a much stronger authorial voice than the other novels - it's pervasive throughout almost the entire novel, compared to simple passages here and there like Pride and Prejudice. Perhaps this is because Austen was less practiced as an author and had not yet found her true style, or maybe it's just how she wanted to write this story, but because of the shortness and sweetness of the novel, it works.

Any-who, there is one passage when the reader learns that - gasp - Catherine enjoys reading novels. I'm not sure what it was that girls during this time were supposed to be reading, but it's clear that Austen didn't agree with the societal disdain for the type of writing she was endeavoring to create:

[Catherine and Isabella would] shut themselves up, to read novels together. Yes, novels; - for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances of which they are themselves adding - joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally takes up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! if the heroine of our novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the Reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans.

Now, at the risk of this turning into an English essay, I do want to talk about this passage! It's hard to explain why I'm so drawn to it, but reading these few sentences absolutely makes me grin. It's SO Austen. Her voice - though part of a story, wrapped up in a character - is so strong. You feel as if she's in the room with you, reading passages like these. You can hear her disdain for hypocritical authors dripping from each word. The power of writing like this - to come alive before you - is phenomenal... and all done in a time when women weren't even supposed to be writing at all!

One more, and then I promise I'll go back to my usual college chit-chat, my professions of Harry Potter love, and my blathering about movies. As the story progresses, we see the usual rituals that mark Austen's novels and bring her time period to life. The societal traditions, the "dos and do NOTs" of being proper, the balls, dances, and propriety. Northanger Abbey has a particularly interesting take on all this as Austen focuses her lens on Bath - a bit of a more public and social setting than the usual small villages of Meryfield or Highbury. At once of the dances, when Mr. Tilney and Miss Morland finally make it to dancing, Henry begins to compare dancing and marriage, exclaiming how very alike they are:

"We have entered into a contract of mutual agreeableness for the space of an evening, and all our agreeableness belong solely to each other for that time. Nobody can fasten themselves on the notice of one, without injuring the rights of the other. I consider a country-dance as an emblem of marriage. Fidelity and complaisance are the principal duties of both; and those men who do not chuse to dance or marry themselves, have no business with the partners or wives of their neighbours."
[...]
"Taken in that light certainly, their resemblance is not striking; but I think I could place them in such a view. - You will allow, that in both, man has the advantage of choice, woman only the power of refusal; that in both, it is an engagement between a man and woman, formed for the advantage of each; and that when once entered into, they belong exclusively to each other till the moment of its dissolution; that it is their duty, each to endeavor to give the other no cause for wishing that he or she had bestowed themselves elsewhere, and their best interest to keep their own imaginations from wandering towards the perfections of their neighbors, or fancying that they should have been better off with anyone else."

Okay, if talk of dancing and marriage made you cringe away from the entry, that's fine. In fact, you probably didn't even make it past the mention of Austen at the beginning, but I simply had to shout out to the world what a wonderful bit of writing this is. Did you notice that the second part of the quote is almost entirely ONE sentence? Seriously.

But what gets me most about this is the difference between this society and ours. Theirs, rules meant something. None of this "the government says we don't use torture, but lookie here, I guess we do" back-handedness. (Okay, there was some back-handedness in Austen's time, but it was different). There was a basic morality - something that could unite even things as dissimilar as dancing and marriage - that protected everyone from each other and kept the wheels on the bus going round and round.

I've often lamented this tradition of dance dying out - and I still think it's a phenomenal tradition, but more importantly, I like the base principle that kept this society together. Even young people - I believe Catherine is still a teen in this novel - is raised with a basic idea of what's right and wrong. I think this is fading from our society now; being mixed up by warring factions of religious, political, or ethnic beliefs. I think it's time we returned to a simpler time - yes, in many ways this rigidly governed society was simpler - when a dance could be compared to marriage, when people would have a "contract of mutual agreeableness" and be happy with each other for an evening.

Anyway, I found this a very interesting Austen novel - quite different from the other "high-profile" ones I've been reading so far. I'd best get back to studying - IB and AP tests begin in a little over a week, and I've got knowledge to cram into my brain. Cheers! <3

Survival, 3.14159-Style

<--It was particularly difficult to choose a photo for this blog entry as there are many beautiful covers and illustrations online. To do them all justice, take a look here and here.

Well, I've been thinking and talking about my intention of reviewing my recent read Life of Pi for a fair amount of time now, so let's have at it.

First, a bit of background on the book itself. Life of Pi was published in 2001 - fairly recently - and became a bestseller in 2004. This was one of those books that a huge number of people heard about and or read. I received it as a Christmas gift in 2005 (I believe) and far from NOT wanting to read it, I simply didn't get around to it. It was the kind of book that was on my "list" but never made it to the absolute top priority. This book is already considered among many other works of "great literature" - it was even featured on an IB test a few years ago. In other words, it really is truly something special.

I picked up Life of Pi shortly after returning to school following Spring Break. My vacation was occupied by Wizard's First Rule, an 800 page epic with wizards, prophecies, and the like. In other words, I was coming off very light and fast reading fare. As I was none-too-pleased about returning to school, I was searching my bookcases for something mellow, maybe even melancholy, and certainly beautiful, to get me through the first week back. Life of Pi is all these things, and more.

Before I go further, let me just say that I highly recommend this book to ANYONE and everyone and that it is best read without knowing anything - not a summary, not a whiff of info off the back cover. So, if anything I've said so far has sounded interesting, I suggest you stop reading this little blog and pick up the book right now. I won't mind, really! If, however, you're okay with hearing more - or better yet, you've already read it, then by all means, continue...

Very basically, Life of Pi tells the story of a young boy, Pi (short for Piscine) whose family owns a zoo in India. As a child, Pi is deeply attracted to religion, in the end finding joy in being a Hindu, a Christian, and a Muslim. Pi's family decides to move to Canada, and so set sail on a boat with some of their animals. But, the boat sinks - with all its crew and Pi's family, leaving the poor boy trapped in a life raft with none other than an Orangutan, Zebra, Hyena, and Bengal Tiger. The tiger - named Richard Parker - is key to the story, as Pi must learn to survive with the monstrous beast on board his floating home. Now, without giving anything away, all I have left to say here is that the ending is stupendous. The final part of the book - volume 3 - throws a curve ball of sorts at the reader, which makes every bit of tedium on the life raft completely worth reading.

Now, I've found reading this book to be a highly personal experience. The emotions, ideas, and roller coaster of events can be read at different symbolic levels depending on your own situation in life. The story will resonate at different amounts depending on what you look for. A friend of mine from school, Greg Watson, has a wonderful essay on his blog about the religious metaphor that appears in the latter part of the book. (Click here if this sounds interesting).

For me, I found the story inspiring. I don't deal with religion to a great degree in my own life (my mom and I were just discussing this topic on this lovely Easter morning), but I found myself admiring and empathizing with the highly religious Pi. And, as an average high school student, survival in the middle of the ocean - alone with nothing but a great carnivorous companion - almost as far from my own place in life as imagining living on the moon. However, I found my heart tugged by the character's base desire to survive - above anything else. Finally, when faced with the knowledge that not only is this a true story, but that's it's difficult (or perhaps impossible) to know what truly happened in this fantastical tale, I was hit again with how subjective reality is. My life experience is completely dependent on me - as yours is on you and the places, people, and ideas that surround you.


See my Sazze.com review here:

Read more on Sazze

Beating the System

Book Review: Bringing Down the House

I thought I'd try something different today... meaning I'm planning on not talking about movies (for once, right?). I recently had the chance to read a book truly for myself. While I admit I did enjoy re-reading Pride and Prejudice and really loved The Great Gatsby, these books were assignments, and, as such, not as enjoyable as a book I picked for myself and decided to read for fun. With a bit of time finally on my hands the other day, I selected a book that had been on my "list" and my shelf for quite some time, a work of non-fiction entitled Bringing Down the House by author Ben Mezrich .

This book, a New York Times Bestseller, was the inspiration for the Columbia Pictures film 21, released in 2008 (Okay, I guess I will still be talking about movies). Roughly speaking, the book and film tell the story of the M.I.T. Blackjack team - particularly one student, Kevin Lewis - who learned to "beat" the game of blackjack using card counting techniques, thus winning millions from Vegas and other Casinos around the country. Interestingly, card counting is not strictly illegal... as long as you are not using machines or tampering with the casino's equipment, you're merely using your brain to enhance your chances of winning. However, this is not to say the casinos are going to be particularly thrilled if they catch you at it; quite the contrary. The book continually reinforces the message that if they catch you, you're basically toast.

The book was very refreshing for me, not only because I hadn't read something for myself in a while, but because it had been a while since I'd read a fast-paced and non-fiction book like this one. In fact, the last one I can remember was the novel that inspired Catch Me If You Can, by the real Frank Abagnale. The narrative style of the story is very interesting; it's written from the first person P.O.V. of the author, yet it tells Kevin's story from a nearly omniscient perspective. In addition to the straightforward storytelling of the events, Mezrich also interrupts the almost fiction-like narrative with depictions of scenes from the interviews he did as research for the novel, describing in detail the hooker named April he met in a smoky Vegas club, the solitary technology and security designer for Vegas casinos, and the ex-Blackjack club member Jill, still going for a few rounds of cards before the meeting.

As I had seen the movie when it first came out, the typical experience of book-then-movie that is often disappointing was somewhat reversed. Instead, I was simply left noting the differences, non-judmentally. This was refreshing also; I'm sick of trying to keep myself from asking "how dare they change ___?" or "why'd they leave out ___?" For those of you who may have seen the movie, there are a few things to keep an eye out for. First, the casting in the movie was, honestly, despicable - especially since it was based on not only a book but a real-life story. Almost all the members on the blackjack team are asian, part of the typical genius M.I.T. student body. While I absolutely adore Jim Sturgess (Gaaaaaahhhh, *drool* <--Clicky) and have nothing against Kate Bosworth, it's amazing that only one asian actor made it into the film. As for plot, there are two major deviations. The wonderfully acted and murky Cole Williams (yay Lawrence Fishburn!) basically doesn't exist in the book. While there is a similar character, a man who works for a PI firm employed by casinos to catch cheaters and card counters, he has a much smaller role and the reader learns very little about him. He's more of a presence that the main characters feel and one whom they know little about. Second, all that kitschy Hollywood romance between Bosworth and Sturgess, as well as the big climactic finale (which I only vaguely remember now - someone fools someone else and walks away with millions?), that isn't really in the book either. In plain ol' English, the book is more real - there's no climax right at the 1:45 minute mark... we merely get a snapshot of these people's incredible lives and experiences. In all, I really enjoyed this book. It's a fun and fast read. While I felt confused by the flashy card counting in the movie, I actually learned a lot about it... and while I wouldn't be prepared to try it in a casino any time soon, I definitely feel like I understand the principle. If Catch Me If You Can, Rain Man, Good Will Hunting, Ocean's 11, or the film 21 itself floated your boat, I'd say you'd enjoy this book too. It's an amazing story - and all true!

P.S. I also reviewed this on Sazze.com, here. Similar thoughts, but slightly different!

Read more on Sazze