Wednesday, January 21, 2009

boy, am i glad i don't live on

...revolutionary road. lol! s**t be bleak over there, sons! before i get to that review, i have some administrative stuff (aka, daily minutiae) to get rid of.

speaking of which: we're starting to see the appeal of why people just run away and do it at city hall or something instead. it just seems like so much work and such a colossal hassle. we're supposed to go over our timeline tonight and set firm deadlines and drill down so that we can make sure all the details get covered. it kind of sucks all the fun out of it. but in my more generous moments i realize that the whole "let's just scrap it" mentality seems to be part and parcel of every party i've thrown - from the big professional ones down to having 6 people over for dinner. the payoff (the amazing time and the laughs) is always worth it. we just got to buck up and get down to business.

so, the dynamic of K, D and myself worked out well! i get freaked out about hanging with old people sometimes (i know, it's very lame of me) which is totally weird because i totally hang out with old people like, ALL THE TIME (my old supervisor T being a notable example.) having a bunch of people interested in film to talk about the movie afterwards was gratifying - people who like to take a movie apart and dissect it and then put it back together again and weigh in some more. it was also useful in this case because K has actually read "revolutionary road," which added another layer to our critique.

so. the movie. ummmm...i can say that i didn't love it. i liked it, but i'm not sure how much i liked it. it was very very bleak and grim, but i don't think the subject matter and the story are what's keeping me from unequivocally claiming it.

one of the things that i found extremely distracting was how close the score was to that from "road to perdition." because i've seen that in the last 6 months, i found it really hard to focus because to me, it sounded IDENTICAL.

i thought that kate winslet's performance was just a hairsbreadth over-the-top, which could also be a fault of mendes' direction, as he favoured really unforgiving tight shots, right up close to the actor's faces. i thought leonardo dicaprio was very good, but they weren't evenly matched. kate winslet seems much older than him, more mature, and more womanly, which i think is just an unfortunate case of leo's baby face and how he hasn't really grown out of the softness of his features - regardless, it was hard to see them matched up as a pair, as she exuded a womanliness that was outmatched by his petulance (tip of the hat to K - that's her entirely accurate descriptor i'm poaching.)

D didn't like the mentally unstable neighbour character, the "id" as he called it - he thought it was too obvious. i agree that having the character is too obvious, but i liked the performance and for that i'd be willing to give him a pass.

it was an unforgiving portrait of two people realizing how ordinary and pedestrian they are, but set against the suburbs, and i think for me, that was the most incongruous element of it. i just feel like we're really far removed from that dichotomizing between the suburbs and the city, and the fact that the director trod this territory before (with "american beauty" - which i also found fantastically overrated and overly mannered) doesn't allow me to view the inclusion of the suburban setting and the desire to make this film with a fresh set of eyes. i don't think i can understand the vitriol or understand how two people who are so vicious to each other would stay together in a relationship. i thought the convenient absence of their two children to be jarring - i kept thinking "where are the kids?" when they were having these knock-out, drag down fights, screaming at the top of their lungs. it was a little too pat to have the kids missing during it, and i think their inclusion would have added a deeper layer and urgency to the violence the couple enacts upon each other.

i thought the film was beautifully shot, though sometimes a little contrived. i really liked that the period details didn't overwhelm the film - the set design and art direction (?) were note-perfect, never veering into distraction (the way i imagine "mad men" does.) i thought the sequence of events was a little strange and the story was a little thin - it came off kind of stagey. i think in the end, i wanted MORE.

at harvey's last night i ate a double cheeseburger (why are harvey's burgers so darn tasty?!?) and a poutine and i was so so so very very very happy. there's something really beefy about a harvey's burger and i love the texture of the patty. they're improbably juicy. tonight we're having perogies, that i'm baking in the oven, slathered with a topping of onions, bacon, and mushrooms all sauteed. i can't wait to eat perogies with caramelized onions dunked in a sour cream bath. unf unf unf! i'll update with a picture tonight.

first i'm going to do yoga and then the remainder of tonight is performance: project management edition. tomorrow IS my friday!!! it's my first EDO this week (earned day off.) i'm so freakin' happy about it - even if it already is jam-packed with least i can sleep in a bit. it's a humdinger of a day tomorrow though - an extra long one. work and then my project management course and then i'm nipping out of that a bit early so i can make it to my yoga class. ai-ya.

roll call of awesome:

“This is a delusion about credit. And whereas from the nature of credit it is to be expected that a certain line will divide the view between creditor and debtor, the irrational fact in this case is that for more than ten tears debtors and creditors together have pursued the same deceptions. In many ways, as will appear, the folly of the lender has exceeded the extravagance of the borrower.

The general shape of this universal delusion may be indicated by three of its familiar features.

First, the idea that the panacea for debt is credit…The aggregate of this increase is prodigious, and a very high proportion of it represents recourse to credit to avoid payment of debt.

Second, a social and political doctrine, now widely accepted, beginning with the premise that people are entitled to certain betterments of life. If they cannot immediately afford the, that is, if out of their own resources these betterments cannot be provided, nevertheless people are entitled to them, and credit must provide them…

Probably one half of all government, national and civic, in the area of western civilization is either bankrupt or in acute distress from having over-borrowed…

Third, the argument that prosperity is a product of credit, whereas from the beginning of economic thought it had been supposed that prosperity was from the increase and exchange of wealth, and credit was its product.

This inverted way of thinking was fundamental. It rationalized the delusion as a whole. Its most astonishing imaginary success was in the field of international finance, where it became unorthodox to doubt that the use of credit in progressive magnitudes to inflate international trade the problem of international debt was solved…

Was it possible for nations to sell to one another more than they bought from one another…? Certainly. But How? By selling on credit. By lending one another the credit to buy one another’s goods…"
- from Garet Garret, in A Bubble That Broke The World – a book published in 1932

by way of my FAVORITE financial blog the big picture can we say TRENCHANT?!?? love it!


this photo is absolutely lovely...i love the contrast in the tones. it's from solidbutter's photostream.


wise words from jim jarmusch.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The book "Revolutionary Road" is far more nuanced because you get to see the other characters (including the kids). And for a book written in 1961, it gets it without having to show it (makes sense?)

Big Sis