I'm actually really sad, because I didn't buy any books, or even go to any libraries this week! I did, however, get a job, so I guess that makes up for things somewhat! Apart from that, I had a pretty sedentary week, but I did manage to buy a DVD, which I might as well tell you about here (even though you've probably already seen it!)
Big
I mean, how does anyone not love this film! It has everything- Tom Hanks, New York City, a giant piano, and even that evil woman out of Weeds (Elizabeth Perkins). It's just so sweet and lovely and has everything that you can really want from a film, plus, it makes you feel about 12 again. It's pretty awesome. Also, it only cost £2 (about $3?) so, even if I didn't like it, at that price, I totally would!
So, that's my mailbox for this week, sorry it was a bit boring! Tell me about all the books you've bought so I can bankrupt myself in this coming week buying them all too!
My dad has recently become addicted to Fox News. It's all my own fault, considering that I was the who told him how hilarious it is (which, it really is), but I've fallen on my own sword in a way- every ad break, he's turning over to watch the warped, Fox News view of the world. Now, since we're about the most liberal household that has ever existed, I'm not too worried about this warping his delicate political mind- I'm just getting irritated by the awfulness of it all.
Having said all this, however, watching Fox News over the last month or so has been a pretty good precursor to watching Outfoxed, a documentary on just how evil and insidious Fox News really is. Outfoxed was made in 2004, just when, it seems, Fox News was getting Bush vs. Kerry election fever, which, as the documentary points out, was greatly biased in favour of Bush and the Republicans. As is every Fox News broadcast ever produced. The revelations that come from this documentary are truly shocking- that, in a list of regular contributors to Fox News, all the Conservatives were instantly recognisable names, whilst the Liberals were decidedly not, that they allowed a man with very close ties to the Bush campaign to interview Bush, when CNN wouldn't let a producer anywhere near the campaign because his wife was a lawyer who had worked with John Kerry. Everything they do is based on making Democrats look stupid, and Republicans like the only ones who can save the world, and there is absolutely no journalistic integrity there- in fact, it seems to be wholly discouraged!
One incident that continues to shock me is when Bill O'Reilly 'took on' the son of a man killed in 9/11, because he had signed a petition that opposed the war in Iraq. Rather than treating him with any kind of respect or compassion (assets which, I fear, O'Reilly is severely lacking in), he instead starts attacking him, telling him his dead father would be ashamed of him, and bringing his mother into it for no good reason. It's actually really quite painful to watch, especially when this man says that he was asked to leave the studio because if O'Reilly found him in the hallways, producers were afraid that he might end up in jail. I just have so many problems with this, not only for the lack of respect that O'Reilly shows his guest, but also for the assumption that someone personally involved in the 9/11 attacks would unquestionably have to support a war that would do more harm than good, and would really not be a fair and measured response to the attack on America.
So, ever since I watched part of this documentary in my media class in 2006, Bill O'Reilly has been my own personal villain. But, having been exposed to some more recent Fox News madness, my focus has shifted slightly to the madman that is Glenn Beck. I mean, honestly, what is wrong with this man? He just says whatever mental thing comes into his brain, and then everyone is just meant to accept his word as truth, like he's Moses or something! He also seems to talk about a 'New World Order' a lot, which I'm pretty sure is a term used by crazies and fringe groups, to justify having a million guns in their home to protect against I'm not even sure what! He also seems to have this giant ego- One night when we were watching, he seemed to accuse the President of having some kind of conspiracy against him by scheduling his speeches at the same time as his show! I mean, how dare he, right? He's only the President of the United States, it's not like he's Glenn Beck or anything! The man is an absolute joke, and I would be able to laugh him off, except that it seems like people actually listen to him. Obviously the large majority of people also see him as an absolute joke, but enough people take him seriously to make him kind of dangerous. The Tea Party, anybody?
Outfoxed ends with something of a call to arms, an urging of the audience to report to the FCC when they don't like something they hear on Fox News (or, in fact, any network) and to join together to protest the things that they are saying that are just lies (for example, calling themselves 'Fair and Balanced' when they are anything but). I don't really think that this has happened, and in some ways things have got even worse, although they have also gotten better, in my opinion. Things that have gotten worse include the fact that Glenn Beck exists and gets to say things on TV, the Democrats get even more of a bashing now that they are in power (they keep talking about the Wisconsin State Senators who left the state, calling them dodgers or whatever, but not seeming to understand that they left so they wouldn't lose a vote on something that they, and the people feel very strongly about). There is, however, part of the documentary that suggests that the other networks kept trying to become Fox News, talking over contributors and just generally lacking any kind of journalistic integrity- I like to think that this downfall has slowed down somewhat, and it certainly has judging by what I've seen of CNN and the like, but regardless, there is the internet now- does anyone (apart from my dad) even watch news channels anymore?! I think also that people (sane, level headed people) are now more aware that Fox News is the joke that it is, and so are less inclined to take it seriously, or even watch it. Or, at least, I hope so...
So, Outfoxed is a little outdated, yes. But what it says is still relevant to what Fox News is still doing today, i.e. killing journalism, so I think it is still worth watching and considering today. Can you believe I got through this entire post without saying Rupert Murdoch is EVIL?! I can't, and it has been especially surprising since I say it on almost a daily basis, without the prompting of a documentary. But anyway, it's out in the open now- Murdoch=pure evil!
I've had this button in my sidebar for a really long time now, and yet I fear that the 'Nation' that this day is for is actually America. Nonetheless, since I generally pretend to be American anyway, I may as well persevere and tell you all to be aware of AIDS and HIV. This is not a disease that only gay men get, and this is not a disease that only promiscuous women get. You could have only had one sexual partner, and, as I'm sure you were all made aware of at school, when you sleep with someone, you're sleeping with everyone they've slept with, and so on. You can never be too careful, so always use a condom!
You can find out more about the impact of AIDS on women and girls here, and, if I had any red pumps, I would so be rocking them today! Maybe I'll just paint my feet red and pretend that's the same thing. Also, if you're so inclined, check out my review of Angels in America here, where AIDS is the disease that dare not speak it's name. I know it's not the 80s anymore, but AIDS is still here, and we need a cure, sooner rather than later!
Continuing down my long and lonely Stephen King path, I come to 'Salem's Lot, his second novel. I remember that the first time I read this, I always had to stop reading a fair amount of time before bedtime, because otherwise I feared I wouldn't be able to sleep. Returning to it, I actually don't find it all that scary anymore- I love it for its story and characters, but since I know who survives (i.e. hardly anyone) and who doesn't (i.e. most characters) there is not that much tension left in the story. I also only last read this about a year ago, so I think it was a bit early for a re-read, but that's not the book's fault, and I still love it dearly!
So, 'Salem's Lot is set in this small town in Maine, where, it seems, nothing much has really ever happened, and the hot gossip is all about this guy who died years before and who was possibly a member of the mafia/devil worshipper. Ok then! The importance of this guy, Hubert Marsten, cannot be overlooked, however, because it is put to the reader that his evil deeds may have been absorbed (or something) into the walls of his house, making it a totem of evil in itself. I mention this because, not only does this turn out to be true later when the pinnacle of all evil in the novel moves in, but also because it is something that King returns to a fair bit in his novels- evil can be contained within a place, meaning that the place/building is always going to be a hotbed of evil happenings, unless something is done to break the chain, which is where King's valiant heroes come into things! I am thinking, most specifically, of The Shining and It here, but there are countless other examples in his work.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, because it is always undertaken in a fresh and thrilling way (or at least I think so) and 'Salem's Lot is no exception. Another early theme that develops here is the writer as the protagonist, a little thing that Stephen King likes to do because he is presumably following the premise that you should write what you know (even if your book is all about monsters, the bits that aren't should be what you know, I suppose). This writer, Ben Mears, meets a girl, annoys the girl's mother, charms her father, meets some more townspeople, and then slays some vampires. Just what you want to be doing when you're trying to write a book, I'd imagine! What I really find interesting in 'Salem's Lot, though, is that there is a great deal of build up to events, and the town is so fully described, all it's intricacies and delicate relationships explored, so that when things do start to happen, you are fully aware of exactly what is being destroyed. I think it's quite masterfully done, although I suppose you could just say that he doesn't know when to start the action and stop going on about the townspeople. But that would be your opinion!
I keep thinking that Father Callahan has a far bigger role in this book than he actually does, mainly because of his totally unexpected, but awesome, reappearance in The Dark Tower series of books, but the bits with him in are potentially the most interesting and searching parts of the novel. There is a great deal of discussion about God, and what he can do, or rather what he can help others to do, and there is a discussion of Father Callahan's own loss, or wobble of faith. I think the idea with this is that God can protect you, as long as you have full enough faith in him, but Callahan fails in this and pays for it bitterly, and for this reader at least, pretty sadly. I actually feel pretty sorry for the Father, but knowing what happens to him later on, I am able to at least handle it pretty well!
I think there are flaws in the story, in terms of Susan being pretty important to the story early on, but then essentially disappearing from the story later on, whereas Mark, who becomes extremely important (and is pretty extraordinary) is hardly mentioned until the point where Susan becomes less important. It's almost as if King couldn't handle having so many lead characters at once, something which he becomes much better at later on, but clearly hasn't perfected here yet (and really, why should he have been expected to?) So, yes, 'Salem's Lot isn't perfect. But it is a pretty damn good vampire story, which does occasionally shock you with a dizzying insight. One quotation from the book that struck me the hardest and has stayed with me is this:
"At three in the morning the blood runs slow and thick, and slumber is heavy. The soul either sleeps in blessed ignorance of such an hour or gazes about itself in utter despair. There is no middle ground."
This just strikes me as being so true- at 3 am, you are either sleeping soundly and are untroubled, or you are awake and something is very wrong either within you or around you, and either way you feel completely despairing and afraid of something that you can't quite put your finger on. Or maybe that's just me, although thankfully I haven't been awake at 3 am for the longest time!
So, that was 'Salem's Lot. I was less scared of it than I was the first time, but I still enjoyed it as much as before (maybe more, because I wasn't also scared shitless). Next up, The Shining, and I think we all know how that ends. Unless you've only seen the movie, in which case you definitely do not know how it ends!
NB: I keep thinking that I'll get to read It soon (it's pretty much my favourite King book) but I actually have so many to go before then! And one of them is all 1400 pages or something ridiculous of The Stand (which I do actually remember as being pretty damn awesome too!) Have I mentioned how much I love this challenge yet?!
I've never been able to understand women who say they aren't a feminist. To me, it's the biggest no-brainer ever, but to them it seems to be some kind of admission of non-femininity, or, God forbid, of being a lesbian. In a seminar at university once, an English one where there were about 2 boys in the room, when asked who considered themselves a feminist, only me and one other girl raised our hands. How has this happened? How has feminist become a dirty word, and sexism brushed off as being not important (or not as important as other things like, say, having a husband and becoming his own personal house elf).
I have been a feminist before I even had any concept of the political or social implications of feminism. It never even occurred to me to think that girls were not as good as, if not better than, boys. I just assumed that people in the world were smart enough (like an eight year old me) to realise that what's in your underpants doesn't affect what you are capable of. Because, believe me, we're capable of A LOT.
This isn't how the world works though, and it sucks, but it is something that we can't just allow to continue the way it is. Things have got to change, so that women aren't doing 2/3 of the world's work, but only controlling 10% of the wealth. How does this make any sense? Things have got to change so that women aren't afraid to walk on the streets alone at night, for fear of getting attacked, simply because they are 'weaker' than men. Things have got to change so that women aren't essentially forced to stay with men who beat them, because the British government is cutting funding to women's refuges, not to mention the jobs they are cutting in industries that are dominated by women workers. The world is so much more unequal than we think it is, and something has got to change so that's not the case anymore.
I'm not afraid to say it, and you shouldn't be either, I am a Feminist. I don't care if that scares you, because all that means is this- I think that women are just as good as men, and deserve to be treated with the same respect as men, be paid the same as men, and get the full respect of the law as men do (rape conviction rates are just a joke, albeit not a very funny one). I am not just saying all this because I am a woman- if I was a man, I would have exactly the same views, just with more opportunity to change things (another not so funny joke). So, on this International Women's Day, don't be afraid to say that you are a feminist- is there really any other way to be?
Ah, the Tuesdays seem to roll around so fast these days. So fast, in fact, that I completely forgot that this week's list even existed. Fortunately, I had already written most of it about a week ago (cause that's just how cool I am) so I can totally give you a list today. As always, thanks to The Broke and the Bookishfor hosting this opportunity for me to make lists and do nothing useful!
Top Ten Dynamic Duos
1. Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara from Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell- Because, onscreen and in the book, there are no greater parts of this story than the bits where Rhett and Scarlett are together, being nasty to each other or just being witty and amazing, or even just kissing. You know they're amazing, don't lie! 2. Thelma and Louise- Never has a friendship been better than that between Thelma and Louise. They definitely have their disagreements, but you know that, in the end, they will always be there for each other, and will have each others backs. While the end of this film does horrify me, their attitudes towards it seem to be that they're in it together, until the very end (this will make sense if you actually watch the film, it just sounds annoyingly cryptic now, I know!)
3. Danny and Dick Hallorann from The Shining by Stephen King- They are separated for large portions of the book, but sharing a skill as they do, they are essentially the soulmates of the novel. I love the rapport that they are able to strike up in the relatively few minutes they are together, and it is touching how far Dick will go to help Danny out. Just, don't talk to me about the film, ok? It's just SO wrong!
4. President Bartlet and Leo McGarry from The West Wing- I honestly don't know how these two could live without each other, even though that is something that they do eventually have to face. The president describes Leo as his best friend, and "I'm not the kind of man who has best friends." And I crumple into a heap on the floor and start sobbing inconsolably. They are completely amazing, and they work together so well!
5. Roland and Eddie from The Dark Tower Series by Stephen King- I know you could definitely say that Roland and Jake are the pair, or even Eddie and Susannah, but I automatically think of this partnership when I think of these books. I think it's as simple as this- Eddie is the person who Roland helps to change the most, who helps to shape him into what he was always meant to be, and I think that's one of the biggest benefits of a friendship. Also, I love Eddie and Roland both so deeply!
6. Prior and Belize from Angels in America by Tony Kushner- When Prior's world is completely crumbling around him, and his (evil) boyfriend has abandoned him, Belize is the one person he has left who is there for him completely. He takes care of him, worries about him, and generally is just the best friend you've ever had. Louis totally makes him look good, but he does most of the work of looking good by himself. A completely wonderful friendship. (See my review of Angels in America here)
7. Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield from the Sweet Valley High Series by Francine Pascal- I know that, looking back, these two have somehow become really really annoying, but when I was younger and more impressionable, I thought it would be amazing to have a twin, with whom you could share everything and never be judged. To be fair to them though, when these two worked together, there was nothing they couldn't do, no problem they couldn't solve, and that to me makes them a very dynamic duo indeed!
8. Tyler Durden and 'Jack'/The Narrator from Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk- I know that if you've read the book/seen the film, then you'll see a pretty particular problem with this pairing. Nonetheless, Tyler teaches Jack so much about the world and about himself, and he would be pretty indispensable in his life. What Jack gives back in return is hard to say, but it is clear that the pair are inseparable, to the extent that Jack gets completely jealous if Tyler expresses anything like affection to another person ("I am Jack's broken heart") They're messed up, but completely adorable.
9. McMurphy and Chief Bromden from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey- Ah, yes. A friendship that has such a bittersweet ending that I don't quite know what to do with myself when I read it. Nonetheless, McMurphy has this amazing ability to make the Chief live again, properly and without any need for medication or fear. He does all this for a lot of the other patients too, but its effects are best felt on the Chief, probably mostly because he is our narrator. (My review of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is here)
10. Jo and Laurie from Little Women by Louisa May Alcott- My absolute favourite friendship ever! I so wish I had had a friend like Laurie (or, in fact, Jo) growing up, and I love how close they are able to become merely by ignoring the conventions of the day and just by doing what they want to do. I will still never get over the way the film ends, but I am willing to accept the fact that Laurie and Jo will absolutely be friends until the day they die, which is good enough for me (also, they will never die, so they will be friends forever- awesome!)
So those are my top ten dynamic duos. How about you? Any friendships struck up in books that you can't get out of your head? Tell me below!
I had about the lowest hopes one could have for a film for this, having re-read and adored the book just a couple of weeks before. I guess, therefore, it was inevitable that I was going to enjoy the film regardless of what it was like, because I had such low expectations for it. I was, however, pleasantly surprised at just how much I enjoyed the film, despite the fact that it left out basically two thirds of the book (including all the stuff with Steinbeck's actual family).
The thing is, while I wouldn't have the book without its beginning, in the film it somehow works. All the pertinent pieces of information- Cathy's evilness, Adam's dependence on and love of her, and even a little glimpse at the Hamiltons previous activities are all there, and then the film is able to tell what is essentially Cal's (James Dean) story- how inadequate he feels compared to his brother, and how much he wants his father to love and accept him. I'm not going to lie, having James Dean starring in this film was a big draw for me- he is just so damn attractive that I can hardly stand it, but more than that, he really was a great actor- you can really feel Cal's emotions just radiating off the screen, and you want so badly to tell him that he is worth a lot.
One thing that this film can't really claim is subtlety. I watched the first bit with my sister, who hasn't read the book and was only half watching it, and one of the only comments she made was "Is that his [Cal's] brother's girlfriend? They're going to end up together." Yep, that's how obvious. I wasn't exactly impressed by Julie Harris, who played Abra, but she did make it pretty obvious that Cal was the one that she wanted (ooh ooh ooh!) And who can blame the girl. Even when he's not James Dean, Cal is so loveable by the virtue of not thinking that he is- you want to hold him and tell him that it's ok because you will always love him, no matter what. Or maybe that's just me!
One thing that I thought the film would struggle with was the loss of Lee, and it did to a certain extent, but covered it up with something kind of ingenious. Whereas Cal borrows the money for the beans from Lee in the book, in the film he goes to his mother (who he isn't supposed to know about) and gets it from her instead. This adds an interesting dimension to the film, and makes Cathy seem a lot less evil than the book does, and it is also the device through which Cal is able to learn more about what happened when he was a baby, something which we see firsthand through the book. The thing about Lee is, that while I genuinely wouldn't have the book any other way, his role is sort of as a philosopher and thinker throughout the book, which is something that doesn't necessarily translate very well to film. And especially not to a film where James Dean fights a bit and just generally acts like a teenager, which he does so well!
So, the film is generally pretty faithful to the part of the book that it chooses to focus on, and I really did genuinely enjoy it. If I could only recommend one of these, then it would unquestionably be the book, but fortunately I don't have to decide between them or anything like that- so get your teeth into them both! If you've seen the film and read the book, I'd love to know what you think about the differences between them- maybe they should have had some flashbacks to some of the more dramatic parts of Adam's earlier life? Let me know what you think!
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Update: One critic in 1955 apparently said that James Dean's performance was like a "mass of histrionic gingerbread", which I think sounds hilarious, even though I'm not quite sure what it means! He's one hot lump of gingerbread is all I can say!
