Exactly one year ago, (to the minute!) this blog was born (see screen shot of birth on right). I introduced myself to my blog as it's caretaker and provider, I made sure no one would harm it by having a password that blogger said was "strong". I gave my blog a name that would make it successful, and a home by deciding it's URL. I dressed it up nicely in pretty colors with my chosen background and font colors, and I showed it to the world as my little blog.
My little blog has now grown up a bit, and I am so proud; it has accomplished so much in this year, and I see promising things coming from it in the future.
So far, my blog has been well behaved. Thankfully, it has had no inclination to participate in that "team blogging" thing that is so popular these days. The server has not failed, losing all of my entries, and for that I am thankful. I have not been stalked by creepy perverts through my blog (at least I think) and I have not developed Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from the long expanses of time rapidly typing stream of consciousness.
So thank you, Moderately Entertaining. You have thanked me for all I have done by attracting comments and readers! I really like that part of our relationship.
365 days, 100 posts. Is this a coincidence happening without my manipulation or have I busted my hump to meet this deadline in order for my blogiversary to be just that much more special?
Determine what you will.
In 100 posts (including the posts' titles, and also those quotes on the sidebar), I have written 36, 102 words. This averages to about 361 words per post. Also, keep in mind that several posts had minimal words and displayed a picture of some sort, so this is a lower average compared to an average of the posts who's main event is the words as opposed to the pictures.
If a picture is worth 1000 words, and I have posted exactly 103 pictures (including profile picture) to help explain, add to, enhance, or compose my entries, then this adds to 139,102 words for my 100 posts.
Averaged, I have done a post every 3.65 days. Every day I have written an average of about 99 words. (not including the 101,000 words for pictures OR the posts I have as drafts).
73 comments have been made (including ones made by myself) on this blog in one year. This averages .73 comments per post, and .2 comments per day this past year.
note: The fact that this post is the last of the hundred posts has been accounted into all statistics within this post.
passably interesting impressions and insights with reasonably promising titles
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
"Up" review
Pixar's recent film entitled Up has gained much positive response from critics and viewers from a large age range. If have seen this movie or have no intention of seeing it then please read this. If you are planning on seeing it soon, then wait until that time to read this review. I don't want to make you think something and then have you resent the movie, I want you to formulate your own opinion and then disagree with me. It's much more fun that way.
synopsis: Boy and girl like adventure from a young age, they are married and have a wonderful life together. They have dreams of traveling to South America and having their house on top of Paradise Falls.Woman is old and dies. She gives her husband her "Adventure Book". The man does not want to go to a retirement home (and let the company take his property) because the house is something he deeply associates with his belated wife. Upon agreement to be taken to a home, thousands of inflated balloons through the chimney lift his house into the air and he is on his way to accomplish the dream he and his wife never fulfilled.
He is looking near the waterfall, but the balloons do not have enough inflation to bring him over the gap in the land to his destination. He straps the garden hose to himself and the accidental boy-scout stowaway, and they make their way over to the waterfall by foot. Along the way, they bump into a talking dog with a collar which allows him to speak his thoughts. The dog's owner is searching for an exotic bird whom has been following the boy and the man for a few minutes of the story. They make it to the waterfall. The man reads his wife's Adventure Book in the "stuff I'm going to do" section, and there are wedding pictures and pictures of their children and pictures of their house. She leaves him a note in the back: "Go have your own adventure. -Ellie"
The man promises the boy that he will keep the bird safe from the owner of the dog. The villain, the owner of this dog and thousands alike to him, tries to kill the man and boy to get the exotic bird. Irony: the villain is a famous TV/movie adventure star whom the man admired as a child. It all ends up great blah blah villain dies.
The good things:
1) The trip to South America shows the great lengths he goes in order to accomplish his belated wife's dream, and the balloons the great heights of his ambition. All this shows his devotion and heartbreak.
2) The boyscout enforces the "adventure" point of the story. How it can be frivolous and childlike and meaningless, be taken too far, and produce great reward and pride. He also serves as a companion to the man which keeps the story and the main character lighthearted throughout struggle and despair. The growing friendship in the story shows a progression of the main character from bitter and mourning his wife, to warm-heartedness and acceptance.
3) His wife's note shows that he did not need to fulfill their dream to please her. That they had their adventure, and it was a good one. It shows both that his want to accomplish this was a result of his sadness, and it allows him to realize this, and have peace with his accomplished life-long dream.
The bad things:
1) The fact that he goes and has his "own adventure" does NOT send me the message that he is getting over the death of his wife. In fact, it sends me me the opposite message that he is displacing his grief and sorrow into a want for more fun and near death.
2) His want to protect this bird is a sign of his desire for the boy's love. They want the character to seem as if he does this because of his compassion for the bird and not wanting it to be captured, but to me it seems that he is so lonely from the death of his wife, that he wants someone to like him. He goes to far too great measures to accomplish this.
3) This movie does not explain the reason why the boy wants to "save" the bird from the villain and why the villain wants to KILL them to get this bird. We have no idea if this man wants to kill the bird for dinner or for a coat from it's colorful feathers or for scientific observance or for a circus! They don't tell us anything, and it makes the entire struggle of "keeping it safe" seem stupid and unjustified.
4) The villain was on a quest for this bird for many years, just as the main character was on a quest to have a house in South America. The both had a goal, they both wanted it with all their heart. The protagonist achieves his goal, while the antagonist dies plummeting towards the jungle from miles above ground. WHY? Why do they NEGATE their own POINT of trying to accomplish your goals? Was what the villain wanted so horrible that he should DIE on his way?
5) The talking dogs. Oh god how I hated them. They made no sense, they were thrown in, they had nothing to do with anything.
6) The villain was someone that the main character admired as a boy. Are they trying to send the message that kids should not have role models? That adventure actually is evil? I don't see the point in having him be this person. I see opposite meaning in it. Perhaps they said it should be him for the shock of the reveal of character, and also the fact that creating a new character would be hard to do and feel insignificant. There is ONE way his character could work. And that would be that the main character feels that everything he has ever known (or admired) is turning his back on him. That just before he accomplishes his goal, things continue to get in his way. But he still yet deals with the villain after he accomplishes it, so it makes no sense in this context either.
My points:
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO HAVE ANOTHER ADVENTURE! The Adventure Book showed him the adventure he had. There was no need. No need. His adventure was having his life with Ellie AND making it to Paradise Falls.
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE VILLAIN! He went against the "you can do anything you want to do" moral, as he died trying to achieve it. He distracted us from the reason the main character is in South America. There were already villains in this story. First, we had Man vs. Himself with his struggle of missing his wife, and this continues throughout the story. Then, it was Man vs. Society with the company wanting his property and everyone saying he should leave his house. Finally, it was Man vs. Nature as he flies though storms and makes his way through the jungle towards his destination. There was plenty enough villain in this story for me without an actual character to think is evil.
When they start the alternate plot line, with the talking dogs and the villain, the symbolism of the house and balloons, and his physical struggle in making his way there, and even the colorful bird is RUINED. They make all this beautiful imagery be taken completely literally. They use it as an excuse for violence and near death and excitement. The main character is fighting for something that makes no sense with his past wants, and that is not for pure "adventure", like his wife suggested. Her note in the book was not for him to endanger his life, it was for him to not dwell, and have fun. I can hardly call fighting for your life fun, I call it stressful.
I think a better ending would have been suicide off the waterfall after he reads the book. But the note from Ellie should not be there. But this would be the grownup version of the story, that's not really a good look for Disney.
Overall:
I loved this story. I liked how it addresses death in a child movie. I liked how the montage of his life with Ellie hints toward a stork delivering their baby, I absolutely loved the scene where he looks at the Adventure book on the waterfall (it made me cry). I liked the bird, I even kind of liked the first talking dog only because it annoyed the man so much. I really did like the movie until they introduced the villain. The movie got severely boring for me after that point, and I wished for it to end.
Also, the real title of this movie is "The Spirit of Adventure". The first few minutes of the movie shows these words several times, so I am sure it must have been the working title until they thought up the alternate plot line when Disney said "we should Disney this up a bit" and then it couldn't be called that anymore because that was the name of the villain's blimp and it would be blatantly stupid to have the point of the story OBVIOUSLY negated like that, rather than discreetly.
synopsis: Boy and girl like adventure from a young age, they are married and have a wonderful life together. They have dreams of traveling to South America and having their house on top of Paradise Falls.Woman is old and dies. She gives her husband her "Adventure Book". The man does not want to go to a retirement home (and let the company take his property) because the house is something he deeply associates with his belated wife. Upon agreement to be taken to a home, thousands of inflated balloons through the chimney lift his house into the air and he is on his way to accomplish the dream he and his wife never fulfilled.
He is looking near the waterfall, but the balloons do not have enough inflation to bring him over the gap in the land to his destination. He straps the garden hose to himself and the accidental boy-scout stowaway, and they make their way over to the waterfall by foot. Along the way, they bump into a talking dog with a collar which allows him to speak his thoughts. The dog's owner is searching for an exotic bird whom has been following the boy and the man for a few minutes of the story. They make it to the waterfall. The man reads his wife's Adventure Book in the "stuff I'm going to do" section, and there are wedding pictures and pictures of their children and pictures of their house. She leaves him a note in the back: "Go have your own adventure. -Ellie"
The man promises the boy that he will keep the bird safe from the owner of the dog. The villain, the owner of this dog and thousands alike to him, tries to kill the man and boy to get the exotic bird. Irony: the villain is a famous TV/movie adventure star whom the man admired as a child. It all ends up great blah blah villain dies.
The good things:
1) The trip to South America shows the great lengths he goes in order to accomplish his belated wife's dream, and the balloons the great heights of his ambition. All this shows his devotion and heartbreak.
2) The boyscout enforces the "adventure" point of the story. How it can be frivolous and childlike and meaningless, be taken too far, and produce great reward and pride. He also serves as a companion to the man which keeps the story and the main character lighthearted throughout struggle and despair. The growing friendship in the story shows a progression of the main character from bitter and mourning his wife, to warm-heartedness and acceptance.
3) His wife's note shows that he did not need to fulfill their dream to please her. That they had their adventure, and it was a good one. It shows both that his want to accomplish this was a result of his sadness, and it allows him to realize this, and have peace with his accomplished life-long dream.
The bad things:
1) The fact that he goes and has his "own adventure" does NOT send me the message that he is getting over the death of his wife. In fact, it sends me me the opposite message that he is displacing his grief and sorrow into a want for more fun and near death.
2) His want to protect this bird is a sign of his desire for the boy's love. They want the character to seem as if he does this because of his compassion for the bird and not wanting it to be captured, but to me it seems that he is so lonely from the death of his wife, that he wants someone to like him. He goes to far too great measures to accomplish this.
3) This movie does not explain the reason why the boy wants to "save" the bird from the villain and why the villain wants to KILL them to get this bird. We have no idea if this man wants to kill the bird for dinner or for a coat from it's colorful feathers or for scientific observance or for a circus! They don't tell us anything, and it makes the entire struggle of "keeping it safe" seem stupid and unjustified.
4) The villain was on a quest for this bird for many years, just as the main character was on a quest to have a house in South America. The both had a goal, they both wanted it with all their heart. The protagonist achieves his goal, while the antagonist dies plummeting towards the jungle from miles above ground. WHY? Why do they NEGATE their own POINT of trying to accomplish your goals? Was what the villain wanted so horrible that he should DIE on his way?
5) The talking dogs. Oh god how I hated them. They made no sense, they were thrown in, they had nothing to do with anything.
6) The villain was someone that the main character admired as a boy. Are they trying to send the message that kids should not have role models? That adventure actually is evil? I don't see the point in having him be this person. I see opposite meaning in it. Perhaps they said it should be him for the shock of the reveal of character, and also the fact that creating a new character would be hard to do and feel insignificant. There is ONE way his character could work. And that would be that the main character feels that everything he has ever known (or admired) is turning his back on him. That just before he accomplishes his goal, things continue to get in his way. But he still yet deals with the villain after he accomplishes it, so it makes no sense in this context either.
My points:
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO HAVE ANOTHER ADVENTURE! The Adventure Book showed him the adventure he had. There was no need. No need. His adventure was having his life with Ellie AND making it to Paradise Falls.
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE VILLAIN! He went against the "you can do anything you want to do" moral, as he died trying to achieve it. He distracted us from the reason the main character is in South America. There were already villains in this story. First, we had Man vs. Himself with his struggle of missing his wife, and this continues throughout the story. Then, it was Man vs. Society with the company wanting his property and everyone saying he should leave his house. Finally, it was Man vs. Nature as he flies though storms and makes his way through the jungle towards his destination. There was plenty enough villain in this story for me without an actual character to think is evil.
When they start the alternate plot line, with the talking dogs and the villain, the symbolism of the house and balloons, and his physical struggle in making his way there, and even the colorful bird is RUINED. They make all this beautiful imagery be taken completely literally. They use it as an excuse for violence and near death and excitement. The main character is fighting for something that makes no sense with his past wants, and that is not for pure "adventure", like his wife suggested. Her note in the book was not for him to endanger his life, it was for him to not dwell, and have fun. I can hardly call fighting for your life fun, I call it stressful.
I think a better ending would have been suicide off the waterfall after he reads the book. But the note from Ellie should not be there. But this would be the grownup version of the story, that's not really a good look for Disney.
Overall:
I loved this story. I liked how it addresses death in a child movie. I liked how the montage of his life with Ellie hints toward a stork delivering their baby, I absolutely loved the scene where he looks at the Adventure book on the waterfall (it made me cry). I liked the bird, I even kind of liked the first talking dog only because it annoyed the man so much. I really did like the movie until they introduced the villain. The movie got severely boring for me after that point, and I wished for it to end.
Also, the real title of this movie is "The Spirit of Adventure". The first few minutes of the movie shows these words several times, so I am sure it must have been the working title until they thought up the alternate plot line when Disney said "we should Disney this up a bit" and then it couldn't be called that anymore because that was the name of the villain's blimp and it would be blatantly stupid to have the point of the story OBVIOUSLY negated like that, rather than discreetly.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
hopefully
this summer I will:
- finish that book I keep renewing
- check out other books and read them also
- buy my school books for fall
- go running and play soccer with my boyfriend
- make him do yoga
- do my laundry and not wear the same outfit for several days
- clean my room (and keep it in that state)
- swim a lot
- see many movies
- continue blogging
- have frequent outings and get-togethers with friends both long-lost and current
- remember to practice viola
- learn new songs on guitar
- see live music performances
- continue self taught music theory lessons with the internet and my keyboard
- construct daisy chains in the park and watch clouds go by while I lie in the grass
- have quality time with friends and family
- eat something other than top ramen on a regular basis
- not get dehydrated
- draw something, anything
- do the WASL testing I missed when I was sick that one day
- write something that I don't post on this blog
- camp, maybe
- take a dance class
- picnics
- throw birthday party
Saturday, June 6, 2009
"Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is wing'd Cupid painted blind"
I will do my best to have this be the only post I ever do that is about Shakespeare. This being said, I have to cover all my Shakespearean history and all my thoughts on his work.
As a child, I don't know how young, my favorite VHS tape was A Midsummer Night's Dream, directed by Michael Hoffman, and I have been told that I watched it constantly. I suppose that I understood the plot or I would have not liked it much. Maybe I only liked the costumes of the fairies and the easily understood comedic elements of parts. Being young, I probably didn't fully understand the plots of any movies that were not made by Disney, anyway.
In 7th grade, English class required the reading of this play. I enjoyed the reading of it, and had fun with the small part of the combined roles of Cobweb, Peaseblossem and Mustardseed in the scene my group was assigned. Playing 3 different fairies at once, I found out a way to duck behind objects in the room to make it seem, at least I thought, as if I really was different fairies appearing from all directions.
That year, I met my best friend who is a Shakespeare fan and had been in her elementary school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream as Puck. Her favorite plays by Shakespeare, besides A Midsummer Night's Dream are As You Like It, and Twelfth Night.
I remember being taken to see Hamlet at some point many years ago. In 9th grade, English class had us read Romeo and Juliet. I really liked it. 10th grade, we read Macbeth. I really liked that too.
Last summer, my best friend once again starred as Robin Goodfellow as she had in 6th grade, this time in a production not tied with the school. She earned herself the front page of the local newspaper. Her performance was amazing, showing brilliant understanding and interpretation of the text, and letting her own personality, very fitting to the role, shine through in her manner enough for my personal viewing of the part be extremely comical.
Just recently I went to see the school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. It was not especially wonderful. I have dislikes of some of the acting styles of the regular students whom appear in the school plays and musicals. Some actors I was quite impressed with. Helena and Demetrius have been accused of having an offstage infatuation with each other, which made the kiss they shared near the end of the play quite interesting, play aside. Not to mention the acting of the two, which nearly stole the show from Puck, who was quite accomplished in her interpretation of character.
While studying Macbeth, English class watched a movie that explained why Shakespeare is a genius playwright. The plays were targeted towards the "groundlings", it said. These were the poor, uneducated people who paid only one penny to be admitted to a play, allowed to do this to fill up the space right before show time. Because the plays were written for the groudlings, the easily understood jokes and the catchy descriptive phrases were repeated in homes and therefore used for centuries afterward.
Shakespeare seems complicated because it is written in a language that we barely understand today. When we are able to finally understand the meaning of the words, it seems ingenious still for it's mastery of rhyme and syllabus*. After we get past this, perhaps even think it is stupid, there is still the matter of plot. Maybe the meaning of the words that is being used to show the plot seems simplistic and exaggerated, which is offsetting when trying to extract what is happening and why, but the meaning of what is happening, and the way it describes life is intriguing. These plays may have been written to attract approval of an audience, but when analyzed, the literal actions of characters explain and question human nature and and thought.
If the obvious moral or idea that is shown from the play is only how deep the meaning goes, I am not sure. For me, it is often hard for me to even get this far with these plays when I have to go through the steps of even understanding what they are saying and who is who.
Anyway, that is all I have to say on the matter on Shakespeare.
* note: not a real word in this context
As a child, I don't know how young, my favorite VHS tape was A Midsummer Night's Dream, directed by Michael Hoffman, and I have been told that I watched it constantly. I suppose that I understood the plot or I would have not liked it much. Maybe I only liked the costumes of the fairies and the easily understood comedic elements of parts. Being young, I probably didn't fully understand the plots of any movies that were not made by Disney, anyway.
In 7th grade, English class required the reading of this play. I enjoyed the reading of it, and had fun with the small part of the combined roles of Cobweb, Peaseblossem and Mustardseed in the scene my group was assigned. Playing 3 different fairies at once, I found out a way to duck behind objects in the room to make it seem, at least I thought, as if I really was different fairies appearing from all directions.
That year, I met my best friend who is a Shakespeare fan and had been in her elementary school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream as Puck. Her favorite plays by Shakespeare, besides A Midsummer Night's Dream are As You Like It, and Twelfth Night.
I remember being taken to see Hamlet at some point many years ago. In 9th grade, English class had us read Romeo and Juliet. I really liked it. 10th grade, we read Macbeth. I really liked that too.
Last summer, my best friend once again starred as Robin Goodfellow as she had in 6th grade, this time in a production not tied with the school. She earned herself the front page of the local newspaper. Her performance was amazing, showing brilliant understanding and interpretation of the text, and letting her own personality, very fitting to the role, shine through in her manner enough for my personal viewing of the part be extremely comical.
Just recently I went to see the school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. It was not especially wonderful. I have dislikes of some of the acting styles of the regular students whom appear in the school plays and musicals. Some actors I was quite impressed with. Helena and Demetrius have been accused of having an offstage infatuation with each other, which made the kiss they shared near the end of the play quite interesting, play aside. Not to mention the acting of the two, which nearly stole the show from Puck, who was quite accomplished in her interpretation of character.
While studying Macbeth, English class watched a movie that explained why Shakespeare is a genius playwright. The plays were targeted towards the "groundlings", it said. These were the poor, uneducated people who paid only one penny to be admitted to a play, allowed to do this to fill up the space right before show time. Because the plays were written for the groudlings, the easily understood jokes and the catchy descriptive phrases were repeated in homes and therefore used for centuries afterward.
Shakespeare seems complicated because it is written in a language that we barely understand today. When we are able to finally understand the meaning of the words, it seems ingenious still for it's mastery of rhyme and syllabus*. After we get past this, perhaps even think it is stupid, there is still the matter of plot. Maybe the meaning of the words that is being used to show the plot seems simplistic and exaggerated, which is offsetting when trying to extract what is happening and why, but the meaning of what is happening, and the way it describes life is intriguing. These plays may have been written to attract approval of an audience, but when analyzed, the literal actions of characters explain and question human nature and and thought.
If the obvious moral or idea that is shown from the play is only how deep the meaning goes, I am not sure. For me, it is often hard for me to even get this far with these plays when I have to go through the steps of even understanding what they are saying and who is who.
Anyway, that is all I have to say on the matter on Shakespeare.
* note: not a real word in this context
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)