Matt and Coleen takes on the Oscar Dresses

One of the things I picked up from growing up around too many women is the all essential critique of what the ladies wear on the red carpet. I have enlisted my fiance to give her perspective. And while we don't always agree, it is certainly enjoyable to be part of the discourse. Enjoy!

Matt's take: I am going to give a thumbs down to Cameron. It was a nice dress, but she had the tan lines rocking and I thought the her hair and the dress were uniformed. Coleen's take: Thumbs up. I have to admit I am not generally a fan of JT's exes, because there has to be something wrong with you to mess that up, but in this case I think Cameron is rockin' this thing and has the body to do it.

Matt's Take: I thought the bow was too big. It seemed bigger than her face. Still, she looked nice. I'm giving it a neutral. Coleen's take: Thumbs up. Come on, she was flawless in this. Red on red. Nice. Classy.

Matt's take: This is one of the worst dress nominees for me. I didn't like the coat or the color. Very Addam's family-esque. Coleen's take: Thumb's down. This is a train wreck, even with the handicap for being older and good with a pair of scissors. The dress is way too long, heavy, and what's with the jacket? Her ahir looks nice though.

Matt's Take: I think I've been negative on all of the dresses. When I first saw the dress, or the cape, I wasn't that taken by it. I just don't get the cape. Thumbs down. Coleen's take: This is a classic case of thumbs up and down. In the picture here, it's down. What is that thing she's wearing over her dress? A sheet? But when she was presenting she took the sheet off and revealed a very nice neckline and showed off a wow figure. Go mama. But, regardless, thumb's down on the hair. It was a lazy pony tail. No one at the Oscars should have hair that looks like mine even on a good day.

Matt's take: Mama Mia! Thumbs up. The only knock I have on the dress were the sleeves. A couple of angles looked liked it was sort of that naked nylon you see on figure skaters. If it was, the dress goes down a couple of notches for me. On this picture it looks like its just skin. And lots of it! Coleen's take: Sorry. Down. This wasn't anything original that I've seen. In fact, how many times can JLo where a plunging V (green grammy dress, anyone?). But, hey, she had twin babies and still looks hot. So, whatever.

Matt's Take: I thought it looked like a giant drape wrapped around like a toga. Thumbs down. Coleen's take: Oh, I don't know. How do you criticize Meryl Streep? It's not my favorite, but it was glitzy. Sideways thumb.

Matt's take: This would would have been my favorite dress by far of the night, until I saw the back. Still, it was a nice dress. I'm just not sure what the designer was thinking about the back. It looked unfinished. Coleen's take: One of my best picks of the Oscars. The color was stunning, I loved the bodice and layers...but the back was terrible. It was like an 8-inch nude bra strap. So weird. That alonen prevented Michelle's dress from being the best of the night for me. But if she walked like a crab the whole night I would have never known.

Matt's Take: This is one of my favorites of the night. Thumbs up! Coleen's take: Hmm. I liked this dress until up close I saw the polka dots. I'll just focus on the positive: good color, I liked the diamond necklace, rockin' post baby figure, and good hair. Overall, thumbs up.

Matt's Take: One of my favorites of the night. She sparkled in the Help and I thought the dress was perfect for her. Big thumbs up! Coleen's Take: Thumbs up. Flawless execution of this dress, perfect for her body and made her look exquisite for her memorable night.

Matt's take: Thumbs up. If there is a knock on this dress is that it's "traditional". I thought it was nice. Most people I thought tried to hard to stretch the modern theme. I liked it. Coleen's take: This was nice. It looked great on her and the color was interesting. I'm not a huge fan of the off the shoulder dresses, but I'm not going to dwell. She looked quite nice. Up.

Matt's Take: Oooh man. I liked the dress, but I'm not a huge Jolie fan, at all. I think if you rock a dress like this, your leg shouldn't look like that. I'm only grading dresses here, right? Coleen's take: Ich. Bleck. Horrible. Cheap. Anorexic. Pitiful. Worst of the night. Worst ever.

Matt's Take: I really like Rooney Mara's look. I thought the dress could have been a bit tighter up top, but overall, I thought this was one of the best looks of the night. Thumbs up. Coleen's Take: Thumbs up. I like this Rooney Mara. And I like to say Rooney Mara. Her dress was unique and carried a simple elegance. I'm not a fan of the bangs, and think more attention to a glamorous hairstyle would have done wonders.

Matt's Take: Thumbs down. I'm not sure what look she was going for here. Worst dressed nominee. Coleen's Take: Oh gosh. This is a beautiful girl who has just broke onto the scene and her movie is nominated for the best of the year. Well, the Oscars have come and gone, and you wore that dress. Here's what you do next, fire your stylist, and find another good movie to be in so you get another chance to right your wrong.

Matt's Take: I love the color and bottom of this dress. The top looked liked leaves and I couldn't get jolly green giant out of my head all night. But overall, I thought it was a nice dress. Coleen's Take: This was a bold move, and I like it. The color was interesting and the only one on the red carpet. It shows off a mighty fine bossum, and she looked stunning. Thumbs up. And Matt's favorite dress of the night:

Work it Girl! And Coleen's favorite dress of the night:

This wasn't really easy for me. But I'm going to pretend I didn't see the back of this dress and choose to remember this remarkable color and stunning fit. Yay Michelle!

The Hats of Berenice Bejo

In doing a quick glance of the nominations this year, I wanted to mention that the hats of Berenice Bejo in the Artist were pretty awesome. At least in costume design, the Artist was my favorite.

Oscar 2012: Hugo

In the American culture, we are currently experiencing a lack of appreciation for art. There is so much filth polluting our senses we have become blind, deaf, and insensitive to any art form that either attempts, or succeeds, to transport us to the transcendent. It is in the transcendent that we recall, or remember, our true state, or our soul. Not an individual soul, but a shared soul-“e pluribus unum”, “out of many, one”. While Hollywood can be called many things: a liberal’s soapbox, “empire”, it is still the beacon of the arts. In the age of cynicism, such grandiose statements can be easily dismissed. In these divided times, many appear to be content with being lost and entertained simultaneously. Hugo magically breaks that spell.

I originally went to see Hugo because of Roger Ebert’s review. Anyone that reads his material knows he is not a fan of 3D. This was the first time that I had read he felt the use of 3D enhanced the experience of the movie. I went to the movie to see the effects, but soon realized it was a masterpiece masquerading as a children’s film. It is more than a children’s film, of course. If anyone has seen any of the documentaries Martin Scorsese has made about films, you will recognize that his love of films easily translates to this movie. “My Voyage to Italy” where he shares his love for Italian Cinema, or ‘A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese” where he shares his love for the art of film making and the history of film, are personal favorites of mine. A documentary that deals specifically with the influence of motion pictures on art in the early 20th century is called “Picasso and Braque goes to the movies,” which features Scorsese speaking directly about George Melies films. In it, Scorsese describes movies as the “ephemeral art form”.

He talks about when he first saw Melies’ films when he was in film school in 1960, and the connection it has with his current filmmaking. They “give me the impression of the feeling when I was young, when I went to see film and could escape into a film wherever I was. I’d go up there on the screen and live in the film, if I connected with it; but really what you’re living, unless it’s a very hardcore, straight, narrative picture- you’re living a dream, a photograph of dreams. It’s a very interesting thing on how you can have a machine actually create, something that is very complex to describe in language, in literary language. It is imagery. It’s how you create something that has an ephemeral nature, that is impressions-with this equipment that is very physical.”

Hugo was my favorite film of the year, and one of my favorite films to view in a long time. There haven’t been very many movies that I felt, transported, transformed, trans-something in a long time. For a brief moment, I felt transported to that time and believed I was watching a movie for the first time, similar to the audience in the film. I was transformed back to a childhood state, my mouth open in awe as to what I was experiencing-the visual delights of the film and the technology of 3D. I remember something I read about Pauline Kael once. Someone said that they go to the theater to escape and she answered that she went to the movies to find herself. Few films are capable of taking the audience and giving them the experience of transcendence and of joy. The Artist and Midnight in Paris both dabbed in themes of nostalgia and the past, but Hugo ingrained itself in my memory. It wouldn’t surprise me, if I am blessed to live a long life, that this film will be remembered long into my future.

Oscar 2012: The Artist

Here is everyone’s Oscar favorite. Make no mistake about it. Taken from afar, this movie never should have been made. A silent film in the 21st century? I can’t remember the Woody Allen movie, but he makes a joke about the way to revitalize the movie industry is to start making more silent films. It was a joke. Is the Artist a joke? It’s more of a daring act, that no one else has tried. I would argue that the Pixar/Disney film Wall-E, while not completely silent, it’s mostly silent-which requires the viewer to follow the film like a silent film. You follow with your eyes. And like most communication, a lot of what is said is said with the non-verbal stuff, expressions, body language. Regardless of who came first, the Artist is a novelty act, because pictures like these don’t get made. That is not enough of a reason for it to be hailed as the favorite for best picture. What makes it successful is how effortlessly it pulls off its act. It ropes you in by taking all of the lessons of the silent film era: the cute dog, the pantomime and the acting. Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo’s acting in this film makes you smile. Like a boxer they own the ring. Jean Dujardin should win Best Actor. He trumps the performances of George Clooney and Brad Pitt, by really only saying a couple of words. I am not sure how this is possible. I am sure if Clooney ends up losing he will wonder the same thing. Along with John Goodman and James Cromwell, this movie is superbly acted. The real trick of this film that ties it all together is the dog.

And this isn’t a compliment. He is the comic zinger. The easy laugh. I was not as moved as most people that saw this film. While it was daring in that attempted, with success, to make a silent film, is this enough to make a film a triumph? It deserves its congratulations. It was a well made film. For me, it will also be an easily forgotten film. By the time I forget about though, it probably will have swiped the Oscar like an old bank robber in a serial. Fade to black.

Oscar 2012: The Descendants

Alexander Payne seems to like the dark comedy: Election, About Schimdt, and now the Descendants (in my estimation, I think Sideways is sort of dark, but the lighter of all of these). George Clooney plays Matt King, a lawyer and a descendent of Hawaiian royalty and the entrustee of a large amount of land. The movie starts with his wife getting into a boating accident and falling into a coma. He then find outs through his daughter, Alexandra King, played by Shailene Woodley, that his wife had been cheating on him. The basic plot of the film is that Matt King seeks his wife’s lover and needs to make a decision to turn the property into commercial real estate and make a ton of money or to leave it alone and make nothing. George Clooney once again plays George Clooney. I read online last night someone’s opinion that he should have won for Michael Clayton or Up in the Air, but not this film. What was the difference? Other than O Brother Where art Thou, it’s hard to imagine him playing anything other than George Clooney-George Clooney, the hit man; George Clooney, the lawyer; George Clooney, the guy who fires people. Shailene Woodley is a knockout and carries as much weight as he does. The movie’s subtle theme I think will attract the same environmentalists that were wooed by Avatar’s “don’t kill the tree of life” message. Yes, we are all descendants and we should all value the land as the indigenous people of Hawaii did-we get it. There really isn’t any mystery as what Matt King will do by the end of the film. The movie has its funny parts but is mostly flat.

Jung's Keys to Happiness

Coleen and I are reading the Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin. She recently posted this tidbit to her website about Jung's keys to happiness. I recently wrote about Jung and his concept of synchronicity and it's connection to Chopra's synchrodestiny. I couldn't pass up the chance to post this piece of the article since it combined a few of things I am interested in recently. After all, if we aren't chasing happiness, what are we chasing? "In 1960, journalist Gordon Young asked Jung, "What do you consider to be more or less basic factors making for happiness in the human mind?" Jung answered with five elements: 1. Good physical and mental health. 2. Good personal and intimate relationships, such as those of marriage, the family, and friendships. 3. The faculty for perceiving beauty in art and nature. 4. Reasonable standards of living and satisfactory work. 5. A philosophic or religious point of view capable of coping successfully with the vicissitudes of life. Jung, always mindful of paradox, added, “All factors which are generally assumed to make for happiness can, under certain circumstances, produce the contrary. No matter how ideal your situation may be, it does not necessarily guarantee happiness."

Oscar 2012: Moneyball

Moneyball is a David and Goliath story. It is pitched this way from the start. The Yankees (Goliath) vs. the A’s (David). The A’s lose. End of story, right? Moneyball was one of my favorite books before it was pitched as a movie. My first thought when I heard they were going to do a movie was “How on Earth are they going to make a movie out of the book?”. Moneyball is a study about how paying attention to certain statistics can increase the wins your team gets. I admit I am a baseball nerd and this subject interested me enough to read the book. The movie’s style is similar to last year’s The Social Network. The two movies screenplays were written by Aaron Sorkin. Moneyball doesn’t rely on stunning visuals. There isn’t a lot of glitz and glamour. And with that being said, it does have Brad Pitt in it. Pitt commands his role in this film. Pitt is a Hollywood demigod at this stage in his career and can do almost anything he wants. It is a toned down performance, business-casual. It is what the role calls for, but I was surprised by his nomination for best actor. The A’s haven’t a world series since 1989 and Moneyball takes place long after that. The point made at the end of the movie is that, despite winning it all, was that the A’s changed the way baseball teams will be built. So, from this perspective, David doesn’t really lose at the end. A post-story to Moneyball is that the teams with the biggest payrolls have adapted to Moneyball strategies and have made the necessary adjustments to survive. The A’s have struggled with mediocrity for some years since the time highlighted in the movie. There is no doubt that the strategies employed by the A’s (and other teams at this time, arguably the Twins, as well) has changed the baseball landscape. Moneyball belongs on the best picture nominees list, if simly for the reason it is a movie that Hollywood doesn’t typically green light. It is a refreshingly, intelligent, entertaining movie that doesn’t play dumb for its audience, or attempt to pull any strings. While America loves winners, I believe it loves underdogs more. Moneyball is the underdog movie of the year.

Oscar 2012: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

This was the last of the Best Picture nominees that I saw. The saying “save the best for last” doesn’t apply to this movie. The first half of the movie is torture. To watch a precocious, 9 year old kid with possible Asperger’s for entertainment was as enjoyable as watching paint dry. The movie doesn’t get going until Max Von Sydow steps in as a mute-which says something about how this film was going. Still, he is able to rescue the picture from being a complete trainwreck, without saying a word. In fact, he never says a word throughout the film Wouldn’t that be interesting if the best picture, best actor, best supporting actress and best supporting actor Oscars all went to movies, actors and actresses that never said one word? (Max Von Sydow is up for supporting actor). Still, his character doesn’t last long in the film, but luckily the second half is a bit better than the first, but not by much. This movie stars Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Viola Davis, Jeffery Wright, in addition to Max Von Sydow. Yet, Thomas Horn, the 9 year old, dominates the screen time, and not very well. In researching this blog, Thomas was a kid’s Jeopardy champion and actually 14. And in fact, this fits. I was thinking I would be critical of movies that feature children as the main actors and how difficult it is for the main audience to lose themselves completely in them (see Phantom Menace), but as I was writing this I remembered my reaction to Hugo’s child actor, Asa Butterfield, also 14. I thought he was completely engrossing as an actor. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a throwaway type of movie. It’s themes are similar to the Hallmark made for TV movies. Like War Horse, I was confused as what people saw in this film as to nominate it for Best Picture.

Oscar 2012: Tree of Life

Here is a film I struggled with. I think it was one of the first true Oscar contenders to hit the theatres. It was directed by Terrence Malik. If you are familiar with Van Gogh, or Picasso, you can see one of their paintings and recognize it is theirs, despite perhaps never seeing the painting before in your life. Similar to Malik, his stroke on the screen is his own. Whether you enjoy his films or not, you know he is working from an inner source, not painting by numbers or copying someone else. And like true art, its impression will not leave you, long after the memory is gone, for better or for worse. As a viewer in the audience I was asking myself all sorts of questions: What is going on? Should I be liking this more than I do? What is this afterlife that Sean Penn seem to be in? One of Pauline Kael’s biggest criticism of directors is when they got lost in chasing the “Big Idea”. In a film that stretches from when the universe was created, to dinosaurs to 1950’s middle America, to the Oedipus Complex, to the afterlife-I am not sure there is a better example of a film chasing the Big Idea. While I think Pauline Kael could be criticized for her criticism of artists chasing the Big Idea, I would argue that it seems to be a masculine obsession, or pre-occupation. Not that women are not concerned about the questions like “Why are we here?”, I think women are better at the here –and-now, and while it is nice to ponder, don’t miss out on the pleasures you can find in the present. And while this broad stroke can paint me as misogynistic, I mean it as a compliment. It is also one of the reasons I think Pauline Kael was a great critic. She had a great female perspective-not feminist, female perspective. From a male’s point of view, you can look at A Tree of Life and go-Wow! Wasn’t that an attempt to sum up everything! From a female perspective I think you could say “What was the point?” There was no pleasure in the film. Yes, it summed up life. Not just a personal life, but all of life. The character you want to know the most about is Sean Penn.

Sean Penn as an adult and Sean Penn as a boy. The film dabs into these areas, mostly when he was a boy. As a viewer, you come out with more questions than you do answers. I read that the childhood scenes, at least the location, were similar to where Malik grew up-smalltown Texas. This film is like an attempt to show you the artist’s inner window. I think if the film would have focused more on the Sean Penn character, and lose the tones of the Big Idea, you would have a more complete picture. Instead, as an audience member, like in the therapy, you want the person to give more. It is nice to see the glimpse, but you want more. You feel that whatever is tormenting the client is still left unhealed. Here is my criticism for the film, you know there is agony in the Sean Penn character-yet you don’t feel it. A movie must make you feel empathy, not just sympathy for its characters. Is it possible for a film to look beautiful, feel beautiful, yet feel empty?

Oscar 2012: War Horse

The first thing most people know and remember about War Horse is that it was made by Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is the Midas of Hollywood. Everything he touches turns to gold. Unfortunately, this description is something he has earned based on his history of work, not this current picture. I am not sure why I was such put off by this film. It is Spielberg’s obsession with wars-World War II, aliens attack the world, or in this case World War I? It is impossible not to be pulled into people sacrificing their lives, which is one reason Spielberg paints on this canvas. Without this background, his movies often lack an emotional depth. One of his better pictures I have liked was The Terminal. You feel for the characters in this film. Like ET, like Jaws, the main character in this film is non-human. This movie could have been called “A Horse’s Life” or “Saving Private Horse”. You take a backdrop of a war, add in an adorable horse-and you have a cheap trick. Of course you are supposed to pull for the heroes to win. But in a Spielberg film it has become a cliché. The devil in me almost wants things to go terribly wrong just so I couldn’t predict the next scene. But-Yawn!-it doesn’t. How did this film get nominated as a Best Picture?

Study: Oscar Voters Are Mostly White Men

"LOS ANGELES -- A study of Academy Awards voters has found that it's not a very diverse group that hands out Hollywood's highest honors. The Los Angeles Times found that 94 percent of the 5,765 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are white and 77 percent are men. Blacks and Hispanics account for only 2 percent each of academy members. The newspaper's findings were reported Sunday, a week before the Oscars. The Times reported that through interviews with members and their representatives, it confirmed the identities of about 5,100 voters – 89 percent of academy membership. The findings are in line with industry employment overall, in which whites and males dominate. But academy President Tom Sherak says the group is trying to diversify its membership rolls."

Oscar 2012: The Help

I was moved by this film; more than I expected to be or wanted to be. For that, I give it credit. I thought it was superbly acted-Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain are all up for Oscars, but Emma Stone, Bryce Dallas-Howard and Sissy Spacek all have standout performances. The real hero of the film is Octavia Spencer.

She is character with the most flaws, hubris, comedy and humanity. She is the character the audience falls in love with, and if her character wasn’t in the film, it would flop, or burn, to use a reference from the film. I believe any time a movie touches you, you don’t forget it. It is a cinetherapy type of film, the kind that is played on the Oxygen channel every other Friday. I don’t believe it is worthy of a Best Picture, but I do believe it was successful in what it aimed to achieve. While some might judge its target as being sappy, or melodramatic, I don’t think this films falls into those traps.

Oscar 2012: Midnight in Paris

Paris in the 1920’s

If at any time in your life you have had an interest in modern art, literature, music, dance or fashion, you have crossed paths with Paris in the 1920’s: Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso, Man Ray, James Joyce, Josephine Baker, Duchamp, Coco Chanel, the list can go on and on. Woody Allen’s film “Midnight in Paris” takes us to that time, with a twist. Owen Wilson’s character, Gil, can only be transported to that age at the strike of midnight. It is a delightful adventure. A comedy that that weaves together the modern world with the Jazz/Dada/”Lost Generation” era. I was curious as to what led the non-Parisians to move to France at this time.

Hemingway supposedly went because it was “an inexpensive place to live” and “the most interesting people in the world lived there”. Picasso seemed to be around Paris from as early as 1900. Joyce headed to Paris at the invitation of Ezra Pound. It is said that Dali made his first visit to Paris in 1926 where he met Picasso. Duchamp met Man Ray in America before moving back to Paris in 1923. In 1917, Cole Porter moved to Paris and his parties were notorious for "much gay and bisexual activity, Italian nobility, cross-dressing, international musicians, and a large surplus of recreational drugs.” The thought of, in a day, you can bump elbows with these characters within 24 hours in less than a 10 mile radius, is an exhilarating thought on its own.

“Midnight in Paris” is a successful comedy, romance and fantasy. “Your father defends the right wing of the Republican party and I happen to think that you almost to have to be like a… demented lunatic” is one of my favorite lines from the film. Or, “You always take the side of the help. That’s why Daddy says you’re a Communist. Gil’s character has three love interests in the film: Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard and Lea Seydoux. (Poor guy!)

“Midnight in Paris” is my sort of movie. It is a movie that I would want to re-watch (if that is a quality of a good movie). There was a debate later in the film between Gil and Marion Cotillard’s character, Adriana, about what is the “golden age”. Gil says it’s the 20’s and Adriana says it was the Belle Epoque (late 19th century to WWI). There is a realization made in the movie that maybe that the nostalgia you have for the past is maybe making you miss the “golden age” you are living in the here and now.

The movie ends in a lyrical, Hollywood, and “they lived happily ever after” sort of way. And I had no problem with it. C'est magnifique!

Movie Review-Last Night

On a simple level, "Last Night" is about infidelity and marriage. Infidelity in the movies, by itself, is typically a subject that I have no interest in exploring for a length of a movie, no matter what the reasons are for the partner, or partners, being unfaithful. It is like the horror genre. It is predictable. Someone will be killed. The bad guy will usually die. And if they want to make a sequel they will show the bad guy living at the end for about a fraction of a second. Infidelity movies, if this is such a genre, are similar. Someone gets a good lay. Someone gets hurt. And maybe if you're lucky, a couple will set up a new cycle for love, and possibly another affair. And with all this being said, I still wanted to turn off "Last Night" midway through, but was persuaded by my fiance to "see how it turns out". Sam Worthington and Keira Knightley play the married couple in the film. Eva Mendes and Guillaume Canet, play the prospective love interests. Watching the film with my fiance was enjoyable because naturally we were motivated to defend our gender: who lied first, who was being more unfaithful, who won (reverse scale) by the end. The film was directed by Massy Tadjedin and as soon as the film ended we googled to find out if it was autobiographical, if she was divorced, etc. She claims in an interview it was personal, but not autobiographical. The style of the film was very polished, in a New York chic, sort of way. The actors are all attractive. Without the quality of the actors and cinematography the movie would not work as well as it does. Is the movie about a marriage breaking up? Are we watching the beginning of a marriage about to unravel? At the end of the movie we are left with lies and questions. Personally, I wasn't moved to care whether they stayed together or if they left each other. The director didn't fall into the pedagogical trap, as Pauline Kael might describe it. She isn't on her soapbox telling us that marriage is awful, or that men (or women) are at fault for breakups. "Last Night" is like a slow motion shot of something exploding. There is something irresistible watching something that was once whole, shatter, tear and break in a million pieces slowly before your eyes.

Essential Albums: Traveling Wilburys Vol. I, and Vol. III

The Traveling Wilburys consisted of Roy Orbison, Jeff Lynne, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty and George Harrison. The album was released in October of 1988. I most likely didn’t discover the album until 1989, or 1990. I was probably 13, or 14. This is about the time I got into trying to listen to new music. I would usually buy a magazine that they discontinued a couple of years later. It reviewed all of the albums of the past years and would score them on a scale of 10. Some of the albums at that time that were rated highly was: Bonnie Raitt, Nick of Time (a good one); King’s X, Faith, Hope, Love (an awful album as I recall); Billy Bragg, Don’t try this at home (I didn’t quite get into this one) and Nine Inch Nails, Pretty Hate Machine (a very cool, but dated album). The Wilburys album wasn’t one I dug right away. I would listen to it now and then, more often “then”. Nowadays, it has to be one of my favorite albums. One of the best things about it is that it is playful, they are great, but they don’t take themselves too seriously. Can you when you call your band the Traveling Wilburys? I have heard that the second album, Vol. III, wasn’t as well received as the first one. I still think it is as enjoyable as the first one. One of my favorite lyrics (and there are many) comes from the first track of Vol. III, “She’s My Baby”: “She’s got a body for business/ Got a head for sin/she knocks me over/like a bowling pin” Fun. Energetic. Playful. Not too serious. Just right.

Film: A Dangerous Method

A film that has been overlooked by the Oscars, including the performances within the movie, "A Dangerous Method", by David Cronenberg, kept my interest 1000x more than War Horse, a miserable little film that was nominated for a Best Picture award this year. Keira Knightley's performance was one of the best of the year. I thought she nailed the part. Strong performances by Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortenson, as Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, and the direction of David Cronenberg, make this one of my favorite films of the year.

Tiresias

This is a transcript between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell from the Power of Myth series on marriage: "Campbell: Marriage is the symbolic recognition of our identity-two aspects of the same being. Moyers: You know the curious old legend of the blind prophet Tiresias? Campbell: Yes, that's a grand story. Tiresias was walking through the forest one day when he saw two copulating serpents. And he placed his staff between them and was transformed into a woman, and lived as a woman for a number of years. Then again, Tiresias the woman was walking through the forest when she saw two copulating serpents and placed her staff between them and was turned back into a man. Well, one fine day on Capitol Hill, the hill of Zeus- Moyers: Mount Olympus? Campbell:-Mount Olympus, yes-Zeus and his wife were arguing as to who enjoyed sexual intercourse the more, the male or the female. And of course nobody there could decide because they were only on one side of the net, you might say. Then someone said, "Let's ask Tiresias." So they go to Tiresias, and they ask him the question, and he says, "Why the woman, nine times more than the man." Well, for some reason that I don't really understand, Hera, the wife of Zeus, took this badly and struck him blind. And Zeus, feeling a certain responsibility, gave Tiresias the gift of prophecy within his blindness. There's a good point there-when your eyes are closed to distracting phenomena, you're in your intuition, and you may come in touch with the morphology, the basic form of things. Moyers: Well, what's the point-that Tiresias, having been transformed into a man and then a woman by the serpents, had knowledge of both the female and the male experience and knew more than either the god or the goddess knew alone? Campbell: That's correct. Furthermore, he represented symbolically the fact of the unity of the two. And when Odysseus was sent to the underworld by Circe, his true initiation came when he met Tiresias and realized the unity of the male and the female. Moyers: I've often thought that if you could get in touch with your feminine side, or, if you're a woman, your masculine side, you would know what the gods know and maybe beyond what the gods know. Campbell: That's the information that one gets from being married. That's the way you get in touch with your feminine side."

Love in the time of Cholera

"IT WAS INEVITABLE: the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love. Dr. Juvenal Urbino noticed it as soon as he entered the still darkened house where he had hurried an urgent call to attend a case that for him had lost all urgency many years before. The Antillean refugee Jeremiah de Saint-Amour, disabled war veteran, photographer of children, and his most sympathetic opponent in chess, had escaped the torments of memory with the aromatic fumes of gold cyanide." -Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera. If there was ever a finer opening paragraph in prose...