Movies and other things..
Sep. 18th, 2022 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI'm baaack! Miss me? Probably not. ;-) My mother gave her nightmarish computer that was allegedly infected with fraud to her cousin to clean up and refurbish, and donate to good will.
Cousin: Are you sure - this is a perfectly good lap-top?
Mother: I never use and it's funky, I can't get it to work well.
Cousin: It's most likely the mouse. It's not connected well to the computer so doesn't work well with it. But if you use the pad there's no real issues. Also, I've run virus detector on it - and there's nothing really, just some mallware, that I've removed. I can take it off your hands if you really want me to?
Mother: I do.
Cousin's wife: I could use a new lap-top. Oh, that's too big, but still -
Cousin: I'll donate it, no problem.
[They drove.]
So long story short - my parents no longer have a computer for me to putter on while I'm in Hilton Head. I'll have to either cart my own lap-top down there, which I can technically do - I've not one but two backpacks that have lap-top compartments. Or do without, which I did, this go-around. It's probably better for me to do without.
***
While in South Carolina, I talked to my mother, brother and sisinlaw about the film Elvis - briefly. All saw it on streaming like I did, all loved it, all were impressed to varying degrees. Also we all ended up with a renewed respect for Elvis.
Also shared various friends reviews of it - the friends didn't understand the movie, while my family completely got it.
I picked up a pattern between it and the Marilyn Monroe flick adapted from Joyce Carol Oates fictional novel Blonde, regarding professional and amateur critical reviews.
The people who disliked the film Elvis, to varying degrees, all did for the same reasons - "it wasn't a bio-pic". While those who loved it, to varying degrees, all did because it wasn't a bio-pic, and was trying to explore something greater, and gave them a renewed respect for Elvis. Saw the same thing with Marilyn Monroe - "Blonde" film.
Marilyn Monroe and Elvis were sexual icons during an age of sexual revolution - moving from the repressed 1950s to the risque 1960s and 70s. Monroe died in 1962 of a drug overdose. (It was prescription drugs - barbiturates.) Elvis died in 1977 of a heart attack - he was on barbituates and uppers at the time. Both were devoured by their fans. Both had people fling themselves at them. Both had weak fathers. Both moved sexually, and both could sing with heightened sex appeal.
And both inspired art, films, and had numerous bio-pics. They became legends, and to this day have huge fan followings, long after their deaths.
They've also both, as a result, been the subject of more than one Real Person Published Fan Fiction. Or Fictionalized biography or story - either in film, musical, or book form.
I don't like Marilyn Monroe - she grates on my nerves, but Elvis intrigues me. I know people who feel the exact opposite, perhaps some of you do? (Don't tell me.)
So I can see why Lurham and the directors of Blonde chose these two historic iconic figures to make a point about our times - in both cases "social commentary". In Elvis - it's about our racist culture, and the use of misinformation to manipulate, repress and control - and turn art into a commercialized produce or carnival pop art. In Blond - it is much the same thing, how the person is turned into a product, a sex object, and their talent twisted and controlled. And how the human beings at the center are slowly destroyed. The audience an active participant in both characters destruction. The Elvis film asks who destroyed Elvis - did the audience or did Parker, or both? Blonde asks some of the same questions.
That's uncomfortable for an audience to see. It's much safer to watch the biopic - where the person's life is ripped apart and you can judge them, it's far less comfortable and far more disorienting - to be asked the question if you were complicit in their undoing simply by being a fan? People don't like looking in fun house mirrors for a reason. Hence the negative reviews - the movies aren't safe biopics. And the reviewers felt tricked into seeing them. [I state all of this with the caveat that I've not seen Blonde, nor intend to - since it sounds like a bit more than I can stomach right about now.]
***
Been rewatching the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings and Hobbit series - and the special effects don't quite hold up well. You can kind of see the early clunkiness of CGI. The new effects surpassed them.
That said, I did like Fellowship better than the others.
Also, watched Thor : for Love and Thunder and was kind of bored by it? Too many pointless action scenes that went seemingly nowhere. And not enough character moments. Christian Bale's villain is however, interesting. And Bale continues to physically disappear into his characters, to the point of being unrecognizable. Marvel still has the best villains. Also, there's a few nice twists here and there. And Dr. Jane Foster's story does follow the comics. (She has breast cancer in this movie too, and the hammer has the same effect on her, and the same result.) But we have a lot of guest stars here - beside the director who is in all his films (much like Hitchcock, except more so), we have cameos by The Guardians of the Galaxy (if you don't like them, don't worry, it's just a cameo - blink and you'll miss them), Russell Crow (is almost unrecognizable as Zeus and sporting a Greek accent - at least I think it's Greek), Matt Damon (an actor who plays Loki and the theater director), Liam Hemsworth (an actor who plays Thor and co-theater director).
It's all rather silly in places, as is the script. And by the end of the film - Thor was getting on my ever-living nerve. I liked Thor: Ragnarock a lot better. This effort was busy, and difficult to follow, also the effects felt a touch cheap. And I kind of missed Loki. Thor almost needs Loki to keep him balanced.
Currently listening to a flutist play. There's a concert going on outside my back window. It sounds like flute, and various wind instruments.
Cousin: Are you sure - this is a perfectly good lap-top?
Mother: I never use and it's funky, I can't get it to work well.
Cousin: It's most likely the mouse. It's not connected well to the computer so doesn't work well with it. But if you use the pad there's no real issues. Also, I've run virus detector on it - and there's nothing really, just some mallware, that I've removed. I can take it off your hands if you really want me to?
Mother: I do.
Cousin's wife: I could use a new lap-top. Oh, that's too big, but still -
Cousin: I'll donate it, no problem.
[They drove.]
So long story short - my parents no longer have a computer for me to putter on while I'm in Hilton Head. I'll have to either cart my own lap-top down there, which I can technically do - I've not one but two backpacks that have lap-top compartments. Or do without, which I did, this go-around. It's probably better for me to do without.
***
While in South Carolina, I talked to my mother, brother and sisinlaw about the film Elvis - briefly. All saw it on streaming like I did, all loved it, all were impressed to varying degrees. Also we all ended up with a renewed respect for Elvis.
Also shared various friends reviews of it - the friends didn't understand the movie, while my family completely got it.
I picked up a pattern between it and the Marilyn Monroe flick adapted from Joyce Carol Oates fictional novel Blonde, regarding professional and amateur critical reviews.
The people who disliked the film Elvis, to varying degrees, all did for the same reasons - "it wasn't a bio-pic". While those who loved it, to varying degrees, all did because it wasn't a bio-pic, and was trying to explore something greater, and gave them a renewed respect for Elvis. Saw the same thing with Marilyn Monroe - "Blonde" film.
Marilyn Monroe and Elvis were sexual icons during an age of sexual revolution - moving from the repressed 1950s to the risque 1960s and 70s. Monroe died in 1962 of a drug overdose. (It was prescription drugs - barbiturates.) Elvis died in 1977 of a heart attack - he was on barbituates and uppers at the time. Both were devoured by their fans. Both had people fling themselves at them. Both had weak fathers. Both moved sexually, and both could sing with heightened sex appeal.
And both inspired art, films, and had numerous bio-pics. They became legends, and to this day have huge fan followings, long after their deaths.
They've also both, as a result, been the subject of more than one Real Person Published Fan Fiction. Or Fictionalized biography or story - either in film, musical, or book form.
I don't like Marilyn Monroe - she grates on my nerves, but Elvis intrigues me. I know people who feel the exact opposite, perhaps some of you do? (Don't tell me.)
So I can see why Lurham and the directors of Blonde chose these two historic iconic figures to make a point about our times - in both cases "social commentary". In Elvis - it's about our racist culture, and the use of misinformation to manipulate, repress and control - and turn art into a commercialized produce or carnival pop art. In Blond - it is much the same thing, how the person is turned into a product, a sex object, and their talent twisted and controlled. And how the human beings at the center are slowly destroyed. The audience an active participant in both characters destruction. The Elvis film asks who destroyed Elvis - did the audience or did Parker, or both? Blonde asks some of the same questions.
That's uncomfortable for an audience to see. It's much safer to watch the biopic - where the person's life is ripped apart and you can judge them, it's far less comfortable and far more disorienting - to be asked the question if you were complicit in their undoing simply by being a fan? People don't like looking in fun house mirrors for a reason. Hence the negative reviews - the movies aren't safe biopics. And the reviewers felt tricked into seeing them. [I state all of this with the caveat that I've not seen Blonde, nor intend to - since it sounds like a bit more than I can stomach right about now.]
***
Been rewatching the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings and Hobbit series - and the special effects don't quite hold up well. You can kind of see the early clunkiness of CGI. The new effects surpassed them.
That said, I did like Fellowship better than the others.
Also, watched Thor : for Love and Thunder and was kind of bored by it? Too many pointless action scenes that went seemingly nowhere. And not enough character moments. Christian Bale's villain is however, interesting. And Bale continues to physically disappear into his characters, to the point of being unrecognizable. Marvel still has the best villains. Also, there's a few nice twists here and there. And Dr. Jane Foster's story does follow the comics. (She has breast cancer in this movie too, and the hammer has the same effect on her, and the same result.) But we have a lot of guest stars here - beside the director who is in all his films (much like Hitchcock, except more so), we have cameos by The Guardians of the Galaxy (if you don't like them, don't worry, it's just a cameo - blink and you'll miss them), Russell Crow (is almost unrecognizable as Zeus and sporting a Greek accent - at least I think it's Greek), Matt Damon (an actor who plays Loki and the theater director), Liam Hemsworth (an actor who plays Thor and co-theater director).
It's all rather silly in places, as is the script. And by the end of the film - Thor was getting on my ever-living nerve. I liked Thor: Ragnarock a lot better. This effort was busy, and difficult to follow, also the effects felt a touch cheap. And I kind of missed Loki. Thor almost needs Loki to keep him balanced.
Currently listening to a flutist play. There's a concert going on outside my back window. It sounds like flute, and various wind instruments.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-18 10:37 pm (UTC)I watched the new Thor movie recently and enjoyed it - although not as much as Ragnorok. I did like all the cameos.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-19 01:41 am (UTC)But, I did like Jane Foster's arc which is the same in the comics.
And thank you.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-19 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-09-20 12:56 am (UTC)