Trish's May recommendations

Just one recommendation this month:

The French Open began it's second week of play this afternoon. The men's final is on Sunday. If you haven't watched any of it, start tomorrow (it begins live coverage at noon on ESPN2), and if you have been keeping up-to-date, keep up the good work! The top four are still in it (#4 pending finishing the match that was suspended due to darkness today) and the women's side is anyone's game as usual.

I can't make any other recommendations when the majors are on. I'm sorry.

Oh, and never, ever see Thor. Unless you enjoy watching terrible movies that don't follow the mythology they're based on. And watching Natalie Portman destroy her career. (Ok, so I lied about not recommending anything other than tennis. Forgiveness?)

Unknown Persons: Terrible show, fantastic ending

So I don’t really have a “random” review to provide you with this week. This past week has been full of packing, moving, unpacking, moving around, and working a lot of hours to cover my co-jewelry worker’s vacation, so I haven’t had a lot of free time to whip up any funny reviews. And I do not want to review my moving abilities because I think it goes without saying that they are lacking. Also, my room is far from being unpacked so thinking about it is also extremely depressing to me. So, instead of forcing something, I am going to cheat a little and review some television this week (because I always have enough time for that in my life).

I just recently decided to splurge on myself and opened up a Netflix membership. Now, I shamelessly watch a lot of bad televisions and movies that it keeps recommending to me. (As a side note, whoever came up with the algorithm for that site needs to find a new vocation.) My latest series that I just finished yesterday morning was a mini-series that played on NBC last summer, Persons Unknown.

What initially drew me into watching the series was that the description made it seem strikingly similar to one of the Saw movies, which I will admit is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. Here’s what it’s about: a group of seven individuals wake up in a mysterious town with no idea how they got there, or where the town is located, and are trying to figure out a way to escape while solving the mysteries of the town. And it was similar to Saw (in some ways). Much, much, much less graphic, but it maintained the ideal of: how far would you go to survive?

The series was far from perfect. A lot of what happened was downright stupid and unnecessary. Out of the seven main characters, I could only stand to watch four of them, and I only enjoyed to watch two of them (only one of them by the finale), and all the other characters really annoyed me. I hated the guest stars that popped in and out, only there to serve one purpose or another. And I didn’t really care whether they escaped the town or not.

But I loved the final episode. I really loved it. Because, for once, the makers of the show did what they promised they were going to: they answered all the questions about the town, and showed you the people who were running it. Of course, if I were to sit down and analyze the show, I would probably be able to come up with a million questions they didn’t answer by the finale, but I felt satisfied that by the end credits, I knew what I needed to know about that town. I certainly knew enough to know with certainty that I didn’t want to end up there.

Beyond the answering of questions, I thought the final two or three scenes of the show were two or three of the best final scenes I’ve seen of any show. It was one of those times when you feel pity for the characters, but you can’t help but to smile at the intelligence of the people running the show (both on and off screen).

If it were possible to understand the show by only watching the final episode, I would recommend only that one, but since it’s not, I would say this is the type of show that a viewer should proceed to watch with caution. And it’s not for the type of viewer who wants to be instantly entertained or gratified. This show requires perseverance, for sure.

Let The Right One In

*WARNING: may contain spoilers *( I don't normally do this, but it's fine if you skip the last paragraph!)

I haven't gotten the chance to read a lot in the past few months. Well, not do the type of reading that I want to do, anyway. Sure, I could tell you all about what the experts are saying about the biological effects of drug addiction on the body and mind, but as far as reading for pure entertainment goes, my life has been kind of lacking. Which is why is my first priority upon graduation was to sit down and sink my teeth into a good novel. Maybe it was that particular desire that lead me to pick up John Ajvide Lindqvist's Let The Right One In.

In the age of Twilight, vampires have lost a lot of their luster for me. They've gotten soft, and I've missed the days of the Anne Ricean vampire running around taking innocent victims and seducing hapless humans. The best part of LTROI is that it effectively combines that down-and-dirt parts of vampirism while humanizing Eli, the story's main "vampire" (although she adamantly denies being a vampire and simply refers to her ailment as an "illness").

I guess I should backtrack and say what it's about a little. Meet Oskar, a twelve-year-old boy whose life is marked by the torture he faces from his classmates. That is until he meets Eli, the girl who moves in next door. Being around Eli gives Oskar not so much courage as a detachment from his own fate, and allows him to stand up for himself. Meanwhile, Eli and the older gentlemen she moves in with are wreaking havoc on the town and its inhabitants, generally creating a mess that they don't seem to have any concern about picking up.

I hate synopsizing books or movies because they always seem flat. They always make the work seem less interesting (or possibly more interesting depending on what it is) than they really are. They are, at their root, false advertising. Also, they can never describe the best parts (without giving away too much about the plot). In order to experience the best parts, you have to experience it for yourself. LTROI is the type of book that I thoroughly enjoyed, but I can't quite think of why. Sure, the characters were great and the dialogue was phenomenal, especially considering it's been translated. But I could say that about a lot of books I didn't enjoy. So what sets this one apart?

For me, I think it could mostly be attributed to the way in which the relationship between Oskar and Eli plays out. They discover each other as we discover them, and because of how strongly Oskar feels drawn to Eli, and vice versa, I felt drawn to both characters, and I felt a really investment in their safety. Because this a horror novel and Eli is a typically villainized character, every page leaves you on the edge of your seat. I expected Eli to hurt Oskar just as equally as I felt like she was going to protect him. And because it wasn't clear what exactly she wanted from him, I never lost interest in their exchanges. I wanted more, and I think that's the biggest compliment you could pay to a book.

I haven't wanted to strongly recommend a book to anyone as much as I do this one in a very long time. I read a lot of books, and this is the best horror/vampire novel I have ever read. If horror and vampires are your thing, and you haven't read this for whatever reason, go out to nearest bookstore and do so now. You will not regret it.

All that being said, I feel no desire to see the film. I have heard from everyone I know that's seen it that it was one of the best films of 2008 (and not just for being a horror film), but I just don't think I could watch it. Especially not by myself. Reading about someone who pours acid on their face is a very different thing from seeing it on the big screen, and it's not something that I particularly want to see, either.  But go ahead and try to convince me. Everyone knows horror movies are my weakness.

Own Worst Makeover

Please forgive me for performing a disappearing act for awhile. These past few weeks have been busy, busy, busy for me. I successfully survived writing my Capstone and finally received my bachelor's in Professional Writing this past Saturday. Suddenly, I have a lot more free time on my hands. It's amazing how much time is freed up when you aren't doing homework. Which is why I decided that this blog could use a bit of a makeover to make it less sporadic and random, and a little more adult (because that's what people tell me I am now). Also, it could really use to be organized. If there's one thing that  college taught me, it's that I am organized.

So, here's the deal. I'm going to start posting once a week (I think the day is going to be Wednesday, but depending on my work schedule for that week, it may go the day before or after).  And here's the plan for what I am thinking each week. And for each week, to add variety, I'm going to mix it up with sometimes reviewing the best I've seen in the past month with the worst. And during those lulls when the networks aren't airing new things and I've seen everything I am willing to see at the movies, I'll review things I find on Netflix or recommend things that I've really enjoyed, or recommend not watching things that I think are awful.

Week 1: TV show

Week 2: Movie

Week 3: Book. I'll try to mix up the genres a bit and step out of my normal reading zone to provide variety, as well as reviewing both new and older books.

Week 4: Miscellaneous. Some weeks maybe I'll write a joke review just for fun (like my weather review), maybe review a date I've been on or a holiday that just happened. Maybe I'll review a concert I've been to or a comic strip I come across. I'm also thinking that if I have any fun short stories I've written, this would be the week that I would share those, as well. Just to keep a little bit of whimsy so I'm not too cut-and-paste.

End of the month: Trish's recommendations. Here is where I would talk about the trailers for the upcoming month that look interesting to me, or the things that I saw in the past month that I didn't get the chance to review, but I thought were good and worthy of checking out.

Stay tuned for the upcoming posts of my new and improved blog <3

Moral lessons and missing identities

I think some of the best shows on television have been cancelled prematurely. Some of these shows go on to be somewhat of cult classics (My So-called Life, Freaks and Geeks) and some of them were just horrendous and never deserved to receive air-time in the first place. And then there are those that are gems that just got lost and forgotten in the mix.

One such of these types of shows was one of my personal favorites, Samantha Who? which ran two seasons before having the plug pulled.

Starring Christina Applegate, the show is about a woman, Samantha Newly, who wakes up from an eight-day coma with no memory of anything that happened before getting run over by a car, including forgetting her semi-crazy parents (Jean Smart and Kevin Dunn) who she hasn't spoken to in two years, her live-in (ex)boyfriend Todd (Barry Watson), and two best friends, Andrea and Dena (Jennifer Esposito and Melissa McCarthy, respectively). The more memories she reveals about herself, the less she likes the person she was before the accident and the more she tries to make herself a better, reformed woman.

 What made this show so great was that each episode outdid the last one. Every time you thought that Samantha couldn't possibly discover anything worse about herself than what she had already discovered, she did. From helping her mother dump her father's car into a lake to sabotaging her best friend's relationships to causing the extinction of a species of butterfly, there was no stone left unturned by her in her evil path. And every time the "new" and improved Samantha tried to make things better, she, of course, made them much worse in the appropriate comedic fashion.

There were, of course, times when the show made cheap, slapstick type of jokes, but it never felt like they had to put on the "clap" sign for the audience to get a sympathy laugh, so I can overlook the occasional cringe factor. Most of the time, it was witty and engaging to watch her discover all these terrible things about herself, mostly because it isn't me who has amnesia, and it isn't me who didn't pass along the message about the job interview to my boyfriend in order to go on vacation. This show is made for people like me who enjoy watching other people mess up their lives and basking in the simple joy that at least it isn't happening to me.

 The only gripe that I have with the show is that it's riddled with underlying moral messages. And by "underlying", I mean in-your-face obvious moral messages that are revealed to the audience by the completely unnecessary voice-over narration. I have never been a fan of narration, I think there are better ways to tell a story, but as far as this show is concerned, the narration isn't too annoying most of the time. And at least there are good-looking men (Barry Watson has grown up a lot since his Seventh Heaven days) to combat the fact that the show was about a woman trying her hardest to take the moral highroad after thirty years of taking advantage of everyone she encountered. I only wish that we didn't have to take the highroad with her every episode.

Overall, Samantha Who? is a fun, quirky little show that entertains and teaches

 

Moon: 'Cause not every film can be what you expected

I know a lot of people who loved this movie. I know a lot of people who described the film in this way: it’s about a man who is sent on a three year mission to the moon with no company other than a talking computer (voiced by Kevin Spacey) and two weeks before he’s scheduled to go home, he finds another version of himself. Which one is the real Sam and be sent back to Earth? If you’ve heard of this film and heard it described in this way, start questioning the people who told you that. Because it’s just not the truth.

Here’s what true: we have Sam, the sweet, harmless hero who is nearing the end of his three year mission on the moon, and is uber excited to get back to his wife and young daughter on Earth. We have GERTY (which must stand for something really smart-sounding), the computer who cares for him. We have a crash while out on a mission. Sam wakes up and is told he is too weak to go outside, that a rescue mission is on its way, and Sam tricks GERTY into letting him go outside, where he discovers another version of himself. What we don’t have is them discussing which is the “real” Sam and who gets to go back to Earth. Because the secrets they discuss are MUCH bigger and more interesting than going home.

To say that this film didn’t fulfill my expectations of it would be an understatement, but that’s hardly the fault of the film. It’s the fault of the advertising. Because when you advertise a film in a certain way, people are going to expect the film to play out in that way. In this case, I expected to see a bloodbath, killing-to-survive fight to break out between the two Sams, and the one left standing was the one who got to go home. You know how many fights the Sams get into? Exactly one. And it’s over one Sam not wanting to stop working on his model town long enough to move it out of the way.

To say that I didn’t like the film would be a lie, though. It was well-made and the acting was phenomenal, especially coming from Sam Rockwell, who I mostly think of as the villain in The Green Mile. I think of him as an actor who doesn’t have too much variety in his talent. This was a different role for him, one that I was able to really sink my teeth into and take seriously. It was a pleasant change of pace to see him take the spotlight for once, and I enjoyed his performance quite thoroughly. And because this wasn’t at all what I was expecting to be, I was surprised by the twists and turns that the film made.

As with most movies, I didn’t feel quite satisfied by the ending. With a lot of films, I feel like there is always so much build-up that the ending is always a letdown, and Moon was no exception to this feeling. The way that the film was playing out led to so many different possibilities of where it could go in the end, and then to have everything work out so well (sorry, spoiler alert!) for Sam in the end, was kind of a disappointment. I know that Hollywood loves a big, fat, happy ending, but the struggle to find that end could have been more challenging.

In general, I think this is the type of film that space and futuristic nuts would enjoy, and it’s worth checking out.

The only reason I am even remotely excited to move back in with my parents: my apartment: a review

Sitting dead center in a swarm of fruit flies, I can't even make out the walls of my apartment enough to find the front door. Luckily, the hallway is so narrow that I can easily reach out and touch the wall regardless of where I am standing in the hall. I stumble my way into the bathroom only to discover that the light, which is cleverly hidden behind the mirror, has been haunted by the phantom in our apartment again, which doesn't  allow a light bulb to last more than a week before blowing. If hideous were a physical being, it would look like our bathroom. Our small, need-to-stand-on-the-toilet-to-shut-the-door bathroom that's trying to look cute with the pink vomited on the floors and walls, but just looks like it's trying too hard. A lot of people think that my roommate and I have destroyed the bathroom with our lack of cleanliness, but the mold in the shower is the product of years of neglect. No one could do that much damage in a year.

Exiting the bathroom, you'll notice that you're conveniently located in the kitchen, only it isn't convenient at all because who wants to be cooking a meal when their roommate is literally right beside you using the bathroom? That thought aside, the kitchen is well equipped with an Easy-Bake Oven sized oven that will surely make preparing a meal difficult despite the overwhelming growling in your stomach. You could always use the microwave you bought on sale at Kmart, but that generally causes a power shortage for the whole apartment, so it's probably easier to wait the hour longer than the box suggests to cook your food in the oven. Just don't expect to host Thanksgiving dinner at your place this year.

Leaving the kitchen, you're back in the way-too-narrow hallway, making your way to the bedrooms. You have two options here: the teeny tiny room with the built-in shelving complete with cow pattern and no lights, or the much larger bedroom where the heat doesn't work and the window has a terrible draft. Don't worry too much because both rooms are equally unappealing aesthetically and you won't want to walk around without shoes in either room. The choice really can be decided by the flip of a coin.

Last, and certainly least, you'll find yourself in the living room. The living room with the closets in it because the bedrooms are too small to house them, and the living room which could be a nice sized room if only the ceiling wasn't slanted in such a way that you can barely stand up. Tall people: proceed with caution. In the living room you will find our "dirty" coloring book wall and a poster of Barbie and Ken, which came with the apartment. The furniture is all Recycle North and stolen from Spinner, which adds a very homey Poor College kid vibe that both comforts and repulses.

The moral: when looking for apartments in Burlington, choose your apartment for the apartment, not for the price tag.

Mindless entertainment gets Adjust-ed

Sometimes I have to go see movies with my parents. Movies that my parents want to see. And sometimes I dread the choices that they make, but I’m a good daughter (most of the time) so I swallow my pride from time to time and take a trip down to the local St. Albans theatre to appease them. Being forced to go home and sleep on the couch for two days over spring break, my mother decided she couldn’t have my brother and I hanging around the house anymore, and sent us off with our father to the movies to give her two hours of peace. Which meant that since my father was paying, he was always choosing the movie. Which meant I was going to see The Adjustment Bureau despite my desire against it.

The amazing thing is that I liked it. My brother liked it. My dad hated it from the moment it began until the moment that the credits started rolling. He sighed and he groaned and he got up several times to use the bathroom and refresh his popcorn. He whispered snarky remarks and insisted on switching seats so he could sit in the middle and whisper comments to both his children. He was, to put it lightly, not happy.

But I was engaged. I wanted to know what happened. The movie was primarily set-up. Introducing us to David Norris’ (Matt Damon) life, introducing us to Elise (Emily Blunt), introducing us to the Adjustment Bureau, introducing them all to each other, and so forth. The whole movie was setting us up for one single scene (that I won’t state for those of you planning to see the movie, which you should) that never came. It just…didn’t happen.

The last five minutes left me with a feeling of dissatisfaction. Extreme dissatisfaction. And shock that the scene I was waiting for the entire time never came. The last five minutes of this film were quite possibly the most unsatisfying five minutes of any movie I’ve ever seen. Certainly it wins some sort of award for cop-out, just-kind-of-stops ending. I was so mad after those last five minutes, I could hardly talk on the car ride home. I definitely didn’t want to talk about the movie.

But then I let it sit for a couple of days, and I went back to it. I enjoyed the first 85 minutes and that should not be negated by loathing the last five. It’s an interesting story. It’s engaging. It held my attention. Often times I judge movies that I see in the theatre by the number of times I checked the time on my watch. During The Adjustment Bureau, I checked my watch exactly zero times. That’s no small feat for a movie to do.

Overall, I was impressed with the movie and I highly recommend it. It’s not the type of movie that’s going to change the world or the watchers view of the world, but as I’ve said before (and even if I haven’t, I’m saying it now), there’s something to be said for a little bit of mindless entertainment. This is the quality kind.

Little Red Riding Hood, you sure are(n't) looking good

Growing up, Little Red Riding hood was one of my favorite tales. I used to make my mother read from a worn, dog-ear paged hardcover edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales (although she was Little Red-Cap then) almost every night before, and the story of Red's encounter with the wolf was always my favorite one to hear. So needless to say, I was quite excited when I began to see trailers for Catherine Hardwicke's Red Riding Hood. Little did I know was that she was complete destroy a classic.

In theory, the movie was okay. What drew to me to it was that it seems interesting to me to take an old classic and turn it on its head and adapt it into something the audience hasn't thought of before. The problem with this particular retelling is that the audience did think of it. Five minutes into the film, the Wolf's human identity becomes obvious and the point of the movie, the village's effort to figure out who among them is really the Wolf, begins to drag on for an hour more before Red finally figures out what the audience has known all along. At least there was a little throwback to Grimm's tale when she fills the Wolf's stomach with stones.

And then there's the trouble with the biggest subplot, the love triangle. Mainly, Red (Amanda Seyfried) loves one boy (Peter played by Shiloh Fernandez), who presumably loves her too, but her mother has already betrothed her to someone else (Henry played by Max Irons). Problem. The problem is that the movie begins too late in the romance of her and Peter because when the movie begins, he's already trying to break up with her to appease her parents. We're never shown why she loves him and we spend more time getting to know Henry than we do Peter, so we're left wondering: why are you desperate to be with this guy who just dumped you?

Both guys are equally good-looking and prove to be equally important in helping her out with the Wolf, so why chose one over the other? The storyline just isn't flushed out enough to matter and I've never been the type of girl to just accept that she loves him because she loves him and there isn't anything more to it. Maybe that's a flaw in me. Maybe it's also a flaw that I think the movie should have spent less time with the two boys and more time worrying about the Wolf and keeping his identity a little less transparent.

It’s a film worth seeing if you enjoy the classic tale and are interested in seeing a movie you don't have to think about. If you're looking to be entertained without being intellectually challenged, this is the movie for you. Because this is one film that isn't going to test your mind at all. And it's one that's good for a laugh. Just wait until the end when Red is walking up a snowy mountain and the train of her red cape is about twenty feet too long. Just wait.

My Oliver Twist obsession turns to addiction.

Every since I saw Oliver Twist performed at the Flynn last weekend, I've been on an Oliver Twist kick. That's what I do--when I find something that I like, I become obsessed. This week it's Oliver Twist, and next week it will probably be the Academy Award results or I am Number Four after I see it with my father on Wednesday. Anyway, my recent obsession with Oliver Twist led me onto Netflix (which I also just started subscribing to and am also pretty smitten about), where I stumbled upon a little film called Twist, which was a modern day retelling of the classic tale set in Toronto. If you think this sounds interesting, stop thinking that immediately, because the novelty wears off well before the film ends.

The characters all remain generally the same--you've got the Artful Dodger, now just Dodge, who finds Oliver on the side of the street and offers to take him in (for a price, of course). There's Fagin, who in this story plays the pimp to the younger men's hustlers and junkies, Nancy, who works in the local diner, and her husband, Fagin's boss, Bill Sykes, who is never shown in the film, but whose presence is always looming. The difference lies in the subject matter. In case you didn't quite catch it, this story depicts the boys (young men, rather) as hustlers and Dodge as a heroin addict, who Oliver is completely taken with immediately despite his cruelty and emotional absence.

The issue with the film is that you don't care. Dodge, the character that the story follows, is despicable. He's mean, violent, and manipulative without the benefit of having charisma or a single positive trait to gain your sympathy. The only positive trait he has is that he's played by Nick Stahl, who would give a great performance just standing there. Even that isn't enough. Nancy is a pathetic excuse for a woman and the audience can't understand why she won't leave Bill because we don't see him to tell if he has a positive trait or not. Fagin is just Bill's puppet and Oliver is just Dodge's. All of the characters only behave and exist because of their fear of what Bill will do to them if they rebel, but the audience is never brought into that sense of fear.

And then there's ending, which I won't ruin for anyone who may want to catch out this film just for the laughs. But I will say that it's like the filmmaker (Jacob Tierney wrote and directed it) didn't know how else to end it so he threw in every dramatic stereotypical element that makes up a film and called it a day. This is definitely a case of when subtlety may have been the better choice.

Who knew Vermont could have great local theatre?

Neil Bartlett's adaptation of Oliver Twist was Charles Dickens meets Monty Python: eloquently spoken and bitingly hilarious. It wasn't a laugh-out-loud success, but it had all the subtle humor of everything that I love in a show. Dickens has always been long-winded and kind of dull to me; I didn't know he had humor in him. I am overjoyed to know that I was wrong.

The Artful Dodger was delightfully demonic. Every time he took the stage, there was no one else on it. I had heard that he was shocking, almost unbelievably impressive prior to seeing it, but when Robbie Tann took the stage as the narrator, I didn't see the greatness that everyone had mentioned. But with the addition of a top hat and the most fantastic coat I've ever seen, he was suddenly something else entirely from great. I couldn't take my eyes off from him. I couldn't believe how good he was for being anyone, let alone an actor in Vermont. At first I thought there was no way he could keep up the level of his performance all the way through, but he never dropped it. Color me impressed with him. He made Charles Dickens sexy. That IS unbelievable.

My only complaint, if I had to make one (which I suppose I don't, but will anyway), was that Oliver Twist was the weakest character in the production. I've never read the novel, only seen the cheesy musical, so I don't know if he suppose to be weak or not, but I definitely would have liked the play better without him. Or her, I guess in this case. It didn't bother me that the actor was an actress as much as the actress wasn't much of an actress. Not in comparison to the others, anyway. It was clever of the director to disguise this fact by giving her less stage time and many less lines.

The real star of the show, however, was the accordion. I have always had a warm place in my heart for the accordion. When I was just knee high to a grasshopper, I used to beg my parents to let me play the "squishy woo thing", but I was never given the opportunity to learn. So when David Symons took the stage during Sunday's matinee performance of Oliver Twist carrying an accordion, I knew I was going to love him. I'm glad to say that I was not wrong.

Symons may be better known around the town of Burlington, Vermont as a taxi driving master or the guy rocking out on Church Street to the beat of his own orchestra, but in this production, he was seen as nothing else but the musical backbone of the production. Not only did he perform the musical numbers as a member of the chorus and provide most of the sound effects for the show (accompanied by Emma Gonyeau on the violin), but he seemed to pull instruments out of the thin air to play throughout the show.

If the accordion was not enough for the audience, at one point he danced down the aisle in the audience, wearing the accordion across his chest while he played the trumpet (and only messed up one note impressively enough). He then danced across the stage to resume his place beside Gonyeau at the side of the stage. And if that wasn't enough, he then began to play the xylophone, which took his a step back for me because I used to play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" on the xylophone when I was five, but then he shot him forward again when he turned to the keyboard, then back to the accordion, back to the keyboard, and so forth.

The number and quality of instruments that he played aside, the thing that was the most impressive about Symons' performance was the way he played each instrument. Every time I would look over him, he would appear to be in his own little world. He didn't just play the notes, he created them, and even on the final performance of the show, it seemed fresh, like he was just now discovering the notes and enjoying how they sounded.  He was completely engulfed in the sound of his own music and it was a beautiful spectacle for the show.

I was able to suspend my disbelief into thinking that the story was unfolding in front of me for the first time because of Symons' performance. He was so convincing  that he was playing those instruments and the music that was in the play for the first time and enjoying himself in doing so that I was able to enjoy them for the first time, as well. I found myself believing that he was a musician in the 1800's more than anyone else in the show was from that time period, and that feeling alone made the show a success for me.

Note: Oliver Twist was put on by the Vermont Stage Company at the Flynn Space in Burlington, Vermont. It ended its run on Sunday afternoon.

Me, myself, and I

In honor of yesterday, my roommate Leah and I hosted an "I hate Valentine's Day" potluck at our apartment and, of course, watched Garry Marshall's Valentine's Day as a part of the festivities. And there was one scene that actually made me stop and think. One character insightfully said: "When you love someone, you love ALL of them. Not just the good parts, but the bad ones too." It's a wonderful sentiment, and a particularly optimistic one, but it's completely untrue for me. I find one reason to hate someone and let that eat away at me until there's nothing left. And I hate that about myself. I always tell myself when I meet someone new that I'm not going to do it, but I find that once we've stopped speaking that I did do it without realizing that I was. And then I say that at least I'm self-aware. But what has that really gotten me?

All that being said, if you're reading this, I'm sorry. I was wrong.

I think it's important to know where your strengths lie and what your weaknesses are, and consciously try to improve on them. I think it may be the most important thing. Because no matter how many relationships you have in your life, you'll be with yourself the longest. And that's the one you really need to work on. So, in honor of Valentine's Day and the romance and couple-ness that goes along with it, I'm going to review myself.

In the words of the immortal Marilyn Monroe, "I'm selfish, impatient, and a little bit insecure."

As much as I love you, I love me more and I always will. The only thing I love more than myself is my cat, Clutch, and that's only because she doesn't need me. I'm independent to a flaw, or at least I want everyone to think that I am, but I'm also the loneliest person that I know. I get annoyed when you talk to me too much, and I get annoyed when you talk to me too little. I will never admit to you that my thoughts contradict each other.

I don't talk about my feelings and I don't want you to talk about yours. I won't tell you when something is wrong, but I will expect you to read my mind. I have an extremely short temper and tendencies towards the dramatic. I can be really unforgiving and a total bitch.

And now that you're all really turned off, let me try to think of the positives, which are a lot more difficult for me to talk about.

My memory is selective. In your favor. I may get mad and blow up at you with a laundry list of complaints, but the following day, week, month, year I will ALWAYS only remember the things I did wrong and the things you did right. You just have to wait out the anger.

I am shockingly, almost unbelievably undemanding. (Although some people may disagree with this one.) I can count the number of things I have asked boyfriends to do for me on my fingers and toes. That being said, if I do ask you do something and you don't, I will pout, sulk, yell, explode, and generally not be please with you. I may not like all the things you do, but I will never tell you not to do something. I hate making decisions, so I will go along with almost any idea you come up with. If you ask me to try something, I have to really not want to do it to say no. I will try to make you happy even if it makes me less so, relationships and friends alike.

Even if I am terrible in a relationship, I am a really good friend. I may talk until your ears bleed, but I'm also a good listener. I ask people how their day is because I honestly want to know. I may be a bitch, but I also care about people. If you lie, I will swear to it. If you need to hide a body, I will help you and not tell a soul. And I know how to take one for the team. If you have an annoying friend who needs to be kept company while you hit a cute guy/girl, I am your girl. I can smile and make nice with the best of them.

I know how to laugh at myself, and I do often. I can take a joke at my expense and I'm not easily offended. I love beer and sports, and I adore any cat, dog, fish, hedgehog, snake, or any other pet that you may have. Except spiders. A girl has to draw the line somewhere.

I tried to make it fairly balanced, but I'm starting to think that posting this is going to blacken my future love life considerably, but life is all about risks, right? And I've got to say, this is the most narcissistic thing I've ever done. It was kind of fun.

Happy day after Valentine's Day, everyone <3

February in Vermont: a joke review

So this semester I'm taking a Reviewing class and the first couple of weeks we had fairly serious conversations about the merit of Black Swan and what constitutes a "good" review, as well as what the reviewers responsibility is to the reader. So I was glad to take a step back from all that discussion and be able to write a fun review of last week's snow-mageddon. For those of you who don't live in the Burlington area, the snow was accompanied by Mass Hysteria and Canceling Classes the Night Before. Here's my review. Hope it makes you giggle as much as I did writing it.

Mother Nature Gets Back to her Roots and

Shows Winter in a Way That Will Dazzle

No one can say it's an easy job being Mother Nature. Controversial in the past, Mother Nature's work is often panned by critics for either playing it "too safe" or "revealing too much", but with last week's episode of February in Vermont, she struck the right balance between covert and obvious. I think it's safe to say that no one walked away from the episode disappointed.

February followed a storyline similar to those we've seen in the past--everything is very picturesque and quintessential until Snow enters the scene and begins to destroy the town Godzilla-style--but Mother Nature managed to both tone down the obviousness of Snow's attacks and yet bring  out a more forceful and assertive performance from Snow than we've seen in the past. It was refreshing to see the young actor actually act rather than puff out his chest and strut around to make himself known.

Snow really needed the success of February to bring back his career after a slew of failures, such as Christmas in June and I'm Going to Ruin Your Graduation Party, where he played in a supporting role so bad the critics said, "The only thing relevant that Snow will do in the future is keep the toilets clean for serious actors". But in his guest role in Wednesday's episode as a terrorist covering windshields and roads alike, he brought something new to familiar territory, and really dazzled in the role.

Mother Nature also brought something that was new and interesting for her. Her work with February has been limited to working with Ice and Temperature playing the role of Bitter Cold, so it was refreshing to see her take a step away from that and bring Snow in a guest role. Wednesday's episode was just what she needed to bring audience interest back to the show.

Mother Nature has been known for her use in visuals, most notably for her subtle use of color in last fall's mini-series, Autumn Leaves, but it was the simplicity of February that delighted and charmed audiences. It seems Nature has found her calling in keeping things one-toned and clean. It allowed her to focus her efforts on the more psychological side of the subject matter, which is where she really shines.

Audiences will love and relate to February in a way that hasn't been seen in a weather series in a long time. The last time we've seen one with such heart was in 1998's Rain Showers in July. February come onto the scene just in time to show audiences that weather series are still around and have fresh things to say. This series, and Wednesday's episode in particular, are worthy of being watched, especially if you are a fan of Snow's earlier work. This is his best performance to date. I wouldn't be surprised if Nature brought him back in a future episode.

There was an encore performance on Saturday evening for those of you who missed it during the premiere, and it was equally as satisfying the second time around.

My experiment with an experimental film

“And to the anonymous anatomical specimen—to the single still dreaming hair on his brow with its desires to disturb the wallpaper.”

With these words, the Brothers Quay "Rehearsals for Extinct Anatomies" begins and throws the viewer into a whirlwind world of dancing barcodes and bouncing balls. The 14 minute video begins by showing a grotesque "anatomy" attempting to rub away a hair on his forehead while his eyeball frantically looks around the room, keeping a watchful eye over all of the buzzing objects around him. Just as the hair pops off from his forehead, the orchestra of the objects begins and the story moves from a quirky little symphony of various objects to a statement about society.

The camera shifts into a darkly lit and ominous space where two figures, apparently struck with leprosy, are lounging. The man is laying in the bed while the woman leans against the wall rubbing her own forehead in imitation of the anatomy outside the door. As the story, and the orchestra, move forward to the climax and end of the video, the camera moves back and forth between the dark and well lit rooms, demonstrating the juxtaposition between the two sides.

The point that the Brothers Quay are trying to make in this short are unclear, of course, because that’s how these types of the “experimental” films go—they are designed to be purposely vague and make little sense. That being said, the point that I thought they were trying to make with the film was this: curiosity is something that controls us and turns us into something else. Let's walk through the "plot" again to illustrate my point.

The film opens with the grotesque anatomy rubbing at the stray hair on his temple. He is the god of this world; everything he does creates a reaction from all the other objects (and the lepers) in the room. If he had just left the hair alone, we would have seen a completely different short, full of puppies and meadows. But he just couldn’t leave it well enough alone because curiosity is a driving force in our lives. He had to keep going, and the consequences of his actions are shown through the woman in the room who is imitating his actions. Enough of those tired old tales about curiosity killing cats, the Brothers Quay are clearly showing the audience that it will give you leprosy.  Now, that’s a statement.

It has been my experience that experimental films try too hard to make statements, and this one was no exception. If you want to say that ugly, crazy-eyed creatures are gods that control our lives and that curiosity is going to give you an incurable, contagious disease, I am of the opinion that you should just say that instead of making a 14 minute video of string/wire people dancing around to some violin music. But maybe that’s just me.