drunk!

My husband is watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on TV. I just read Thompson's piece about motorcycle gangs for my journalism class. Both of us are drunk, although I'm probably more drunk thank he is... 1 bottle of wine to 4 beers + 1 sambuca shot for both of us (mine on fire, his not) = me more drunk, correct? I just watched Pot Psychology on Jezebel.com, and I think they're funny but... ummm... not very informative...
I've also done some "research" for my (big moment here) [potentially] first music review to be published in an actual publication! not just internet stuff! by watching Youtube videos of the bands I'm going to be reviewing tomorrow - one Swedish death metal (thank god I married a Swede), one Montreal symphonic metal, one... well, I forgot to look them up :)
Husband has changed the channel - now he's watching "Manswers" because, of course, he's a normal guy, and "Manswers" appeals to normal [straight] guys. And I have big boobs. Hence why he married me. Ask him about it sometime... he'll admit [or at least he should] that he's a completely normal, red-blooded, although not necessarily red-necked man.
Amazing that I can spell so well after a bottle of wine and [at least] one shot.
My point is this: update about my current creative endeavours.
1) I'm writing my first concert review tomorrow, for a local "metal" publication, to help my photographer friend get her pictures published. It's all working towards a goal though: we want to do something about the Nine Inch Nails concert in Victoria on December 5th. That is the biggest thing to happen in Victoria since the Pixies played here in 2003.
2) I'm currently copying the video of Joey Chaos's latest concert onto DVD so he can post it on YouTube. If you haven't checked out Joey Chaos yet, you really should, because he's awesome. And honestly, I'd much rather be reviewing goth shows than metal shows. Because goth is a field of interest for me [and husband too... we fell in love at a Sisters of Mercy concert...] more than metal. I don't understand metal, but I'm trying... and hopefully I'll understand it before tomorrow :)
3) Tribal Machine played that last show too, and I filmed parts of it. It's their first show since last year (or maybe January?) and if you're into the band (which you probably are, if you're reading my blog) then you know that the show was a big deal. But more than the show being sort of historical, it was... how you say... calming. It was NICE. Everyone had a great time, everyone got along, everyone felt at ease. It was a great show, because they were confident in their abilites. But also because they were cohesive. I don't know if I'll post anything from the show, but rest assured that SOMEONE has footage of it. And they have a new drummer. And he fits.
I hope to eventually make a video for Tribal Machine - Sever and I were going to meet this summer, but it didn't happen, probably because we both got lost in our own heads. I know I did, anyways. I spent 2 months in the apartment, doing nothing, but waking up at 7:30am every day nonetheless.
Now husband is watching "Fear and Loathing" again, and I have to say, Benicio Del Toro is highly underrated. So is Javier Bardem. An Oscar means nothing; public opinion is all that matters.
Have you ever been to the casino in the Port Place mall in Nanaimo? If not, next time you're in Nanaimo, I suggest you make a stop. It's the only place that's ever made me feel like I exist in the world of Hunter S. Thompson.
Now he's changed the channel again: to MMM, and the Dr. Drew show Celebrity Rehab. Rodney King is on Celebrity Rehab. I think this is a great psychological study: how can somene cope when they've become more of a symbol than a human being? Answer: they can't. That's why he's on Celebrity Rehab.
Now to CNN: Larry King interviewing Maya Angelou. The first poet I ever recognized, the first book of poetry I ever bought, was by Maya Angelou. The first poem that ever struck me, despite the fact that I'm white, was Still I Rise. And now (!) she's reciting it on Larry King! You may write me down in history/ with your bitter, twisted lies / you may trod me in the very dirt / but still, like dust, I rise.
Larry King says "you know, you are a poet." Ummmm.... yeah. of course she is.
At the inaugural: "I shall be the tall black lady, smiling."

Media Reading

So, for one of my classes this term, I have to keep track of my "media reading habits", then write a paper on it. I thought "why not take it one step further" and turn my media reading habits into actual media?
So here's my first piece of observation about my own habits: I'm obsessed with Sarah Palin. Or, more to the point, I'm obsessed with bad news about Sarah Palin. Here are the headlines from the Victoria Times Colonist website this morning:

• Drug addicts shun mobile needle exchange
• Canada's reputed Godfather pleads guilty in mob case
• Air Canada drops second bag surcharge
• BC NDP candidate Larsen quits over drug links
• 11,800 infractions in parks, but just 30 tickets issued
• Pro baseball coming to Victoria
• Victoria man's Craiglist ad to sell vote draws rebuke from Elections Canada
• Kids left in unsafe homes: watchdog
• Hackers infiltrate Palin's email account
• Probe of Liberal MLA linked to accused in legislature raid
• Convict banned from prison after spying on conjugal visit

I head straight for the Palin link.
Why?
One, because she's big news right now.
Two, because she's a woman and she's big news right now.
Three, because she's hypocritical and a woman and big news right now.
Four, because she's the antithesis of everything I stand for, hypocritical, a woman, and big news right now.
Five, because I'm a woman myself, and women love to hear bad things about each other.
Six, because the name "Palin" is associated with a few key words: oil, abortion, hunting. I disagree with her on all three of these things. I passionately disagree with her on the second and third ones.

I think I'm focused on a few particular issues, and that my reading habits tend towards them. I'm interested in feminism (and let's put reproductive rights under this heading as well), immigration, education, and pop culture. Although I've stopped reading tmz.com - it's too exploitative.
Why am I focused on these issues? They all personally affect me. I'm female, I'm a student, I'm married to an immigrant, I used to work in the "film industry". I've been touched by all of these things at one point or another.
Hmmm. Can't go much deeper than that at the moment except to say that the Palin link is the only one that had anything to do with my "key issues", and in fact it touches on ALL of them except immigration. Palin drives me crazy, as does McCain these days, because I don't understand how these two can live in THIS WORLD and have THEIR VIEWS. Have they never been outside before???
Oh... here's another issue, something I used to get really mad about. I'm Canadian, Canada's about to have an election too, shouldn't my efforts be focused on that instead of on the country next door? Yes, it should. But.. well... the truth is... Canadian politics is BORING. I don't know if that's because Canadians in general are boring (I don't think so) or because Canadian politicians are much too polite, much too polished to generate any buzz. Bring back Chretien, I say! At least he was interesting. At least he punched a guy in the face, not to mention the whole "No George Bush we're not going to help you invade Iraq" thing. Canadian politics these days seem to have replaced passion with douchiness, and when I hear a douchebag speak, I can't listen to anything coming out of its mouth. It turns into the "wah wah" of Charlie Brown's teacher. I can't relate to any of the candidates, for two reasons: 1) I don't know much about the candidates personally (they're all so professional, aren't they?) 2) They're all white men (except for the Green Party, who have no real chance of winning) and they spend their time slamming each other's policies instead of trying to make a difference.
Okay... that's about all I have for now. Need more coffee.

Crafternoons and Coffee Spoons

Yesterday I went to Dani's place for an afternoon of glue guns, Micro Machines, and Long Island iced teas. When I came home I discovered I'd also made a bunch of hair notions:

Rachel and Bob

So, being a newlywed (Feb 26th, 2007 y'all), I've developed a taste for wedding and marriage-related TV shows: Wife Swap, Wedding SOS, and, most of all, a little thing on the Slice network called Newlywed Nearly Dead. Sometimes they'll show Saturday afternoon marathons of this show, and I'm glued; no matter how bright the sun is shining, or how much my entropied legs demand movement, I'm stuck watching these people try to work though their relationship issues.
This week's episode involved a couple named Bob and Rachel. Rachel is three months pregnant with their first child, and Bob is... ummm... balding. And has a tendency to spike his hair. Which is never a good look for a balding man. But anyways... the couple's issues revolve around two very important words: money and privacy.
First, money: it doesn't seem like they have a lot of it. And what they DO have, Rachel spends before it's even in the bank account. She buys purses, jewellery, luxury items. And Bob is worried that when the baby comes, Rachel won't be able to stop shopping, and they'll be financially ruined. Rachel, for her part, is oblivious to Bob's money worries. At one point during the show, while bidding on some ebay auctions, she turns to Bob and says (I paraphrase) "just because we don't have the money to afford the things we want doesn't mean we can't buy the things we want." His response: "yes! It does!"
Second, privacy: Bob likes his alone time, and the only place he can escape from the constant stress of his wife is in the bathroom. Or is it? Seems that the only way Bob can even be alone in the BATHROOM is if he locks the door - if he doesn't, Rachel bursts in whenever she wants to, whatever Bob's in the middle of, if you know what I mean. Despite constant appeals to let him be alone on the toilet, Rachel cannot let her poor husband BE! I mean, what does she think he's doing in there?
I'd like to think I'm not a judgmental person, but when it comes to TV, everyone is fair game. Apologies to Bob (and especially to Rachel), but if you put yourselves out there, you're going to be scrutinized. And I just have to say... Rachel... what the hell is wrong with you? For one thing, why the hell are you so desperate to get into the bathroom? Do you think Bob's having a party in there or something? And for another, what hole are you trying to fill with all the shopping? Maybe instead of buying clothes, you should get a hobby...
I love watching these shows with my husband, because we both think they're hilarious. Do people actually live like that? How do they manage to get dressed in the morning? I know TV shows are edited for impact, but still, the things you see on this show ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Even if it's edited for impact, these people (Rachel) are still spending hundreds of dollars on useless shit, still trying to break into the bathroom, still trying to justify their own stupid ways with weak arguments.
I didn't watch the end of the show (I was too frustrated with Rachel's complete disregard for the outside world!) but I hope that Bob and Rachel worked out their problems. I don't want to be one to give "marriage advice", I haven't been married long enough to do that, but from watching these shows I've determined that almost all relationship issues can be boiled down to one single word. Communication. If you hide things from your partner, be it opinions or credit card bills, your relationship is on a path to doom.

The sun is out... and all I want to do is sleep.

My goal for this summer, since I'm out of school and unemployed, is to write. Or blog. Or whatever you want to call it. So far I've written... nothing. Granted, my classes ended on Thursday (my University summer school, I think, ended the same day as high school...) but I still feel like I should be doing MORE. I won't whine. The only thing to do is write more.
So here's my commitment for the summer: I'm going to blog about everything, whether it be a community event (Victoria Tall Ships, anyone?), a TV show (what's up with all these Japanese-inspired game shows?), or a small observation. But this isn't a diary (and hopefully it doesn't turn into one..)
So I'm asking for your help, my one loyal reader. When I get too "personal" or "whiny" or "TMI", tell me. I don't want to keep shouting the "poetic truths of high school journal-keepers." My 10-year reunion is like two weeks from now! I need to move on.
"Your 10-year reunion is two weeks from now?" you ask. Yes, it is. And no, I'm not going. Nothing personal to my classmates, I just... well, reasoning is twofold. First, I have nothing to say to those people. I didn't keep many friends after high school, and the ones I DID keep are distant now. Not only would it be awkward to see these people, basically strangers, that I went to school with... it would be even more awkward to see the people I used to be close with. Yeah, no, I'm not in the mood for "past friend reunions" either... that's what Facebook is for. If I can't be bothered to leave a comment on their wall...
Second, reunions, you're supposed to be impressive. Right? You're supposed to say you invented Post-Its or that you're an astronaut cowboy or a hired assassin. I'm none of those things, and more than that, I'm a bad liar. (Actually, no, I'm a really GOOD liar... but the sun has made me lazy. See above.) I don't even have a baby to wind up and set loose on the picnic blanket, like most of my classmates do. And I know the pressure's all in my head - our Valedictorian is, last I heard, a delivery driver at a Chinese restaurant - but still. I always expected I'd be some sort of "professional" by now. I didn't think I'd be in University at the age of 27.
27. Eeeeek.

Another movie review

Morvern Callar

Now, I'll admit that I'd never heard of this film before I read a glowing review of it, a few weeks ago, on the Onion AVClub site. They made it sound so cool that I immediately went out and rented it. My video store has everything, I must say. And I was excited to see it, because the AVClub has never steered me wrong.
I guess there's a first time for everything, though.
So here's the tale of Morvern Callar if you haven't heard it before. Morvern is a young girl in... Glasgow, I think? She works in a grocery store. She's going out with a writer, whom her friends refer to as "Dostoevsky". In the opening shot of the film, boyfriend is dead, his wrists slit, his body in a pool of blood mid-way between the kitchen and the living room. Morvern finds him, and spends the rest of the movie trying to deal with his death in a variety of ways: drugs, music, escape, staring off into space, painting her nails, shopping, and most of all NOT TELLING ANYONE HE'S DEAD. And when she finally does tell someone, they're too absorbed in their own life to hear what she's saying.
The film is built around lush, moody landscapes, and a lot of scenes are anchored by sweeping shots designed to elicit emotion. Which is a good thing, because the characters don't exude enough emotion to anchor a film. Maybe this was on purpose... see, I'm writing this "review" to figure out what I actually think of the film. My initial reaction was to hate it, and my second reaction is to love it because if I don't, then I "don't get it." And that's unforgivable.
So. Where was I. The film is anchored by sweeping panoramics, slow dolly shots, and many (many) montages of Morvern (alone or with a friend) walking, staring off into space, sticking head out of car window, observing the world without actually seeing it. One has to assume these are on purpose, because there are so many of them. So then one has to determine their purpose. This is where I have trouble.
Okay, I'll admit, the movie is beautiful in its own special way. There's definitely never been a movie like it before. But I can't say I enjoyed it, or that I ever want to see it again, and this is why. I didn't understand Morvern's motivations. She's the anchor (and title) of the film, and is on-screen the entire time. But I didn't like her. No... not that I didn't like her, I didn't understand why she acted the way she did. Maybe what bothered me the most was knowing that Morvern Callar was a book before it was a movie, and one (who hasn't read the book) can only imagine that there's more detail and explanation on the page than there was on the screen. Maybe the book goes inside the title character's head, records her thoughts, and explains why she decides not to tell anyone about her boyfriend's suicide? If I'd known that one thing, that one tiny little thing, I could have loved this movie.
Instead, the best I can do is say I loved "parts" of it. I loved the scenes where Morvern is wearing her walkman, listening to the special mix tape her boyfriend made before his suicide, and imagining the emotions I would go through in that same situation. But... she shows no emotion. Instead she stares dreamily off into space through songs by musicians from Aphex Twin to The Mommas and the Poppas. She wears her walkman in a nightclub and wanders through the crowds. She wears her walkman in the grocery store and everything seems to move in slow motion. She... well. That's it, really. I used to wish I could live a life in montage. But after seeing this movie, seeing someone else's life in montage, the wish is gone. Thanks.
My biggest complaint about this movie is that I couldn't get LOST in it, and what I wanted, more than anything, was to lose myself. But there were so many loose ends, so many unanswered questions, that my brain just wouldn't shut up and let me enjoy the ride. For one, it's never explained why the boyfriend kills himself. Two, it's never explained why Morvern doesn't tell people he's dead. Three, where are these people's families? Do they not check up on their kids from time to time? Four, have you ever heard of an unknown first-time author getting a 6-figure advance? Five, where is Morvern getting all the drugs that she's obviously taking? Six, even if she doesn't tell anyone, does nobody realize he's dead? Doesn't he have any friends of his own? Seven, and most important: does she actually read the book her boyfriend wrote?
All in all, hmmmm.... well, I'd recommend this movie if you're not in the mood for logic. It IS beautiful and interesting. But only, and I repeat ONLY, watch this movie if you're melancholy, or high, or otherwise able to dismiss logic. If you're not in the right state of mind, this film will just drive you crazy.

blah

Blog postings should always be of note, right? Well, unfortunately, this one isn't. It's noon and I've just woken up. It feels like early morning... no cars on the street, no sunlight, no sounds except the fan behind me. "I should write" I say to myself, "I have two articles waiting for completion." One is due on Thursday, the other in two weeks. But I can't bring myself to do either of them. I want to, I have outlines ready and know what I'm going to say. I know I write better if I do multiple drafts. But I just can't do it.
I know the best thing to do is to work through the frustration and get words to... screen. But I can't work on these articles. Not just yet.

henrik and I watched two movies last night: "Eastern Promises" and "Into The Wild" and while, on the surface, it would seem these movies have nothing in common, I did find a few similarities:
1) the obvious - both have full-frontal male nudity. Eastern Promises has an amazing fight scene in a bathhouse, while Into The Wild shows the main character Chris McCandless/Alexander Supertramp floating naked down a river.
2) the main characters in both stories - Nikolai in Eastern Promises (played by Viggo Mortensen) and Alex in Into The Wild (played by Emile Hirsch) tell their life stories in pictures. Nikolai has tattoos all over his body showing where he has been, what he's done, and if he's been true to his people. Alex is taught how to carve leather, and he proceeds to carve the story of his travels onto a belt, which he wears every day until his (spoiler alert!) death.

I was disappointed with Into the Wild. I was hoping other critics had been wrong, that perhaps there was a bias in the industry against Sean Penn, or that the critics hadn't read the book or something. But no, the movie is as bad as all the reviews claim.
I'm going to write this to you assuming you've read the book, and if you haven't, apologies. I read the book last year, over Christmas, and while it isn't my favourite book of all time, one has to congratulate John Krakauer on the amount of research he did.
So, with that said, why was John Krakauer not in the movie? When I read Into The Wild, I was acutely aware that I was reading the voice of Mr. Krakauer, someone so interested in this story that he followed a trail of bread crumbs around North America, trying to piece together the life of this dumb-shit guy who died in the woods. Krakauer added a lot of psychological and philosophical depth to Alex, and Sean Penn turned that research into one drunken bar scene where Hirsch and his friend Vince Vaughn yell "society!!!" over and over. If Krakauer had been a character in the movie, too, they could have used the great scene at the end of the book where the parents visit the bus. That was the best scene in the book, for me, because it showed Alex's father as a human being with real emotions.
Now I'll admit I'm biased against Alex (sorry, Chris) after reading the book, and this caused a bit of an argument between Henrik and I while we were watching the movie. I says to Henrik, I says "through all Alex's travels, all the places he goes and people he meets, he doesn't reach any new insight about his family issues. He's not LEARNING anything. So why the hell should we care about him?" People ask him over and over about his family, tell him that family is the most important thing in the world, and he ignores them. He's so scared of his feelings (and possibly of his father) that he'd rather live in the woods than talk to his family. I just don't get it. Henrik says to me, "people deal with things in different ways. Just because it's not the way you'd do it doesn't mean he's stupid."
No, but see, he IS stupid. Another discussion we had during the movie:
Me: I'm upset that they don't establish, from the beginning, that the kid's gonna die. If you knew that right away, the movie would have a whole different flavour, wouldn't it?
Henrik: yeah, it definitely would.
Me: Do you think that NOT establishing his death early on... do you think it glorifies his life?
Henrik: Possibly.
I'd say definitely. Not only do they leave out one key fact about Alex's travels - that he refused to take a map of Alaska, and if he had he would have known there was a ranger station just a few miles from the bus - but they (meaning Sean Penn) make it seem as though living alone in a bus is the height of philosophical ecstasy. It's all clouds and mountaintops, clear running water and slow-motion animals, sweeping helicopter panoramas and the like. My personal favourite shot was a slow-motion shower scene where Alex shakes his head from side to side, and the drops of water spray out and around him to make a kind of watery halo. Subtle. I saw Penn's first film, The Crossing Guard, a few years ago, and I can't say I remember too much about it. But I can say this: Into the Wild feels amateurish, like the work of a recent film-school grad trying to impress a girl with his mad skills. It feels like Penn is completely disconnected from his audience. It feels like the movie wasn't so much a movie as an essay or scientific thesis: "in this paper I intend to prove that Alexander Supertramp had everything right and the rest of the world has it wrong." No-one likes to be lectured, and it seems like that's all Sean Penn knows how to do.
In conclusion, sure, go and see this movie if you haven't already. But if you read the book and, like me, left it feeling like Alex was kind of an idiot, you're probably not going to like Sean Penn's rendition of the tale. Krakauer's book explores all sides of the story, while the movie chooses one idea and runs with it.

Immigration

My husband, who moved to Canada in September 2006 from Sweden, got his work permit in the mail on Friday. The government has decided he's allowed to pay taxes! Finally! Oh wait.. no... he still has to pay $500, a "right of residency" fee. Could you imagine if everyone, including natural-born citizens, had to pay a right of residency fee? What if, upon your birth, your parents had to pay the thousands of dollars H has had to pay for the privilege of working in this country? For the privilege of simply BEING in this country?
And think of it if the situation were reversed: for me to immigrate to Sweden, as H's spouse, I have to fill out a 3-page questionnaire and photocopy my passport. There's a small fee - maybe 100 euros? I'll have to look that up. But it's nowhere near the thousands of dollars H has had to pay for Canadian permanent residence.
Sweden is WAY smaller than Canada, geographically speaking. They have way less room than we do. So why are we being so hard on our immigrants? The more legal immigrants we have, the more tax revenue we'll receive. And for the small percentage who arrive in Canada with the intention of selling drugs or otherwise ripping shit up, there's a large percentage who just wants the chance to live a happy life.
Okay... I know... 9-11. But H is SWEDISH, fer goshsakes. He has no criminal record, no political leanings, no red flags at all (except for liking metal, in fact, he's a regular Joe Wholesome...). He moved here for love, and all he's asking is for the chance to pay his own way.
Thank you, government, for finally giving my husband a work permit. I don't want to sound ungrateful, because I'm very happy that he'll be able to work (and I'll be able to quit my job and focus on school.) But why has it taken so long? I know for a fact it took the case worker LESS THAN A DAY to go through all the information... I know that because he told us so. So why has it taken 17 months to get to this stage?