posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
the_dala at 11:52pm on 13/07/2003
the_dala at 11:52pm on 13/07/2003Much as I love "The Mask of Zorro," with all that talk of revenge and all those swords, I keep expecting somebody to start saying "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, etc." I suppose it's entirely due to "The Princess Bride" that I'm so terribly in love with swashbuckling. It smacks every square inch of my ass, man. Really, at the end of the day, what movie couldn't benefit from a good swordfight?
Just one more thing: mmmm, Antonio.
I keep babbling about how I'm going to write about the past week, but really it wasn't that exciting. Saturday was fun, Megan, Tina, and Katherine all came over to hang out and watch movies; Meg and Tina slept over. We ate mass amounts of the chocolate Meg brought and caught the South Park movie at 1 in the morning -- uncut! Ahhh, it was good to see it again. Omlettes for breakfast, then Tina and I met up with Lena, Riordan, and Duane at Rio to see T3. I enjoyed it a lot, considering I haven't seen the first two. Nick Stahl is cute as a button. It was nice to hang out with Lena & Co.
Monday I rented "The Hours" and "Keeping the Faith" (again). I love that movie. It's one of those romantic comedies I can watch forever. "The Hours"... (spoilers and strong opinions contained behind cut tag) I didn't care for, which surprised me. I thought I was going to like it, and I just....didn't. I'm not knocking the performances, but it seemed like each actor was trying to wring out the most emotion possible. It felt manipulative and Oscar-grabby. The three leads: first, I'm not a big Meryl Streep fan, so she was just sort of....there as far as I was concerned. Her repitition of that one random morning struck me as incredibly pathetic. Move on, woman. I like Julianne Moore a lot, but after seeing her play virtually the same character in "Far From Heaven" (which was intentionally cheesy, but absolutely beautifully shot), my tolerance was wearing thin. And the kid who played her son was both a bad actor and incredibly irritating. Another peeve: I thought this was supposed to be sort of an artsy movie, but the direction wasn't at all original; it was very by the book. At least if it had left me with some powerful images or stunning scenery (both of which "Far From Heaven" had, by the way), I could have ignored its melodrama and focused on the art of things. Only exception to this was the scene of Virginia walking into the water -- that was lovely. Lastly, the whole wrap-up with the great revelation of how the latter two stories are connected -- that Meryl Streep's former lover was the son of Julianne Moore, who abandoned him -- sucked. I would call it predictable, except that it was sort of the opposite in that I never imagined they would be so clichéd. The ending was so predictable that I never would have predicted it, in other words. The movie's biggest redeemer was Nicole Kidman. She was awesome, even if I would have appreciated a bit more background on her earlier life and what exactly was the source of her pain (I've never read Virginia Woolf and I don't know anything about her). But I repeat, I did not enojy the film at all and was quite disappointed.
Well, now that that's over with, a movie I saw and loved: "Spirited Away." I borrowed it from Tina and have watched it two and a half times. It gets more charming every time. It's beautiful and the dubbing is the best I've ever seen (heard? I mean that the English dubbing matches so well with the original animation, so I stay with 'seen'). The idea that one man hatched this entire little world is awesome. I wonder if I could use my new DVD burner to burn it before I give it back?
Errr, is that legal?
Never mind! Carry on!
Work has been worklike. Yesterday was yet another Saturday where Darlene and I should not both have been there, because there wasn't enough to do. God, it was boring. I figured we'd work together this week because Shahnaz just got back from Iran and there'd be a lot of paperwork to do, but noooo, Darlene worked all Thursday and I worked all Friday, so we pretty much had it covered. The most exciting thing that happened was a conversation with Mercedes, Tracee, and Darlene, in which I took only limited part. It was all about religion and spirituality; we started out talking about how the R________s are secular Jews, which the three of them seemed to have a lot of scorn for. Mercedes kept going on about how everyone needs something to do with faith, has to believe that something is out there. It pissed me off. I wanted to say, "No, everyone does NOT need some sort of religion or spirituality; I don't, for one."
Where does this philosophy come from? Why does life have to have a higher purpose? Why isn't it meaningful enough for what it is -- what's wrong with life for life's sake, not for some greater power or purpose? Isn't it enough that we're here, regardless of how we got here or why (if there even is a why)?
I don't know how coherent I am on this subject, but I wonder if other atheists and agnostics resent being condescended to like this. I sort of wish I had spoken up, but I pick my battles carefully. I would rather argue philosophy with my close friends that with near strangers, people I only see in the workplace. I just don't feel that the friction is necessary. Sometimes I kick myself for not speaking out, but I really wasn't in the mood for the infuriating adult trend of "Oh, you're just a kid, you don't know anything, wait till life really means something for you." I hate that. I realize that I am very young and there's a lot I haven't learned yet, but for the love of all that's holy don't you dare try to tell me that I don't know myself. I've looked high and low, regardless of my age, and come to my beliefs with security. I don't need faith. It does nothing for me. This does not mean that I think people who do need it are lesser in some way -- sometimes I wish belief did come easily to me.
Oh look, now I've gone and made myself sound like both a snob and a martyr. Excuse me while I make a disgusted noise. But I can't put it any better than that.
Hmmm. That was a digression, wasn't it? Too many thoughts, need fluffy R/Hr. I think I will seek out Princess Bride icons and sounds.
Just one more thing: mmmm, Antonio.
I keep babbling about how I'm going to write about the past week, but really it wasn't that exciting. Saturday was fun, Megan, Tina, and Katherine all came over to hang out and watch movies; Meg and Tina slept over. We ate mass amounts of the chocolate Meg brought and caught the South Park movie at 1 in the morning -- uncut! Ahhh, it was good to see it again. Omlettes for breakfast, then Tina and I met up with Lena, Riordan, and Duane at Rio to see T3. I enjoyed it a lot, considering I haven't seen the first two. Nick Stahl is cute as a button. It was nice to hang out with Lena & Co.
Monday I rented "The Hours" and "Keeping the Faith" (again). I love that movie. It's one of those romantic comedies I can watch forever. "The Hours"... (spoilers and strong opinions contained behind cut tag) I didn't care for, which surprised me. I thought I was going to like it, and I just....didn't. I'm not knocking the performances, but it seemed like each actor was trying to wring out the most emotion possible. It felt manipulative and Oscar-grabby. The three leads: first, I'm not a big Meryl Streep fan, so she was just sort of....there as far as I was concerned. Her repitition of that one random morning struck me as incredibly pathetic. Move on, woman. I like Julianne Moore a lot, but after seeing her play virtually the same character in "Far From Heaven" (which was intentionally cheesy, but absolutely beautifully shot), my tolerance was wearing thin. And the kid who played her son was both a bad actor and incredibly irritating. Another peeve: I thought this was supposed to be sort of an artsy movie, but the direction wasn't at all original; it was very by the book. At least if it had left me with some powerful images or stunning scenery (both of which "Far From Heaven" had, by the way), I could have ignored its melodrama and focused on the art of things. Only exception to this was the scene of Virginia walking into the water -- that was lovely. Lastly, the whole wrap-up with the great revelation of how the latter two stories are connected -- that Meryl Streep's former lover was the son of Julianne Moore, who abandoned him -- sucked. I would call it predictable, except that it was sort of the opposite in that I never imagined they would be so clichéd. The ending was so predictable that I never would have predicted it, in other words. The movie's biggest redeemer was Nicole Kidman. She was awesome, even if I would have appreciated a bit more background on her earlier life and what exactly was the source of her pain (I've never read Virginia Woolf and I don't know anything about her). But I repeat, I did not enojy the film at all and was quite disappointed.
Well, now that that's over with, a movie I saw and loved: "Spirited Away." I borrowed it from Tina and have watched it two and a half times. It gets more charming every time. It's beautiful and the dubbing is the best I've ever seen (heard? I mean that the English dubbing matches so well with the original animation, so I stay with 'seen'). The idea that one man hatched this entire little world is awesome. I wonder if I could use my new DVD burner to burn it before I give it back?
Errr, is that legal?
Never mind! Carry on!
Work has been worklike. Yesterday was yet another Saturday where Darlene and I should not both have been there, because there wasn't enough to do. God, it was boring. I figured we'd work together this week because Shahnaz just got back from Iran and there'd be a lot of paperwork to do, but noooo, Darlene worked all Thursday and I worked all Friday, so we pretty much had it covered. The most exciting thing that happened was a conversation with Mercedes, Tracee, and Darlene, in which I took only limited part. It was all about religion and spirituality; we started out talking about how the R________s are secular Jews, which the three of them seemed to have a lot of scorn for. Mercedes kept going on about how everyone needs something to do with faith, has to believe that something is out there. It pissed me off. I wanted to say, "No, everyone does NOT need some sort of religion or spirituality; I don't, for one."
Where does this philosophy come from? Why does life have to have a higher purpose? Why isn't it meaningful enough for what it is -- what's wrong with life for life's sake, not for some greater power or purpose? Isn't it enough that we're here, regardless of how we got here or why (if there even is a why)?
I don't know how coherent I am on this subject, but I wonder if other atheists and agnostics resent being condescended to like this. I sort of wish I had spoken up, but I pick my battles carefully. I would rather argue philosophy with my close friends that with near strangers, people I only see in the workplace. I just don't feel that the friction is necessary. Sometimes I kick myself for not speaking out, but I really wasn't in the mood for the infuriating adult trend of "Oh, you're just a kid, you don't know anything, wait till life really means something for you." I hate that. I realize that I am very young and there's a lot I haven't learned yet, but for the love of all that's holy don't you dare try to tell me that I don't know myself. I've looked high and low, regardless of my age, and come to my beliefs with security. I don't need faith. It does nothing for me. This does not mean that I think people who do need it are lesser in some way -- sometimes I wish belief did come easily to me.
Oh look, now I've gone and made myself sound like both a snob and a martyr. Excuse me while I make a disgusted noise. But I can't put it any better than that.
Hmmm. That was a digression, wasn't it? Too many thoughts, need fluffy R/Hr. I think I will seek out Princess Bride icons and sounds.
frustrated
There are no comments on this entry.