Answers below the fold.
Archive for January 25, 2007
An interesting brain thing
I had the most interesting thing happen inside my brain last night.
I was following some Mapquest directions. Go 2.6 miles, make a right, go .8 miles. Rather than reset my odometer, I added 2.6 to .8 in my head and got 3.4. But I wanted to double-check myself, and since my mind wanders when I’m driving anyway, I decided to think about the numbers for a moment rather than assume I was right.
(Keep in mind this took less than a second.)
So in that moment, I saw the 8 split into two 4s. One four went over to the 2.6, making it 3, and one 4 was left to make it 3.4.
I mean, in an instant, without conscious effort, I saw a slice happen to the 8, like a Samurai sword cutting it in two, leaving two 4s in its wake. Like a little cartoon.
And after I had traveled my 3.4 miles I thought, “Wow, I had no idea my brain did that.”
Are You a Movie Buff?
|
Your Movie Buff Quotient: 90% |
 You are a movie buff of the most obsessive variety. If a movie exists, chances are that you’ve seen it. You’re an expert on movie facts and trivia. It’s hard to stump you with a question about film. |
Only one hint
Congratulations to my smart trivia-fu players. Only one hint needed this week, which has now been added.
My current score
Out of pure obsessive-compulsiveness:
In the top five* categories: 15 unique films nominated, of which I have seen 2. (I suck.)
In all categories: 45 full-length films nominated, of which I have seen 5.
In my own defense, I saw several films this year that might have been nominated but were not.
Sigh.
*Best Picture, Best Actor/Actress, and Best Supporting Actor/Actress
Initial thoughts on the Oscar Nominations
Here’s some quick thoughts on the nominations, announced this morning.
Absences that make me sad: No Best Director for Altman, his last chance and let’s face it, I’d think dying would give him an edge. No nomination for DiCaprio for The Departed. I haven’t seen Blood Diamond, and I don’t want to, so kind of I’d prefer he got it for the movie I loved him in. No nomination for Matt Damon for The Departed; he was brilliant.
Nothing for Casino Royale. Nothing. Those fucking snobs. I was sure it would get a nod for Best Song, Best Musical Score, or a technical award. What the fucking fuck? Three song nominations for Dreamgirls and nothing for Casino Royale‘s admittedly so-so song. Yeah, so-so, but better than more than half the songs that have won awards, and way better than the songs that have beaten Bond songs for Oscars in the past.
Inclusions I don’t care for: Mark Wahlberg was strictly one note in The Departed. He was utterly adequate. The Children of Men had a flat, preachy screenplay.
Things I am happy about: Rah cheer for Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy, who richly deserve their nominations. Rah cheer for Forest Whitaker and Meryl Streep, even though I’ve seen neither movie. Rah rah cheer cheer for Al Gore.
Some thoughts on The Departed: Nothing for the major star (DiCaprio) or the real Best Supporting (Nicholson). Even though it has a Best Picture nomination, I feel like the accolades are inadequate and a sign that Marty is going to get screwed again.
Tuesday Trivia Time: Special Oscar Edition
In honor of the Oscar nominations, announced today, each of the following movies won a different number of Academy Awards (from one to seven)
1. Shaving cream on the mirror to disable a spy hole.
Hint: The mirror is in a bathroom on an airplane.
2. A feel-good star, a feel-good director, a small role for the director’s brother, and a portentous lost wedding ring.
Solved by maurinsky.
3. Man: “What watch?”
Woman: “Ten watch.”
Man: “Such much?”
Solved by Ken.
4. The electroshock therapy portrayed in this loose-with-the-facts biopic (made in the current decade) was less horrific than the insulin therapy that was actually used.
Solved by Ken.
5. The director decided a duet would be sung in shadow because one of the singers couldn’t stop giggling during takes.
Solved by maurinsky.
6. Update: The title is the name of both a person and a rose.
Solved by Tom.
7. Update: A post-war graveyard for fighter planes. In retrospect, I’m not sure if this is a graveyard, a maintenance facility, or what (even though I’ve seen the movie many times). It’s a big ol’ field of fighter planes.
Solved by Tom.
Blog for Choice: Why I’m Pro-Choice
I had some good ideas about what I would write today, and then I saw this: This year’s topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you’re pro-choice.
Which at first I wasn’t going to do, because it is such a simple topic. And then I thought about the anti-choice forces in the world, and I thought, yes, it’s worth saying.
I am pro-choice because women own our own bodies.
See how simple?
When I was doing the preliminary calling* for Call for Change, I got a woman who asked if the candidate I named (Jim Webb) was pro-choice. She was anti-choice, she said, because “If a woman spreads her legs, she should pay the price.”
Monday Movie Review: The Up Series
The Up Series 9/10
Every seven years, a documentary crew visits the same fourteen people. Seven Up! was made in 1964, when the subjects were seven years old.
Over the course of the past four weeks or so, I’ve seen most of this series, starting with Seven Up! and 7 Plus Seven, and then 21 Up, 28 Up, and 35 Up.*
The brilliance of the Up Series is that the premise is so startlingly good that even when the filming falters, it’s still compelling. Director Michael Apted’s questions are sometimes lame, sometimes too leading, sometimes too ordinary, and occasionally offensive. Yet the opportunity to visit with these people every seven years (or every couple of days, in my case) has kept me transfixed. The strongest episode so far has been 28 Up. With 7, 14, and 21 you see people growing up. They are at various points of self-discovery and self-knowledge. Some have known themselves with absolute clarity since they were first filmed. Some, at 21, still have no clue as to who they are. But at 28, they are solidly adult, and each, to the extent of his or her abilities, has arrived. The juxtaposition is so wonderful to watch. By 35, there are fewer changes (which is to be expected) and the film drags, as too much time is spent rehashing. There are more clips from previous episodes than new footage. In addition, three people are missing. For one, there’s a brief explanation (‘Charles doesn’t want to be in this movie’). But Peter and Symon have simply disappeared with nary a comment. Were they unfindable? Dead? I looked them up on Wikipedia because I was so bothered (apparently, they come back for 42 Up). Bad direction, if you ask me, to just omit them.
Despite the fact that the premise of the documentaries is to say something about the British class system and educational opportunities, what we’re watching is something larger, something like the human condition. It’s the smallness and ordinariness that makes it somehow so large.
I guess everyone who watches is going to have favorites. John has annoyed me since he was seven and at thirty-five, even as he is sharing his urgent interest in charity, I am still annoyed. Tony, if the various Internet commentaries are to be believed, is everyone’s favorite. A happy-go-lucky guy who embraces life, he is perhaps the most consistent of the fourteen, recognizably the same person all the way through. I am also very fond of Nick, who at seven, a small boy on a Yorkshire farm and the only child his age in his entire village, expressed an interest in studying science. By twenty-eight (and thirty-five) he is a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin.
And there is the tragedy of Neil, a middle class suburban Liverpool boy who, somewhere around the age of sixteen, became mentally ill and has been, since twenty-one, intermittently homeless and living on the dole. Yet he is there every seven years to share openly about his life.
*I have 42 Up and 49 Up (made in 2006) up next on my Netflix.
