In fact, I am surprised to hear good TV ratings and overall satisfaction with the Oscars night (the show as well as the winners). People actually liked it! They think it was the best show in years. Definitely not the way I saw it.

The show didn’t look like Oscars

The show itself was… nothing special. Sure, there were stupid host jokes, pointless show songs and the red carpet madness- but for some reason, it all looked plainer, uglier and much less glamorous than usual. The whole place simply looked so… small. With less people. It looked like many nominees were also presenters. I don’t remember this from the previous years.

Once again, the lack of glamour is not what generally bothers me, but it simply didn’t look like Oscars. Did they have a small budget this year? Or was there another reason behind it? Not sure. In any case, it didn’t look and feel like Oscars night. Which basically means it didn’t look important. (Now when I think about it, it’s actually ok, because Oscars aren’t- or should not be- that important anyway. And given the fact all the snubs and the way winners are chosen, especially in the recent years, I don’t think Oscars mean anything anymore). Still, it is considered THE most important movie award, so I expected it to look more important. On the other hand, I guess everybody just wanted to get to the parties and didn’t care about the show itself that much. Except for the winners. Maybe.

Oh, an another thing. Young stars. Yes, they actually decided to include many young stars as presenters (because we all know Zak Efron’s “talent” will effectively prevent him from ever being nominated). I don’t get this. It did look and feel a bit like MTV awards, or even teen choice awards. Yes, I know they wanted young people to watch the Oscars, but this was a cheap and degrading strategy, if you ask me.

The changes

There were some changes in this year’s show, that obviously worked for many people, but not for me. 10 nominated movies, for example. I simply don’t see any point behind this decision. Ok, we all know they decided to do this because of last year’s “Dark Knight” snub. But frankly, does this system really change anything? SF, fantasy, comedies, adventures, animated movies are still not going to win. All they will get is a nomination. If it’s all about being nominated, then fine, I have nothing against more nominees. But I don’t think these “additional 5″ will ever have much chance of winning. After all, we all know what an Oscar bait movie looks like, and it’s rarely a comedy or a SF film.

Another change I dislike is a new system of voting. If I understood it correctly, from now on it’s possible a movie to win for a best picture even if nobody thought it was the best . I mean WTF?

And one more thing I hated and everybody else seem to like: the new way of presenting best actor and actress awards. The system of 5 colleagues on stage, talking about the nominees might seem like a good way to personalize the presentation. But in reality, it sucks. Way too many cheesy compliments, way too many pointless anecdotes. What’s wrong with the good old clips of the nominated roles? After all, that’s why these people are nominated, not because they had fun on set with a presenter 15 years ago. I must admit I miss the clips. At least we got to see clips for supporting actors and actresses.

The winners!

Finally, the most important thing. Or, is it? I must admit it was predictable and I don’t actually have anything important to say here. I did like the fact Jeff Bridges won, and I disliked the fact Sandra Bullock won. I liked “Avatar” not winning, but I hated “The Hurt Locker” winning. That might be a great movie (artistically), but I must admit I loathe the subject (and propaganda) behind it so I can’t be happy about it being voted the best movie of the year. I am glad “Up” won for the best animated movie. And that would be about all, really.

All in all, just like I said in the title: the whole show was boring and predictable. We didn’t get any surprises, and I fail to see how the changes make the ceremony better. Oh, and please, bring back the live performances of songs and clips of nominated actors, if nothing else.

I know, I know. It’s not a type of a movie I usually enjoy. But it actually got me thinking about Patrick Marber’s play. And that one is a world for itself.

Closer: A play

On stage, I’ve seen “Closer” in a rudimental form- as a student exam play. Still, it was surprisingly captivating. I say surprisingly, because I strongly dislike work that deals with male/female relationships.

However, Patrick Marber’s “Closer” is brilliantly written. It’s perfect the way it is. No other words to describe it. The plot and the subject, in this sense, are irrelevant. Yes, the play is THAT good.

Don’t get me wrong. The subject still isn’t my thing. People falling in and out of love, cheating, jealousy… Not my cup of tea. The play is, in fact, dark and very unsettling. I found all of the characters disgusting, almost sick.

Still, the way it’s written (and planned) is amazing. We see some scenes from the lives of four people- only selected, key scenes. For example, we see the first (and the last) time each of them meet. We see them flirt. We see them break up. But we don’t see anything in between.

Also, we are not informed about the time passing between the acts. In one moment, a guy meets a girl. In the next, he is flirting with another woman- a year has passed. We must fill in the blanks, and since we never see the actual relationships- just the starting and breaking points- it’s sometimes shocking to realize what’s going on in between. Still, that’s the play’s greatest strength. It makes you focused and immersed in their world.

The other brilliant thing, of course, is the writing itself. Every line is there for a reason. The excessive profanity marks some strongest points in the play. Explicit language just make it all sound cruel, not passionate- which is, in my opinion, appropriate for the story and the characters in question.

Marber knows his way with words, and he knows how to spark an interest with the audience. We find ourselves constantly changing allegiance between the four characters. We sympathize with one of them in an act, but hate him or her in the next. It’s a constant emotional and intellectual battle. The result, like I said, is exhausting, not pleasant; the play doesn’t offer any clear messages or answers. But it’s captivating, amazingly written and makes a great experience.

The film

As a movie, “Closer” is still interesting, but it loses some of its charm.

The main problem, I believe, was the fact they tried to stick way too close to the play (Marber wrote the script, after all). But what works on stage doesn’t necessarily work on film. Almost empty stage with only some hints of scenography, four people in total (with only one scene with all of them on stage at the same time)- it all suited the narrative. In the film, however, the proposed format doesn’t work that well. Sense of the time is different and, although I already knew the story, it was harder to keep the track on the time passed between the scenes.

The film, however, is not bad per se. The play was better, that’s all. The movie, on the other hand, has some strong points. The acting is very good. As someone who dislikes Julia Roberts and (a little less) Jude Law, I must admit I expected them to be distracting. They weren’t. Jude was convincing (yet, annoying) as Dan. Julia was ok- but nothing more-as Anna, and I do think her performance was the weakest. The other two, Natalie Portman as Alice and Clive Owen as Larry, were more convincing. Owen was particularly memorable, switching between sex-obsessed, moving, threatening and revengeful (mostly threatening though).

And when he shouts to Dan, near the end of the movie: “Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist, wrapped in blood! Go fuck yourself! You writer! You liar!” it is so powerful. The quote that could seem banal becomes one of the best you ever heard. And yes, he made “writer” sound like an insult. That’s acting.

I’m having some Internet problems. Being a junkie, it’s not fun.
^^^
Hey, this could actually be a nice short story, don’t you think?

I was planning a post on great male voices (I stole the idea from Mariana), but I had to refresh my connection so many times, and start that post from scratch, that I finally gave up.

$%@#$ !!!

The last week wasn’t fun- I was sick. I had problems with my sinuses, which gave me headaches. I was sneezing the whole day, I was sleepy all the time and generally felt like shit. I am feeling better now, but I am still sleepy and sick. Which means I’m in a crappy mood, of course.

Good movie time?

Somehow, I managed to watch not one, but two great movies (and one average) and to appreciate their greatness (despite the headache). Two of those actually made my top 10 lists of the decade. (Speaking of which: You do realize, don’t you, that 2010 is the last year of the decade, not the first of a new decade? But 2000 had so many great movies that I included them on the list).

What’s up with all this movie talk? The Oscar season, of course! As you know Bob, I am not into globalization, Hollywood “glamour” and a all that crap… But I watch it anyway. Not that I believe it means something, of course. (After “Shakeaspeare in Love”, at least).

Her husband looks like… (read below)

I had less luck with books. The local library doesn’t have anything meaningful that I haven’t read before. So I ended up with- gasp!- chick lit. Yes, I know, I know. In my defense, I caught a cold and I feel like crap, you know. But you’re right: those books didn’t help.

One was particularly ridiculous, written in first person POV. On page 35 or something, she wrote: “There was my husband. He really looked like Jude Law”. No kidding. I stopped reading. It was way too much. How come this crap gets published? On the other hand, I’ve seen worse. (Read: Twilight). So yeah.

These sites are great if you’re not really into playing games, reading blogs or chatting with other geeks Internet people. Also, to really appreciate their beauty, you have to be interested in the popular culture (and all of its forms) and decide to fight your boredom with some more serious stuff (I’m referring to top two sites here).

Note: Don’t expect any surprises here. You’ve heard of all of these sites. But since I’m their regular visitor (more or less), I thought it would be nice to show I’m a fan. And yes, it goes without saying- most (if not all) of these sites are highly offensive.

5. YahooAnswerFail.com

There are many quality “fail sites”, and this one is hardly any original or the best. However, it’s my current fail site of choice.

There’s a lot of rubbish there, but you can find gems such as “when will I get my period-I’m a boy” (just a mild example). The beauty is in the fact we all know people make these things up to amuse/confuse others, and yet, we all like to pretend the questions are genuine.

Link: http://www.yahooanswerfail.com

4. The Uncyclopedia

The once sharp and irresistible Uncyclopedia somewhat lost its charm, undoubtedly due to the fact anyone can edit it- even people with no sense of humor. Still, it’s a nice place to hang around, and the bonus is non-English content, that deals with local issues (at least in Serbian case, those local articles are one of the best).

Highly recommended articles: AAAAAAAAA!, HowTo Write a Progressive Rock Song, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Oscar Wilde, Twilight (book).

Link: The Uncyclopedia

3. Encyclopedia Dramatica

In lulz they trust.

They do. While Uncyclopedia is just a harsh parody of Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica takes one step further by focusing mainly on Internet phenomena. Not only that, but they do take lulz pretty seriously and do their homework. The site is also highly offensive and gross at times all the time.

Highly recommended articles: My Immortal (trust me), Internet celebrity, Twitard, Rule 34, TL;DR.

Link: EncyclopediaDramatica

2. Cracked

We’re getting serious now. How to describe Cracked’s seriousness and awesomeness in one paragraph? Impossible. It covers basically everything, but their articles (and lists) on movies are the ones I enjoy the most. It’s probably the best site on this list, and the only reason it isn’t on the top is because the number 1 site exists.

Highly recommended: Everything.

Link: Cracked.com

1. TV Tropes

I bet you didn’t see this coming (did you?) Seriously people: TV Tropes.org is probably one of the best sites on the Internet. It’s so fucking awesome that it’s unbelievable. Definitely my favourite site of the moment.

TV Tropes are dedicated to tropes (elements) in various works of fiction (mainly TV and films, but the site offers plenty of examples in other media). Yes, it’s simple as that. Which basically means it cuts, explains, analyzes, deconstructs, reconstructs every single element in a work of fiction you can think of, and hundreds more. And it does in a witty, yet incredibly entertaining kind of way.

What I love about tvtropes is the fact it can help me with my writing in so many crazy ways. Yes, I know it sounds cheap, but it’s the truth. The site is more serious than it seems (or exactly as serious as it seems) and offers short and to the point explanation behind a trope or a phenomenon. The only problem with this website is the fact it’s incredibly addictive. You can surf it for 5 hours straight and still crave for more. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Highly Recommended: Everything. Every single thing on this website is precious. But here are some of my favourites: Narm, It was his sled, IKEA Erotica, Ruritania, Uncanny Valley, Fan Fic.

Link: TV Tropes

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with buying- or refusing- gender roles. So we must look at those who are considered, in a way, to be “borderline cases”: the tomboys.

Tomboys are feminine. Yes, they are. Just because they don’t buy gender roles and double standards when it comes to behavior, attitude, clothes and hobbies of choice doesn’t mean they’re not fully female. Just because they don’t like wearing dresses (and don’t know anything about fashion) doesn’t mean they’re not feminine. And yes, sometimes it’s all what it takes to be considered a “tomboy” or “unfeminine”.

Also, sometimes, it looks like being considered a woman, a feminine woman, means not being human above all else. Yes, it’s the sad truth.

There are all those adorable little girls who hate playing with dolls and prefer their bicycles and tree climbing. There are also girly girls, proud of their pink dresses, dreaming about their mothers’ high heel shoes. (Yes, I know it’s a bad generalization but it’s made for the sake of simplicity). While the first group is rightfully labeled “tomboys”, it’s not an indicator of that’s going to happen to those girls once they grow up.

There’s a moment in every girl’s life, when she’s around 11 years of age, when she decides- subconsciously- whether she wants to play “the game” or not.

Those who decide to play it must stick to their decision for their whole lives. Yes, they will be considered “normal” and yes, they will get (male) attention and be recognized as true women. However, that comes with a price. The game you must play IS the price. Slowly, you begin to fake your manners and pay attention on things you never cared about before, and before you know, the price you’re paying is the fact society sees you as a female first, human second. In other words, your humanity is questioned. The problem is when you start doing this yourself, when you start seeing yourself more as a woman than as a human being. That’s bad.

On the other hand, there are girls who never learn how to play the game. The choice you made here is not conscious- you don’t know what you’re doing. You simply fail to change. Not in a way you don’t want to grow up- you do, and you become more mature, you are not a child anymore. However, you never properly learn the game (your gender role): you simply refuse or, more often, you don’t realize there’s a game to play, because you were comfortable about who you were, or you were asocial enough not to realize the consequences. Note that this could happen to all those sorts of girls: a 6 year old tomboy and girly girl both have a chance to go either way when they’re 11 or 12. You can never tell.

Why am I writing this? Because I am an adult tomboy, a woman who doesn’t know how to play the game? Because I hate Carrie Bradshaw type of behaviour? Well, yes and yes, but that’s not the point. I truly believe all human beings should be seen as human first- any other label, identification or identity comes second. It’s the only good way to go. And ironically, while tomboy (“non-feminine”) women suffer for not being seen as fully feminine, attractive or wanted, “girly girl” women often have to face a worse discrimination- they’re not seen as fully and equally human.

No, seriously, people. Someone really asked this. In an email.

Of course, it’s one of the annoying spam messages. Still, one wonders. Besides being adorably WTF, this question is serious. I mean SERIOUS! No kidding.

Just think about it. The first thing you’ll notice the double standard. Like it’s so much worse for a guy to be a virgin than for a girl. Now why is that? Do people still buy that double standard crap? Do we still believe male sexuality (and their needs and ability to control them) are so different than female? Think about it, I’m telling you.

Like any other serious subject, this one gave us some pretty hilarious Yahoo answers. I’m not going to help you here, you must find them all by yourselves. There are pretty mind blowing ones. Seriously.

What I found the most interesting here is that nobody explains WHY is this information so important. It’s just taken for granted. Isn’t that sad?

And you see you’re very alone in your thinking. Everyone else is charmed. Even the people who dislike said band are crazy about it (sure, this can backfire, because fans tend to dislike stuff that is popular with non-fans). And you just don’t get the hype.

I made this list using bands I currently like, or I used to like, or like enough to expect to like a specific song, but for some reason, that doesn’t happen. Also, another criteria for forming the list was the song’s popularity. Everybody else had to like it (preferably non-fans also).

Scar Tissue (Red Hot Chili Peppers)

I love this band. Yes, even after their… questionable concert in Indjija (not to be confused with India) in 2007. And just for the record, I love Flea. One of my fav musicians. A great bass player indeed. I like almost all of their songs, even the “WTF?!” ones. But not “Scar Tissue”.

I know I am alone in my thinking. Also, I do know this song posses a certain quality, if nothing else, the way John and Flea are complementing each other. But something is missing. It’s just… I don’t know- boring? Yes, that might be a good word. No building, no passion. I am not saying they didn’t make the song with a passion- but to me it just falls flat.

Once (Pearl Jam)

Given the fact this song is basically the first thing we hear on their FIRST album (save for Master/Slave intro), one would think the song is a great opener. It isn’t. It’s not a bad song per se. So I blame the production. Or perhaps Eddie Vedder really didn’t know what to do about sing-screaming on this one. Don’t get me wrong, I like that man’s voice (I could listen him read mumble a telephone book), and his singing in the 90s was quite good. But “Once”? He failed. But the song sounds pretty decent live (or so I heard), so I think we should indeed blame the production. Several songs from “Ten” have the same problem (“Why Go”, anybody?).

Also, if “Alive”, “Once” and “Footsteps” are, indeed, a trilogy, don’t you think they should… I don’t know? All appear on the record? And is there a significance behind choosing “Once” to be the first we hear- while, according to most (if not, all) sources, “Alive” is the first one? Or is there some actual meaning behind this (for example, “Once” really being the beginning). I’d like to know.

Always (Bon Jovi)

True, Bon Jovi is not one of my favourite bands, but it’s not like I don’t know their songs. I even like some of them. I like enough of them you might think I should like this one. But it doesn’t work that way.

Originally written for the film “Romeo is Bleeding”, the song never appeared on the soundtrack because the band disliked the film. Can’t blame them- not many people would find a quality in said movie. But the film’s absurd premise, film-noir-but-not-really style and hilarious execution quickly made it some sort of an underground cult movie status. It looks like Bon Jovi didn’t want to be associated with that. Fair enough, but it’s their loss.

“Always” is just… Way too soft for my taste. And not soft in a cute kind of way, but cheesy. Musically, it’s ok but nothing special. But what made this song a big fail to me are the lyrics. Yes, I do have a prejudice when it comes to using a word “baby” in lyrics, unless you’re referring to an infant. But even without it… “I’ll be there forever and a day, Always”. Oh, gimme a break. This is a type of songs teenage couples choose to be “their” song. I wonder what they would think if the song was, indeed, included on “Romeo is Bleeding” soundtrack.

I Want to Break Free (Queen)

Gotta love this band, with all their flamboyant harmonies and borderline-kitsch-but-not-really (kitsch, not borderline) style and Freddie’s voice.

But “I Want to Break Free” does nothing for me. Simple as that. It’s not trash per see, but I fail to see its appeal. It’s simply not working for me.

November Rain (short version) (Guns N’ Roses)

“November Rain, the short version” happens when they cut the outro of the album version of the song. That’s what I’m talking about. I don’t get it, especially given the fact last 2 minutes feature one of the best guitar solos known to man. But let’s start from the beginning.

The song was written sometimes in early to mid 80s and, for all we know, represents Axl Rose’s deepest and most serious feelings/beliefs/memories. He wanted to include this song on a GNR record so badly, and he worked on it for years and played it on any piano he could find, anywhere. Nothing wrong with that.

The other guys were less than eager to ever make it a GNR song, but Slash was happy to play a solo for it (or so they say). About a decade (or a little less) later, we got album version of “November Rain”, neatly packed in 8 minutes and 57 seconds. There was an iconic video to go with it, too.

So, here’s the thing. If a song is 8 minutes and 57 seconds long, you don’t cut it 2 minutes early. Especially if what happens in those two minutes is the best thing about the song. I know I am alone here, but I simply don’t get “November Rain” appeal without the outro solo. The song is good- but nothing special. Musically, it’s good- but nothing special. Nothing that would tell you there was almost a decade of work behind it. When 13 year old romantic and gentle girls find something adorable, that’s usually not a good sign for a rock song, not even a rock ballad. Oh, more people than 13 year old girls adore this song, I know. But there’s nothing pass the “ok” for me there, not without the outro.

And yes, I know many people consider the first song solo to be the better one, and THE “November Rain” solo (and it’s still unclear on which solo Slash actually means when he’s talking about “the solo”). I don’t care. Cut the outro and I’m out.

See also: 5 songs I like against all odds

If you want to make a film completely based on visual effects and decide the story isn’t important, don’t take yourself too seriously.

I watched “Avatar” in 2D, so maybe I wasn’t able to get all of its beauty. But if the movie is completely ruined for you if you don’t watch it in 3D… Then, it’s the movie’s fault, not yours.

I was never overly impressed by Cameron’s work. Sure, “Terminator” was good, but “Titanic” was… Well, “Titanic”. “Avatar” suffers heavily from the Titanic-like problems, but it takes them to different levels. Just for the record, my main problem with “Titanic” wasn’t cheap story, Leo DiCaprio or even (even!) Seline Dion. It’s the fact a tragedy- a real life tragedy- was used for romantic intentions and cheesy emotions. Making Titanic tragedy into a date movie was a bit disrespectful, to say the least.

“Avatar” suffers from the same problems, with a few additional ones. It doesn’t treat its (supposedly deep and profound) message with respect. Is it wrong to invade other cultures, kill people and take their land? Is it wrong to destroy environment? Is it wrong to spread military terror on others? Yes, yes and yes. The mere idea we need James Cameron, of all people, to inform us about it is insulting.

A very Noble Savage problem

But even more, the way he treats all these issues is offensive. The guy obviously never heard of Noble Savage stereotype, or the fact is a harmful one. Sure, it does show you criticize wrongdoings of your culture, but you are still unable to understand other cultures or really respect them. Seeing them as “exotic others” doesn’t change your superiority complex, nor the belief those cultures need you in some way (true, problems on Pandora started only after humans Americans came, but Na’vi were also unable to defend and free themselves- they needed a help of a person coming from our western culture).

Competent marine that he is, Jack Sully learns all there is to know about Na’vi in 3 months and becomes not only a skilled warrior, but one of the best in their history. He becomes their leader and gets the hottest chick as a bonus. In other words: natives are pure and close to nature, but the good guy of our (western) culture is still better than them and they need his help to survive. Not a good message.

History for dummies

The other huge problem is Cameron’s need to dumb everything down to the point one wonders if “Avatar” is actually aimed at 8 year old kids. New flash, kids!: destroying nature is wrong. Invading other cultures is wrong. But if there are other cultures in danger, it is OUR job to help them, because we are superior and they are unable to defend themselves. They need us, kids.

In this aspect, “Avatar” reads way too much like Paulo Coelho, Dan Brown or good ol’ Stephenie Meyer. Just like Coelho is good for those who never understood philosophy, Stephenie Meyer for those who don’t like vampire stories and Dan Brown for those who don’t have any education in art history/history/anything at all (example: people who didn’t find blatantly obvious that “an ancient word of wisdom, 5 letters” is Sofia)- “Avatar” is for those who never thought about colonization and history (not even on Disney “Pocahontas” level). To the rest of us, it’s simply insulting to watch such a predictable story.

But it’s not about the story!

No shit?!? So, what is it about, then? Visual effects? If it’s really about it, then fine. Honestly, if Cameron meant this to be Pocahontas/Dancing with Wolves in space, I am fine with it. But “Avatar” simply takes itself way too seriously.

I don’t personally have anything against people who believe they are great and responsible for major achievements. If you’re good, be aware of it all you like- nobody likes false modesty anyway. But you have to have something actually great to back up your feeling of self importance. “Avatar” isn’t that great, James Cameron. In fact, apart from visual effects, it’s not great at all- it’s below mediocre. It’s predictable, it’s childlike in a bad way, it’s insulting both to non-western cultures AND your audience (for estimating their intelligence and education as pretty low).

Random annoying things

• Even with all the beautiful visual effects, the world building itself is weak. Humans still look like humans, horses like horses and wolves like wolves- only blue. And there isn’t any hint that it’s intentional analogy.
• Pandora is Jupiter painted blue. Just take a look: here. It even has the Great Red (well, in this case Blue) spot. I mean, WTF?!?!? They couldn’t even make an original planet design?
• It’s so predictable that is insulting.
• Those poor noble savages wouldn’t be able to do anything without the compassionate marine Jack.
• This wasn’t aimed at kids. If it were, it would, perhaps, make some sense.
• It’s a box office hit and got so many Oscar nominations. And it deserves only one.
• People like it. People actually like it! They like it so much that I really wonder if I was giving humans way too much credit when it comes to education, intelligence or a taste.

And the good things…

• Visual effects. Convincing, almost realistic. CGI will (hopefully) never be the same again.
• USB hair.
• Sam Worthington’s voice. He does have such a beautiful, deep voice. Too bad he can’t act.

Interesting links

• Avatar is racist, say critics
• When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like “Avatar”?
• Three Very Important Reasons Why Avatar Sucks
]]> http://jefflion.net/archives/311/feed 19 http://jefflion.net/archives/303 http://jefflion.net/archives/303#comments Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:36:57 +0000 Mira http://jefflion.net/?p=303 Some useful advice:
• Sleep in.
• Don’t do anything in particular. Because you can.
• Go to movies. Watch something profound or entertaining, but not obviously crappy (no romantic comedies, action films or parodies).
• Listen to the music that was popular when you were 14 and that you considered crappy at the time. It’s still crappy, but at least you get to remember your early teens.
• Visit blogs, comment, update your own website.
• Make love to your loved one.
• Eat popcorn. Lots of it.
• Think about your novel. Plan it. Research. Daydream. Then plan and research again. Then daydream. And daydream a little more. It’s good for writing. It’s necessary.
• Go to bed at 4 AM. Because you can.
• Relax, take it easy. Don’t try to do way too many things.

Well, it looks like I did follow those tips this weekend (well, most of it). My husband and I are going to cinema tonight (to get a proper watching of “Sherlock Holmes”, because we decided watching a fun film again is better than giving more money to something we are sure it’s not really our thing (“Avatar”). But I will watch “Avatar” and talk about it- just not at the moment. For now, I want to relax, have fun, do nothing and don’t think about anything really profound… Except my novel.

Bonus track: 25 things I learned reading “Twilight”

This is a long overdue, last (?) installment of “Twilight” spitttings. So I realized it’s best to post them here first, then move them to their appropriate page in the spittings section.

1. Sex with a vampire can kill you, but only if it’s premarital.
2. Abusive, controlling behaviour is ok as long as it’s “true love”.
3. So is pedophilia.
4. Women are inferior to men.
5. If they’re not, they’re infertile.
6. Bad people are ugly, good people are beautiful (even if they don’t find themselves pretty and bitch about that all the time).
7. Kids treat their parents as crap.
8. It’s possible to be non-white and attractive (in a wild, uncivilized way), but it’s not nearly as attractive as being pale and white.
9. In order to know anything about cars and sports, you must posses Y chromosome.
10. If your boyfriend of 6 months leaves you, it’s perfectly ok to become suicidal.
11. Blond females are stupid, bitchy and mean. All of them.
12. Using swear words is bad, but stalking someone isn’t.
13. Desire to have sex is a good enough reason to get married.
14. Girls don’t need any skills apart from cooking, and no ambition apart of finding a man.
15. Clumsiness is attractive. Safety helmets are sexy.
16. People with bad complexion are not worth your attention.
17. In order to feel smart, you should read classics such as Jane Austin and Shakespeare. You don’t have to understand a word of what you’ve read, though.
18. Being forced into a relationship is romantic.
19. Obsession and lust are easily confused for a true love.
20. It’s perfectly ok for a father to hate his own child.
21. Policemen are cowards.
22. Being older than your boyfriend is a major disaster.
23. It’s perfectly ok to neglect your child if you want to have sex.
24. Logic is highly overrated.
25. In order to sell a book, you don’t need any talent, writing skills or an editor.
]]> http://jefflion.net/archives/303/feed 6 http://jefflion.net/archives/292 http://jefflion.net/archives/292#comments Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:50:59 +0000 Mira http://jefflion.net/?p=292 I’m not your regular music geek, but I am some sort of music obsessed. Mostly rock music.

The irony: I am untalented for singing or playing (not that I don’t try to play bass guitar from time to time), and I am definitely not one of those people who can name every single obscure alternative band from the 80s. Alternative rock (whatever than means exactly) is great, but I don’t have any problem admitting my passion for more “mainstream” stuff, too.

But when I look at my playlist, I do see it’s mostly rock music- some sort of it. As if other genres don’t really work for me. Another thing I notice is the lack of music created in the last-what? 10 years or so. Yes, I am getting old and I can’t stand modern popular music. Apparently.

And yet, there are some songs that I like, against all odds. I try to resist the urge to actually feel ashamed because of it. Only one of these songs could be somewhat categorized in the rock subgenre (perhaps), and most are recent. Some of them are quality songs, but not in a genre that usually gets my attention. Other clearly lack substance, but were overplayed and catchy enough to make an impact.

Right Here, Right Now (Fatboy Slim)

It was a smashing 1999 hit. To my knowledge, this is the only Fatboy Slim song I really liked.

Why this song? I must admit, it’s not so much for the song- it’s the video. I consider this video to be one of the best ever created. It’s certainly my favourite. It must be noted this was the only time I liked the song because of the video.
Why is this surprising? I am not into this kind of music… Whatever “this kind” might actually be.

Sky (Sonique)

Wikipedia defines it as “a trance-house song by singer and DJ Sonique”, released in 2000. It was a big hit where I live, but for some reason people in general don’t seem to remember it.
Why this song? “Oh I wanna touch the sky I wanna fly so high / Oh I wanna hold you I wanna love you tonight”. It’s too catchy to resist.
Why is this surprising? It’s not particularly surprising, considering the fact that I like to dance, even as this clumsy. I do feel rhythm inside me. But I am not usually impressed with this type of songs.

Ya Soshla S Uma (t.A.T.u.)

Yes. That one. Russian (and, I believe, original) version of “All the things she said”, created in 1999. Remember these energetic fake Russian lesbians? (Fake lesbians, not Russians). And yes, their music is too catchy to even make sense. Their Eastern European accents are clearly touchable when they sing in English. They sound better in Russian.
Why this song? Because of the atmosphere at one moment in the song. And yes, that’s about all.
Why is this surprising? You’re kidding, right? Do I really have to explain?

Bring Me to Life (Evanescence)

Yes, they were a rock band… Technically. But I never considered them as such. This song was impossible to escape in 2003. It’s not that I was ever overly impressed with their music, or even the lead vocalist, but out of all the crap that was out there at the time, this one stank a little less than your average Britney Spears song.
Why this song? This damn thing was catchy and impossible to escape.
Why is this surprising? Because even with Amy Lee’s voice and electric guitars here and there, this song (or band’s work a s whole) never managed to make me believe they are a rock band (I have the same problem with Bon Jovi).

Relax, take it easy (Mika)

Seriously, people. We need more quality vocalists in popular music. And Mika is such a great singer, he could make me listen any sugar-high-pitched-song there is. And this one is actually memorable enough. That being said, I hate remixes.

Why this song? Because it’s actually a decent song. Perhaps the best on this list, sung by a really good vocalist. And it makes me feel calm, yet excited.
Why is this surprising? I prefer deeper voices. I don’t particularly like when a man sings that high: apart from concern for well being of his testicles, I can’t really enjoy the velvet beauty of a baritone.

See also: 5 songs I dislike against all odds

]]> http://jefflion.net/archives/292/feed 10