Rambling, I Like To Ramble. Sometimes I Even Do It On Purpose.

I got to pull out my trusty dictionary on Friday, as I started reading How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren. "Hey, honey," I said, "this book was co-written by Charles Van Doren."

"Which one was he?" he asks. "The father, or the son?"

I've had the book in my possession for a couple of weeks, and because of it the name "Charles Van Doren" has been on the periphery of my thoughts. I think that it must be the same one. Teacher of literature. Lover of learning, from famously literary family. Man who was temporarily seduced by his own awesomeness, if the Hollywood version is to be believed. The Charles Van Doren of "21" fame. I even see in the appendix of the book that his father, Mark Van Doren, is referenced. Page 206:

"In poetry and in drama," the poet Mark Van Doren once observed, "statement is one of the obscurer mediums."

If you don't know what that means, I'm certainly not going to tell you, because I haven't read that part of the book yet, and so I don't know why he is being quoted, only that he is being quoted. And here I'm shoving you mentally around a bit just for the fun of it, and to see if it works.

The names of the Van Dorens jump out at me because of their association with a movie, Quiz Show, I saw and loved many years ago, starring Ralph Fiennes and John Turturro. Quiz Show tells the story of the quiz show scandals of the early days of television at which time it was revealed that the contests had been rigged for the sake of ratings. Some things change. Some things stay the same.

All three of the movie's lead are very good in their roles. And even though he is a secondary character, I absolutely fall in love with Mark Van Doren every time I watch the film. It may only be because I have a weakness for literary men with gray hair, but he makes me cry, especially when he is confused by the decisions of his son near the end.

At the time that I saw Quiz Show I think that I had never seen Ralph Fiennes before. In fact I had made some snide remarks concerning the pronunciation of his name. After seeing this movie I declared that he could pronounce his name in any way he liked. I was rather young at the time, you understand.

Anyway, there is a bit of a mystique in my mind concerning the character, Charles Van Doren, from the movie. I can only speculate as to what the original was or is like. I expect he didn't actually look like Ralph Fiennes.

I like the film because it shows the sort of mischief a personable and possibly well meaning person can get into when flattery and influence take charge of his will. I like it because he is eventually exposed, doesn't get away with it, and though coerced, he eventually manages to take it like a man, if you'll pardon the expression. I also like the film because Harry Connick, Jr. performs Jack the Knife during both beginning and ending credits. Turturro was terrific in it also, but his character didn't co-write a book I'm reading this week.

The movie represents an interesting little piece of show biz history, even if it is hard to tell the fact from the fiction. And believe me, I haven't done the research necessary to detect the truth when I see it emanating from my television screen.

All this is leading up to the fact that I learned a new word on Friday: desideratum. It does not mean, as I had thought based on the context, the deciding factor, which only goes to show you that contextual clues can lead you astray. Here's the sentence:

One constant [among changing theories about reading] is that, to achieve all the purposes of reading, the desideratum must be the ability to read different things at different-appropriate-speeds, not everything at the greatest possible speed (x)

Desideratum is something that is wanted or desired. What the precise difference is between wanting something and desiring it, I do not know.

Computers, video streaming, etc.

We bought a new laptop computer, and Michael and I have traded so that I am now using the new Dell laptop, while he has taken over the less new Acer.  This seems to work out well for the both of us as he needs the wider screen for web design, and I need the better speakers for what I do, watch a lot of tv.  Actually I have less time for tv lately, which is a good thing. 

I like the smaller screen, smaller keypad, and lighter weight of the Dell, which makes it ever the slightly more portable.  I might take this one with me to the coffee shop, if I ever decided it was worthwhile to write there. I like that it doesn't have any crud under the buttons yet.  And I like that it's cover is blue.  It helps too, since we now need an additional laptop, we already own this one.

Michael bought the Dell laptop almost by mistake.  We were trying to decide whether or not to send it back, when the window of opportunity for that possibility closed.  We thought about selling it on ebay. Now we have a reason to keep it. 

[Parker is momentarily standing in the hallway at 9:15 p.m. trying to convince Michael that he couldn't possibly sleep in his own room tonight.  It would be cuter if he hadn't already been in bed for over an hour and a half.]

As far as the television is concerned, I am practically run over now that the networks have picked up their Fall seasons.  The ability to time-shift viewing patterns is wonderful.  The way the interesting television shows begin to pile up in my Hulu queue is less wonderful.  Because I'm one of those people who actually like television.  Not everyone who watches it does, you know.  Not only do I like it, but I am also usually (if not always) an active viewer of television.  I like movies too.  My mom points out that I don't have to watch them, but don't I?  Is it enough to pretend that I won't pick up any new ones?  Who am I kidding?

Two Movies for Review

I started this post weeks ago.

Movie the First. Quiz Show

When I first heard Ralph Fiennes name, I thought the pronunciation was ridiculous, (I've since learned that his is a common pronunciation.) but after seeing this movie I decided he had done such a good job that he could pronounce his name anyway he liked.

The movie is, in one of my professor's words, not the kind of film you want to rent with your friends on a Friday night, but I watched it again a few weeks ago, and was reminded of how much I like it. I'm not very good at film reviews, so I'll just tell you what I like about it.

This isn't a suspenseful film, so I see no need to avoid giving away certain plot points. Maybe you're on pins and needles over what will become of the television industry, but considering these things happened more than fifty years ago, it's doubtful. Perhaps Robert Redford considered taking poetic license with the outcome (I'm sure he did to some extent), but surely that doesn't extend to pretending the grand jury investigation to place in an alternate universe (although that might have held a certain interest for me).

I like that John Turturro's character gets what he wants in the end, the exposure of Charles van Doren's participation in a fraud, but finds that what he wanted isn't at all satisfying. I like that it shows van Doren's reluctance to participate in fraud at first, though is reluctance is quickly subsumed by the lure of fame and popularity. I love the portrayal of Charles's father, Mark van Doren, who is crushed by his son's loss of his teaching job. I like that Charles is lauded for eventually telling the truth, but that he isn't ultimately allowed to avoid of the consequences of his dishonesty--because his conscience could never have been satisfied by getting away with it in the end. I don't love that these things happen, but I love what they show about reality.

The movie has its funny points, but it's that wordy sort of humor I like so much, like when the van Doren family quotes Shakespeare around the birthday table, or when Charles says that if they give him the questions but let him look up the answers on his own, it might be less egregious. Hank Azaria as Albert Freedman: "What's 'egregious'?"

Quiz Show is in my top movies.

Movie the second. Pushing Tin

Somehow my parents wound up with a copy of this film, no idea how. And I really can't put my finger on why I enjoy this so much. For some reason I am fascinated with Billy Bob Thornton in this film--deepset eyes and high cheekbones have something to do with it. His character is a melancholy one. He doesn't easily fit in with the social norm although he is excellent at his job. The risks he takes are somewhat juvenile, but in that terribly creative way that makes me feel protective of him as a fictional character. Weird, huh? Angelina Jolie appears with him in this film as his young bride. His acting in this film is only so-so, but we do get to hear him sing, and at one point in the film John Cusack's character literally kicks him in the butt.

The movie is cleverly written as John Cusack's movies generally are. Honestly, I don't always get the humor. The movie is about the destruction of a marriage, guilt, and the power of unrestrained obesession with being the best. Cate Blanchette is in this one too.

Eventually perhaps I'll figure out why I'm willing to sit through this film over and over again. Melanie once said that when Parker enjoys the same activity or book or movie over and over again it may mean he's trying to work something out about it in his mind, and I think that's what I'm doing with this film. Or maybe it's just about Billy Bob Thornton. I don't know.

Other movies I've enjoyed with him in them: Intolerable Cruelty and The Apostle.

One of the interesting things about Billy Bob Thornton is his versitility. Sometimes it is difficult to recognize him from film to film, The Apostle being a case in point.

Parker and Me on Mother's Day

Parker spent the day exploring his Granna's yard. I spent the day napping in my sister's room. We managed to squeeze most of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in there too. Sean Connery's character in that movie reminds us so much of our Dad, especially the quotable bits of dialogue.

One of my Dad's favorite lines:

"Did I ever tell you to eat up? Go to bed? Wash behind your ears? Do your homework? No. I respected your privacy..."

Name This Quote

"I was always more interested in what bark was made out of."

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe were both charming in this movie--3:10 to Yuma--While Alan Tudyk--I Really Missed Him

I finished watching 3:10 to Yuma just this morning. Once Michael had explained some things to me, and I had seen what happens at the end I was thoroughly won over. More on this later.

In the meantime I must offer this single hint of criticism. I did not like Alan Tudyk in this movie, and I will tell you why. This wasn't a good role for him, though I certainly wouldn't have this thought if I didn't already like him so very much. Anyone could probably have played the role he played. I realize that actor's must actively resist being pigeon holed as certain sorts (Tudyk has played comic roles in other places I have seen him--Firefly, A Knight's Tale, Dodgeball), but Michael points out that actors need to pay their bills too.

Introducing *Strictly Ballroom*

Strictly Ballroom is one of my favorite movies. It's the first movie in what has come to be known as Baz Luhrmann's Red Curtain trilogy, which also includes William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, and Moulin Rouge. The movie started as a play that I think Baz and his friends wrote and performed while in college. It took a little while for me to win Michael over, but once he was won, he was won.

It is romantic, but as far as the storyline goes it is very conventional. It doesn't take long to figure out what kind of movie it is, and romantically there are no surprises. It is a light romance in that, while love is not treated as something trivial, there is no promise at the end that certain characters are destined to marry, though that is quite possible. There does seem to be a promise at the end that certain characters are going to stay married, which is one of my favorite things about the movie. The romance isn't the point.

Other than the storyline, I don't think that anything else about the movie is conventional. It is highly theatrical, and as its title would imply, involves a lot of dancing. If you know much about dancing yourself, you will quickly realize that most of the dancing is entirely made up for comic effect. If I remember correctly, only two of the actors in the film are real, true-to-life dancers.

Expect comedy (sometimes in the form of melodrama), expect wild costumes and make-up, and expect Australian actors. As I said, this is one of my favorite films.

More on *Danny Deckchair*

I mentioned earlier that the hero of this film goes through something like a mid-life crisis, by which I mean that he does something crazy, making his life over as a result. He finds that he isn't really the person he thought he was (an inconsequential manual laborer), and that he doesn't belong in the confining city of his past.

Here's what I found most interesting about this film:

Danny shares a house with his girlfriend, about whom Jimmy "the Tulip" Tudeski (The Whole Nine Yards, another of my favorite movies--Matthew Perry is hilarious) would say, "She's not a good person."

They live together, but they aren't married (not to mention the fact that she's about to embark on an affair)--and so I am not disturbed when Danny runs off and falls in love with someone else. However, had they been married, I would have found this very troubling.

For instance, in the movie Diaries of a Mad Black Woman, the heroine gets revenge against her cheating husband, divorces him and starts a new life with someone else. While I very much like the movie, I am troubled by the divorce because in the course of the film the husband "mends his evil ways," to use a cliche. This is very troubling to me because of what I believe about the sanctity of marriage, and Tyler Perry admits many of his fans were disappointed in the ending, which was different from that of the play.

In Danny Deckchair the fact that Danny and what's-her-name aren't married does away with this predicament.

What does this imply about marriage?

Michael has some good comments to add to this, by the way.

Candles and *Clueless*

Does anyone else horde scented candles like I do?

I love candles, and honestly they contribute to my general wellbeing during the winter months. Less so now that I get to be home during the day. The thing is, I buy these candle, or receive them as gifts, and then I put them under my bed and just keep them. Sure, I have some scattered around the house and I do burn them, but I keep them sitting out well past the point when they should be thrown away. I continue to keep them or burn them even after I've reached the last inch of wax. That's one reason I like incense, because I'm less tempted to keep it around as decorative matter. You pretty much burn it , enjoy the fragrance, and that's that.

Parker and I are watching Clueless. I always enjoy Travis Berkenstock (Breckin Meyer)'s speech after his homeroom teacher, played by Wallace Shawn, announces the number of tardies he has accrued.

This is so unexpected. I-I didn't even have a speech prepared, uh, but I would like to say this: Tardiness is not something you can do all on your own. Many, many people contributed to my tardiness. Uh, I'd like to thank my parents for never giving me a ride to school; the L.A. City Bus driver, for taking a chance on an unknown kid; and uh, last but not least the wonderful crew of McDonald's for spending hours making those Egg-McMuffins without which I might never be tardy.

It loses something in print, but Meyer delivers it perfectly. Another great line from this movie:

Cher's main thrill in life is a make-over, okay. It gives her a sense of control in a world full of chaos.

You may not realize that Clueless is based on Jane Austen's Emma, and instead of simply being a shallow teenage movie, it is actually an effective adaptation. I've always thought this movie was an excellent candidate for discussion, especially for those with teenagers who have to make choices in a threatening world. It's full of objectionable material, but provides an excellent opportunity to go over some important issues with your kids.

Another film I seriously recommend for discussing with your kids is Akeelah and the Bee. Very good movie, if formulaic. The formula of the film itself is an interesting topic for discussion.

Australian Actors, Australian Films

Must get some sleep before Parker wakes us up bright and early in the morning, but I just wanted to note that we saw the movie Danny Deckchair over the weekend. This is a romantic comedy set in Australia, starring Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill) and Miranda Otto (Lord of the Rings Trilogy). It was quite an enjoyable movie, if some of the details were rather far-fetched. We were pleased to see two Australian actors in the film who appeared in an episode of one of our favorite Sci-Fi series, Farscape, which is peopled with many Australian actors as well.

Lots of Australia going around our house these days:

The Dish, which is about the Parks, Australia satellite station that tracked the progress of the Apollo 11 moon landing;

Danny Deckchair, about a man who floats away from home on a helium balloon, and find what he's been missing in his life. This may seem to be standard mid-life crisis fare, except that it isn't. Not the deepest thing I've seen lately, but enjoyable nonetheless; and

Strictly Ballroom. This is one of my favorite films, and one that I shall say a bit about at some slightly later date.

Mysteries of Film

I just finished watching a movie that made my eyes ache. Throat too. Life as a House. It was loaned to me weeks and weeks ago, and since I had decided that it would be too stressful for my husband, I went ahead and put it in this morning.

I enjoyed the movie, and I'll probably have to mull it over for a week or so before I can figure out what I really think of it. Hayden Christianson was just as pouty and whiny in it as he was in Star Wars II & III with rather more excuse, and there is a lot in the movie about marriage and divorce which is tricky. Jena Malone, as usual, made some highly questionable decisions. Anyway, there's a lot to think about.

This led me to wonder about the various reactions that movies can provoke. For instance, my husband doesn't care for films that feature a large amount of familial or employment related stress. He won't watch The Office with me because he gets enough of work at work. Other people don't enjoy films that are "depressing." Some people generally avoid stories that are sad.

Michael has sometimes observed, "You're crying. That must have been a really good book," which means, I often really enjoy the sad stuff. I'm often skeptical of the kind of manipulation that allows a film or series to make me feel the way I want to feel at any given point in the story. But I've also often thought that you have to know what kind of movie you are getting going in, and then accept the conventions of that genre, or, alternatively, discover the mode of the film you are observing and then realize that certain absurdities, or required suspensions of disbelief are to be expected. This is what enjoying a film or tv series is about. If you like films you become very skilled at suspending disbelief, or you find the genre you can stand and then stick with it.

Perhaps this explains why some people don't generally enjoy films. There are other factors, of course. I've noticed recently that I often have trouble interpreting images that are presented to me on screen. For instance in an episode of Little House the driver was flung from a carriage during an accident and it took a while for me to figure out that the camera was panning across the drivers arm showing us that he was dead. At times I have difficulty figuring out where my attention is supposed to be directed. Then again, it drives me crazy when cinematographers force perspective by use of selective focus.

"A Message From the Lord"--Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie

Here I am watching Veggie Tales for the THIRD time today. It's bad, it's bad letting Parker watch so much tv. My excuse is that we're getting over sickness. Besides, it's allowing me to write, since Parker only napped about an hour this morning. Parker really enjoys the music, but I realized earlier this week that part of the appeal of the music for him includes the figures on the screen.

Some things I noticed from the movie on SECOND viewing this morning.

#1: I don't quite understand why Jonah says that the message he brings is one of encouragement and peace, when really he is reminding God's people of the law. A scribe in the audience comments, within the framework of the song, that "This is quite a lot of rules." On the other hand, Jonah does point out that "If you follow God's commands there will be peace throughout our land." This seems to me a very Old Testament approach, which is entirely appropriate considering the source of the story. Unless I've missed it, I don't believe the impossibility of keeping the law is even mentioned until the New Testament. Please set me straight if you recall a reference.

#2: How much time do you imagine was spent in discussion when the artists chose to illustrate this line "Wear four tassels on your cloak." They show a vegetable (I forget which kind) wearing a robe, but showing only three tassels. These are asymmetrically placed (i.e. you see one hanging from one corner of the robe, but not from the other).

Veggie Tales: It's already started

I have seen the movie Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie at least once a day every day this week. Parker brings the case over for me to look at at least three times every day, and last night he managed to start the movie all by himself . (I tried to interest him in The Muppets Take Manhattan earlier this week, but he just didn't go for it.)

So I'm sitting here this morning, with Parker eating breakfast on my right, and the movie running on my left (it just ended), and in the Newsboy's track of the credits I hear--"How long is this going to take?"

Last night I started a book by Larry Crabb that Padre loaned me called The Papa Prayer. The premise of the book is that our usual approach to prayer is all wrong, and that prayer is more about enjoying the relationship than it is posting our problems and concerns. Seems rather obvious, doesn't it? Though if we really understood prayer this way, and enjoyed our relationship with God this way, prayer wouldn't be the burden or require the discipline from so many of us that it is and does. Looks like a good book. ("Limit yourself to one chapter at a time," he recommended.)

"How long is this going to take?" is something I have often wondered as I've prayed about a certain situation in the life of our family. Michael has had the same job for nearly the length of our marriage, and I have long prayed that he would find more satisfying employment. In seven years of searching, little has changed except that he gets to play the saxophone even less now than he once did. Some weeks before Christmas it hit me. If we believe that God is our provider, and He has not yet chosen to provide my husband with another job, it must be because He wants him where he is.

There are lots of reasons why this may be. I can make certain guesses based on what I know about the nature of God, but what Michael and I need to begin to pray is that God will bring us into agreement with Him that whatever it is, His will be done. It's not that I haven't prayed this way before, but the sudden realization on a December evening in 2007 imbued my previous knowledge with renewed meaning. Then the simple line from a Newsboys recording reminds me that God knows (understands, acknowledges) how I feel in the meantime.

Movie Notes

We've seen several movies in the last several days, and I'd like to comment on some of the ones I didn't sleep through. Some of my comments will be impartial, but more of them will be very self-centered, or alternatively self-revealing.

1. Ratatouille

I very much enjoyed this movie, partially because of the cooking, because while I often do not enjoy cooking myself, I do enjoy reading about and seeing people (and in this case, rats) who do. But the main reason I enjoyed the film was because of the food critic, Ego, played by Peter O'Toole. Late in the film Ego describes the work of the critic:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

Why do I like Ego (the character, not the Freudian term) so much? Confession: my husband will not be surprised to learn that inside myself I covet the role of the critic. I've always wanted to be one of those people with authority who declaim quality, those aspect of movies, music, and books that are good and those that are bad. I pride myself on resisting popular opinion and having my own criteria for what is and is not art. I wish that others would read what I write and be convinced that I am brilliant. I simultaneously am and am not proud of this aspect of my nature.

2. The Astronaut Farmer

I found the first two thirds of this film very stressful, while the last third of it was quite enjoyable. I may have actually dozed off during some important parts of the film, which I think led me to certain misinterpretations that hindered my enjoyment of it.

Michael and I are doing a marriage class right now that is based on a couple of William Harley's books. This movie convinced me that I should have ranked the need for financial support higher on my list of important marital needs. The film begins with a family that is $600 thousand dollars in debt while the husband builds a rocket in his barn that he intends to fly once around the earth. They were about to lose everything, while seeming rather complacent about it, which made me incredibly uncomfortable. There is a Deus Ex Machina midway through the film which, by definition, brings a great deal of relief, but this increased my objection to the film because I felt that it brought with it a false sense of hope to those who might be influenced by the film to make increasingly bad choices in real life.

Like I said, I believe I have misinterpreted this film. They handle the stress of the situation, and the consequences of bad choices in positive ways that I totally missed because I was so sleepy. The movie is actually about dreams. The poorly written description of the movie on the back of the DVD case had set me off on the wrong foot.

Michael said something to me at one point about pursuing those activities that you really enjoy in life, and I responded that all I really want to do is read and write--a lot, but that doesn't put dinner on the table. He thought I meant figuratively, not literally, and so said that I could feed my family this way eventually, but I can't figure out how.

3. Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End

I have really enjoyed this trilogy, and all I will say here is that I think Disney has handled the whole concept of fantasy with this series quite well, although each of the films is probably a bit too long. The series winds up with a true storybook ending, instead of the Hollywood storybook ending most of us have come to expect from film.

4. Lady in the Water

We watched this last night. I wasn't particularly interested in seeing this movie, even though I have enjoyed most of M. Night Shyamalan's other films. The movie wasn't perfect, but by the time we made it to the end I was in love. I commented to Michael that I don't think this movie could possibly have done very well in the box office, but that I don't think Shyamalan particularly cares. I think he is much more interested in making an interesting film. This movie won my heart because of its emphasis on the elements of storytelling. It's one that we will have to add to our DVD collection in time.

That's it, and now Parker is awake and ready to get out of bed.

Not Quite Ready for the Library Just Yet

I'm so happy to say that I have my husband home with me for an entire week.

I took Parker to the library on Wednesday while Michael and Damon went to a movie. I thought that because Parker has begun bringing books to us regularly in the past month or so perhaps he is ready to enjoy the public library. It was the perfect opportunity to try out my theory since I had easy access to our one and only vehicle.

I did manage to find three of the books I was looking for at least. Even though I didn't like the Tim Stafford essay I mentioned in a post last week, I did decide to take his recommendation and give Dickens another chance with David Copperfield. I had to go to Young Adult Fiction to find a paperback copy. I had hoped for a Penguin or an Everyman's Library but had to make due with a dinky Airmont Classic. I admit that I prefer a certain level of elegance even in my borrowed fiction. I'm sorry to say I chose the Evelyn Waugh based on the beauty of its paper binding.

The thing I hate about a lot of the Young Adult Classic Literature in our particular public library is that most of them are not bar coded and you have to sign them out on a yellow pad at the circulation desk. The library gets your name and the fact that you have one of their books, but no record of which book you have actually taken. So how can they know when or if you have brought it back? I somehow feel threatened by the informality of the situation.

I also (joy of joys) found Annie Dillard's The Living, a novel I have been look for a while, ever since reading a short story version published in The Annie Dillard Reader. I've tried it before, but stand a better chance of getting into it this time. Yay!! Now if I could only get a hold of that Gabaldon, Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade.

Parker, he didn't do so well. I mean to say, he behaved very well. He obviously enjoyed being out. The thing is, he would choose a book, but then he wasn't interested in looking at more than a page or two before choosing another one. He certainly wasn't interested in having me read all of anything. I therefore concluded that Parker isn't quite ready to check out books from the public library at this time. Maybe by the time I have to return the three that I checked out he'll be ready to give it another go. Until then I guess we'll stick with My Little Animal Book and My First Mother Goose. If Parker ever eventually gives up his early morning nap maybe we'll be able to attend the story hour at the library, but until then Parker continues to need his sleep around 10:00 each morning.

I was tempted to get The Tigger Movie for him, but I hated to check out a children's DVD but no books. Maybe I'll try some of the music next time.

Baby Loves Music

Parker loves music. He really, really does. Lately, as you know, I've been watching The Bob Newhart Show through Netflix and everytime the credits roll, Parker stops and takes notice. He turns around from whatever he is doing, faces the television screen, and often he dances, as only a 14 month old child can, with arms up in the air. Occasionally he bends his knees and bounces a little bit. He really likes it.

We used to always skip past the credits when watching a television program on DVD, but not anymore. As a matter of fact at times we would go through Star Trek credits twice just because Parker enjoyed them so much.

Last night Michael and I watched the movie Shine. The movie wasn't a life changing one, an in general it was fairly depressing, but the music was wonderful. Parker was with us for about half of it. Anyway, the point of the post: There's this scene about midway through the film in which David Helfgott plays the Rachmaninoff Number 3 with a full orchestra. Parker became very much involved in this portion of the movie, to the extent that at the end of the performance he threw his little arms up over his head and ran toward us with the biggest smile on his face that I have ever seen. I wish that I could have taken a picture of him at that moment, but the image is clear in my mind as I know it will not be given another week.

Another adorable thing he did was to start voluntarily clapping whenever there were applause on screen.

The Picture of Dorian Gray

I read this book last week, and I promised my brother that I would post some my thoughts on it. It wasn't the most enjoyable reading I have done recently.

I first started thinking about this book upon seeing the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in which Dorian Gray was a character. I had of course heard of the book before then, but didn't know anything about it. More recently a Dorian Gray character appeared in a book I enjoyed by Jasper Fforde, The Fourth Bear, which is literature based parody of the detective novel. In The Fourth Bear Dorian Gray is a used car salesman who sells our hero, Jack Spratt (a person of ambiguous reality), a car which never sustains any visible damage no matter how it is abused. A painting of the car shows damage instead. Jasper Fforde is an interesting fellow, and has a cool website at http://www.jasperfforde.com/.

Now for Dorian Gray:

The book reads like a play, which isn't surprising considering that all of Wilde's other works were plays. I don't know whether or not he wrote any poetry. It was a little unnerving, to me that Lord Henry sounded like Rupert Everett in The Importance of Being Earnest in my mind. The book was slow to get started because Wilde had to set up the relationship between three major characters, Basil Hayward, the artist, Lord Henry, the unrecognizedly malicious influence, and Dorian Gray, the beautiful foppish sap. I was relieved that the novel was short. I have little desire to discuss the homoerotic elements of the story that Wilde critics seem to be obsessed with. They are there, and they are obvious, enough said.

Dorian Gray is essentially a modern day Solomon, lacking Solomon's wisdom. He tries everything, denying himself no pleasure, and encourages others to try these pleasures with him. Fortunately or unfortunately for the reader, Dorian's activities are mostly hinted at. One murder, and his involvement in several suicides are obvious exceptions to this.

The part of the book that interested me most was the part in which Dorian blames all of his evil deeds on the artist who painted his portrait, rather than the man who encouraged his vanity and hedonism. He goes so far as to acquit Lord Henry of any blame, though Lord Henry is the one who feeds Dorian's imagination with his double talk and backtracking, as well as his choice of reading material. Lord Henry almost always claims the opposite of whatever good sense or morality would dictate. The artist is the one man in the story to attempts to speak the truth in love, and what does he get for it? Murdered, and the body disposed in ashes.

In this story, evil definitely begets evil, and even Dorian's late attempts at being good turn themselves to more evil ends.

There's some deep analysis to be done there, though I find that I'm not particularly interested in doing it. I don't understand the critics claims that The Picture of Dorian Gray is actually a aestheticists manifesto rather than a cautionary offering. It's a shame to remain at the level of summary, knowing as I do that too much summary is a criticism often aimed at undergraduate writing, and as a sometime graduate student I am supposed to do something better than that.

The long and short of it is, I was ultimately disappointed in the book. It didn't meet my expectations and will not find a place on my recommended reading list. The film adaptation of Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, however, is great fun, especially since Colin Firth and Dame Judi Dench have leading roles.