Who Is the YA Audience?

Or, Does Age Really Matter In Books?

Image by Vanessa Yvonne

As several bloggers have mentioned before (My Friend Amy, and I think KMont from Lurv A La Mode and Katiebabs from Babling About Books, and More--sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the actual links), young adult as a genre modifier is pretty hinky.  Basically it's any book published with a teenage character, right?  Except I do think there are at least some books in all other genres that feature teenage characters... but let's not muddy up the issue.  YA=teenage protagonist.  That's all that we need to know.

But is it?  I talked a few weeks ago about how every main character in books seems to be a bibliophile; do teenagers or even younger kids need a character the same age in order to connect with them?  I would say... hell to the no.

Unlike interests such as reading, I would argue age is not something a lot of people connect with.  I'm not saying experience doesn't impart wisdom or confidence or whatever adjective you tell yourself you've gained when you blow out yet another candle on the birthday cake; just that some people gain a lot more of it in a shorter time span than others.  And said experience doesn't really preclude one from connecting with people older or younger than oneself.

For example, when I was in grade school I was reading books with main characters who were in their twenties and thirties, and I had absolutely no trouble connecting with them.  I might understand their characters differently now that I'm older, yes, but I still connected with them.  Now that I'm in my twenties, I read books about teenagers and kids.  Do I have any trouble understanding where they are coming from?  No. 

So why are books for the under-eighteen crowd grouped and marketed by age?  I think it's clear age has no sway over reading tastes or connecting with characters.  And don't say it's to protect teenagers from sex and bad language, because you can find both in YA novels these days.

How much do you think age matters when it comes to books?  Does the YA genre label have any use beyond marketing?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Fall Festival Recipe Exchange--Creamy Spaghetti & Chai

It's fall!  In all honesty, one of my least-favorite seasons.  I hate getting cold.  At least in spring you can look forward to getting warmer.

In any case, My Friend Amy is hosting a virtual fall festival where we share our favorite fall recipes!  One of my favoritest recipes that I always get a hankering to make when it starts getting colder is Creamy Spaghetti.  I got this recipe from Every Day with Rachel Ray, where it's described as risotto meets pasta e fagioli:




Ingredients:

•     5 cups chicken broth
•     2 tablespoons butter
•     2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
•     One 1/4-pound chunk pancetta or one 4-ounce package sliced pancetta, chopped
•     1 onion, chopped
•     4 cloves garlic, chopped
•     2 carrots, chopped
•     1 bay leaf (dry or fresh)
  
•     6 sprigs thyme
•     Salt and pepper
•     1 pound spaghetti
•     1 cup dry white wine (eyeball it)
•     One 15.5-ounce can Roman beans or small white beans (sometimes I use canned corn)
  
•     1 cup grated parmigiano-reggiano cheese (hand-grated is a lot of work, but it produces the best results)
  
•     1/3 cup finely chopped flat-leaf parsley (a generous handful)

Directions:

1. In a large saucepan, bring the chicken broth to a boil, then lower the heat and simmer gently.
2. In a wide, oval pot or a large skillet, melt the butter in the EVOO, 2 turns of the pan, over medium heat. Add the pancetta and cook until lightly browned, 2 minutes. Add the onion, garlic, carrots, bay leaf and thyme; season with salt and pepper. Cook until softened, about 5 minutes. Push the veggies to the side of the pan and add the spaghetti. Lightly toast the spaghetti, turning occasionally, 3 to 4 minutes. Stir in the wine and simmer until completely absorbed, about 5 minutes. Stir in the beans, then add a ladleful of the warm chicken broth. Keep adding the broth a few ladlefuls at a time, turning the noodles to absorb the liquid before adding more, as if you were making a risotto. Cook until most of the broth has been absorbed and the spaghetti is cooked until al dente, 15 to 20 minutes. Discard the bay leaf and thyme sprigs, then stir in the parmigiano-reggiano. Remove from the heat and stir for 1 minute.
3. Serve the creamy spaghetti in bowls, topped with the parsley.

This is serious comfort food and is guaranteed to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside!  Plus, it's delicious and simple to make, and you've never smelled anything better than pancetta frying in butter.  Mmmmmmm.  I would honestly eat this every other day if I could.




Another comforting thing to consume in the fall is tea, and I love this recipe for Chai Tea from greentwiggy.  I know you can just get chai in a box, but making it yourself tastes SO MUCH BETTER!

Ingredients:

• 1/ 2 inch piece fresh ginger, cut into thin rounds
• 2 cinnamon sticks
• 2 teaspoons black peppercorns
• 10 whole cloves
• 6 cardamom pods
• 6 cups cold water
• 6 bags black tea
• 2 cups milk
• 1/2 cup light brown sugar

Directions:

1. Combine first 5 ingredients in medium saucepan
2. Lightly bruise spices with the back of a large spoon
3. Add water and bring to a boil
4. Reduce heat to low and partially lid and simmer for 10 minutes
5. Remove from heat and add tea bags
6. Steep for 5 minutes or so
7. Discard tea bags
8. Add milk and sugar
9. Bring tea to simmer over medium heat, whisking until sugar dissolves
10. Strain and serve

This recipe was a lot more work than I expected it to be, but it was worth it.  Plus you can save the leftovers and reheat them, so you can have yummy chai for days afterward (this is, if you don't drink it all at once).

In other fall-related news...

You might remember that in August, I posted a list of books I was excited to read this fall.  So far I've read four out of the five books, and liked three of those (Tempt Me At Twilight I'm hesitating to read because I keep hearing mixed things about it--especially the hero, Harry).  Not too bad! 

Now that the days are getting shorter, and colder, I've definitely been in a mood for romance and paranormal novels.  Why does the fantastic seem so much more believable this time of year?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Fall into Romance

Image by Clearly Ambiguous

With the changing of the seasons, a lot of people change their reading habits. Several people have blogged about this before, like MJMBecky from One Literature Nut and Amy from My Friend Amy. Going back to school means you have a whole different set of books to read, and a change in pace at work or in school often affects the time people can devote to reading.

I don't really change my reading habits that much based on the seasons except for one thing--I start to read a lot more romance. I guess I just need the warm fuzzies or something. Here are a few romances I'm really excited to read this fall:



Tempt Me at Twilight by Lisa Kleypas

Book 300 in the Hathaway series. Haha, not really--it's not that bad yet. But it's getting there. Kleypas is one of my favorite writers, so I'm excited about this new book. I wish there was going to be another Rom hero in it, though.



Written on Your Skin by Meredith Duran

Duran might be my new favorite romance writer. After Bound By Your Touch, I'm very excited to read this book, which features James' best friend, Phin.



With Seduction in Mind by Laura Lee Guhrke

Okay, seriously, this is the crappiest cover I've seen in a while. Even by romance novel standards it's pretty bad. Now if there was a guy on cover....

Anywhooo, LLG (don't ask me to type her name because I'm constantly misspelling it) is another one of my favorite writers and has written two of my favoritest romance novels evarrr, so I'm certifiably excited about this book. What is it about? I haz no idea. It doth not matter, my lovelies--I am buying it.



Storm of Visions: The Chosen Ones by Christina Dodd

I really liked Dodd's first paranormal series, so the new one should be just as good (should be). The last series was about a group of men who shifted into animals because of a deal with the devil. This one appears to be about people with extrasensory perception.



The Strangely Beautiful Tale of Miss Percy Parker by Leanna Renee Hieber

I first heard about this book from Katiebabs at Babling About Books & More, and it sounded totally cool. It's a Victorian Gothic ghost story and romance. So I gave in and bought it. I think it's going to be a great book to read during the fall--I mean, who doesn't love Victorian Gothic ghost stories with romance, right? And according to the lovely Mandi at Smexy Books, the hero is modeled off of Alan Rickman! Rawrrrrrrr.



What books are you looking forward to reading this fall?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The New Biographical Dictionary of Film

I read this book as part of My Friend Amy's "Fifty Books for Our Times" Challenge.  You see, Newsweek recently published a very odd list called Fifty Books for Our Times, and Amy wound up challenging book bloggers to read one book from the list and ask--is this a book for our times?  And why?

The book I chose was the last on the list.  What was Newsweek's justification for picking this tome?

If you don't argue with Thomson on just about every other page, then you aren't paying attention. In a world where film criticism is dying, Thomson make a case for it-eloquently and adamantly.

Film criticism is dying?!  OMG!  Has Newsweek heard of the intranets? 

Based on Newsweek's two sentences, I was expecting this book to be a collection of critical film essays.  But then the book arrived and I was like, "Ohhhh, it's a biographical dictionary."  Art historians use biographical encylopedias (or dictionaries) as resources all the time when trying to trace works by obscure artists.  They usually have place and year of birth/death, major works, and where the artist studied. 

After realizing that, I revised my expectations and thought the book might be very facty and dry.  Not to mention that it's a huge tome--over 1000 pages of entries on actors, actresses, and directors (that's as long as the health care bill!), all listed alphabetically.  I'm sure you're wondering if I read this entire book cover-to-cover.  Uhm, yeah, sure I did.  And while I was at it, I read the dictionary and banged my head against a wall, too.

No, I didn't read the entire book.  But I did read entries on my favorite actors and directors and read some randomly-picked entries.  And what I discovered was that this book isn't dry reading, or a traditional biographical dictionary, but a collection of critical essays organized in an alphabetical format.

Thomson is a great writer, and stylistically his words are beautiful.  That being said, I'm not entirely sure what they mean.  Take, for example, this part of the entry on Luis Buñuel:

And long before Warhol's cinema, the lovers in L'Age d'Or engage us in the epic awkwardness that afflicts love.  Could a film have been banned so long if its power was not in the explosive mixture of style and sense?  Could Buñuel have kept himself from directing for so long if he did not view the medium serenely?  Could assigned projects make so little difference to the art of a director if that art was not within his images?  Could anyone so sustain an inquiry into imaginative life and an unaffected account of externals if he was not a great filmmaker?

Could you get to the freaking point?!?! 

Fortunately, Thomson does have a point, which he gets to eventually, that Buñuel's movies can only be interpreted as a response to bourgeois tradition.  Not exactly a brilliant point, but he did have one.

One of the things that really bothered me about this book is that Thomson is critical of everyone.  I know that as a film critic this is his job (maybe?), but can the guy ever be happy?  With John Cusak, he says, "... when is he going to be emphatically grown up?" and, "Can he look forty?"  With Meryl Streep, he calls her dour and too serious.  The list goes on.  Take, for example, this section from Sir Alfred Hitchcock's entry:  "I do not see how a man so fearful, and so chronically adept at conveying fear, can be judged as a profound artist....  There is an artistic timidity in Hitchcock that, having put the audience through it, must allow them to come to terms with the experience.  But his own personality is withdrawn, cold, insecure, and uncharitable."  He also calls North by Northwest "a brilliant view of a frivolous Cary Grant being sobered by feelings" which an interesting summary.  Yet when he criticizes Hitchcock's later films, mentioning that something like Frenzy is almost a parody of a Hitchcock movie, Thomson never even touches upon the fact that the illness of Hitchcock's beloved wife, Alma, undoubtedly has a strong affect on his later work.

More enjoyably, Thomson fills his entries with gossip, such as Angelica Huston's relationship with Jack Nicholson.  But then he spoils it by asking if she was intimidated by his and her father's, John Huston's, acting skills.  Like what the hell?  I think Thomson might be just a bit of a sexist.

So is this a book for "our times"?  I would say emphatically no.  Thomson's writing style is reminiscent of art criticism of the 1950's--if I had to guess, I would say he's probably a big fan of André Bazin.  His essays sound great, but they don't say much.  Not that they don't say anything, but his criticism isn't precise and clear.  A lot of times it also feels as if he's only criticizing actors or films just to have something interesting to say--Newsweek is definitely right that it's impossible not to mentally argue with him every other page, and the reason for this is because his criticisms do not feel entirely justified, or seem to come out of nowhere.

Furthermore, Thomson's essays on film reflect a very singular viewpoint:  that of a white male.  While reading this book, it feels like the theory and criticism of the 1970's and onward has completely passed Thomson by without much acknowledgement by the latter.

Don't get me wrong--this is probably the most entertaining dictionary ever written.  It's a good book, and one every film buff should definitely take a look at; because if you don't enjoy it, at the very least it'll give you something to think about.  But does it reflect our times, and do I think it will hold influence over future film criticism?  I don't think so.  If this is modern film criticism, then yeah, it is dead.  This book doens't reflect the work of Laura Mulvey's article on visual pleasure, Mary Ann Doane, or Slavoj Žižek, and it doesn't reflect the current theories and practices of film criticism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Spellbound

This week for My Friend Amy's Summer of Hitchcock, we watched Spellbound.  The movie stars a very handsome-looking Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman, who has the weirdest hair ever.  It's not even like hair, it's like playdough she just pushes around her head.  She's the only female psychoanalyst at a mental institution in Vermont, and is a tad bit uptight.  But then Mr. Tall Dark and Handsome shows up, and she's like, Rawr!!!  I want me some o' that! 

Unfortunately, Gregory Peck's chacter--who is alternately known as Dr. Anthony Edwardes, John Brown, and John Valentine--is a freakin' psycho.  Or maybe that's fortunate, since Bergman (aka Constance) is a head doc.  It turns out Dr. Edwardes isn't really Dr. Edwardes, but a patient of his with amnesia.  And... Edwardes is dead!  And Peck might have murdered him! 

This movie was surprisingly sexy.  Constance traipses into "Edwardes" room in the middle of his first night at the mental institution (they have their doctors living there? Yay. Sound like a great job.), and she's all like, "I'm here because... of this book?"  And he's all like, "I know why you're here *smirk*," and then they start making out.  There's another scene when they're staying overnight at Dr. Alex Brulov's as a supposedly married couple, and he asks, "Have you ever...?"  And Bergman says, "No, of course not."  Then Peck says (you're probably getting a good idea of why I don't write novels right about now), "Well, I don't remember anything, so as far as I know I've never, either."  Huh.  Thanks for putting that in there, Hitchcock!  Nice to establish both parties are virgins right before... they decide he sleeps on the couch?!?!?  Wat?!



My favorite character was Dr. Brulov, Constance's mentor.  Pointy facial hair for the win!  I also appreciated the fact that he told Constance she was acting like an idiot.  Finally, a sane character!  He also gets the best lines in the film.  For example, "Vomen make the best psychoanalysts--until they fall in lofe.  Then they make the best patients.  Hohohoho!"  Ahhh, psychoanalyst humor.

The one other really interesting thing about this movie is the dream sequence, which was designed by Salvador Dalí.  This was the first time Surrealism was exposed to a wide, general audience.  If you had never seen a Surrealist painting before, I guess the scene would be pretty shocking.  Personally I was kind of underwhelmed by it.  Dalí basically quotes from his previous paintings and doesn't really use a lot of imagination.  It was a little too quote-y for me.  The eyes, the shadows, the melty wheel... yawn. 

In case you've never seen this movie or need a refresher, here's the dream sequence:

Other than the romance, Dr. Alex, and the dream sequence, this movie was actually pretty boring.  I didn't really like the characters except for Burlov and Peck's yumminess; and the story didn't really grab me at all.  Not to mention that Edwardes'/Brown's/Valentine's psychological breakthrough was way too easy.  This movie was 100x better than The Birds, don't get me wrong; but I still wasn't as involved in it as I was with Psycho or Dial M for Murder.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Take a Chance Challenge: The Birds

I watched the movie and read the short story The Birds (by Daphne du Maurier) for Amy's Summer of Hitchcock; but I decided it also could satisfy the requirements for the tenth part of Jenner's Take a Chance Challenge at Find Your Next Book Here:

Movie/Book Comparison
Find a book that you haven't read that has a movie based on it that you haven't seen. Read the book and watch the movie within a few days of each other. Write about your reactions to both the book and the movie and compare the two.

I read the story by Daphne du Maurier first, online.  It was incredibly creepy and atmospheric.  It takes place in post-WWII England, in a small farming villiage.  The main character, Nat, is retired but has two young kids and works on a farm part-time. 

The short story begins with Nat's tiny cottage being attacked by birds in the middle of the night.  The next morning, he goes to the farm to see if anyone else was attacked, but they hear his story with disbelief and incredulity.  However, it soon turns out Nat wasn't the only one who was attacked.  As he hears on the radio, birds gathered and attacked all over the country, perhaps even all over the world. 

As Nat hunkers down with his family in their cottage and services start to disappear, a claustrophobic feeling invades the story.  It's not so much a horror story as it is a struggle for survival against a completely unexpected and unstoppable enemy.  Birds, which no really notices that much in their daily lives, have suddenly become kamikaze terrorists attacking anything human with no concern for their own well-being or safety.  There's also a sense that they're doing this under the control of some higher power, following the tides and grouping together to attack specific places--what that higher power might be is never said.

After reading the story, I had high expectations for the movie, but Hitchcock basically changed everything.  He kept a lot of the arresting visuals in the short story, such as the black cloud of birds rising on the horizon; but instead of post-war England, we find ourselves in 1960's San Francisco, in a... bird store?  Huh.  Basically, Tippi Hedren (aka Melanie) is some sort of hieress, and she spends the first half hour of the movie chasing down this gross lethario named Mitch to a tiny seaside town so she can give him some lovebirds he ordered for his sister's birthday.  Um, one, why; and two, if he ordered the birds for his sister, why didn't he pick them up himself or make sure he was at his apartment when they were delivered?  I mean, that is just incompetent, not to mention a painfully weak opening for a movie.  So the characters have pointless conversations for about an hour and a half (or that's how long it felt), and then finally birds attack, and I'm like, "Yay!  Finally!"

Basically, the movie was full of lulz.  It was way too long, the "plot" was ridiculous, Hedren kept lolling her head about when there were no birds around at all, and the script was just lame.  Even though I had fun with the fake birds, there were hardly any bird attacks in the movie at all until the very end.  Overall, I was pretty disappointed.



Next week on Summer of Hitchcock, we're watching Spellbound.  So start polishing up your Dr. Freud accents, everyone!

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Sunday Salon

I didn't get much reading done this week, what with job interviews and trying to throw together a presentation about Counter-Reformation art in a day.  I did finally finish Bound by Your Touch by Meredith Duran on Monday night.  It was a very good book that I would definitely recommend to anyone who likes historical romances (review forthcoming).  Then I started Kill the Dead by Tanith Lee.  I'm reading this book for the Take a Chance Challenge and it was due at the library about two days ago. =/  The guy who is in charge of Interlibrary Loans is going to kill me.  Did I mention he used to be my Earth Sciences teacher in high school?  Oh, yeah, and he also is a member at the bank my mom works at, and the last time I was late returning a book, he told my mom about it! o.O On the plus side, though, I always get the books order.

I don't know why, but it's been really difficult for me to focus on reading these past two weeks (hence the loooooong time it took to read Bound By Your Touch, even though it was a good book).  Maybe the heat is just getting to me and I can't concentrate.  Nevertheless, I still acquired my usual pile o' books the past two weeks.  I even bought some books (the first time I've bought a book since March--very exciting!).

Here's what I bought:

• Don't Tempt Me by Loretta Chase
• My Wicked Marquess by Gaelen Foley
• Bending the Rules by Susan Andersen
• What Happens in London by Julia Quinn
• Bound by Your Touch by Meredith Duran

Here are the books I got at the library:

• The Salt Roads by Nalo Hopkinson (heard about it at I'm Lost in Books)
  
• The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins (recommended by just about everybody)

I also read "The Birds" by Daphne du Maurier for Summer of Hitchcock (review of both story and movie forthcoming).  And I won a contest at One Literature Nut.  Yay, me! ^_^

So hopefully this next week will see me out of the summer doldrums and I'll be able to get some serious reading done.  And hopefully I'll finished Kill the Dead soon, because I'm determined to do so before I return it.  Even if I risk the wrath of the librarians. :P

What did you read this week?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Psycho

This movie is really good and really scary. I think it shows just how much a great a director and talented actors can do with what could be termed a typical horror script.

Janet Lee is an attractive blonde named Marion who is in love with a guy named Sam. Aw. But he won't marry her because they don't have that much money. Doesn't he realize they can live off anything as long as they have each other?!?! Apparently not. So on a whim one day, Marion steals money from her prat employer and gets the hell out of Dodge (Phoenix, actually).

Since Marion didn't really plan this out at all, she behaves very suspiciously. Has she never seen a cop show? Now, I know you're thinking that's the biggest mistake of her life, BUT IT ISN'T! Her biggest mistake is staying at the creepy Bates Motel just outside of a small town, where the nice young man at the desk asks her if she'll have dinner with him (OMG don't do it!!!!!)



I need to take a quick aside to say that Anthony Perkins, who plays Norman Bates, is ah-may-zing in this picture. He has just the right balance of charm that makes you think he's harmless, and then he says something to get your alarm bells ringing. And then, just like that, he's back to being harmless and you're willing to trust him again. I could completely see why Marion would accept his usual offer to eat with him; and then still stay in the motel, even after he admitted he "likes to stuff things." O.O

I also have to say... the Bates' house is hilariously Gothic. Yes, it is moody and atmospheric. But, um, this is the middle of Arizona? Two-story Victorians without air conditioning are not meant to be livable in that environment. No wonder Norman was crazy; his brains were cooked! (I also found out on Alberti's Window that the inspiration for the Bates' house came from House by the Railroad by Edward Hopper. Art historieeeeee!)



So Marion goes back to her hotel room to take a nice, relaxing shower, and then--screech! screech! screech! She's stabbed by Norman's mother... or who we're led to believe is Norman's mother. My Friend Amy asked if the fact that Marion dies at this point made the narrative of the film lose energy. I don't think it did at all; Marion was resolved to go back to Phoenix and repent of her sins at that point. In effect, her narrative was already over. And our sympathies quickly shift to poor Norman with the psycho mother, as he tries to cover up her evil deed.

One thing I really liked about the movie--aside from the acting--was the sound track. It was flipping beautiful and perfect for the film. The composer was worth every penny Hitchcock paid him.

I think of all the Hitchcock movies we've watched so far, this one is the best. It is an absolutely gripping, perfect piece of story telling. Even though I knew pretty much what was going to happen, I was still shocked and scared. This is definitely a movie I'm going to be thinking about for a long time.



Next week on Summer of Hitchcock, we're watching The Birds and twittering about it! The event will take place on Friday night at 9 PM EST. Amy will be giving away an Amazon gift card to the people who tweet the movie and read the short story by Daphne du Maurier beforehand.

But before I close this post, I have to ask: if you were on a road trip and ran across a hotel named The Bates Motel, would you stay there just for s&g's, or would you keep driving?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Rear Window

I'm pretty sure everyone, even those who haven't seen the film, know the plot to Rear Window: photographer Jeffries (or Jeff) is holed up in his apartment with a broken leg. To pass the time, he watches his neighbors, and one day he starts thinking a man across the way has murdered his wife.

This is one of Alfred Hitchcock's most famous films, and one of his most admired--for good reason. The screenplay is spot-on and the direction is amazing. You know that old adage, show don't tell? Well, ever since cinema first got started, filmmakers have been obsessed with playing to the strengths of the medium and telling--or rather showing--a narrative purely through visual movement. That obsession didn't change with the arrival of talkies; it only became commercially more difficult! Rear Window is able to tell stories about Jeff's neighbors using almost no talking at all, just by showing them going about their business. I think that's part of the reason this movie is such a filmmaker's film.

One of the things I really like about this movie--that no one else has talked about yet, anyway--are the references to marriage and relationships. Both Jeff's editor and nurse (the always-fun Thelma Ritter) mention marriage to him at the beginning of the film. This is to set up for the entrance of committophobe Jeff's gf, Grace Kelly... or Lisa. Whatever (like how many people remember her character's name at the end of the film? I'm just saying). But I also think the idea of relationships is central to the voyeuristic aspect of the movie. The dynamics of relationships are almost impossible to understand unless you're actually in the relationship. Have you ever wondered how two people can possibly stay together; or thought of two people as the perfect couple, only to find out they're cheating on each other?



And speaking of, one of the things I've never gotten about this movie is the whole relationship between Jeff and Lisa. Note to Jeff: you have a beautiful, rich woman who is at least fifteen years younger than you are (may actually be more like twenty--yikes!) throwing herself at you. It's not going to get any better than that, buddy. Wake up and smell the roses. And why in the world is Lisa so into him, anyway? o.O I do like how sexually aggressive Grace Kelly is in this movie, though. Go, Grace!!!

Anywho, this is a really good movie. It's the type of film you can watch over and over and not really get bored because you always notice something different. That being said, it's not one of my favorite Hitchcock movies. *ducks* The whole relationship between Lisa and Jeff just bothers my brain. And I spend most of the movie thinking, "Why don't these people close their curtains?" and being more annoyed with the fact that Jeff isn't minding his own biznass than how the guy murdered his wife (which I'm always quite skeptical about). But then I'm from the West where we try to ignore the fact that we have neighbors--if we have them--so maybe that's part of my problem.

But either way, this is a really great, classic, entertaining film that everyone should see.



Next week on My Friend Amy's Summer of Hitchcock, we'll be watching Psycho!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Dial M for Murrrrrrder

On Sunday, I watched Dial M for Murder as part of My Friend Amy's Summer of Hitchcock.

I've actually seen this movie a few times before, and it's one of my favorite Hitchcock films. It's about a woman who is having an affair with an American mystery writer. Meanwhile, her husband, who is something of a ne'er-do-well, has decided to kill her. He hatches what he thinks is the perfect murder; but of course things happen that put all his carefully constructed plans to ruin.

This is not a mystery--we already know whodunnit before it's even done--but it does have a very Agatha Christie feel to it. I think that's because of the great characters and the claustrophobic feel of the film. Almost the entire movie takes place in the tiny flat that the Wendices call home. The setting can be mainly attributed to the fact that the movie was adapted from a play; but I also think it works to help tell the story and keep the narrative flowing. In the end, the resolution of the story rests on how one can get into the Wendices' flat.

The camera angles in this film are very interesting--there's always objects between the viewer and the actors. I didn't notice this too much until it was pointed out in the special features on the DVD, though. :) The reason was that Hitchcock originally shot this movie in 3-d, so he always shot with a foreground, middleground, and background, to enhance the viewers' sense of depth. Pretty ingenius if you ask me.

There are so many great actors in this film. By far my favorite is Ray Milland's performance as Tony, the homicidal husband. He's completely smarmy, but also weirdly charming. I also like the fact that he doesn't portray Tony as completely unfeeling; you can tell that he's not unaffected by the idea of his wife dying.

The other character I loved was the Inspector. He's smart, and he knows there's something fishy about the situation from the very first. It's so nice that a DI would care enough to follow up on a case even after it's been to trial. ;)

Some of the things I didn't like were that you never truly understand why Grace Kelly (aka Margot) married Tony in the first place. What was she smoking? They don't feel like much of a couple and there absolutely no chemistry between the two. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the Inspector's "proof" that Tony planned to kill his wife would stand up in court--but it's a great ending anyway.

Overall this is a great film that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys suspense or mystery movies.



Next up on Summer of Hitchcock is Rear Window. Feel free to join in!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bloggiesta Wrap Up

The Bloggiesta, hosted by Natasha at Maw Books, is officially over!  To refresh your (and my) memory, here were my goals for the 48-hour blogfest:

• Catch up on the posts I have ideas for.  Done!  I wrote and posted one of my to-do entries on my personal blog (e-mail me if you want the link).
  
• Do my first author interview!  Done!  My interview with Simone Elkeles is finished and will publishes here soon.
  
• Try to make my blogspot site look nicer than it does now.  I made some changes to blogspot; not sure if it looks that much better, though.
  
• Write up reviews.  I wrote two reviews.
  
• Try to figure out who I'm following on twitter that I'm not following on GR, and vice versa.  This did not get done.
  
• Do an update for my blog challenges.  I wrote one challenge update.
  
• I might get adventurous and experiment with doing a vlog entry, but we'll have to see how it goes.  Nope, didn't happen.
  

I clocked in over 27 hours of blogging during the Bloggiesta.  During that time, I wrote a total of six posts (seven including this one) and completed 9 mini-challenges (I only half-completed 3 mini-challenges, for various reasons).  Here are the ones I managed to completely finish:

• Emily from Emily’s Reading Room - Are you talking about me?
• Deborah from Books, Movies, and Chinese Food - You have a blog?  So tell me about it.
• Lynn from Chronicle of an Infant Bibliophile - Get listed.
• Jen from Devourer of Books - Wow. I wrote that when?  Let’s update.
• Amy from My Friend Amy - I need a friend.
• Michelle from GalleySmith - Anchor text.  You mean there’s a way this *should* be done?
• Andrea from Book Blather - Authorities?  What authorities?
• Ruth from Bookish Ruth - You’re going to analyze what?

Hmm, that's actually only eight, but I'm too tired to figure out where and why my counting is off at this point.  Anyway, the mini-challenges were great!  They were all about improving your blog, blog traffic, and connecting with other bloggers.  My favorite was probably Book Blather's challenge about reading blogging tips.  I not only learned about, but got an idea for a post!  I wanted to do all the challenges, but I simply ran out of time.

Overall the Bloggiesta was successful for me.  I didn't get everything done that I wanted to--there are still reviews to do, reading challenges to update, etc.--but I think I did pretty well overall.  Plus, it was just plain fun!  I loved learning from and talking with the bloggers who were part the challenge.  Thank you everyone for helping, chatting, and talking about ice cream. :)

And huge kudos and thanks to Natasha at Maw Books for hosting this challenge!  It was great experience and I can't wait for the next Bloggiesta!  If you get the chance, definitely join in.

Powered by ScribeFire.