I don't usually review food. Largely because even though I'm quite picky I'll generally eat anything. Palate and ambience don't really come into it as long as there's nutrition to be had. This review, however, is a cautionary tale about what happens when you eat to procrastinate and see a sample pack of Kraft Easy Mac sitting on the kitchen bench.
Pour the macaroni into a bowl, add 2/3 cup of cold water and microwave (uncovered) for 3-4 mins on high. Open cheese sauce, mix well with macaroni and there you go, Easy Mac.
I can cook anything that involves boiling water. Rice, pasta, couscous, it has all happened. Cooking food in a microwave is a little disconcerting - it's the kind of thing I used to do when I was 12 and ate soggy pies, cooked from frozen, for dinner when I didn't want to accompany my parents to their friend's dinner party.
Easy Mac is a little disconcerting. Microwaving the pasta is not a good start. The deliberate watery nature of the pasta after it has been cooked is not a good sign. The fact that the cheese sauce is a strange orange powder (made from Kraft cheese - as if that will allay my fears) is also a bit frightening. The cheese powder mixes in with the hot microwaved water to make the sauce in which the macaroni drowns. Souper. Processed city. Convenient, but of dubious origin. I cut up some fresh tomato and green olives, then added some of the baby spinach and rocket mix we had in the fridge as vegie penance. Edible.
Note to self: do not eat food that has come in the mail.
* - a recipe for disaster
31 March, 2006
30 books
Luckily for you, this is not a combined review of 30 books. This is a list from the UK that has been wandering around for a while about the 30 books you should read as ordained by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. As usual, it's mostly populated by modern classics and international releases but I thought I'd have a go at commenting on the ones I've read. I've also put an asterisk next to the ones I haven't read but own and/or want to read. The rest can do as they please. I may touch them if they come across my path but I won't seek them out.
I think I did pretty well. Let's see how I fare when I get my hands on '1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die' - a lot more difficult than the movie or music version in the 1001 series but worth a look when I get there.
- To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee - easy to read but not simplistic, Lee illustrates prejudice in an innocent manner, which belies the power of the novel.
- The Bible by The Twelve Apostles - have read parts thereof, mostly New Testament. Not particularly engaging.
- The Lord of the Rings trilogy by JRR Tolkien - this vivid adventure is a difficult read, but rewarding if you can appreciate its depth of language or wade past the language and get stuck into the fantastic plot.
- 1984 by George Orwell - * long overdue to read this one
- A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens - at turns bleak and enlightening, this Dickens tale paints a grubby picture of London but redeems it with a message of hope for the people.
- Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte - * has been sitting on my shelf for years, recommended by friends. Interestingly, I've read 'Wide Sargasso Sea' by Jean Rhys, the 'prequel' but haven't gotten around to reading this classic.
- Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - the best of Austen. If you're only going to read one, read P&P. I'm not a big Austen fan but her depiction of society is entertaining and insightful.
- All Quiet on the Western Front by E M Remarque - * not a priority
- His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman - * have heard much about Pullman and will endeavour to hunt these down
- Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks - * sorry, never heard of it
- The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck - * wouldn't mind having a go at this. Although I don't know what it's about, so many other pieces of literature make references to it so it would be helpful to know what they're saying.
- The Lord of the Flies by William Golding - interesting, almost experimental book about how to set your characters free, even if they do run wild. Perhaps a cautionary tale.
- The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon - delightful book populated by a likeable, if incomprehensible main character. Says much about the fine balance between understanding and misunderstanding.
- Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy - like Austen, Hardy's depiction of society is insightful but unlike Miss A's novels, not at all entertaining. His view is of a cruel world which comes to bear on poor Tess.
- Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne - this was read to me so it's a bit of a stretch remembering what it was like. After reading The Tao of Pooh, however, I wouldn't mind revisiting Milne's best known work.
- Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte - a hopeless romance set on a backdrop of desolation does not a happy book make. Well-written but not for the faint-hearted.
- The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham - I remember more of the TV series than I do of the written work but I did buy a hardback picture book for my (yet to be conceived) children.
- Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell - * recommended to me almost annually by a friend but I just can't bring myself to tackle the hefty tome knowing that it's about the US civil war and a romance.
- Great Expectations by Charles Dickens - * sitting on my shelf waiting for a favourable inclination.
- The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger - superb book, excellent pace and depth. An unconventional love story, yes, about a time traveller. Niffenegger deals with the time travel extremely competently and the emotional arc carries it through.
- The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold - compelling read that deals with the afterlife in an interesting manner; the murder mystery is narrated by the victim. Sebold uses the first person to exploit third person privileges.
- The Prophet by Khalil Gibran - * not ready for it yet
- David Copperfield by Charles Dickens - * I have no real reason to hunt this down
- The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho - * I've not heard of it
- The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov - * another novel that has been referenced a few times. Curiosity will drive me to read it one day.
- Life of Pi by Yann Martel - part adventure, part magical realism. If you want great storytelling, it's worth your while to suspend your disbelief for this journey on the high seas. Its occasionally amusing remarks ride above the tension.
- Middlemarch by George Eliot - * have heard much about George's writing and her sojourn in Paris but it's not a book I'd embrace enthusiastically.
- The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver - * I believed the accolades about this book to be hype and don't necessarily care to read about missionaries but I might try it if I happen upon it.
- A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess - tried to read this one but I was juggling uni and work at the time so I might give it another go if I can find it.
- A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzenhitsyn - * first time I've heard of it
I think I did pretty well. Let's see how I fare when I get my hands on '1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die' - a lot more difficult than the movie or music version in the 1001 series but worth a look when I get there.
19 March, 2006
Bic Runga - Birds (gig/album)
Bic Runga
State Theatre, Sydney (17th March, 2006)
Birds (2005)
By Bic Runga (Columbia/SonyBMG)
I'd just like to point out that rather than wait for Bic to release 'Birds' in Australia (March 2006), I ordered my copy online in December. Disgraceful - New Zealand got their release in November.
How to describe 'Birds'? If her debut album 'Drive' was part angst part hope and her 2002 release 'Beautiful Collision' a collection of folk/pop songs about love, life and resignation then 'Birds' is just melancholy. The music and vocals are spare and often ethereal without the churning guitars that marked anthems like 'Swim' from 'Drive' nor the happy melody that follows 'Get Some Sleep' from 'Beaultiful Collision'. Imagine the more mellow, sentimental tunes like 'Bursting Through', 'Drive' and 'The Be All and End All' and 'She Left on a Monday'. Now imagine an entire album of those songs and you have 'Birds'.
The new album is downtempo with only two tracks, 'Winning Arrow' and 'Blue Blue Heart', with any discernible pace. Also evident is a hint of country with the lullaby-like 'No Crying No More' and a shade of Western storytelling with the epic tale contained within 'Ruby Nights'. Bic's lyrics rarely stray from simple, effective words that wend into poetry with the right music and timing. She never tries to be too clever with metaphors or esoteric concepts, which makes her one of the most intelligent songwriters (that I can think of) never to employ word play into lyrics and never having to resort to rhyming 'fire' with 'desire'.
I suspect it was a lot harder to get the right sound on this album compared to the other two, largely because it seems like there's so much involved to pare back the compositions. Kind of like the key to makeup being to look like you haven't any on. The greatest triumph is that it works - the balance perfectly foregrounds Bic's voice, the timbre and mood of each word while also ensuring that the music remains important.
This is something she translated well at the concert. The first half was packed with songs from 'Drive' and 'Beautiful Collision' and a couple of covers/B-sides and so therefore pleased the crowd and mostly rocked out. (She began with 'Precious Things' on the keyboard and ended with mega-hit 'Sway' on the guitar, just to give you an indication). She even wore fiery red.
The second half brought her out in a long golden gown with three backing singers and Neil Finn on piano (who Bic has outsold in their native NZ). Surprisingly, this ensemble totalled twice as many musicians than the first half for songs that were half as loud. Performed with quiet dignity and a feminine touch, the second half was all 'Birds', every single track. Of particular note was 'Ruby Nights', played with necessary restraint and 'That's Alright', which "spoke to me".
Predictably she returned for an encore with Neil Finn, which consisted of 'The Be All and End All' and 'Something Good' then solo for 'Drive', which I thought was a good move. The audience loved her.
The venue was fittingly large and lush without losing intimacy but I do hanker for The Basement days, which suits her tranquil disposition. While she doesn't lack charisma, she doesn't tend to project it, radiate it, like other music personalities. That's partly why we love her; she exudes a certain kind of modesty about her well-received work but she'll never play to a stadium. The State Theatre was almost too much for her but she managed in the end.
gig: ***1/2 - an enjoyable night but nothing to rave about
album: **** - incredibly deceptive in its complexity and touch
State Theatre, Sydney (17th March, 2006)
Birds (2005)
By Bic Runga (Columbia/SonyBMG)
I'd just like to point out that rather than wait for Bic to release 'Birds' in Australia (March 2006), I ordered my copy online in December. Disgraceful - New Zealand got their release in November.
How to describe 'Birds'? If her debut album 'Drive' was part angst part hope and her 2002 release 'Beautiful Collision' a collection of folk/pop songs about love, life and resignation then 'Birds' is just melancholy. The music and vocals are spare and often ethereal without the churning guitars that marked anthems like 'Swim' from 'Drive' nor the happy melody that follows 'Get Some Sleep' from 'Beaultiful Collision'. Imagine the more mellow, sentimental tunes like 'Bursting Through', 'Drive' and 'The Be All and End All' and 'She Left on a Monday'. Now imagine an entire album of those songs and you have 'Birds'.
The new album is downtempo with only two tracks, 'Winning Arrow' and 'Blue Blue Heart', with any discernible pace. Also evident is a hint of country with the lullaby-like 'No Crying No More' and a shade of Western storytelling with the epic tale contained within 'Ruby Nights'. Bic's lyrics rarely stray from simple, effective words that wend into poetry with the right music and timing. She never tries to be too clever with metaphors or esoteric concepts, which makes her one of the most intelligent songwriters (that I can think of) never to employ word play into lyrics and never having to resort to rhyming 'fire' with 'desire'.
I suspect it was a lot harder to get the right sound on this album compared to the other two, largely because it seems like there's so much involved to pare back the compositions. Kind of like the key to makeup being to look like you haven't any on. The greatest triumph is that it works - the balance perfectly foregrounds Bic's voice, the timbre and mood of each word while also ensuring that the music remains important.
This is something she translated well at the concert. The first half was packed with songs from 'Drive' and 'Beautiful Collision' and a couple of covers/B-sides and so therefore pleased the crowd and mostly rocked out. (She began with 'Precious Things' on the keyboard and ended with mega-hit 'Sway' on the guitar, just to give you an indication). She even wore fiery red.
The second half brought her out in a long golden gown with three backing singers and Neil Finn on piano (who Bic has outsold in their native NZ). Surprisingly, this ensemble totalled twice as many musicians than the first half for songs that were half as loud. Performed with quiet dignity and a feminine touch, the second half was all 'Birds', every single track. Of particular note was 'Ruby Nights', played with necessary restraint and 'That's Alright', which "spoke to me".
Predictably she returned for an encore with Neil Finn, which consisted of 'The Be All and End All' and 'Something Good' then solo for 'Drive', which I thought was a good move. The audience loved her.
The venue was fittingly large and lush without losing intimacy but I do hanker for The Basement days, which suits her tranquil disposition. While she doesn't lack charisma, she doesn't tend to project it, radiate it, like other music personalities. That's partly why we love her; she exudes a certain kind of modesty about her well-received work but she'll never play to a stadium. The State Theatre was almost too much for her but she managed in the end.
gig: ***1/2 - an enjoyable night but nothing to rave about
album: **** - incredibly deceptive in its complexity and touch
Imagine Me & You (film)
I've been picking all the warm and fuzzy UK films lately, this one courtesy of some free tickets.
The basic plot is centred around a bride at her wedding day who fleetingly glimpses another woman and feels something she's never felt before. The woman turns out to be her florist and Rachel foolishly believes that becoming friends with Luce will work concurrently with the newlywed life she has with Hector. Wrong wrong wrong. After finding out that Luce is a lesbian, Rachel faces a choice of ruining her marriage for the less socially and parentally acceptable path of a homosexual relationship or soldiering on with Hec.
There's nothing wrong with Hec. Hec is, in fact, the most likeable character in the film. He's affable and suitably intelligent and not at all cruel or insensitive. He is also the one to make Rachel's decision when he finds out about her feelings for Luce and kindly moves out of the way, though not without understandable emotion. In the best performance of the entire film he explains that he would never want to be the reason that Rachel gave up true love or happiness, he would never want her to 'settle' for him. Hear, hear. His love for her is the most true and pure.
The biggest problem is that Rachel and Luce's supposed love is never really convincing. There's a friendly connection that's immediately evident but no chemistry. To be fair, there's no chemistry betwen Hec and Rachel either and they're married. The film's supposed to be about how love conquers all or there's someone for everyone (Hec meets someone else in the end credits) but is neither funny enough or heart-wrenching enough to be worthwhile. It isn't a long film but it feels too long, the pace is never where it needs to be to maintain momentum.
Just a quick mention of the title which is derived from The Turtles' song 'Happy Together' ("Imagine me and you, I do, I think about you day and night, it's only right, to think about the girl you love and hold her tight, so happy together...") which, although popular in its day (circa 1970s), I have to assume is raking in more royalties in the noughties since it was used in Kaufman's 'Adaptation'.
** - memorable signature song, not so the film
The basic plot is centred around a bride at her wedding day who fleetingly glimpses another woman and feels something she's never felt before. The woman turns out to be her florist and Rachel foolishly believes that becoming friends with Luce will work concurrently with the newlywed life she has with Hector. Wrong wrong wrong. After finding out that Luce is a lesbian, Rachel faces a choice of ruining her marriage for the less socially and parentally acceptable path of a homosexual relationship or soldiering on with Hec.
There's nothing wrong with Hec. Hec is, in fact, the most likeable character in the film. He's affable and suitably intelligent and not at all cruel or insensitive. He is also the one to make Rachel's decision when he finds out about her feelings for Luce and kindly moves out of the way, though not without understandable emotion. In the best performance of the entire film he explains that he would never want to be the reason that Rachel gave up true love or happiness, he would never want her to 'settle' for him. Hear, hear. His love for her is the most true and pure.
The biggest problem is that Rachel and Luce's supposed love is never really convincing. There's a friendly connection that's immediately evident but no chemistry. To be fair, there's no chemistry betwen Hec and Rachel either and they're married. The film's supposed to be about how love conquers all or there's someone for everyone (Hec meets someone else in the end credits) but is neither funny enough or heart-wrenching enough to be worthwhile. It isn't a long film but it feels too long, the pace is never where it needs to be to maintain momentum.
Just a quick mention of the title which is derived from The Turtles' song 'Happy Together' ("Imagine me and you, I do, I think about you day and night, it's only right, to think about the girl you love and hold her tight, so happy together...") which, although popular in its day (circa 1970s), I have to assume is raking in more royalties in the noughties since it was used in Kaufman's 'Adaptation'.
** - memorable signature song, not so the film
Kinky Boots (film)
This is a lovely 'based on a true story' film about a man called Charlie Price who has just inherited an ailing shoe factory in Northhampton. A chance meeting with popular drag queen Lola has him change his target market from men to men who dress as women. Following the two protagonists there is the ambitious fiancee, the fresh-faced employee and the bad bloke come good. Predictably, the fiancee gets fed up with Charlie's commitment to the factory, Charlie gets with the employee and the bad bloke comes to accept Lola. Tell me you don't know where this is going.
Okay, so all along it's easy to see where it's heading and, almost to the letter, how it's going to get there. There's the touching 'find thyself' themes with Lola teaching factory floor bad boy Don a lesson in respect and also having a massive effect on Charlie. Charlie's 'evil' fiancee wanting him to sack the workers, sell and redevelop the factory and move to London. She's having an affair with the to-be real estate developer and gets shown the door when Charlie realises how mean she is. Obviously a foil for Charlie, who's modest and kind-hearted.
The best parts are the unexpected laughs, plotted in a very English way among otherwise routine scenes like Lola scrambling to put on her wig for the landlady only for the landlady to waffle on about the rent and then directly ask "Are you a man? Because I want to know whether to leave to toilet seat up." Lola's song and dance routines are also colourfully done, with special mention of the great Milan catwalk scene around a bumbling Charlie and we all love Joel Edgerton so all is redeemed.
At best the film ambles along a well-worn path that many battler UK films have trod before ('The Full Monty' anyone?). A nice way to spend 90 minutes and $8 (I may be poor but it was on special) but nothing daringly different or inspiring or life-affirming here.
**1/2 - woefully predictable but pleasant
Okay, so all along it's easy to see where it's heading and, almost to the letter, how it's going to get there. There's the touching 'find thyself' themes with Lola teaching factory floor bad boy Don a lesson in respect and also having a massive effect on Charlie. Charlie's 'evil' fiancee wanting him to sack the workers, sell and redevelop the factory and move to London. She's having an affair with the to-be real estate developer and gets shown the door when Charlie realises how mean she is. Obviously a foil for Charlie, who's modest and kind-hearted.
The best parts are the unexpected laughs, plotted in a very English way among otherwise routine scenes like Lola scrambling to put on her wig for the landlady only for the landlady to waffle on about the rent and then directly ask "Are you a man? Because I want to know whether to leave to toilet seat up." Lola's song and dance routines are also colourfully done, with special mention of the great Milan catwalk scene around a bumbling Charlie and we all love Joel Edgerton so all is redeemed.
At best the film ambles along a well-worn path that many battler UK films have trod before ('The Full Monty' anyone?). A nice way to spend 90 minutes and $8 (I may be poor but it was on special) but nothing daringly different or inspiring or life-affirming here.
**1/2 - woefully predictable but pleasant
FourPlay (gig)
FourPlay
The Vanguard, Newtown (10th March, 2006)
It has been a while since the last FourPlay album and seeing as the last release was a remix project in 2001, it was high time FourPlay started composing again. Well, prayers answered, the 'eclectic electric string quartet' is back with some new stuff, and strutted some of it at their recent Vanguard gig.
I've actually never seen them play as FourPlay - I did catch the Hollo brothers in concert with the Noonan siblings at The Studio a few years back but never witnessed a gig with the four of them playing their own stuff. Stuart, on the other hand, roadied for them at Woodford a couple of years back so was particularly keen to say hello.
Although their compositions vary from bohemian flavoured anthems to haunting epics, all pieces contain a deep, dark and vigorous energy that the quartet exploit with their heavy use of strings in the lower register (two violas, a cello and a violin as opposed to traditional model of two violins, a viola and a cello). While their debut release "Catgut ya tongue?" was peppered with other people's compositions and popular theme songs, this gig proved that they could hold their own as composers, many songs having ambitious story arcs, possible contenders for soundtracks in their own right.
Lara's vocals provide a good foil for the tenor laden music; although the lyrics weren't scintillating, I'll give it to her for wanting to front up to the mike seeing as she seems more comfortable playing. The obvious thing was that they trusted, and were comfortable with, each other as the banter flew between songs. Playing with particular urgency, Shenzo snapped a bowstring but it was the ensemble's collective effort that delivered a feisty performance.
Their ability to alternate between something resembling vaudeville show tunes to Apocalyptica-style underground mutterings illustrates a certain versatility in their style though I think it somewhat confuses the signature of the band. Then again, I suppose if you call yourself eclectic you have to bowl a few doosras. Still, there was no single piece that etched itself in my head and I think to propel the identity of the band they need to release something significant and powerful that will always be remembered.
P.S: Pet peeve - if only punctuality were the norm! If only the intermission wasn't so long! (Some of us are poor and can't afford drinks, let alone a table on the ground floor).
***1/2 - synergetic performance but lacked a certain 'je ne sais quoi'
The Vanguard, Newtown (10th March, 2006)
It has been a while since the last FourPlay album and seeing as the last release was a remix project in 2001, it was high time FourPlay started composing again. Well, prayers answered, the 'eclectic electric string quartet' is back with some new stuff, and strutted some of it at their recent Vanguard gig.
I've actually never seen them play as FourPlay - I did catch the Hollo brothers in concert with the Noonan siblings at The Studio a few years back but never witnessed a gig with the four of them playing their own stuff. Stuart, on the other hand, roadied for them at Woodford a couple of years back so was particularly keen to say hello.
Although their compositions vary from bohemian flavoured anthems to haunting epics, all pieces contain a deep, dark and vigorous energy that the quartet exploit with their heavy use of strings in the lower register (two violas, a cello and a violin as opposed to traditional model of two violins, a viola and a cello). While their debut release "Catgut ya tongue?" was peppered with other people's compositions and popular theme songs, this gig proved that they could hold their own as composers, many songs having ambitious story arcs, possible contenders for soundtracks in their own right.
Lara's vocals provide a good foil for the tenor laden music; although the lyrics weren't scintillating, I'll give it to her for wanting to front up to the mike seeing as she seems more comfortable playing. The obvious thing was that they trusted, and were comfortable with, each other as the banter flew between songs. Playing with particular urgency, Shenzo snapped a bowstring but it was the ensemble's collective effort that delivered a feisty performance.
Their ability to alternate between something resembling vaudeville show tunes to Apocalyptica-style underground mutterings illustrates a certain versatility in their style though I think it somewhat confuses the signature of the band. Then again, I suppose if you call yourself eclectic you have to bowl a few doosras. Still, there was no single piece that etched itself in my head and I think to propel the identity of the band they need to release something significant and powerful that will always be remembered.
P.S: Pet peeve - if only punctuality were the norm! If only the intermission wasn't so long! (Some of us are poor and can't afford drinks, let alone a table on the ground floor).
***1/2 - synergetic performance but lacked a certain 'je ne sais quoi'
18 March, 2006
Built to last
I was just thinking about the state of consumerism today. Anyone who knows me will know that I hate the fact that nothing is built to last any more, it's built to lead the buyer back to buying. Case in point: a scene in the Brit film 'Kinky Boots' where protagonist Charlie goes to a shoe retailer to try an offload an excess of high quality men's shoes. The conversation goes something like this:
Retail manager: "See these? Imports from Slovakia. Cheap."
Charlie Price: "But a Price shoe will last a man a lifetime. A pair of those will have customers coming back in 10 months."
Retail manager: "Exactly."
And then news today that some genetically modified crops were being engineered to not produce seeds so that the farmer has to buy seeds every year from the 'manufacturer'. Ridiculous. RIDICULOUS.
So what I was thinking was this: we need a brilliant designer to come up with a base product that can be modified to incorporate new technological developments. For example, a washing machine. There's not really much you can do with a washing machine other than wash clothes. The technology comes from efficiency in use of water and energy and other things like noise reduction or being able to schedule your wash with a timer or (gratefully) the "hand wash" function where the machine treats your delicate laundry as if you'd hand washed it yourself. So this washing machine should be built to last at least 20 years. Ideally it will be made of recyclable or biodegradable material and have the capacity to have new technology installed as it becomes available.
The product may be more expensive than others but will pay back dividends from its efficent use of resources and the fact that it is upgradable. Plus, it'll save the owners time if they don't have to look for a new one every 5 years. AND, most importantly, whichever company is brave enough to sell this product should also have an accredited repair system in place so that owners will look to the repairman rather than a whitegoods store if it breaks down.
My parents' microwave is about 20 years old and still works fine. It cooks things a bit slower than most modern microwaves but it's still safe and effective. I'm afraid that I'm never going to find that kind of product in my lifetime. I hope my idea isn't considered idealistic because 'built to last' was once the only way and we really should be aiming for that kind of brand commitment again.
Retail manager: "See these? Imports from Slovakia. Cheap."
Charlie Price: "But a Price shoe will last a man a lifetime. A pair of those will have customers coming back in 10 months."
Retail manager: "Exactly."
And then news today that some genetically modified crops were being engineered to not produce seeds so that the farmer has to buy seeds every year from the 'manufacturer'. Ridiculous. RIDICULOUS.
So what I was thinking was this: we need a brilliant designer to come up with a base product that can be modified to incorporate new technological developments. For example, a washing machine. There's not really much you can do with a washing machine other than wash clothes. The technology comes from efficiency in use of water and energy and other things like noise reduction or being able to schedule your wash with a timer or (gratefully) the "hand wash" function where the machine treats your delicate laundry as if you'd hand washed it yourself. So this washing machine should be built to last at least 20 years. Ideally it will be made of recyclable or biodegradable material and have the capacity to have new technology installed as it becomes available.
The product may be more expensive than others but will pay back dividends from its efficent use of resources and the fact that it is upgradable. Plus, it'll save the owners time if they don't have to look for a new one every 5 years. AND, most importantly, whichever company is brave enough to sell this product should also have an accredited repair system in place so that owners will look to the repairman rather than a whitegoods store if it breaks down.
My parents' microwave is about 20 years old and still works fine. It cooks things a bit slower than most modern microwaves but it's still safe and effective. I'm afraid that I'm never going to find that kind of product in my lifetime. I hope my idea isn't considered idealistic because 'built to last' was once the only way and we really should be aiming for that kind of brand commitment again.
08 March, 2006
Spelling 101
Now I get to exercise the image-friendly nature of this blog technology. Today's lesson is about spelling. Everyone makes mistakes. Yes, even me. Being a journalist by trade, it's annoying when I discover my own spelling mistakes and I can only imagine that anyone who works in the media or in teaching has the same level of anxiety about spelling and grammar.
While I have my moments of typo-mania, there are some people who should be extra extra extra careful, such as signwriters. On the right is an example I saw today, poached from the Hoyts website advertising travel deals for Student Flights. Now, I don't know where in Australia Kadaku is but it looks like a good deal to me... This follows hot on the heels of yesterday's Daily Telegraph sub-heading about "Reece Witherspoon" (sic) who won the Best Actress Oscar. Strangely the rest of the article spelt her name correctly (Reese) so it was just the person who did the sub-heading who lacked the popular knowledge required of someone who works in a large media organisation like News Ltd.
Once upon a time I wanted to roam the streets of Sydney armed with a black marker, correcting the spelling and grammar of the city's worst offenders. Popular misspellings are fairly common words like 'calender' instead of 'calendar', 'stationary' instead of 'stationery' (the former means 'not moving' the latter represents pens and paper supplies etc). Then there's a raft of apostrophes that just shouldn't exist, like 'mango's'. The plural of 'mango' is 'mangoes'. Apostrophes should only be used to express possession e.g. 'Dr Witmol's Blog' or instead of a missing letter like contractions such as 'isn't' (is not) or 'o'clock' (of [the] clock).
We often laugh at weird phrasing that has been translated from another language into English (I wish I'd had my black marker for some of the menus I saw overseas) but when an English speaking country can't even understand basic spelling and grammar rules, we can hardly point the finger. It isn't like I'm trying to stop split infinitives from taking over the world - I just want people to know how to spell basic words (and if in doubt, consult someone who knows!) and know how to use an apostrophe. Learning the difference between 'your' and 'you're', 'to', 'too' and 'two' would be nice as well.
I could blame the proliferation of SMS and the internet for this dearth in spelling/grammar but the sad fact is that we need to grasp the initial concept before we can use and abuse it. Personally, I was never taught grammar at school and I believe this is a dying art due to bureaucracy and people putting it in the 'too hard' basket. What has happened is there are now teachers who don't know anything about grammar, teaching in a system that is slowly falling apart in the literacy stakes. Anecdotally I heard that some children in high school can't even indentify a noun in a sentence. In fact, I would say that children in non-English speaking countries get a better grammar education. Ironically, I learnt more about English grammar from French class than English (which I enjoyed but was geared towards analysing text). Perhaps this is why it seems more difficult for English speakers to pick up other languages; lack of their own (convoluted) grammar makes it harder to understand the concept of other languages' grammar.
Why is spelling and grammar so important? Simply, verbal communication represents meaning; spelling and grammar are like the laws of that meaning that can be manipulated according to the user's whim. When you misspell words or say something in a grammatically incorrect manner, it doesn't mean that you'll never be understood but rather that there is a greater possibility of being misunderstood. You'll give off a better impression and represent yourself and your views in a better light the clearer you communicate. How many times have you sent an email only to realise, after a terse reply, that what you wrote was ambiguous and taken wrongly by the recipient?
Which brings me to playing with language. I have no problem with people playing with language, be it pun-filled headlines, advertising or a witty joke. (Or not a witty joke like this one I made up that fails because it doesn't have a punchline or any real context - "Toilet bowls and W.C. Fields"). But what has to happen first is the establishment of an educated population who will be able to distinguish chartered language from played-with language. That way we can ask those pesky professions using jargon to undo us (law and politics are two that spring to mind) to speak in plain English and actually understand what they mean.
01 March, 2006
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (book)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005)
By J.K. Rowling (Bloomsbury)
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
This much anticipated addition to the Harry Potter series joins an army of fantasy books that have an annoying habit of ending with cliffhangers that lead into the next instalment. Although I was one of the first members of the public to touch a copy of the book (I was a volunteer on the Gleebooks 'Gleewarts' train on the release day) I hadn't a chance to read it until recently. And although I knew of the 'surprises' - Dumbledore dies, Snape is the half-blood Prince, Harry and Ginny get together, as do Ron and Hermione - I still found this sixth book a page-turner.
While the first three books in the series can be read on their own, each as a complete story, it is harder to understand 'Half-Blood Prince' without at least reading 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' (book five) because much of what occurs in 'Half-Blood Prince' relates to five's events, including the death of Harry's godfather Sirius Black.
Fans will already know of Harry Potter's arch enemy, Lord Voldemort, whose power is a growing threat to the wizarding community. Voldemort has ordered Draco Malfoy, Harry's school enemy, to kill Dumbledore to alleviate his displeasure with Draco's father Lucius. Severus Snape, former Potions master now Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, plays the double agent by retaining Dumbledore's trust while acting for the dark side ('Deatheaters'). He undertakes an oath to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy is unable to do so.
Harry returns to Hogwarts where a borrowed potions textbook with helpful amendments by the 'Half-Blood Prince' sees Harry excel at Potions, also helped by the fact that genial, social-climber Professor Slughorn replaces snarling Snape as Potions teacher. Though Hermione warns him to be cautious about using the book, Harry ignores her.
He also learns more about Tom Riddle, the man who was to become Voldemort, his family, his orphan upbringing and his tutelage at Hogwarts. Harry and Dumbledore endeavour to recover Voldemort's horcrux, an artefact containing a seventh of Voldemort's soul, in one of the more tense passages of the book only for Snape to kill Dumbledore when Malfoy hesitates upon Dumbledore's return to the school from the mission. Harry discovers that another wizard has already found the horcrux, replacing it with a fake.
In between all this, Rowling fills the pages with teen angst, adolescent romance and a dash of schoolyard rivalry including aforementioned coupling of main characters.
Got it so far? I don't usually give such extensive synopses in book reviews but needed to give a brief outline of the plot in order to share my experience of the book. While it's a killer plot and a page-turning read, I think Rowling has lost her grip on her characters. My ex-editor-in-chief once told me that the role of a writer was to invent characters that could live their own lives; 'Half-Blood Prince' reads too much like Rowling is forcing her characters to do or say things that she thinks conform to the "character" she wants them to be, rather than the ones we read and understand them as. Most obvious is Harry's insolence, which used to be justified assertion. While I don't expect him to be a paragon of exemplary behaviour, some of his retorts seemed contrived, like Rowling was forcing his behaviour to be worse than it probably is, maybe to emphasise the teen angst that partly underpins the novel.
The hormonal charge is not as obvious as negative publicity made it out to be. In fact, while there's some snogging going on there's really nothing more explicit than the crush that Harry realises he has on Ginny. Essentially most of the character development relates to Harry's growing loneliness. In the first few books he worked in a team with Ron and/or Hermione and with the Order of the Phoenix in the fifth book. Now, even though his friends are still by his side, his quest is to destroy Voldemort, a task he regards as his own in Dumbledore's absence. I can't predict where Rowling is going with this but I hope she isn't going to abandon some of the main characters in favour of somehow glorifying Harry's individual achievement even while acknowledging others' contributions. Harry isn't a particularly interesting character but as part of an ensemble he becomes more believable, more real.
Despite its size (607 pages in hardback) the book is well paced with Rowling showing an aptitude for tension and release, as throughout the school year Harry is plagued by two things - finding out what Malfoy is up to and gathering more information about Voldemort's past. Then there's the author's clumsy use of unconvincing reasoning such as Harry's repeated claims that Malfoy and Snape are up to no good (and the Order of the Phoenix's reasoning that he can't prove malevolence in Malfoy's deeds and that Snape is a double agent working for their side). The 'Harry claims, someone denies' situation gets a bit repetitive and you'd think that by now, after five previous books of Harry being right, that someone would listen to the boy.
All right, so I'm annoyed that I don't get to find out more about Voldemort's horcruxes and that the book ends on such a cliffhanger. Still worth a read if you've picked up the others, not that I'd need to tell you that - it's almost like preaching to the converted.
*** 1/2 - addictive plot handled competently but without absolute conviction
By J.K. Rowling (Bloomsbury)
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
This much anticipated addition to the Harry Potter series joins an army of fantasy books that have an annoying habit of ending with cliffhangers that lead into the next instalment. Although I was one of the first members of the public to touch a copy of the book (I was a volunteer on the Gleebooks 'Gleewarts' train on the release day) I hadn't a chance to read it until recently. And although I knew of the 'surprises' - Dumbledore dies, Snape is the half-blood Prince, Harry and Ginny get together, as do Ron and Hermione - I still found this sixth book a page-turner.
While the first three books in the series can be read on their own, each as a complete story, it is harder to understand 'Half-Blood Prince' without at least reading 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' (book five) because much of what occurs in 'Half-Blood Prince' relates to five's events, including the death of Harry's godfather Sirius Black.
Fans will already know of Harry Potter's arch enemy, Lord Voldemort, whose power is a growing threat to the wizarding community. Voldemort has ordered Draco Malfoy, Harry's school enemy, to kill Dumbledore to alleviate his displeasure with Draco's father Lucius. Severus Snape, former Potions master now Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, plays the double agent by retaining Dumbledore's trust while acting for the dark side ('Deatheaters'). He undertakes an oath to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy is unable to do so.
Harry returns to Hogwarts where a borrowed potions textbook with helpful amendments by the 'Half-Blood Prince' sees Harry excel at Potions, also helped by the fact that genial, social-climber Professor Slughorn replaces snarling Snape as Potions teacher. Though Hermione warns him to be cautious about using the book, Harry ignores her.
He also learns more about Tom Riddle, the man who was to become Voldemort, his family, his orphan upbringing and his tutelage at Hogwarts. Harry and Dumbledore endeavour to recover Voldemort's horcrux, an artefact containing a seventh of Voldemort's soul, in one of the more tense passages of the book only for Snape to kill Dumbledore when Malfoy hesitates upon Dumbledore's return to the school from the mission. Harry discovers that another wizard has already found the horcrux, replacing it with a fake.
In between all this, Rowling fills the pages with teen angst, adolescent romance and a dash of schoolyard rivalry including aforementioned coupling of main characters.
Got it so far? I don't usually give such extensive synopses in book reviews but needed to give a brief outline of the plot in order to share my experience of the book. While it's a killer plot and a page-turning read, I think Rowling has lost her grip on her characters. My ex-editor-in-chief once told me that the role of a writer was to invent characters that could live their own lives; 'Half-Blood Prince' reads too much like Rowling is forcing her characters to do or say things that she thinks conform to the "character" she wants them to be, rather than the ones we read and understand them as. Most obvious is Harry's insolence, which used to be justified assertion. While I don't expect him to be a paragon of exemplary behaviour, some of his retorts seemed contrived, like Rowling was forcing his behaviour to be worse than it probably is, maybe to emphasise the teen angst that partly underpins the novel.
The hormonal charge is not as obvious as negative publicity made it out to be. In fact, while there's some snogging going on there's really nothing more explicit than the crush that Harry realises he has on Ginny. Essentially most of the character development relates to Harry's growing loneliness. In the first few books he worked in a team with Ron and/or Hermione and with the Order of the Phoenix in the fifth book. Now, even though his friends are still by his side, his quest is to destroy Voldemort, a task he regards as his own in Dumbledore's absence. I can't predict where Rowling is going with this but I hope she isn't going to abandon some of the main characters in favour of somehow glorifying Harry's individual achievement even while acknowledging others' contributions. Harry isn't a particularly interesting character but as part of an ensemble he becomes more believable, more real.
Despite its size (607 pages in hardback) the book is well paced with Rowling showing an aptitude for tension and release, as throughout the school year Harry is plagued by two things - finding out what Malfoy is up to and gathering more information about Voldemort's past. Then there's the author's clumsy use of unconvincing reasoning such as Harry's repeated claims that Malfoy and Snape are up to no good (and the Order of the Phoenix's reasoning that he can't prove malevolence in Malfoy's deeds and that Snape is a double agent working for their side). The 'Harry claims, someone denies' situation gets a bit repetitive and you'd think that by now, after five previous books of Harry being right, that someone would listen to the boy.
All right, so I'm annoyed that I don't get to find out more about Voldemort's horcruxes and that the book ends on such a cliffhanger. Still worth a read if you've picked up the others, not that I'd need to tell you that - it's almost like preaching to the converted.
*** 1/2 - addictive plot handled competently but without absolute conviction
Jarhead (film)
Hot on the heels of Jake Gyllenhall's performance in Brokeback Mountain is another lead role in boy-heavy movie Jarhead. Based on a book written by ex-Marine Anthony Swofford (played by Gyllenhall), the film encompasses the time before and during the Gulf War from a US Marine's perspective.
Rather than the shoot 'em up action you might expect from a war movie, Jarhead is about the frustrations of war, the lack of combat encountered by the marines. Instead of guns and enemies, the troops' main concern is dealing with infidelity from afar and coping with the sand covered environment. There are no real deaths in the film (save a few from 'friendly fire') and it is the omission of gunfire conflict that makes the film all the more interesting.
While the story arc follows Swofford's entry into the Marines and ends a few years after, his time in the desert is clearly marked as a turning point. Swofford is 20 years old at the time and the film plays more or less in the 'coming of age' genre with military bits thrown in to emphasise discipline and routine hardship. The team aspect also works well, though the interaction is fairly predictable - there are always people you get along with and people you don't. It helps that the operation is catalyst to life-changing moments such as when Swoff threatens Fergus after his Christmas party goes wrong and when Swoff's sniper partner is prevented from completing a shot, the only kill shot available to their unit in the whole film.
Fortunately the lack of action is made up for by peaks of humour and exceptional cinematography, especially their excursion into the desert where they see charred bodies and burning oil wells. One particularly touching scene involves a lost horse covered in oil that Swoff cannot help. The following quote by Swoff quite neatly sums up the film in general:
"Suggested techniques for the marine to use in the avoidance of boredom and loneliness. Masturbation. Re-reading of letters from unfaithful wives and girlfriends. Cleaning your rifle. Further masturbation. Re-wiring Walkman. Arguing about religion and meaning of life. Discussing in detail, every women the marine has ever fucked. Debating differences, such as Cuban versus Mexican, Harleys versus Hondas, left versus right-handed masturbation. Further cleaning of rifle. Studying the mail order bride catalogue. Further masturbation. Planning a marine's first meal on return home. Imagining what a marine's girlfriend and her man Joey are doing in the alley or in a hotel bed."
All the components that make a good film get a start but sadly its the lack of any real conflict that prevents the film from achieving greatness. Then again, it achieves what it sets out to do - give an unglorified account of the marine corps.
*** - lack of action goes where no war film has gone before
Rather than the shoot 'em up action you might expect from a war movie, Jarhead is about the frustrations of war, the lack of combat encountered by the marines. Instead of guns and enemies, the troops' main concern is dealing with infidelity from afar and coping with the sand covered environment. There are no real deaths in the film (save a few from 'friendly fire') and it is the omission of gunfire conflict that makes the film all the more interesting.
While the story arc follows Swofford's entry into the Marines and ends a few years after, his time in the desert is clearly marked as a turning point. Swofford is 20 years old at the time and the film plays more or less in the 'coming of age' genre with military bits thrown in to emphasise discipline and routine hardship. The team aspect also works well, though the interaction is fairly predictable - there are always people you get along with and people you don't. It helps that the operation is catalyst to life-changing moments such as when Swoff threatens Fergus after his Christmas party goes wrong and when Swoff's sniper partner is prevented from completing a shot, the only kill shot available to their unit in the whole film.
Fortunately the lack of action is made up for by peaks of humour and exceptional cinematography, especially their excursion into the desert where they see charred bodies and burning oil wells. One particularly touching scene involves a lost horse covered in oil that Swoff cannot help. The following quote by Swoff quite neatly sums up the film in general:
"Suggested techniques for the marine to use in the avoidance of boredom and loneliness. Masturbation. Re-reading of letters from unfaithful wives and girlfriends. Cleaning your rifle. Further masturbation. Re-wiring Walkman. Arguing about religion and meaning of life. Discussing in detail, every women the marine has ever fucked. Debating differences, such as Cuban versus Mexican, Harleys versus Hondas, left versus right-handed masturbation. Further cleaning of rifle. Studying the mail order bride catalogue. Further masturbation. Planning a marine's first meal on return home. Imagining what a marine's girlfriend and her man Joey are doing in the alley or in a hotel bed."
All the components that make a good film get a start but sadly its the lack of any real conflict that prevents the film from achieving greatness. Then again, it achieves what it sets out to do - give an unglorified account of the marine corps.
*** - lack of action goes where no war film has gone before
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)