With the death of my good friend Martha last month, the whole issue of "what happens after you die" has naturally risen to the forefront of my small, wandering mind. Is death really the end? Is our short time on earth really all there is? Is what makes us who we are extinguished forever? Is there such thing as a soul and does it die as well?
It's probably wishful thinking but it would be nice to think that the essence of who we are, our soul or spirit or anima, continues on in some fashion. Maybe it inhabits another physical body and continues to strive for perfection. Maybe it inhabits another body and continues the work it started while the first body was alive. Maybe it doesn't inhabit another body but can still influence or affect things that happen here on earth. Or maybe none of the above. Maybe it doesn't exist. Maybe what you see is what you get, just a mass of cells and blood and bones.
But really, who knows? We can believe anything we want because that's the crucial point: no one knows because everyone who could know is already dead and thus cannot (or will not) communicate with those who are still alive. Therefore, in my small, wandering brain, it's OK to think that the spirit of Martha is alive somehow, that her goodness is still present in that spirit. No one can prove otherwise.
Oh, this all sounds so childish and foolish, doesn't it? Talking about spirits and dead people.
.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
"To Rome With Love" movie review
OK, this is the first movie I have seen in a theater in about a year and the last one I saw in a theater that I really liked, loved, was Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris." Needless to say, I was primed for this movie. I was ready. I was needy. Alas, I was disappointed.
Rome, in this film, is lovely, beautiful and golden. Having spent many, many days in Rome, I loved how the city looked in this film. But that's about it. I did not love the movie. However, even a crappy Woody Allen film set in a foreign city has something going for it. Hmm.... well, not much, but a couple of things.
The character that Alex Baldwin plays is silly, superficial and perhaps exists in another time continuum in the movie, but I still liked him. I loved Penelope Cruz as a blatant hooker with a good sense of reality and, come on, what a gorgeous body! Everyone else was insipid or stupid or foolish. (Hey, it's my review.) The stories didn't mesh, nor were they supposed to, but it made for a disjointed, jumpy movie. Woody Allen plays himself, more or less, which isn't a bad thing here, but doesn't add much to the movie. There were characters that drove me to distraction, like the normal guy who suddenly becomes famous, for no reason. What's that about? And who cares? Woody Allen obviously had some hidden meaning there but I didn't get it.
Bottom line, as much as I walked into the theater wanting to love this movie, I didn't. But I didn't hate it, either. Mulling it over for the past 24 hours it has grown on me a tiny bit. It's pleasant, the city of Rome could not look better and a couple of the characters are fun to watch.
While I sincerely loved "Midnight in Paris" I almost liked this movie. Save it for a rental. However, if you love Rome as much as I do, it's almost worth it to see this movie on the big screen just to see the city bathed in sunlight and beauty. Thankfully, Allen doesn't show us a travelogue of Rome, no shots of St. Peter's Square, but there are enough familiar landscapes to make any tourist (or traveler) happy for a few moments.
,
Rome, in this film, is lovely, beautiful and golden. Having spent many, many days in Rome, I loved how the city looked in this film. But that's about it. I did not love the movie. However, even a crappy Woody Allen film set in a foreign city has something going for it. Hmm.... well, not much, but a couple of things.
The character that Alex Baldwin plays is silly, superficial and perhaps exists in another time continuum in the movie, but I still liked him. I loved Penelope Cruz as a blatant hooker with a good sense of reality and, come on, what a gorgeous body! Everyone else was insipid or stupid or foolish. (Hey, it's my review.) The stories didn't mesh, nor were they supposed to, but it made for a disjointed, jumpy movie. Woody Allen plays himself, more or less, which isn't a bad thing here, but doesn't add much to the movie. There were characters that drove me to distraction, like the normal guy who suddenly becomes famous, for no reason. What's that about? And who cares? Woody Allen obviously had some hidden meaning there but I didn't get it.
Bottom line, as much as I walked into the theater wanting to love this movie, I didn't. But I didn't hate it, either. Mulling it over for the past 24 hours it has grown on me a tiny bit. It's pleasant, the city of Rome could not look better and a couple of the characters are fun to watch.
While I sincerely loved "Midnight in Paris" I almost liked this movie. Save it for a rental. However, if you love Rome as much as I do, it's almost worth it to see this movie on the big screen just to see the city bathed in sunlight and beauty. Thankfully, Allen doesn't show us a travelogue of Rome, no shots of St. Peter's Square, but there are enough familiar landscapes to make any tourist (or traveler) happy for a few moments.
,
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Trying
My daughter has re-started her blog and so must I. However, nothing really seems worth writing about which probably means there is too much to write about. If you know me (and you do if you read this) you know that I am not one for reaching out for help. It's a Turmes (maiden name) trait. We just plow through things, making our own way. In this case, I would be so happy to reach out for help but I fear there is none to be had. Grief is something you have to go through alone, or with those who are also grieving.
The death of Martha has created a schism in the family as well, which I won't discuss here. Suffice it to say that this week has been another difficult one.
So, let me try and write about something else. Two things: one is "Canada" by Richard Ford. He is a celebrated writer, has won many awards including the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. His language is, to me, a dichotomy. It is spare and simple and yet vast and intricate. He has this way of taking a situation that is pretty much off the wall and making you, the reader, at first shake your head and just a little later, start nodding your head. It seems preposterous but then it seems quite understandable. "Canada" is a strange book, almost a couple of stories in one, but I really liked it. Check it out.
Second thing is that in the last three weeks I find my attention span to be greatly shortened. I usually read two or three books a week but lately I either can sit and read for two hours or two minutes. It's odd. So I have been watching stuff on my TV, streaming things via Netflix through my tiny Roku player since I don't have broadcast TV. My current fave is "Arrested Development." I don't know why I didn't dive into this when it first came out because it is hysterically funny and my kind of sarcastic, dark humor. What a dysfunctional family! The mother, talk about an evil, self-centered bitch, but the kids (all grown up, of course) do whatever she tells them to do. Mostly. The episodes are only a half hour long, so streamed without commercials they are even shorter. It's a great way to waste some time when it is too early to go to bed and too late to open another bottle of wine.
Thanks to you all for hanging in there while I took my time getting back to you.
,
The death of Martha has created a schism in the family as well, which I won't discuss here. Suffice it to say that this week has been another difficult one.
So, let me try and write about something else. Two things: one is "Canada" by Richard Ford. He is a celebrated writer, has won many awards including the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. His language is, to me, a dichotomy. It is spare and simple and yet vast and intricate. He has this way of taking a situation that is pretty much off the wall and making you, the reader, at first shake your head and just a little later, start nodding your head. It seems preposterous but then it seems quite understandable. "Canada" is a strange book, almost a couple of stories in one, but I really liked it. Check it out.
Second thing is that in the last three weeks I find my attention span to be greatly shortened. I usually read two or three books a week but lately I either can sit and read for two hours or two minutes. It's odd. So I have been watching stuff on my TV, streaming things via Netflix through my tiny Roku player since I don't have broadcast TV. My current fave is "Arrested Development." I don't know why I didn't dive into this when it first came out because it is hysterically funny and my kind of sarcastic, dark humor. What a dysfunctional family! The mother, talk about an evil, self-centered bitch, but the kids (all grown up, of course) do whatever she tells them to do. Mostly. The episodes are only a half hour long, so streamed without commercials they are even shorter. It's a great way to waste some time when it is too early to go to bed and too late to open another bottle of wine.
Thanks to you all for hanging in there while I took my time getting back to you.
,
Friday, July 6, 2012
No words
It has been a long, sad, 12 days and more to come. Each day gets a little better, a little less teary, a little more accepting but the hole that has been created by Martha's death gets deeper. I don't have much to say right now but will attempt to write something salient (and not sad) later this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)