"The Irishman" was much better than I expected. Taking Gabe's advice, I watched it in one setting, as Scorsese undoubtedly intended. Good story, really good performances, nice melding of past and present. The CGI of making Pacino, DeNiro and Pesci look younger was, at times, a little off, a little fake-looking but an interesting technique. The story is predictable, but Scorsese makes things feel fresh even when we know they are not. The movie ended well, no redemption scenes and I can easily give it two thumbs up.
Books: sadly, I admit that I am seduced by good book reviews and then, sadly again, often disappointed by those books that had promise. I read a lot, maybe that makes me a worse critic, but I just finished a couple of books that simply made me weary. One was 'Normal People" by Sally Rooney. I could copy quote after quote about how profound this novel is, all about young love across class lines, about angst and longing and betrayal and yada yada. First, it is written in the present tense which bugs the hell outta me. No one lives their life in the present tense except when they are actually living it, not when it's a retelling of their story. Second, everyone in high school falls in love with the wrong person, sometimes it works out well, sometimes it ends poorly. These kids are not different or profound or special. They break up, they go off to college, they meet again. Yippee. It was trivial. To me, at least, the book was a waste of time.
There are some other books that I was so looking forward to reading but that also disappointed...... but I won't name names. It could be me. I have been working full time for a year, I definitely need a vacation and thus my mental acuity is at a low point. Reading sometimes feels like a wade through a swamp. My patience for lazy writing is gone. Which leads me to the uproar about "American Dirt" a novel by Jeanine Cummins. Now, I admit that I haven't read the book, but given the backlash against it, I might not ever read it. If you haven't any idea of what I am talking about, check it out here: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/24/798894249/latinx-critics-speak-out-against-american-dirt-jeanine-cummins-responds
If you have the chance to read the review by Myriam Gurba, do, it's so to the point and funny at the same time. But reading about "American Dirt" and the inaccuracies the author puts forward as fact seems like another brick in that wall of lazy writing. Again, I haven't read it, but if and when I do, I will tell you what I think of it.
Which segues into the writing of this blog. Seriously, I am home three nights a week these days. Working Saturday through Tuesday gets me back home around dinner time on Tuesday and there is no motivation to do anything that evening. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are my nights home, unless I go out, and those are the only nights I can write this blog. (No access to a computer those other nights.) If I thought it would help, I would promise to write more at work but that is simply too problematic to even consider. Writing about my personal life on a computer owned by those who pay me seems chancy at best and creepy at a little less than best.
One of my bosses asked me this past Monday if I was OK. After answering that I was fine, he said something like "You just don't seem your sparky self lately." I agreed with him, I am not my sparky self because I am just tired. We agreed that I need to take some time off, which I will do soon. Last March I took a trip to Memphis, Nashville, to Mississippi and Louisiana and so many places in the South and every day of that trip was eye-opening and amazing. This year, I could go back. Or I could go somewhere totally different for a long week. Budapest. Iceland. Boston. British Virgin Islands. Iguazu Falls. Greece.
But right now it is time to go to bed. Thank you for checking in and following along. Here is a photo of Iguazu Falls. Who wouldn't want to see this in person?
Just to get you up to date, me and Cooper are getting used to our new little abode. As you can see, Cooper has no problem sleeping on the couch, he is simply being a dog. As long as he gets his two walks in and his three poops in each day, all is well. I stay at Jenn and Dar's place on Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights and Cooper comes with me to work at 6:20 a.m. on Monday and Tuesday mornings. Oddly, he likes it! And people like him being there. My manager Cathy says that as she walks up the steps to the clubhouse on Monday morning, she prepares herself to be disappointed if Cooper is not there. And when he is there, which is most Mondays, she is so, so happy. That's the effect he is having on Autocamp staff.
Everything else in my life is good right now, thanks for asking. We (me and Cooper) are adjusting to living in a more rural setting, we are enjoying walking in the county and state parks that are all around Glen Ellen and I am rearranging my mind to fit with my tiny living space. (Well, my mind has always been on the small side, so not a problem there.) Since there is no place to hide anything in my cottage, everything needs to be put away in its own place. There are no doors to close on messes which means not leaving anything out of place. I don't succeed in this 100% of the time but it makes me aware of being a lot neater than I have been in the past ....69 years.
Work is work. The hospitality industry means being nice and accommodating and I do it well but I am so tired of it all. But for the next year or two, it's what pays the rent, so I will continue to bite my tongue, continue to be gracious and hospitable and at the same time make my colleagues laugh at my sarcastic tone.
2019 was a crappy year. 2020 could be better. Let's aim for that. Let's read a lot of books, see movies, listen to adventurous music choices, eat less meat-based meals, volunteer more, be kind always, talk to friends more and even talk to strangers now and then, cry when appropriate and laugh even when not appropriate. Just be kind. Please. Have faith and act on it. Donate time, money, goods. VOTE! Speak out, speak up. Be hopeful and again, be kind.
OK, that's my January update for now.
What a journalistic endeavor! Like "All The President's Men" by Woodward and Bernstein, this book meticulously maps out the path the two journalists took to gather evidence and vet that evidence and corroborate that evidence against a lying, evil entity. Their target, of course, was Harvey Weinstein. From the beginning of their investigation, trying to find women who would be willing to tell their stories of sexual abuse by Weinstein, to the final chapter of Christy Blakely Ford's testimony against Brett Kavanaugh, the road was rocky and difficult. Who wants to go on record about sexual abuse? Especially if you think it will ruin any career you have had or want to have?
Kantor and Twohey are relentless and yet kind in their search for corroborating evidence, in their interviews with many women. "She Said" is a step by step outline of what they did, when they did it, who they spoke to and how the evidence against Weinstein was compiled. It's a good, fast read and it restores my faith in the judiciary process and in investigative journalism.
Get it out of the library. While the #metoo movement has its flaws, the start of that movement was powerful. Kantor and Twohey were instrumental in its inception and they were stellar in their quest to bring justice to the dozens of women assaulted by Weinstein.
.
Ann Patchett has a bookstore just outside of Nashville, TN, a fact that my sister-in-law Donna tossed at me last year when I was spending some time in the south. I think about that often, the fact that I should have visited that bookstore when I was less than ten miles from it last March. (Donna, if I go back to the south this spring, Parnassus Bookstore is on my list. Come with me?)
I just, fifteen minutes ago, finished "The Dutch House." Being a long time fan of Patchett's books, there isn't a lot I can say that will be different than any other book reviewer's take on this book. As a whole, it is so simple and yet so complex. The characters are kids at the beginning, aging adults at the end but the fact of their growing up seems negligible for most of the book because, like many of us mortals, their past and their childhood define them into their advancing age. In fact, for some time, they are stuck in the past and try to revisit it over and over again.
The synopsis is simple: two kids grow up in a huge, ostentatious house, one that their father loves and their mother hates. The mother eventually leaves and dies and another woman comes in and marries their father. After a few years the father dies, the stepmother takes charge and the two kids leave and have other lives. Then, years later, some other things happen and history snakes back on itself.
Well, that's not a good version but Patchett is all about the characters and their reactions to things and their putting stuff behind them and trying to carry on. But the past is always there. (As Faulkner said: The past is never dead. It's not even past.)
The characters are the thing in this novel. Maeve and her brother Danny are joined at the hip because they are all they have. Their bond is strong and yet... lacking something. That something shows up. And then, how strong is that bond, really?
It's a really good book with some really good, insightful lines:
We had stepped into the river that takes you forward.
I had not been born with an imagination large enough to encompass this moment.
I could tell the way we felt was exactly the same, like we had nearly drowned and then been fished from the water at the last possible minute. We had lived without expecting to live.
Ann Patchett is not just a great writer but an excellent painter of character. Whether we like the character or not isn't a concern of hers. That the character is real, that's definitely one of her priorities, and in "The Dutch House" the characters are real. About 50 pages into it, I was a little worried..... I thought I could see where the story was going and I didn't like that path. Well, poor pitiful me. Patchett's characters take different roads, whether they want to or not, and they are slapped in the face by changes they did not expect and so was I.
Again, Ann Patchett has written a story about family, about connection, about compromise and forgiving and tolerance. And she does it with so much grace and talent. Wow. Read it and report back.
It is difficult to say how surprised I was by this movie. Really, a story about Popes? As a former Catholic, huge emphasis on "former", I have no allegiance to the church or to any Pope. Nor do I have a belief in the God the church preaches. In other words, I am much more of an atheist than anything else.
But this movie is remarkable in that you don't have to believe in anything to like it. Not in Catholicism, not in Christianity, not in any god in any religion, not in any faith. In the simplest explanation, this is a movie about two men talking and sharing their life story, sharing their fractured faiths and asking for understanding and possibly for forgiveness.
There is little action here. It's all talk, almost all dialogue. But that dialogue is brilliant. The writing is spot-on remarkable. The acting is even better than that, it is superb. Something I read recently mentioned "The Two Popes" as a study in reading faces, and that is so true. So much is written on the faces of the two actors, their faces draw you in and then their words lock you in.
Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce are perfect as the two Popes. There are some nice scenes of Rome, especially of St. Peter's Square, where I have stood with Tom, watching the Pope-of-the-Moment give his Sunday address.
I think the main thing about this movie is that it makes the role of Pope seem much more real than we see it media. Here are two men, very intelligent men, grappling with their own frailties and their own weaknesses, while at the same time wielding so much power.
It's difficult to explain, but this is one of the best movies I have seen in a couple of years. Seriously, put assumptions behind you and watch it. You will not be disappointed.
.
With all the publicity this movie has received, I was primed to like it. Sadly, I did not.
The performances across the board are great. Driver and Johansson are excellent. The writing, to a point, is good. The supporting cast is good. But the story, to me, was so manipulative that I couldn't watch it. Well, I watched it until the two shark lawyers got involved and their demands for retainers so appalling that I had to skip ahead and just watch the last 15 minutes.
Here are two smart, personable people who are ready to end their marriage and they agree on doing it without lawyers but they get sucked into that death spiral that will take them into the financial cesspool where many divorcing couples end up. Wait! They are smart! They already agreed on most of the splitting up stuff! And now comes the feeding frenzy...... and the pulling in of the audience. Who's side are you going to take?
I simply hated that their personal trauma was being reduced to a dollar figure. It's life, I know, but not one I need to watch.
The last 15 minutes was fine. It seemed they had worked out the co-parenting thing and the kid would survive and possibly thrive. So would they. But to say I am sorry I missed the hashing out of lawyers fees and the terrifying angst and fear that produces would be a lie.
Too bad. I had a lot of hope for this movie. It could have been better, at least for me. It could have portrayed the two parents as partners who had to make hard choices for themselves, their careers, their kid, and it could have been empowering in that way. Instead, greed and selfishness got involved and it left me cold.
