Thursday, February 23, 2012
What I'm Reading Now -- Outliers
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Invention of Air -- Take 2
The version of The Invention of Air that I listened to must have been abridged - it was a long time ago that I imported it to iTunes. But it was short, and I'm writing that off as abridgement.
What might also be the fault of abridgement is my big complaint: the narrative almost completely lacked flow until about halfway through. I really like this period in history, and even I had a hard time following the story and staying interested. I can only imagine how dry it must seem to someone who isn't so taken with the revolutionaries. This may or may not be a fault of the author; it might be bad writing (and editing), or it might just be poor abridgement. Either way, it was frustrating.
Eventually, the story does pick up and start to move in a linear and understandable fashion, and from that point on it was enjoyable.
The author also makes some obvious but refreshing observations about the time in general. I love looking back on the revolutionary period, because all the main players were such Renaissance men - interested (and capable! and successful!) in fields of science, politics, literature, even agriculture. Because such huge advances were being made in technology at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new areas of study were accessible to anyone with the funds to get involved. New fields were ripe for discovery, innovation, and development in a way that they no longer are. Then, a man such as Joseph Priestley who was willing to commit himself to some serious study could make numerous significant discoveries in multiple fields. Now, to make a groundbreaking discovery in chemistry or physics, you have to dedicate your life to it, and even then the chances of making such a discovery are slim. It was a more elemental time, full of possibilities in a whole different way than what we know now.
So, all in all, I'd say the second half was enjoyable, and for the most part could have been appreciated without the first part.
What might also be the fault of abridgement is my big complaint: the narrative almost completely lacked flow until about halfway through. I really like this period in history, and even I had a hard time following the story and staying interested. I can only imagine how dry it must seem to someone who isn't so taken with the revolutionaries. This may or may not be a fault of the author; it might be bad writing (and editing), or it might just be poor abridgement. Either way, it was frustrating.
Eventually, the story does pick up and start to move in a linear and understandable fashion, and from that point on it was enjoyable.
The author also makes some obvious but refreshing observations about the time in general. I love looking back on the revolutionary period, because all the main players were such Renaissance men - interested (and capable! and successful!) in fields of science, politics, literature, even agriculture. Because such huge advances were being made in technology at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new areas of study were accessible to anyone with the funds to get involved. New fields were ripe for discovery, innovation, and development in a way that they no longer are. Then, a man such as Joseph Priestley who was willing to commit himself to some serious study could make numerous significant discoveries in multiple fields. Now, to make a groundbreaking discovery in chemistry or physics, you have to dedicate your life to it, and even then the chances of making such a discovery are slim. It was a more elemental time, full of possibilities in a whole different way than what we know now.
So, all in all, I'd say the second half was enjoyable, and for the most part could have been appreciated without the first part.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
What I Watched -- The Company Men

Somehow, The Company Men is one of those movies that sort of flew under my radar. I had heard of it, but only in passing, and I don't think I read any reviews or the like. And I'm not sure how all that happened, because it has quite and impressive cast, and usually such movies are all over the place. Maybe the reason was because, while all of the performances were good, none of them were Oscar-worthy. Just generally a good ensemble.
Said cast members include Ben Affleck, Chris Cooper, and Tommy Lee Jones as the poor guys who lose their jobs. Ben Affleck has done his share of terrible movies (Gigli, Phantoms, Daddy and Them - full disclosure: I did not see any of these movies, but I'm assuming they're bad), but also some darn good ones (The Town, Dogma, and of course Good Will Hunting). Chris Cooper has been on quite a run in the last several years, with hits including The Bourne Identity and Supremacy, Seabiscuit, Capote, Syriana, and (also) The Town. And then there's Tommy Lee Jones. Holy hell, he's a good actor. The Fugitive, JFK, In the Valley of Elah, No Country for Old Men... Need I go on? In his review of Elah, Roger Ebert ponders why TLJ is so good: "Look at the lines around his eyes. He looks concerned, under pressure from himself, a man who has felt pain. Look at his face. It seems to conceal hurtful emotion. He doesn't smile a lot, but when he does, it's like the clouds are lifting. Listen to his voice, filled with authority and hard experience. Notice when he speaks that he passes words out as if they were money he can't afford."
And those are just the three mains! There's also Kevin Costner, who I think is actually my favorite character in the movie. So, here's the setup. The three above play Bobby, Phil, and Gene, respectively (and from lowest to highest in order of seniority). All three lose their jobs. Bobby's wife Maggie (the lovely Rosemarie DeWitt) comes from a working class family, and her brother Jack (Costner), who's just the right mix of asshole and good guy, offers Bobby some carpentry work to help him through. Also stars Craig T "Coach" Nelson as the bossman and Maria Bello (another lovely) as the not-quite-universally hated HR employee tasked with handling the firings.
I like that these three guys - Gene most obviously, but each in his own way - is a contradiction. Gene is totally on the straight and narrow at work, wants to do the ethical thing, the right thing, even if it isn't best for the company. But - MINOR SPOILER ALERT - he's cheating on his wife. Bobby has the best, most stable home life, but is obsessed with outward appearances. Phil is the tough guy who may be the most soft-hearted.
Bottom line: some of this movie is roses and unicorns, some is not. I like that. I didn't know what to expect when I started watching it, and I like that too. But what I liked most of all was that I was pleasantly surprised.
Monday, February 20, 2012
What I Watched -- Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
It turned out that my big V-day date with T was go to see the new version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, because I can't think of anything more romantic than Cold War espionage.
This movie takes some work to watch. You really have to pay attention to every detail, but it's worth the trouble.
Gary Oldman is sublimely reserved as the disgraced George Smiley. There will be the inevitable comparisons to Alec Guinness, who starred in the BBC miniseries on which this movie is based. While I have seen the miniseries - five hours of spy-tacular goodness - it was a long time ago and I don't remember the details well enough to share my thoughts with you. (The miniseries, in turn, was based on John le Carre's book of the same name, which is itself part of the Karla Trilogy, also including The Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley's People. Call for the Dead, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, and other le Carre books also star Mr. Smiley, in case you want further reading, but not part of the trilogy.)
But anyway, the story. George Smiley is a lifelong spy who was unceremoniously run out of "the Circus" by the newer, younger guys. Something wasn't right about that, and the reappearance of one of their men who had gone AWOL turns up information that one of the men at the Circus is a mole, a double agent working for the Soviets. But is the information true? If so, who is it? How does this all fit with that Smiley knows from his time there? Watch, and you'll find out.
Also stars John Hurt, Colin Firth, Ciaran Hinds, Toby Jones (who you don't know you know, but you do if you're a Harry Potter fan), and the man with the best name of all, Benedict Cumberbatch.
Bottom line: a classic spy movie. While there is some blood and guts, don't go in expecting Bourne-style action. But if you can do that, you won't be disappointed.
This movie takes some work to watch. You really have to pay attention to every detail, but it's worth the trouble.
Gary Oldman is sublimely reserved as the disgraced George Smiley. There will be the inevitable comparisons to Alec Guinness, who starred in the BBC miniseries on which this movie is based. While I have seen the miniseries - five hours of spy-tacular goodness - it was a long time ago and I don't remember the details well enough to share my thoughts with you. (The miniseries, in turn, was based on John le Carre's book of the same name, which is itself part of the Karla Trilogy, also including The Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley's People. Call for the Dead, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, and other le Carre books also star Mr. Smiley, in case you want further reading, but not part of the trilogy.)
But anyway, the story. George Smiley is a lifelong spy who was unceremoniously run out of "the Circus" by the newer, younger guys. Something wasn't right about that, and the reappearance of one of their men who had gone AWOL turns up information that one of the men at the Circus is a mole, a double agent working for the Soviets. But is the information true? If so, who is it? How does this all fit with that Smiley knows from his time there? Watch, and you'll find out.
Also stars John Hurt, Colin Firth, Ciaran Hinds, Toby Jones (who you don't know you know, but you do if you're a Harry Potter fan), and the man with the best name of all, Benedict Cumberbatch.
Bottom line: a classic spy movie. While there is some blood and guts, don't go in expecting Bourne-style action. But if you can do that, you won't be disappointed.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Goal #8
Goal #8: keep a daily gratitude journal.
Why not? There are so many good things. Might as well try to appreciate them.
Recap of Goal #7: guys, I have to be honest: I didn't do it.
You might ask, "How could you mess up a goal as simple and delightful as having a glass of red wine a day?" Beer. That's the answer. All was going well until Friday, when I went out to meet some folks at a bar. Unfortunately, the wine choices ranged from limited to nonexistent, so I opted for Blue Moon instead. And by the time I got home, I was so tired all I could do was collapse into bed.
Funny...you'd think Friday night would be the night I'd most need a glass of wine, wouldn't you?
Why not? There are so many good things. Might as well try to appreciate them.
Recap of Goal #7: guys, I have to be honest: I didn't do it.
You might ask, "How could you mess up a goal as simple and delightful as having a glass of red wine a day?" Beer. That's the answer. All was going well until Friday, when I went out to meet some folks at a bar. Unfortunately, the wine choices ranged from limited to nonexistent, so I opted for Blue Moon instead. And by the time I got home, I was so tired all I could do was collapse into bed.
Funny...you'd think Friday night would be the night I'd most need a glass of wine, wouldn't you?
Saturday, February 18, 2012
What I Watched -- Win Win
It took me two tries to get through Win Win, but not because the movie wasn't good. I just pulled my usual movie routine of falling asleep in the first 20 minutes. It's pretty standard for me and has nothing to do with the quality of the movie.
Paul Giamatti again plays kind of a hapless character with a good heart (see Sideways). (Although don't write him off as completely typecast. If you saw John Adams, you know that he can accomplish great things when he's trading letters with one Laura Linney.)
In this particular movie, Giamatti plays an attorney and wrestling coach struggling to make ends meet and hide that fact from his wife Jackie (Amy Ryan). Into their lives falls Kyle (played by Alex Shaffer in his first role), a runaway who just happens to be a fantastic wrestler. (Shaffer is actually a state champ wrestler in real life.)
Though he's a bit unorthodox and unpredictable, Kyle turns around the wrestling team and forces some honesty between Mike and Jackie. Also includes Jeffrey Tambor, Bobby Cannavale (whom director Tom McCarthy also cast in The Station Agent), and Melanie Lynskey in the cast of lost souls.
Bottom line: all the casting was good and Giamatti was appropriately funny, but Alex Shaffer really stole the show as Kyle. He was just believable enough to seem real, but not so much so that he was boring. It's a good, if somewhat predictable, feel-good film.
Paul Giamatti again plays kind of a hapless character with a good heart (see Sideways). (Although don't write him off as completely typecast. If you saw John Adams, you know that he can accomplish great things when he's trading letters with one Laura Linney.)
In this particular movie, Giamatti plays an attorney and wrestling coach struggling to make ends meet and hide that fact from his wife Jackie (Amy Ryan). Into their lives falls Kyle (played by Alex Shaffer in his first role), a runaway who just happens to be a fantastic wrestler. (Shaffer is actually a state champ wrestler in real life.)
Though he's a bit unorthodox and unpredictable, Kyle turns around the wrestling team and forces some honesty between Mike and Jackie. Also includes Jeffrey Tambor, Bobby Cannavale (whom director Tom McCarthy also cast in The Station Agent), and Melanie Lynskey in the cast of lost souls.
Bottom line: all the casting was good and Giamatti was appropriately funny, but Alex Shaffer really stole the show as Kyle. He was just believable enough to seem real, but not so much so that he was boring. It's a good, if somewhat predictable, feel-good film.
Friday, February 17, 2012
What I'm Reading Now -- The Invention of Air
The Invention of Air is another audiobook Mom sent me. As far as I can tell, this one is the story of the discovery of dioxide (O2) (among other things) by scientist and theologian Joseph Priestley. The story so far includes the political and scientific climate leading up to the discovery and springing from it, though I'm not yet sure how far those threads will stretch.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Help -- Take 2
I finished The Help, which is a fairly long book, in record time for me. (This post is a long time coming.) It helped that I had lots of hours of reading during the aforementioned Super Bowl and airport day.
To be fair, it wasn't just that I had lots of time. The book was an engaging read. I enjoyed my time with the characters and their complicated relationships and mutual affection or distaste for one another. The characters are fleshed out (or at least as fleshed out as some of the more shallow characters can be) and fun to read about.
Given that the book is about the dynamic situation of southern white women and their black housekeepers in Mississippi in the 1960s, obviously race and racism are huge topics. Stockett did a fine job toeing the line between being too preachy and too condescending. Even so, it's still falls somewhat into the chick lit category. It's a book almost exclusively about women and the relationships they have with one another, growing together or growing apart.
I guess I expected more, although I probably shouldn't have. With few exceptions, books that are on the bestseller list for as long as this one was usually don't have too much in the way of intellectual heft.
To be fair, it wasn't just that I had lots of time. The book was an engaging read. I enjoyed my time with the characters and their complicated relationships and mutual affection or distaste for one another. The characters are fleshed out (or at least as fleshed out as some of the more shallow characters can be) and fun to read about.
Given that the book is about the dynamic situation of southern white women and their black housekeepers in Mississippi in the 1960s, obviously race and racism are huge topics. Stockett did a fine job toeing the line between being too preachy and too condescending. Even so, it's still falls somewhat into the chick lit category. It's a book almost exclusively about women and the relationships they have with one another, growing together or growing apart.
I guess I expected more, although I probably shouldn't have. With few exceptions, books that are on the bestseller list for as long as this one was usually don't have too much in the way of intellectual heft.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Mom!
Mom was in town over the weekend, and I took her to one of my favorite places: the London Tea Room! We had lunch consisting of creamy tomato soup and a delicious three cheese grilled cheese, and after chatting for a while, we dove into a pot of Duke & Duchess tea with a Victoria Sandwich (white cake with vanilla buttercream and strawberry jam) and a masala chai brownie.
Our original plan was to have lunch and then go see Pina, but we talked for so long that we missed the start of the movie. Instead, we ventured out west to Kerry Cottage and the Miriam Switching Post, where I found a lovely fur coat for a bargain!
Unfortunately, that was the end of our afternoon, and Mom had to head home again the next day. But it was fun while it lasted!
Our original plan was to have lunch and then go see Pina, but we talked for so long that we missed the start of the movie. Instead, we ventured out west to Kerry Cottage and the Miriam Switching Post, where I found a lovely fur coat for a bargain!
Unfortunately, that was the end of our afternoon, and Mom had to head home again the next day. But it was fun while it lasted!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Fountain on Locust
Since my big V-day plans tonight include going to a movie and eating leftovers, I'll tell you instead about the dinner T and I had last Friday night. We went out to The Fountain on Locust (but sadly, I'm not back in dress mode yet. I'll get there!).
The Fountain is a retro restaurant-cum-ice cream parlor, except the ice cream comes in the form of alcoholic beverages! Okay, it doesn't have to. But really, why wouldn't you want it to?
We started out by sharing the hummus plate (Hummus a Sultry Tune), and then I had the Roast Beef Melt, mostly because the horseradish sauce sounded good. I will, however, have to return for the Royal Grille. For dessert, we shared a vanilla egg creme, which was...interesting. Tasty, but I didn't really know what to expect.
The real winner, though, was the Brother Love: chocolate ice cream swimming in Frangelico. It was like Nutella in a margarita glass. Amazingly delicious!
The Fountain is a retro restaurant-cum-ice cream parlor, except the ice cream comes in the form of alcoholic beverages! Okay, it doesn't have to. But really, why wouldn't you want it to?
We started out by sharing the hummus plate (Hummus a Sultry Tune), and then I had the Roast Beef Melt, mostly because the horseradish sauce sounded good. I will, however, have to return for the Royal Grille. For dessert, we shared a vanilla egg creme, which was...interesting. Tasty, but I didn't really know what to expect.
The real winner, though, was the Brother Love: chocolate ice cream swimming in Frangelico. It was like Nutella in a margarita glass. Amazingly delicious!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



