Living up to the hype

Okay, so yesterday I theorized that whichever film I was most looking forward to in any particular day would be sure to disappoint... Not today.

I saw Across the Universe this morning and as excited as I was to see it, the film exceeded my expectations in just about every way.

It's kind of hard to explain this movie. To call it a musical trivializes it, but clearly it is a musical. The director Julie Taymor did a Q&A after the screening and according to her there's only 30 minutes of dialogue in this 2 hour movie and that sounds about right. It was mostly music. But the music is so compelling and fun (or heart wrenching) and the visuals so original it didn't feel long.

And surprisingly, in spite of featuring such well known songs, the music felt original, too. I was blown away. Sure, it was 33 Beatles songs all strung together to make a story... But all of the arrangements are different and the performances outstanding and the lyrics felt totally organic to the story being told. I'm telling you, the guy who plays Jude, Jim Sturgess, was truly amazing. Not only is he adorable, he has an incredible singing voice and, like all the performers in this movie, has the acting talent to make it seem like Lennon & McCartney's lyrics were about him and that he was singing them for the first time. According to Julie Taymor, about 90% of the musical performances that ended up in the movie were from live performances on the set (not prerecorded and lip synced). Sounds like they did prerecord everything, but had the actors sing on set, too (with the music playing in little ear buds in their ears) and those were the performances she went with most of the time. Evan Rachel Woods was amazing, too. I knew she was a talented young actress, but who knew she could sing, too?

LOVED this movie. (Can you tell?) I feel like it's one I'll enjoy watching over and over again. It opens in select cities including Toronto this Friday (everywhere on Sept 21) but I'm glad I saw it first and saw it in the beautiful Elgin theatre and got to hear Julie Taymor answer audience questions at the end. FANTASTIC.

Heard something else interesting today. Not sure if it's accurate, but heard it from someone who has a short film in the festival, who heard it at one of the industry events. Anyway... the gossip was that the cut of the Brad Pitt film (Jesse James) I saw the other night is not the one that will be shown in theatres starting in ten days. The rumor was that Brad Pitt did his own cut of the movie, but both the director and the studio thought it was too long and slow-paced. Supposedly, I saw the Brad cut and the one being released into theatres is the shorter one the studio liked... This is probably a good thing. It was very long 2 hours and 40 minutes and felt it...

I know I didn't talk about The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford the day I saw it... It's been percolating. Overall, I liked it, but certainly didn't love it. If you're interested in films and creative storytelling then you might enjoy it. Visually, it was pretty spectacular. Some art worthy shots to be sure. Also, the director did a few interesting stylistic things. For example, during the voice-over narration, he made the screen look like an old daguerreotype or something.... That is, a circle in the centre of the screen was in focus, but the edges were blurred... Like it had been shot through an old fashioned lens. Things like that did make it kind of interesting... And the shots of characters posing... certainly the movie was from the POV of looking back at a legend from today, not watching it unfold in real time. I think that's what made the pacing drag, but also was kind of creative, I guess. But the film did drag at times and a few story elements weren't clear to me... But this may just be because I'd let my mind wander.

Given the tepid applause at the end of the film (even with the ridiculously star-sprinkled audience) I wasn't the only one who was luke-warm on Jesse James. I'll be interested to see how it does in release. (Remind me some time to talk more about that night. Really surreal.)

I'm still trying to decide what I thought of In the Valley of Elah, that I saw yesterday, too... During the film, I was really disappointed. It felt preachy and heavy handed in it's message and derivative of TV cop shows in it's delivery... But by the end I liked it more, and now that it's percolated for a day, I realize there were some really strong moments... Mostly at the end... And I've also decided that in many ways Haggis did deliver his overall message (that war turns boys into monsters) in a fairly creative way... At least not in the most predictable way. But this movie didn't 100% work for me. At least it didn't live up to my very high expectations.

Another 5 film day tomorrow. I have a ticket to the new Woody Allen film... but may take a pass. Right now, my day goes like this:

9:00 am Bill at Scotiabank Theatres
11:00 am Cassandra's Dream (Woody Allen one) at The Elgin
3:00 pm Weirdsville at Scotiabank
6:00 pm La Fille coupee en deux at The Elgin
9:00 pm Romulus, My Father at The Elgin

So, if I can get a ticket for something at Scotia that ends no later than 2:00.... I might do that instead. (or I might sleep in and skip Bill... but it doesn't have a release date listed anywhere, so this might be the only chance to see it and it sounds pretty interesting...)

Over and out...

All about the comedies

You think I'd have realized by now that whatever I expect to be my "big great experience" on any particular day will not ending up being so.

I thought today was going to be all about Paul Haggis's new film In the Valley of Elah, and it was good... (more on it at another time) But for me today was about two comedies I saw. Maybe I just really, really needed a comedy. There are a lot of very heavy films in the festival this year.

The first comedy was Juno an amazing movie by Jason Reitman of Thank-you for Smoking fame -- which also had it's world premiere at the TIFF a few years ago.

Anyway... Juno. It was the most original and unique take on the teenager gets pregnant story I've seen. Unique mostly because of the writing and the main character played by Ellen Page, who I've only seen in really dark films prior to this, like Hard Candy. (If you ever want to see a film that will make you feel really uncomfortable, rent Hard Candy. Deep exploration of revenge and moral choices and perhaps karma -- not to mention castration...) Her character in Juno was so quirky and different and totally unique -- as were her parents played by J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney. Michael Cera (Arrested Development, Superbad) has a small part and he's adorable as usual.

The other great comedy was Lars and the Real Girl with Ryan Gosling. Another totally unique and different film with great performances. Yes, it's about a man who falls in love with a sex doll... But it's actually very sweet and says a lot about the positive side of human nature. Some people will find this movie over the top, but I think that's kind of the point. You can't take it 100% literally.

Anyway... Two good films to check out when they hit theatres. I know they both have distribution deals in both Canada and the US. Juno probably sooner. Oh, I'm wrong. According to IMDB I have that backwards. Looks like Lars will be out some time in Oct and Juno in December in a limited release. Perhaps after the amazing reaction Juno got at TIFF they'll release it more widely.

Sorry this post isn't more interesting or coherent. I need sleep!

All about Sean Penn

Okay, so I just had my first truly transcendent festival experience of 2007. I don't think I've felt that way in a movie theatre since the World Premiere of Paul Haggis' Crash a few festivals ago.

I thought today was going to be all about Cronenberg for me, and I did like his film... But WOWOWOWOWOW...

Into the Wild, the new Sean Penn movie staring Emile Hirsch and with music by Eddie Vedder. Can't express how moving and riveting this film was. And I was really tired going in. I actually considered going home after my 6:00 pm film, but I'm so glad I didn't. Worth staying up for.

For me, the truly amazing films at the festival are the ones where there's no buzz, were there's been no reviews, because no one has freakin' seen it yet. That's the way it was with Crash in 2004 and Into the Wild this year. Those of us lucky enough to be in the room are the first people to ever see it on a big screen. And when a film like that is good... well it's amazing.

Into the Wild is so beautiful visually, the music's incredible, the performances are real, the characters fascinating, the story gripping in spite of what many people would consider a slow pace, and then Jon Krakauer's truly beautiful and deeply meaningful prose as read by Jenna Malone. WOW.

I have three Oscar predictions, no four. Best Actor, Emile Hirsch, Best Score, Eddie Vedder, Best Director, Sean Penn, Best Movie, Into the Wild. That is, assuming this movie hits theatres before the end of the year. I have no idea what they're planning. [Update: According to IMDB.com, it's out this month. Go see it.] With Crash, they waited almost a year after I saw it to release the film to theatres... But that was because Haggis was getting all that buzz over Million Dollar Baby. (I assume--and digress.) There are also a few possible supporting actor noms including Hal Holbrook and Catherine Keener who were stand outs for me in a cast where every performance felt so real.

If you don't know anything about this book, then I suggest not reading it or listening to any reviews before seeing the movie. If you have read the book, I expect you won't be disappointed. I may be wrong about my Oscar predictions, but if this film doesn't solidify Sean Penn's reputation as a stellar filmmaker, I don't know what it would take. Truly fabulous. Okay, I'm gushing. But the film really blew me away, and if the standing ovation was any judge, it blew everyone else away, too.

And the festival audiences don't do that for every film just to kiss up to the stars in the room. Last night, there was short polite applause after The Assassination of Jesse James, in spite of half of Hollywood royalty being in the room. (Okay, just the boys. Half the cast of Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, etc. were there to watch Brad in his arty western.) Which I enjoyed, by the way, I know I didn't blog about it last night... But I did find it beautiful both visually, and in terms of the words. (Like this film tonight, Jesse James has a voice over narration at times, and it was like poetry. Beautiful.) But in spite of Pitt winning best actor at the Venice Festival, I really don't think that film's going to do very well. (Nor did I think he was all that great in it.) It was about the same length and overall pace as Into the Wild, but felt about 2 hours longer... And I talked to several people today who genuinely hated it...

Anyway... Another big day tomorrow, starting out with a very interesting sounding movie, In Bloom, starring Uma Thurman, (which sounds controversial enough that it may not hit theatres in spite of Ms. Thurman), and ending with Paul Haggis's new film, In the Valley of Elah, in the evening... But Haggis's new film has already been seen by the press and in Venice, so not nearly as exciting. BTW. Haggis was in the theatre tonight to watch Sean Penn's movie.

Over and out....

Reese Witherspoon made me cry...

True confessions, Reese made me cry. And early in the morning. (Maybe I was crying because it was so early in the morning?)

But seriously. Rendition was amazing. I really liked it. Not only did I find it gripping and emotional and important, but it was my first film this year that made me think about storytelling techniques.

I don't want to give away spoilers for a film I think everyone should see... but there are multiple storylines and an interesting twist in how the writer/director uses those storylines. Just something I'd never seen before and I thought it really worked to heighten tension, build to a climax, etc. etc.

Another very cool festival experience was the world premiere of Stuart Townsend's new film Battle in Seattle about the WTO riots in 1999. The audience gave a five minute standing ovation... I'm not sure I thought it was five-minute-standing-ovation good... but clearly others did and Stuart and Charlize were too cute for words. During the Q&A someone asked how each of the actors got involved in the project and they all gave these long-winded answers about how great the script and subject matter were and how badly they wanted to be involved... And then the mike went to Charlize and she said, "I just wanted to sleep with the director." Seriously, they were too cute.

All-in-all a great day but I'm a little too tired to blog much and need to get up in less than 6 hours if I want to make my screening of Eastern Promises, and I want to pay the films I saw today justice when I talk about them.

I'm just going to say one more thing. In person, Brad Pitt is the most beautiful human being on the planet. Oh, My, God. (Says Maureen from the third row, realizing she's not over him like she thought she was when he left his wife for that slut.

Worth the mad dash across Queen St?

Okay, so I'm through my first full day, but it's 12:44 am and my first film tomorrow (today?) is at 9:00 am... So this blog will be short. My morning film tomorrow is Rendition, and I do want to see it, but it opens Oct. 19, and the premiere was tonight (at the same time as I was seeing an Ang Lee film) so the stars are highly unlikely to be there... so when my alarm rings at 7:30 am I may well decide to give it a pass.

Today was pretty good. First film Pink. A very strange but interesting film. It's a Greek film and I'm trying to think of how to describe it... All elements were odd/offbeat. The characters, the story, the filming style, everything. But all in all I'm glad I saw it.

Next was California Dreamin' (Endless). A Romanian film that did end up being well named -- endless. I was loving the film for about the first 90 minutes... Then I got restless and realized I had a time problem because I had a 6:00 pm screening at another venue. I'd figured that would be lots of time, since California Dreamin' (Endless) was at 3:00, so I figured I'd be out by 5:00... But no... I knew there was supposed to be a big explosive ending... so I kept waiting it out, but ended up leaving at about 5:40 (I'm not sure what I missed) and literally ran and then took a cab for 3 or so blocks and ran some more (once the traffic around Yonge and Queen got so bad running was quicker than the cab). But I made it. They only officially hold seats until 15 minutes before the screening, but they were still letting the main line in (hadn't even started dealing with the Rush folks) when I got there. Phew.

That film was worth the run, I think... But I was in the second row which was kind of difficult. It was called Then She Found Me and the filmmaker/star was Helen Hunt. This is a real "women's fiction" type story and although the Ang Lee movie is in my head right now... I think I really liked Then She Found Me. Hey, Colin Firth was in it. What's not to like. (He didn't show up for the screening, though.) It's about a woman dealing with her marriage ending, wanting to have a baby, meeting her birth mother, etc. etc. There were a few interesting/unexpected twists and Hunt was really good. Bette Midler plays her birth mom and one bizarre thing I hate to comment on, was that Hunt looked older than Midler. I admire Helen Hunt for not botoxing or eye lifting herself... but it was a bit strange that Midler looked younger. I guess it kind of fit their characters, though. Okay, I officially feel badly about noticing/mentioning this. I'm such a hypocrite.

The Ang Lee film Lust, Caution was pretty amazing. But I'm a big fan of his. During the intros, one of the producers made a joke about Ang Less going from a gay shepherd movie to a 2 1/2 hour Chinese porno... LOL. Lust, Caution is a spy-type story set in Shanghai in the 1940's and yes, there are some very graphic (and violent) sex scenes. It'll be interesting to see if this movie gets released in the US. Probably will with a NC17 rating. Can't imagine how they could cut it to avoid that rating. But then the ratings given by the MPAA are so arbitrary and bizarre, who knows... They showed some clips from 40's era movies during the film, including Casablanca, and I have a feeling these clips were chosen purposefully, but I'm going to have to think about that a bit more... One character does make a big/difficult/impulsive/tragic choice that's kind of motivated by love... but it's not like Casablanca in my mind... Will have to think about it once my head clears a bit. Maybe it was just showing the romantic nature of the protagonist? Hmmmm...

Anyway... I'd better try to wind down and get to bed! (Tomorrow's Brad Pitt day, not to mention the new Coen brothers movie!)

Good first day

Okay, so it was a good if uneventful opening day. Most exciting, for the first time in years they actually had a pretty funny ad before the film. It involved producer Robert Lantos being pitched a film idea by Gordon, one of those stupid beaver characters from the Bell commercials, but in spite of that, it actually got laughs. I imagine it'll get pretty old by the end of the festival, no, by tomorrow. But at least it got a laugh on the first run. That's opposed to the very strange promo piece for the Harold Greenberg Foundation which involved someone (Ian Greenberg?) in a coffin at a funeral, with Atom Egoyan and another filmmaker, I should recognize but didn't, talking about what an inspiration the dead guy was, then he sits up in his coffin and talks. If it was supposed to be funny, I didn't get it.

Fugitive Pieces was emotionally draining, but good. Well worth seeing in my opinion. I wish I thought it was going to be a huge hit... I love when Canadian films do well, but ultimately I think the story is too sad to be a box office hit and I just don't know if the performances were strong enough for it to be a contender for Oscars or anything. Except the little kid who played Jakob as a boy. WOW. He was amazing.

I was extremely impressed with how seamlessly the writer/director moved between locals and time periods. The actors, too. The lead had to play his character over quite a long time period, and not in chronological order in the film, but it was always easy by this demeanor etc to determine what stage of the story we were in. The story moves back and forth in time, but it was never confusing. I'd have to see it again to study how he did it.

Persepolis I'd definitely recommend. I noticed on IMDB.com that they list actors for the English version (including Sean Penn, Iggy Pop, and Gena Rowlands) so I assume it'll be released in North America (and in English instead of French with subtitles.)

The animation is unique and striking and well suited to the subject and while the overall story is kind of heavy, the filmmaker adds a lot of levity. There were a few laugh out loud moments for me, and that's a lot to say about a film documenting the rise of the Islamic regime in Iran and the Iran-Iraq war.
Persepolis. My first no caveats recommendation from this year's Festival.

I don't have a film until noon tomorrow, so I can sleep in! The film is called Pink and sounds interesting. It's a Greek film but is described as having the style of Richard Linklater or Paul Thomas Anderson. Hmmm....

And So it Begins...

Today is the opening day of the festival and so far I'm still feeling pretty happy about my picks. Sure, there are movies I'd love to see that I sacrificed for others... But all in all, I'm pretty excited.

Bracing too, for 10 days of little sleep, eating badly, and running between movie theatres. It's also ragweed season and I have terrible allergies which always seem to get aggravated by the no-sleep-bad-food-spending-too-much-time-in-movie-theatres thing. I have tickets for 45 films this year again. And while that sounds like 4.5 per day... I only have 2 screenings today and so there are a few days when I have 6 films. ACK. Time will tell whether I get to them all. As excited as I am about seeing each of the films I've picked, there comes a point each year where sleep, or getting a real meal, starts to take precedence.

On deck for today:

Fugitive Pieces. A Canadian film based on a novel by Anne Michaels, about a young Holocaust survivor who comes to Canada via Greece after the war. I remember liking this book when I read it (at least 10 years ago) but only a few strong images have remained in my mind. And often it's tricky to translate literary fiction to the movie screen... but it's directed by Jeremy Podeswa who directed many episodes of Six Feet Under and some other interesting TV stuff. And it got a 3 star review in the Globe today... So I'm hopeful. It's also the first time I've gotten a ticket for the opening film. I was so lucky in the lottery this year.

Next is Persepolis, an animated film that's a coming of age story of a girl in Tehran during the rule of the Shah, the Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. Not your average Saturday morning cartoon from the sounds of it.

I'm going to try to blog about at least one of the films each day. I'm not sure what the camera situation is going to be this year, but if I can take some snaps I'll post those too... Last year in some screenings they had big thugs trying to prevent people from taking snaps...
Not sure what the situation will be this year. But depending on how it seems, I'll bring my camera to the opening of Jesse James on Thursday night. How could I not take a picture of Brad Pitt????

Maureen is happy...

What is making Maureen happy? Her TIFF pick envelope ended up in box 70 of 75 and the number drawn out of the hat (well, box) was 66. That means she has a better than fighting chance of getting all her first choice movies. Yippee! Let's hope she didn't make too many mistakes on her selection form at 4:00 am this morning...

Festival Time

So, it's festival time again and I'm up late trying to make my picks which are due by 1:00 PM tomorrow. Not that I'm guaranteed to get my first choice picks, but I've been incredibly lucky the past few years, which, of course, makes me think this is the year that my second choice picks will be more important or even relevant...

I blogged last year a bit about the festival and I'm always faced with the what-kind-of-festival-do-I-want-to-have question when trying to make my selections from the 350 plus films they're showing.

Do I go for the avante guard? Foreign films? Base it on trying to stick to one theatre for a few films in a row, rather than dashing around Toronto? Do I try to maximize the number of celebrities I see? I mean, is seeing The Assassination of Jesse James only a week or so before it's released, but seeing Brad Pitt in the flesh during the introductions, worth passing up on Alan Ball's new movie Nothing is Private? How does one decide these things?

And to get more absurd, do I choose to see Michael Clayton, which opens Oct 5 (in NY, LA and Toronto) but have a possible Clooney sighting -- he is going to be in town, but will he show for the second screening? -- or see My Kid Could Paint That, a documentary about a six year old girl whose paintings sell for big bucks. I'll see Michael Clayton regardless of the festival, which makes me think I should go for the documentary... And what about the new Elizabeth film which looks amazing... Is it worth missing Jason Reitman's (Thank you for not Smoking) new film Juno that starts Michael Cera who's in Superbad right now??? And the only other screening of Juno is the same time as the new Coen brothers' film No Country for Old Men.

A few films in the festival, I want to see regardless of the fact they're opening in theatres soon. First is Across the Universe, mostly because it just looks so cool and if it gets reviewed badly I don't want the reviews to spoil my possible amazing movie-going experience. Of course, seeing a trippy film like that at 9:00 in the morning may not be so trippy... The other is Eastern Promises, David Cronenberg's new film. It's the film that Toronto's NOW Magazine picked as "THE FILM" of this year's festival, plus the reviewer seemed to think that it'll get slashed to pieces once the US censors see it... And I'd rather see it uncut.

So, back to my picking... Must get this done... I know. Tough life.

What's in a name? (and numbers)

I found this name analysis thingy on Mel Francis's blog

Boy, guess I should have done this before I wasted 20 years of my life becoming and trying to be an accountant, huh?

Your number is: 3

The characteristics of #3 are: Expression, verbalization, socialization, the arts, the joy of living.

The expression or destiny for #3:
An Expression of 3 produces a quest for destiny with words along a variety of lines that may include writing, speaking, singing, acting or teaching; our entertainers, writers, litigators, teachers, salesmen, and composers. You also have the destiny to sell yourself or sell just about any product that comes along. You are imaginative in your presentation, and you may have creative talents in the arts, although these are more likely to be latent. You are an optimistic person that seems ever enthusiastic about life and living. You are friendly, loving and social, and people like you because you are charming and such a good conversationalist. Your ability to communicate may often inspire others. It is your role in life to inspire and motivate; to raise the spirits of those around you. Words? Me? Latent creative talents? Like waiting until I'm freaking 40 to try writing???

The negative side of number 3 Expression is superficiality. You may tend to scatter your forces and simply be too easygoing. It is advisable for the negative 3 to avoid dwelling on trivial matters, especially gossip. I LOVE gossip.

Your Soul Urge number is: 3

A Soul Urge number of 3 means:
With the Soul Urge number 3 your desire in life is personal expression, and generally enjoying life to its fullest. You want to participate in an active social life and enjoy a large circle of friends. You want to be in the limelight, expressing your artistic or intellectual talents. Word skills may be your thing; speaking, writing, acting, singing. In a positive sense, the 3 energy is friendly, outgoing and always very social. Ah, yup!

You have a decidedly upbeat attitude that is rarely discouraged; a good mental and emotional balance. Not sure about this... I think I'm pretty unbalanced. LOL

The 3 Soul Urge gives intuitive insight, thus, very high creative and inspirational tendencies. The truly outstanding trait shown by the 3 Soul Urge is that of self-expression, regardless of the field of endeavor. Aw, shucks. I truly hope this is true.

On the negative side, you may at times become too easygoing and too optimistic, tending to scatter forces and accomplish very little. Often, the excessive 3 energy produces non-stop talkers. Everyone has faults, but the 3 soul urge doesn't appreciate having these pointed out. AND DON"T POINT OUT MINE!

Your Inner Dream number is: 9

An Inner Dream number of 9 means:
You dream of being creative, intellectual, and universal; the selfless humanitarian. You understand the needy and what to help them. You would love to be a person people count on for support and advice.

Negligent blogger

I'm not sure how you writers who are mothers do it. I've had my 9-year-old niece with me for the past week and barely looked at my e-mails never mind doing blog posts or anything resembling actual writing. Didn't even do any reading.

Okay, so when my niece is in her normal habitat, at home, she's got her toys and her friends and stuff like that, and when she's at "Camp Auntie Maureen" there are supposed to be tons-o-fun activities all of which involve Auntie Maureen's participation, so it was pretty much non stop from the time we woke up until we fell asleep next to each other each night... So, I know it's not like simulated motherhood... but still... Wow. No time to do anything but deal with her this past week.

Not that I'm complaining. We had a great time and I hope to get back into the blogging swim of things soon. I owe Sara Hantz a guest blog... must do that! And I didn't post on DWT last week either.

Boy, am I a slacker or what?

Scourge of the City

This photo just taken from the stairs leading up to my third floor office, looking out the window to the roof of the next house.

Have I mentioned how much I hate racoons? Sure, they look cute, but wait until you have them living (and crapping) under your back deck. Then tell me how cute they are. (At least I don't have them living in my roof, like my brother and sister-in-law do. The other half of their semi-detached is being renovated right now and the builders keep leaving holes for them to get back in.)

Eileen Cook has a hilarious post about squirrels today. Got me wondering what this racoon is up to!

Writing and acting and directing (Why Sean Penn is smart)

I'm watching the Sean Penn episode on the biography channel and he just said this amazing thing that really rang true for me, and yet again articulated why I think being a screenwriter might suck. Or at least be frustrating.

He was talking about his clashes with directors. And he said something like this: It's been a source of great frustration working with directors as an actor. A director who doesn't write his own material is confusing to me, because as an actor you question whether he should be the one to tell you how this story should be told. Why would his ideas be better than mine?

Okay, I'm going from memory of what Penn said, but it articulates really well the conflicting creative forces at work on a movie... And the screenwriter is typically the one who has the most knowledge of the story, but the one whose opinion is most ignored when it comes to actually making the movie. That's why I'm not sure I"d like to be a screenwriter (as if I could just snap my fingers and be one... ha!) Or why I'm pursuing writing novels vs screenplays when I'm so clearly a movie buff...

Oh, and some funny trivia about Sean Penn. He got fined (as did the hotel) for smoking during a press conference at last year's TIFF. I think he's back again this year. Will be interesting to see if he can keep from smoking this year.

Release Day!

Stepping back from my crankiness to congratulate two writer friends and fellow TKA clients on their release days!!!

Bev Katz Rosenbaum's BEYOND COOL is out today. If you've got kids 11 or over (is that about right, Bev?) or would love a fun read yourself, check it out!

Also, Debrah Williamson's mainstream fiction book, PAPER HEARTS, is out today. I'm going to be chatting with Debrah tomorrow, either here or on DWT.

Living off the Grid

My power was out most of yesterday and again this morning for about 3 hours. I swear. Some days I feel like I live in a 3rd world country.

I don't know what it is with the area of Toronto I live in. I had a few days last winter (a very cold stretch, too) where I didn't have power. Less than a block away, people had power. Just not me. Realy got to know a few of my fellow work at home neighbours as we fought over the one plug at our local coffee shop to charge our phones and laptops.

That time there'd been a big storm and a tree was down near me. And another one a few blocks north. And there were trees and power lines down all over the city... So I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

But this time... I wish they'd just fix whatever's wrong. This morning it went out at 7:00 am. Came on at about 7:20 for maybe three minutes and then went out again. (I have lots of things, including my alarm system and my doorbell that scream when the power goes off or on... so I notice each time.)
Did that a couple more times until I gave up and got out of bed about 9:45 when it came back on for about the fourth time in 3 hours. (I went to bed about 3:00... so with my 7:00 am rude awakening this morning. I'm going to be cranky today.)

I'll be crankier if the power goes out again. I'm lost without my computer. (Not to mention my air conditioning.)

Fingers crossed it'll stay on long enough for me to input a whack of changes to my ms and print it again.

I write paranormal, in Spanish, anyway

Someone was googling one of my book titles the other day... Interesting... Anyway, I checked out the links one gets and found this link.

Apparently, whoever did the translating for this Spanish language website announcing this year's GH finalists, had a few problems with some of the categories... Novel with Strong Romantic Elements, appears to be "with paranormal elements". And I think the inspirational one is mislabeled as "for adults". Kind of implies the opposite, don't it?

More Bio Pics

Okay, so I'm wishing I'd learned a bit more about the new Jane Austen movie before letting myself get so excited about it. I just read a review and I'm not so sure anymore...

But I did go to a wonderful bio pic this week. la Vie en Rose.

I'm not sure I'll ever be able to hear Edith Piaf's song, Non Je Ne Regrette Rien, (I don't regret anything) again without tearing up. I've heard that song before, who hasn't. Believe me, even if you think you haven't, you have. But I'd never listened to the words before, and, when she sings it at the end of the movie (and when the songwriter sings it for her, initially) there are subtitles so you don't even need to understand French for the meaning of the words to dig into you.

Edith Piaf wasn't even 50 when she died, but if the movie is even partly accurate in it's portrayal, she looked and had the health of an 90 year old for the last five or so years of her life. Certainly one of those "Don't drink or do drugs" stories. And the actress who played Edith from a teen through to the end was astounding. A little over the top, perhaps, but I have a feeling Edith was a little over the top herself.

Speaking of movies about singers that could be "don't do drugs" PSAs. I saw a poster for El Cantante at the theatre and looks like it's finally being released. I saw this film last year at the festival. And, well, didn't like it much. Instead of repeating myself, you can follow this link if you're interested.

According to today's Globe and Mail, Julie Taymor's Across the Universe will be screened at this year's festival. I expect it will be a gala, and I don't typically go to those, but if it's not, I'm there. Even if it will be in theatres soon after. It looks so cool based on the trailers (which have been playing for months, already) and I think she's an amazingly creative director. Fun, fun, fun.

Jane (and James)

Is anyone else excited about the soon-to-open movie Becoming Jane? I'm not sure what I think of Anne Hathaway (thought she was the only, but serious, weak link in Brokeback Mountain) but James McAvoy is an actor I really like. And the movie looks, well, romantic and sweet.

I'd seen McAvoy in a couple of films (including the Narnia one) without really noticing him... But then at last year's film festival I saw him in no less than three films. They were calling him the "it boy" of last year's TIFF. And it was just coincidence that I selected all three films he was in. This year, he's in one that I know of -- an adaptation of Ian McEwan's Atonement. LOVED that book. Hope I can get a ticket to the movie.

Anyway, back to James (we're on a first name basis, since I saw him in 3 films in a week) and last year's festival. Two were wonderful, and he was wonderful in them. In particular, The Last King of Scotland. Forest Whitaker deservedly got a huge amount of attention for his performance in that movie, but I think people overlooked McAvoy's character -- the narrator and core of the film, as a result. His performance was riveting and held the movie together.
The other lovely film was Starter for Ten. Very different film, and not groundbreaking, but kind of a combination coming of age/romance story that I found entertaining, but it didn't do much at the box office. (At least it wasn't open for long in Toronto.)

The third was Penelope, which I still don't think has been released (and for good reason in my opinion.) I really wanted to love this movie. Loved the premise. Loved the first half. But just didn't work. Now, watch. It'll be released later this year and do really well, proving my taste isn't everyone's. LOL) Update: I just checked IMDB.com and they list the US release date for Penelope as August 17, 2007. I actually blogged about why Penelope didn't work for me last year on Drunk Writer Talk.

All that to say... looking forward to this Jane Austen bio pic. Anyone else?

Bookshelf Revealed

Wylie Kinson tagged me for a meme.

"The rules are to provide a list of books that you have on your shelves to see if anyone can learn about you from them - but not just any books. They have to be books that you've actually paid for, nothing given, borrowed, stolen, or whatever."

Well... I have quite a monstrous number of books (Hi, I'm Maureen and I'm an book-buying addict.)

In the interest of fun, I'm going to only pick books I've bought in the past year (maybe two) and which I either have already read and loved, or fully intend to read. I find, since I've started to write, that I often buy books without the intention of reading the entire thing. Too many books, too little time...

Here goes:

• Darkly Dreaming Dexter, by Jeff Lindsay
• The Unfinished Canadian, by Andrew Cohen
• The Memory Keeper's Daughter, by Kim Edwards
• the guy not taken, by Jennifer Weiner
• A Brief History of Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice, by Jack Holland
• Forgive Me, by Amanda Eyre Ward
• Catching Genius, by Kristy Kiernan
• Undercover Protector, by Molly O'Keefe
• Love Walked In, by Marisa de los Santos

Okay, that's it!

Will the real Hairspray please stand up

Okay, so I went to see the new Hairspray movie.

While it was kinda fun, as a fan of the original John Waters movie, I just can't bring myself to approve of this new silly musical version. Not that John Waters' version wasn't silly -- but on an entirely different level.

John Waters' movies were/are also subversive/experimental/strange, and while Hairspray was certainly his most accessible film, it still had some edge. The only edgy thing in the new film was Waters' own tiny cameo in the opening sequence playing a flasher. And I was the only one in the theatre who laughed at that.

I think part of the problem was the casting. John Waters is famous for off-the-wall, somewhat ironic casting, using a consistent stable of regulars (his childhood friends) including Divine and Mink Stole, but also regularly casting Patty Hearst (yes, that Patty Hearst) and Tracy Lords (yes, that Tracy Lords) and Sonny Bono, and Debbie Harry alongside some brave hollywood stars willing to take a trip on the John Waters train... like Johnny Depp, and Kathleen Turner and Edward Furlong. (Okay, Furlong was a bit of a star at the time. Did Pecker ruin his career? Perhaps.) Also funny was casting Selma Blair as a monstrosly large chested woman in A Dirty Shame. That movie didn't entirely work for me... (the first half was pretty funny) but casting probably the smallest busted actress in hollywood (one of the few slim actresses who have shunned breast enhancements) as the HUGE-chested Caprice Stickles, that, to me, was funny. (In an ironic kind of way.)

Now, some might say that casting John Travolta as Edna Turnblad was edgy, but I don't agree at all. I think casting him was the anti-edgy casting choice for that role. Edgy for me would have been casting Nicole Kidman and not putting her in a fat suit.
I kept trying to decide what really bothered me about casting John Travolta as Edna Turnblad and think I finally put my finger on the issue for me...

The part was originally played by Divine. Yes, anatomically, Divine was a man. And yes, she was grossly overweight. But she didn't typically play men as an actor. She was a transvestite. I doubt Waters said, "wouldn't it be funny if we cast a man in this role." No, I expect he wrote the part for Divine. Divine played female roles in all Waters' movies. All the ones I've seen anyway. Casting John Travolta and putting him in a fat suit just makes a joke at Divine's expense to me. And not the kind of subversive jokes John Waters always made with his bizarre castings in his movies. More of a pre-adolescent-boy snickering-at-someone's-expense joke.

On the other hand, it was fun to see Jerry Stiller, the original Wilbur Turnblad, in a tiny cameo in the new movie... but again, Divine and Jerry Stiller as an onscreen couple -- Stiller being close to two feet shorter than Divine, as well as much smaller -- was much more fun. Travolta and Walken seemed like they could barely contain their own sniggering during their love-scenes together rather than actually acting their parts.

The casting "joke", if there was one in the original Hairspray, was having Divine also play the evil and racist Arvin Hodgepile. "Look, Divine's playing a man. Isn't that funny?" And I don't remember Edna being so insecure about her weight, either. But I may be misremembering. Edna Turnblad in the first movie, like her daughter Tracy, was proud of how she looked. To make Tracy's weight such an obvious, non-subtle issue in the new version destroyed the whole idea of her character for me. Yes, her weight played a part in the original, but the charm of it was that the "good" people in the first version didn't even notice or ever mention Tracy's weight. It was a non-issue for Corny and Link and her parents. A metaphor if you will for the racial issues highlighted in the film.

I probably sound more angry about this than I am... I actually did have some fun watching the musical version. And I'm sure lots of people will like this new Hairspray who wouldn't like the original. To each their own.

And comparing the two movies is a case of apples and oranges (or transvestives vs male actors dressed up as women.) Not the same thing at all.

Can it get any better???

Okay, my favorite show on TV just keeps getting better. Yes, it's So You Think You Can Dance.

Last week, it was pretty sad when Hok got cut and the judges are clearly out to get Kameron now, in revenge for the fact they couldn't get rid of him in the top 20 because he and Lacy were so popular as a couple.

Tonight, when they said everyone was going to do the same routine I wasn't sure how entertaining that would be. The same routine, 10 times... And then Jamie went first and, for me, she's one of the best dancers, so I was worried when I wasn't blown away by her. But wow. A few of the other dancers really did blow me away. And which ones did surprised me, too. Danny was breathtaking. Neil, too. Lauren was amazing and Sara made me tear up. I really hope she lasts. She dances with so much power and feeling. And how cool is it that she's a break dancer?

Okay, done being a dance geek now.

One last note... because I'm watching it right now... A Spanish Viennese Waltz? Who's stupid idea was that? Dominic and Jamie were terrible, but I don't think it was totally their fault. What a stupid routine. Paella and sauerkraut don't mix. Know what I mean?

Coming out of a fog

Allergies suck. I've had them most of my life and for the most part, I've grown pretty used to it. It's not like they're life threatening, or anything. (That I know of.) My head just gets really fuzzy on occasion and my nostrils turn into faucets. Not pleasant, but usually manageable with drugs.

But today I had one of those scratch tests for the first time since I was a teenager. To prepare for the test, I wasn't allowed to take any antihistamines for 3 days and let me tell you, I learned I'm more addicted to my Reactine than I thought I was. I swear I don't take one everyday, I don't. I only take them when I'm feeling like I need it or when I know I'm going to be gardening or visiting a cat infested household, but being off them for 3 summer days in a row, must be one of the stages of hell.

And then there was the scratch test. That must be a higher (lower?) level. They tested about 30 foods on my left arm, and nothing really happened, so I was just left with this bizarre pattern of pin prick marks... but my right arm was a whole other story. Within seconds of the nurse scratching each evil droplet of allergen laced poison, each scratch started to bleed (the other side didn't bleed). And then they stung and then itched and then swelled. By the time the 6 hours (okay, maybe it was 10-15 minutes) of waiting passed, my forearm was a nasty, bright-red, swollen angry mass of itchiness and burning. (That 15 minutes of waiting for the reaction really did feel like hours.)
The nurse didn't think my reaction to flax seed or feathers was too bad (2 of the twenty-odd scratches on that arm), but the doctor basically took a look at my right arm and said "let's just call it everything". (All trees, flowers, weeds, grasses, dogs, cats, dust, molds, etc. etc. etc.)

Imagine being bitten by 30 mosquitoes at the same time, all on the inside of your forearm -- all within a 7x1 inch rectangle -- and then have each bite welt up so much they meld into each other. That was my arm this morning.
After I got out of there, I double dosed on my reactine so I could slow the flow of my nostril faucets, dull the redness and burning to something more in the pink range and to shrink the welts, but I was left with a foggy head all day and barely got any work done. (So I went to the movies :-)

And now my arm looks like I'm some kind of cutter or something... A very precise one.

Harry arrived (and author overdoses)

My new Harry Potter book just arrived. I don't remember ordering it. Oh, the dangerous combination of staying up too late and internet ordering. I'm itching to read it. In fact, I read the first two paragraphs a second ago and that woman does know how to grab a reader...


The problem is, I still haven't read books five and six in the series. Further confirming my late-night-ordering craziness, I pre-ordered those two to arrive on the days they were released, too.

Some backstory: I didn't read any of the the Harry Potter series until the first four books were out. I was working at the time with a woman who had pre-teen kids who were reading the Harry Potter books, she was raving about them, so I bought them mostly to see what the fuss was about.

Like so many people, I got hooked, hard and fast. I think I devoured the first four books in just a few weeks. Very fast reading for me. After finishing the fourth, I couldn't wait for the fifth to arrive. (Hence my first pre-order.) But by the time it came out, I'd moved onto other things. I'd started writing myself and was busy reading a lot in the genre I was attempting to write at the time (romance) and was burned out as a reader.

Do you ever get burned out reading one author or one genre too much?

With very few exceptions -- mostly authors I personally know -- I think I'm over reading romance. I think that's the first genre I OD'd on... But I've OD'd on specific authors in the past, too. When I first read Anne Rice, I think I read at least six of her novels back to back. Similar story with Anne Tyler (do I have a thing for writers named Anne?) Simlarly with Robertson Davies and John Irving -- although I first read Irving when he was still in his book out a year stage and so I did have gaps between those books but bought most of them in hard cover as soon as they hit the stores.

Back to my new Harry book.... Do I need to read Potter's five and six before reading seven? I'm anxious to get going...

The true north stoned and free

According to a study done by the United Nations, Canadians smoke more pot than just about every other country in the world. Yes, even more than Jamaica. (Okay, it wasn't based on total amount smoked... just the percentage of the population who admit to having smoked pot in the past year.)

What's up with that, dude? I have to say, our top ranking here surprises me a little and makes me believe one of the possible theories put forward in the article I read -- that Canadians are just more honest about answering the question.

This makes some sense to me... First, Canadians aren't as afraid of their government as Americans (based on my observations) sometimes seem to be. So, people (paranoid from all their pot smoking) wouldn't be afraid that if they tell the pollster the truth, that cops will suddenly break down their door and snatch their stash. Related to this theory, I think in the past few years, not only has the stigma about pot virtually disappeared in Canada, I'd be willing to bet that more people lied and said they did smoke pot in the last year when they didn't, than the other way around.

Not that pot is legal here. There was a law introduced five or so years ago to decriminalize possession -- such that possession of small amounts would get you a ticket, but not arrested or a criminal record -- but the government changed before the law was passed, so it's still a criminal offense. Although it does seem like the cops take a much more blase attitude toward it the past ten years or so.

Me? I've never been a pot smoker. Not that I never have, it's just never been my thing. (I'm more of a gin girl. Okay, and scotch.) I've even been in relationships with men who smoked just about every day... and still, I didn't.

But I feel kind of proud (in a very bizarre way) that Canada made the top five. The only countries in the world that smoke more than we do are Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Ghana and Zambia.

Go Canada! Party on!

Alarm clocks and taxis and laptops, oh my!

Sorry I was missing in action all week. I really did plan to post at least once from Dallas, BUT....

Too late last Monday night, already sleep deprived (because I'm stupid and didn't get enough sleep Saturday or Sunday nights) I set my alarm for 5:45 PM.

Problem was, I had a car picking me up at 6:45 AM. Oooops. So my wake-up call was the taxi company calling wondering why I wasn't answering my door.

Luckily, I was 99.9% packed, but one thing I hadn't packed was my laptop. I figured it would be smart to leave it charging and turned on over night, so that I could check my flight information in the morning, then turn it off and pack it...

I realized I'd forgotten it before the car even hit the highway... But since I was already running later than I'd wanted (and had made the driver wait for 20 minutes while I frantically got ready) I didn't ask him to turn back.

The result was the most cut-off I've felt in a long, long time. Even when traveling in Morocco two summers ago I managed to check my e-mails several times and to read the headlines on a few news websites. This year the world could have ended and I wouldn't have known... Not that there's a lot of spare time during Nationals to blog or read e-mails... Just saying...

So, that's my long-winded apology for not blogging from the conference. I'll try to put something worthwhile re the conference on DWT later in the week to make up for it.

Stephen King -- Prince of a Man

Now I've never been a big fan of Stephen King's books. That's not true. Well, not untrue, either, but it sounded like I don't like his books. That's not it. I simply haven't read him. Horror just isn't my favorite thing. (Did you read my description of how many days(weeks) it took me to watch The Shining (movie of one of his books) on video? How could I possible read it???)

But since I've become a writer myself, I find myself admiring Stephen King more and more and more. It's not that I've actually started reading him (although I am really intrigued by Lisey's Story and will probably read that) it's more about who he seems to be as a person (through his words and actions), and how he helps other writers.

I first fell into a deep admiration of him when I read his book On Writing. When I read the speech he delivered on winning a National Book Award my admiration of him increased and his words helped me deal with my own turmoil over my decision to write genre fiction instead of "serious literature".

And today, again, on reading this article my admiration grew.

The article's a generous, objective and interesting take on the end of the Harry Potter series from the perspective of another writer and without an ounce of bitterness, criticism or jealousy. But what really stood out for me in the article and inspired me to blog, is how he TWICE mentioned a manuscript he's just read and really loved. He didn't need to do that.

How thrilling for Lauren Groff, the writer of said manuscript to a) have him read it, b) have him love it and c) have him possess the grace and generosity to use the platform of this article about the end of the Harry Potter series, to mention that he loved this woman's not yet released book. SO HUGE for her.

One classy dude.

Once

Has anyone else seen this movie? The only word I can think of to describe it is lovely (I'm thesaurused out working on my revisions).

It's billed as a kind of musical, but really it's just a movie with a lot of music in it -- where so much of what's going on, so much of the relationship developing between the two main characters (guy and girl -- never named) happens through songs. But not in an artifical break into song kind of way. They're both musicians. All the singing is organic and natural. It's more like a performance movie, with a story built around it, than a musical.

And the leads are fabulous. Glen Hansard, who plays "the guy" and wrote most of the music, is incredibly talented. I can't believe he's not famous. Perhaps he is in Ireland. And Marketa Irglova, the young Czech actress/singer who plays "the girl" was totally compelling and understated at the same time. So guileless.

This movie won the audience award at Sundance and it's no surprise why. An accessible and, well, lovely film.

Highly recommend this movie.

Scandalous

At first I was a little proud my blog was R-rated... And then I looked at the reasons why.

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

gay (5x) hell (3x) ass (2x) murder (1x)

Based on this, it seems like the biggest reason for my R-rating is that I've used the word "gay" a few times... I just searched my posts to find which ones used this "horribly offensive" word. Wow. One of them all I did was refer to the "now-cliché-in-chick-lit gay best friend" device.

Does this seem right to you?

Gah! I am so weak!

So, a few weeks ago I blogged about how appalled I was at the premise for the new show Age of Love. I swore I wouldn't watch it. But late last night (really late) I broke down and watched it. (Okay, I guess the first breakdown came earlier in the day, because I'd set my PVR to record it. In terms of being appalling, the show did not disappoint.

In fact, it elevated my sense of revulsion to all new levels. The man on the show, a 30 year old tennis player, didn't know the women he'd be meeting would be older than he is until they were paraded out to meet him! And one of them is 18 years older. And, as if it couldn't get worse, he's a guy who's only dated women much younger than him in the past, and a man who wants to have kids.

This simply isn't fair, to him or the women. I mean, the look on his face as all these women who were between 9 and 18 years older came out, it was so painful. And must have been super painful for the women to see, too. So manipulative. So cruel. I mean, is he going to have kids with the 48 year old? Who already has a son only 5 years younger than he is?????

To me, to make this show even vaguely "fair", (not that reality TV has anything to do with "fair") they should have at least picked a guy open to dating older women.

He'll look like a total ass if he simply ditches all the older women or shows an obvious preference for the younger women. And this is a guy who can't afford to look like an ass on National TV. He's already a minor celebrity, so if he comes off as a jerk on this show, he'll wreck his ability to get good endorsement contracts and stuff like that.

WHY DID I WATCH IT????? It was definitely a case of the slowing-down-driving-by-an-accident thing... But I admit it. I arranged to drive by. I looked. Mea culpa.

Cyber friendships

Wow... I really slacked of on finishing my "digression" from the previous post. Thanks to everyone for your kind words about the blog and my blogiversay. I do enjoy blogging when I have something to say. Amazing to have an outlet for some of my rants. But there are days when I think, "Boy, it's been a while since I blogged, I'd better think of something to say." And those days I'm not such a blog fan. Guess I'm realizing it's not really necessary to post every day, though. (Also realizing that these blog posts will be around in perpetuity and that one never knows who'll read them and when... Someone, for example, found my blog while searching google for "Christian Bale's shoe size". Huh? I guess have have blogged both about Christian Bale and shoes more than once... And the day Sinead talked about Dexter on Drunk Writer Talk we had something like a gazillion hits because someone linked us to the Showtime site (which we couldn't even see, because it won't let you from Canada.) But all that, while it does give me pause about some of my rants, hasn't stopped me from blogging.)

Ooops. I think I've just digressed twice while trying to get around to the digression I'd planned to expand on...

So, back to our regularly scheduled digression... My last post got me thinking about how great my blog has been for meeting other writers, or getting to know writers I'd met before better.

I suppose developing a friendship online is a little bizarre and probably should be the subject of a Phd thesis in sociology or psychology, rather than a short blog post. But that said, my experience with a few people I met first online, (Eileen Cook, Maia Caron, Barrie Summy, Misty Simon, Danita Cahill, to name just a few), and then met "in real life", would indicate that if you "get" each other's posts, chances are you'll "get" each other in real life, too.

And then there are people I met in person first, but didn't know well, and feel like I've gotten to know better via our blogs, (Mel Francis, Christine D'Abo, Margaret Moore, Michele Rowen, Nadine Dajani, Diana Peterfreund, Shannon McKelden, Amy Ruttan, Wylie Kinson).

And that doesn't count the people I've met online, feel like I know, but still haven't met in person, like Sara Hantz, and Kristy Kiernan and Mia King and many, many others.

Bottom line? I think you can develop friendships online. I know I have. Have you?

My Blogiversary

It's been a year. I can't quite believe it.

I suppose my first foray into the blogosphere actually came some time in February '06 when Diana Peterfreund had me guest blog about the weekend I signed with my agent and won 3 lottery type prizes. (4 if you count signing with an agent.)

But it took until mid-June of last year for me to attempt to create a blog of my own.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I've been a pretty inconsistent blogger. And keeping up with both my own blog and a post a week at Drunk Writer Talk has proven harder than I thought it would be, in spite of plans I'd had for "easy stuff" like posting the interview column I do for my local RWA chapter once a month. Somehow I've only managed to post a measly 3 of those. Terrible.

I suppose I'm getting to that point I've seen so many other bloggers hit. The point where you ask, "Why am I doing this?" or "Is it worth my time?".

For an unpublished author, such as myself, there's no big publicity payoff. In fact, I'm not even sure to what extent readers of books read author blogs. When I started blogging I had a few purposes in mind, although to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure these reasons were as clear to me then, as they are now. (But it sounds better to have had a reason beyond, "Everyone else seems to be doing it," which was probably closer to the truth.)

The reasons?

#1 To get my name out there in googleland. Used to be when you goolged Maureen McGowan you'd get a huge number of hits and would have to dig for several pages to find one that was actually about me. In fact, even when you added "writer" to the google search, another woman who shares my name, but writes Xena Princess Warrior fan fic, would come up way ahead of me. (At the time, the only online presence I had was my name on my local RWA chapter's site, and a few contest finalist announcements.) Now when you google my name, most of the first few pages are actually about me.

#2 To show editors who might be looking at my work that I'm serious about the business and about self-publicizing. (Although see the comment above about not really knowing how much publicity one gets from blogging.)

#3 But I think the main reason was, or at least the main pay-off has been, networking with other writers. I've met several other writers through my blog -- some who are becoming good friends -- whom I don't think I'd have otherwise met. I also feel like I've gotten to know several other writers much better and assume they feel like they know me better. (This begs the question about cyber relationships and how well you really know someone with whom 99% of your interaction has been online... I feel a major digresssion coming on... But one of my new blog-resolutions is to save my digressions for another post, so more on that next blog year.)

And finally, an unexpected side benefit of blogging has been that a few friends I don't see very often feel like they can catch with me through my blog. Of course, if they'd post comments... Maybe I'd feel more connected to them, too... Hint, hint...

All in all, I've enjoyed my year-o-blogging -- even when I started to hyperventilate on learning my mother had discovered it. Gasp. Hi Mom. The bad words I've used are just for my on-line persona. I don't use them in person. Honest.

Happy Blogiversary to me.

Stupid TV

Has anyone else seen the ads for this new Age of Love TV show? (New here in Canada, anyway. Don't know if it's already been aired in the US.)

Basically they put his 30 year old guy on a reality dating show (like The Bachelor) with a bunch of women in their 40’s. Then when he’s gotten to know some of them, and presumably some of them are falling for him… They bring in a group of women in their 20’s to compete for his affections, too.

Sick. Sick. Sick.

Possibly entertaining, but sick, and I hope I can hold out on not finding out just how sick and/or entertaining for myself.

I think what really bugs me about shows like this is the implication that the guy's choice proves anything. I mean, it seems fairly obvious that age is one factor in whether or not two people fall in love and stay in love, but it’s only one factor. And obviously couples form between people of very different ages and in those cases it just didn't matter -- other factors mattered more.

And who one young man chooses, (especially one willing to date multiple women on TV), proves nothing about whether, or how much, age matters. He's one guy, in a very artificial situation, with a limited number of women (also willing to date on TV) and picked by the producers to date him. Yes, the results of that should be published in The Journal of Psychology. It will be groundbreaking evidence about whether age matters in love.

I do think some reality TV shows do end up being interesting studies of human nature. Survivor and The Amazing Race in particular. But I think that’s because those shows aren't out to prove any particular point. They merely toss people into difficult situations and observe how they behave. Sure, the producers manipulate the participants to escalate the tension and to make the situations ever more difficult, but they aren't out (to my knowledge) to prove any particular hypothesis. It’s not like the premise of The Amazing Race is to prove that “couples argue and are hateful to each other when they travel” – even though that’s one of the things we’ve seen on the show.

I’m reminded by a failed reality TV concept of a few years ago, where a woman was supposed to be choosing between a bunch of guys (a la The Bachelorette) but half of them were gay and she had to try to guess which ones were and eliminate them. It was like hate propaganda of the worst kind. The producers staged events like cow roping and square dancing to help her decide. (Because everyone knows all straight men can rope a cow and all gay men can square dance. RIGHT!) And what the f&cK was the show supposed to prove anyway? And how the hell was the woman supposed to form a connection with any of the men (assuming such thing is possible on TV) when she knew half of them were purposefully deceiving her? I only saw the show a couple of times, but this woman was clearly in distress most of the time. (She did NOT know what the show was when she signed up and only found out half the men were gay after she’d been getting to know them all and they’d already been flirting with her and pretending to like her. Mean, mean, mean. If memory serves, the straight men didn't know half of the contestants were gay until the show started either. This show said bad things about most people involved.)

Anyway… I’ve been proved wrong by Reality TV concepts before – ones I thought sounded horrible and I ended up addicted to. Americas Next Top Model and Rock Star are two prime examples.

But I hope I can resist and not peek one night to confirm my assumption that this show will suck. I learned that lesson (I hope) with the gay dating show. (The name of which I’m pretty proud to have forgotten.)

Leaving us wanting more...

Don't stop.

The last line of The Sopranos and expressed through the lyric of the sappy Journey song playing on a jukebox... and then silence through the credits.

Still processing and not 100% sure what I think, but one thing's for certain, this final episode confirmed the makers of this series as masters. The tension that built in that final scene? The fear it generated inside me that, after how things turned out with Tony's "business" problems, he and his entire family were going to be killed? Powerful. Worked on me, anyway.

And how was the tension built? By bringing each family member in one by one. Having the camera notice (as Tony did) every other person who entered. By Meadow struggling to parallel park her car. By how happy and relaxed everyone was...

All this to make us terrified that someone was going to burst in and kill them all.

And then nothing. Black screen. No sound.

Pretty powerful.

Like I said, still processing this episode, and I'm sure some people will have found it a let down to just end things so abruptly after all that tension building, but I'm thinking I really liked the ending. I do know I wouldn't have like it if they'd just killed everyone. And it would have felt like a cop out to me if Tony had simply ended up as the head of the NY family. Too easy. So, I think I like how it ended.

Or at least I can't think of a way of ending it I would have liked better.

Scary Movies

I thought I'd grown out of my childhood inability to watch scary movies -- even some of the Disney variety used to terrify me and don't even get me started on Scooby Doo.

And then I met my good friend Sinead who's a bit of an aficionado when it comes to great thriller and horror... and she made me watch ALIEN on the IMAX screen and I lived to tell the tale. So I thought I was getting better.

But last night I tried to watch MIMIC on DVD and am still only about an hour into the film. Can't finish it. Really great scary tension like that makes me so uncomfortable I can't bear it. In fact, I'm probably better with films like that in the theatre than on DVD because turning it off isn't an option (and I'm not a big walk-out-of-a-movie kind of person.)

I'd really been looking forward to seeing MIMIC for a couple of reasons, the first and most important being Guillermo del Toro whose PAN'S LABYRINTH just blew me away when I saw it at the film festival last year (and then again when it hit theatres).

The second thing that interested me about MIMIC was that a chunk of it was filmed in a "ghost subway station" in Toronto that I only learned existed this past winter when they were doing renovations on the actually-in-use Bay Station and diverting the trains through a normally unused section of track and passed through another parallel universe Bay Station that hadn't been used since the 1950's. It was freaky. Same white tile walls, same BAY signs in black, just no staircases or escalators and no posters or ads on the walls. Surreal.

Anyway. MIMIC is creeping me out. Bugs. Kids in peril. Jeremy Northam trying to do an American accent. Horrifying.

What scares you?

Oh, and I paid my dues. Sigh. Maybe next year I'll have the courage and fortitude to let go.

Leaving the Past Behind

I've got a very important decision to make within the next 24 hours.

Some of you know that I am a Chartered Accountant, but unless I take action before 5:00 pm tomorrow, this may be the last time I'll ever be able to say that.

My annual dues must be paid by tomorrow and they are steep.
In addition, the institute has changed the rules and now, even if you don't have a license to sign audit opinons or anything (which I don't), you need to do at least 20 hours of continuing education each year. I've done well, zero. The requirement came in as of Jan 1, 2006, so to get caught up, I'll have to do 40 hours in 2007.

Now, I think requiring professionals to keep current is a good thing, in general, but it means that not only will I have to fork over a grand for my dues, I'll have to spend at least double that -- plus a few days of my life -- taking courses on topics that no longer are very practical or useful for me in order to keep my designation.

Last night a good friend -- one who understands what I went through to get the designation -- told me not to pay. To let it lapse. To stop living in the past.

Still... I feel like I'm closing such a huge door if I do this. Giving up something I worked incredibly hard to get. ACK! I know I never want to work in the corporate world again, but there may be a few options in my future, should this whole being an author thing not work out, where the CA designation might make a difference. What to do... What to do...

Do you have anything in your past you can't give up on?

Pitch Hell

Did anyone see the premiere of On The Lot last night? The first task given to the fifty (fifty!) aspiring filmmakers was to pitch a movie to Carrie Fisher, Bret Ratner and Garry Marshall based on one of five log lines.

A country mouse is captured by a phrmaceutical testing lab and must escape.
A man about to become a priest meets the woman of his dreams just before taking his vows.
A box of military equipment destined for a base is delivered to a suburban house in error.
A slacker is recruited into the CIA.
And I've totally forgotten the last one...

It was painful. (And probably not that entertaining for non-writers, non-filmmakers.) They only showed a couple of even half-way decent pitches and a lot of really terrible ones. Amazing how little most of the contestants seemed to know about storytelling. I think many of them wanted to show how creative they were and how they could think "out of the box" but that only works if you actualy come up with a story to go with your wacky idea! Ratner made it clear to them their pitches had to show their movie had a clear beginning middle and end. Some of them were so crazy. Did these people forget that the prize is a development deal with Dreamworks????

Made me think of one of the reasons I've been hesitant to consider writing screenplays instead of novels -- in spite of my obvious love for movies. In movies there are two main (often conflicting) creative people involved in developing the story. The writer and the director. (and that's before the actors and everyone else gets involved.) I'm not sure I could cope with being only one half of that equation especially because the director seems to be the one with more control, more respect (and better paid) and last night proved how some of them are SUCH IDIOTS without a clue about storytelling.

Waitress

This weekend I went to see the film Waitress knowing very little about it beforehand. I had seen a trailer. I'd seen Kerri Russell in The Upside of Anger, so I knew she could act. I'm a fan of Nathan Fillion from Firefly... so I thought why the heck not.

I was blown away. What great storytelling. I love movies where all the characters are interesting but everyone's behaving so badly that it's hard to guess how the heck the writer is going to end things on a satisfying note -- and then they do.

And this film was written and directed by one of the actors in the film -- Adrienne Shelly. I'd seen her before in some other indie-films and by the end of the movie was really looking forward to her next work.


But then I sat through to the end of the credits... The final line was:

"In loving memory of Adrienne Shelly."

What??? I started to cry. I had no idea. As soon as I got home, I looked up the story and it's so sad. In late 2006 her husband found her hanging by a sheet from a shower rod and the police initially ruled it a suicide -- but then a 19 year old construction worker, whom she'd complained about noise to, confessed to her murder after they found his footprints on the toilet seat.

How horrible is that?

But the movie is really great. So sweet. You're really rooting for the Kerri Russell character through the whole thing and the resolution to her story made me tear up, too. Teary night for me. LOL.

I'd been planning to go to Away From Her afterward, but decided I couldn't take another sad movie so went to see Spiderman instead... I could rant about how messed up the storytelling in that one is... but this was meant to be a post celebrating Waitress and the fabulously talented late Adrienne Shelly -- so I won't.

Writing for writing’s sake

I’ve attended an embarrassment of conferences and workshops over the past couple of years (love that collective noun) and hence have heard many authors, editor and agents speak about writing and the publishing industry. I’ve also read articles by many, many more—both in print and on the web. Basically, where I would never pretend to have learned all there is to learn (not even close), I’ve learned a fair bit about this business called fiction publishing. And still, I’m constantly making little revelations or realizing last week’s revelations sucked.

I’ve blogged before about conflicting advice on Drunk Writer Talk and I think this week I’ve had another kind of breakthrough in terms of one of those dichotomies. Or at least I’ve resolved to start thinking about it in a different way.

On the one hand one often hears: “You have to write for the love of writing. Writing is a tough business. Fickle. Lots of luck involved. Even if you get published the odds are against you earning a real living.” So, write because you love to write, because you have to write. (Well, I don’t totally buy that anyone HAS to write. I know I don’t. I’m happy to make up stories in my head.)

As many times as I’ve heard this “do it for the writing” advice and nodded my head in agreement, as many times as I’ve repeated it to my friends and family and other writing acquaintances, I recently realized I’ve never really committed to this idea.

From the day I decided to start writing a novel, I had publication in mind. I even chose the first genre I tried (romance) based on economics and what I saw as improved odds—there are so many published, surely it would be easier to break in and find success. Ha!

And therein lies the other side of the dichotomy. Many industry professionals will tell you to be aware of the market, to be smart about what you write, to avoid subjects or language that may offend, to react quickly to the market and adapt what you write to what’s selling.

This always sounds like good advice to me, too. I mean, my first career was a pretty conservative choice and if I should wake up tomorrow at age 18, facing the “which University, which career choice” again, even with the supposed “wisdom” I’ve garnered over the ensuing years, I’m not entirely sure I wouldn’t make the same or at least a similarly conservative choice again. I’m pretty sure I’d at least ensure I had a back up plan of sorts.

But.

What I’m realizing is that I’ve let this second piece of advice, the career planning advice, the what kind of writer do you want to be questions, the where do you see yourself in the market questions... I’ve let that advice, those questions, paralyze me when I’m in the early stages of every book I start to write (okay, until I’m in the home stretch). Molly, stop laughing. Now.

With each book, I’ll get a certain distance in and go “this is too dark to be marketable”, or conversely, “this is too silly, will be taken as chick lit and chick lit isn’t selling”, “this is too trite for literary fiction”, or “this is too heavy for commercial fiction”, or “this book won’t be a good follow up if the last one sells”, or "I should try a paranormal erotica", "maybe I should write YA", "maybe I should write an inspirational Christian romance" (okay, I've never said that one.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I still believe those career-minded questions are smart ones. I still think they encompass good advice. But I’ve decided it’s not the best advice for me right now. I’ve been in a very dark place about my writing. Very discouraged. Yes, I’m nominated for the Golden Heart. Yes, I’m happy about that and proud and know that over a thousand entrants who didn’t final—not to mention thousands of others who weren’t ready to or courageous enough to enter—would like to be in my shoes. I don’t mean to be ungrateful or to minimize this accomplishment. It’s just that I’ve been so focused since I started my first novel five years ago, on the end game. On publication. On publication with a major print publishing house.

And I know my GH nom, or even a win, won’t really affect that, especially because the nominated ms isn’t a romance. Sorry for the GH digression… Back on topic…

What I’ve decided—at least for today, this week, this month, this year, however long until I change my mind again—is that I need to write for the writing’s sake. In reaching this conclusion, I was remembering the heady days of starting my very first novel five years ago. Sure it was scary. Sure I thought I was writing something marketable. But I knew so little about the industry and I think all that ignorance freed me. Freed me to tell the story I wanted to tell. Freed me to put words down on paper and feel proud and good about those words, proud to see the word count, the page count, the chapter count piling up. Freed me to enjoy writing. These days, I’m not always enjoying it so much.

Now, I know (I hope?) that should I be lucky enough to have a career in fiction, that there may come a day when I will have to put career ahead of all other considerations when deciding what kind of stories to write, what tone to take, what themes to explore, etc. But for now? I think I just need to write.

Paris appealing to the Terminator?

Okay, I must admit this whole Paris Hilton getting sentenced to prison thing fills me with just a little more glee than it should. Okay, not glee, but a strong sense that karma is doing its thing, that a little jail time will do the girl some good, maybe even help her to grow up a bit, teach her that, all evidence to the contrary, the world does not revolve around her.

An aside here... I know many people felt a similar glee when Martha Stewart went to jail. I didn't. And I'm not a Martha fan. At all. I just felt like she'd done something so many other people (mostly men) had done and that they were making an example of her mostly because of her celebrity and party because of her gender.

I really don't feel the same way about Paris. She had a suspended license. She was on probation. She knew she wasn't supposed to drive her car. If she really believed there were circumstances under which it was okay to drive her car without a license, then her sense of entitlement, of being above the law and better than everyone else only intensifies my feeling that she had this coming to her.

I think why I gave Martha the benefit of the doubt was that, in my mind, her stock broker committed the bigger crime. He's the one who passed on insider information.

I would challenge most people not to act if they received a stock tip they knew they shouldn't have received. Getting that kind of a tip is what many of the myths and fairy tales about success in the market are based on. Real insiders must not act on this information, of course. That's the pledge/the bond they make with non-insiders to get them to invest in their company. But if they do let information leak, and it gets passed around and you hear it... I think it would take a very strong person to ignore the information. Was Martha greedy? Sure. Did she think she'd get away with it? Sure. Did she then lie about it in an attempt to cover her ass? Sure. But I don't think her belief she'd get away with it had anything to do with her celebrity. She thought she'd get away with it because most people get away with it. Because (sadly) it's an all-too-common occurance in the industry.

Now, I'm sure driving with a suspended license is all too common, too. And I'm sure many people do get away with it. But I'm also pretty sure that repeat offenders, celebrity or not, are going to get some kind of a hefty fine or jail time if they are unlucky enough to get caught. I expect the maximum hefty fine for such a crime would not teach someone like Paris Hilton a lesson. It probably isn't big enough to be a deterrent or even make a dint in her monthly credit card bill. It would not be a punishment. So, I laud the judge who gave her some jail time.

And today I read that she's appealing to Arnold Schwartzenegger for a pardon???

GET OUT!

Sad realizations

Okay, so I made a sad self-discovery tonight. In just a few short weeks I have become hopelessly dependent on my new PVR. How did I ever live without it???

My cable went out today. Who the hell knows why. It just did. And the stupid customer service person at Rogers convinced me to unplug my PVR and reboot it -- assuring me that I wouldn't lose anything I'd saved. (I kept asking her if I'd lose stuff... She insisted I wouldn't. I kept pointing out that if neither of my cable boxes were working it was highly unlikely to be the cable boxes, it must be the cable itself... But she knew better and insisted I try the evil reboot.)

After 15 minutes on the phone with her and watching my PVR try unsuccessfully to reboot, she informed me the problem wasn't my cable boxes, but the cable service into my house. Something I freakin' told her 15 minutes earlier. But it gets worse. The result of the ill-advised reboot was that not only could I not watch TV (because the cable's out) I also couldn't watch any of the shows I recorded last week when I was visiting my auntie out west because now the PVR is all fraked up. Damn it.

The rage I felt was incredible. Scary.

Hello. My name is Maureen and I am a serious TV addict.

Big purchases

I've come to the conclusion that everyone has their own definition of what constitutes a big purchase -- the ones you have to think about and analyze the hell out of before forking over the cash. I read an article recently that suggested we should use our gut/intuition for decisions our cave-person ancestors could relate to, (i.e. deciding where to live) but should use logic to make decisions our ancestors could not relate to (i.e. stocks vs bonds).

For me, I've realized over the years that my ability to make what most people would consider big purchases, and even impulse purchase, has nothing to do with the dollar amount involved. Or, at least, that's not the most important factor.

Not that I've really figured out what all the factors are. But I do know that I can fork over a scary amount of money for a fabulous pair of shoes with very little thought. Ditto on clothes. Ditto on fine craft items like ceramics, or glass or jewelery. I'm a sucker for well-made handcrafted things. (Don't even get me started on one-of-a-kind handmade shoes or clothes. Best of both worlds.) Okay, maybe I'm figuring out one of my factors here. I love beautiful things and when I see something I want, I can usually find a way to come up with the money to buy it. Self indulgent? Maybe. But I like buying nice gifts too.

Furniture is another matter... although I have a caveat. I have dining room furniture I love. And some beautiful antique pieces -- but they're all side pieces -- straight backed chairs, bookcases, consoles, sideboards. But a sofa??? Comfortable chairs to sit in??? I have never, ever, been able to fork over the bucks for anything like that. Instead, I have horrible, ugly, hand-me-down or garage sale pieces supplemented by a few pieces of cheap IKEA disposable crap.

Why can't I buy a couch? Some nice easy chairs?

My younger sister just moved into a new place and has no furniture (long story) and I've offered her the sofa-bed I inherited from the previous owners of my house (they were throwing it out) and the loveseat I bought for $50 from someone I rented from when I first moved back to Toronto. These are pieces of furniture I want to get out of my house, mostly because of the incredibly powerful inertia they seem to create. (Can inertia be created?) It's like they've a vortex sucking my decision making abilty into its depths. My hope? Once they're out of my house and I'm left with nothing to sit on, I'll finally be able to make a big decision and buy a new sofa...

Should I focus on design or comfort? Modern? Retro? Traditional? Funky? Neutral? Bright? Bold? Upolstered? Leather? Soft? Firm? Ack! What am I going to do?

What kinds of purchases are difficult for you? Which ones are just a little too easy?