I officially love Doris Day and Howard Keel. Both. They are the stars of MGMs Calamity Jane (1953). Her sweet, effervescent rendition of the backwoodsy Calamity Jane is smirk-inspiring. One of the books I read about it said that the real Jane would roll in her grave if she saw the bubbly Day’s performance.
Little did I know that Howard Keel is apparently the go-to guy for the fronteir musical. You can see him in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Annie Get Your Gun, Calamity Jane, and more. And you should see him. The epitome of tall-dark-and-handsome, Keel rumbles the bass with his throaty voice. He wins me over with his wide, even smile and broad shoulders.
But the movie is good too, and will leave you rolling your eyes.
Sheesh. I’ve been pounding the keyboard for weeks now with final papers and final projects. So I didn’t exactly forget to blog after Thanksgiving, it just took a backseat to my 10 pg. Hitchcock paper that is now 13.5 pages and due today and not quite polished as much as I would like. And/or the content is not AT ALL what I envisioned when I decided to write about Hitchcock’s characterization of blondes and brunettes in his post1950 films.
So I’m blogging blogging blogging now. Later today I have to turn in my Hitchcock paper, then I have to read a 400 page book (I’ve read one chapter) for a 10 pager that’s due Monday.
I am pleasantly surprised by the amount of people from my predominantly Caucasian, red county, Carroll County, IL, who have put their faith into a minority Democrat. That’s saying something, because racism is still a problem in small Midwest towns.
What rings loud and clear is that Obama has impressed people with his ideas on change. For people to overlook their social makeup to choose a young black Democrat and not only vote for but truly support him is an amazing feat, and one I didn’t believe Carroll County was ready for. It just proves to me that I should not judge, even those I thought were too steadfast in their obstinacy, because people will surprise you every time.
So the reason that I’m blogging so close to my bedtime is that I’ve been absolutely captivated by the Twilight series. I haven’t read something that I’m positively compelled to finish since the seventh Harry Potter last summer, so I am happy to find something new.
But that also means that I’m enjoying fewer hours of sleep, because these books are constantly cliffhanging, and I have to know what is going to happen.
I started this runaway reading train this weekend when I was at my parent’s house. They fell asleep at 10, surprise, surprise, so I was bored. My mom teaches middle school, so she has many young adult books laying around, and this happened to be one of them. I hadn’t even heard of the series (where was I?) or the movie, but I was ecstatic to find that the story I dropped like a stone into is actually four books long.
Surprise, surprise, I’m resistant to yet another form of technology. I don’t podcast because I don’t listen to my iPod except when working out. And I will always choose music over a book on tape or a podcast. I guess I like my information from a source I’m comfortable and/or satisfied with, and don’t necessarily want to change it. I can read a book myself, and am disappointed when anyone other than my mother reads it to me. I can read a magazine story or watch a newscast instead of listening to a podcast. Besides, I find it difficult to listen to narrative radio, sorry Paul Harvey, so a podcast reminds me too much of that medium.
I am interested in shows such as This American Life, I just haven’t had time to check it out. I think that sort of production, with that level of production standards, is the only podcast that I would consistantly listen to.
I bounced between elation and ridicule during Joel Wright’s 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice. I love the story and always have. I enjoy the Colin Firth four-hour movie version, though as a film student, I know at least an hour could have been cut. But this version both excited and disappointed me more.
Keira Knightly is an unfortunate choice for Elizabeth Bennett. Bennett’s subtlety and irony are lost because Knightly has only three emotions, boyishly wide grin, deep, dark melancholy or raging inexplicably loudly for the character. Bennett should win arguments by wit alone, she doesn’t need to yell.
But I loved the mother, Cousin Collins, the father, Jane and Mr. Darcy. So I’m torn; should one bad (albeit main) character ruin the film?
The same holds true for the film itself. I love the adaptation. There’s just enough of the story to love it but not get bored. It moves, and the pacing is phenomenal. I don’t like the cinematography, as it becomes the film’s Symbolism for Dummies. The zooms (yes, ZOOMS!) are awkward and drag the viewer right out of the story. Yes, there is an emotional evolution occurring, but I could have figured that out through good acting. I didn’t need a lengthy slow zoom on the character’s face to tell me their feelings are in turmoil. Even the layman picks up the emotional changes, whether consciously or unconsciously, so zooming in overdoes it.
Here’s to a dancer who defied gravity. Here’s to a man whose film Singin’ In the Rain became a chronicle of film’s great transition to sound. Here’s to a man who couldn’t do ballet, so instead, cobbled together his own version of acrobatic genius. Here’s to a somewhat strange tenor, whose melody was never melodic, but it was endearing. Here’s to an actor, a dancer, director who remains one of the greatest of the greats. Here’s to some friggin’ amazing thighs.
Gene Kelly is often underrated, I believe, next to Fred Astaire. But instead of seeing them as competitors, I like to look at them as two sides to a coin. While Astaire is lofty, nearly celestial in his technical skill, Kelly is innovative and down-to-earth. Both master the stage and screen in their own way: Astaire through a tickling, teasing, coax of our awe, and Kelly through unqualified domination. What they share is the feeling that there is something beneath the surface of all this high-flying dance. Astaire, because he’s holding back something of himself, and Kelly because he has this amazing aptitude for introspection. They leave us wanting more.
I like multimedia journalism online. I don’t like reading long print stories on the computer, so when I find a feature story with supplemental video/audio, I find it much more compelling than straight literary and photojournalism.
I can’t think of a specific instance to relate, other than CNN experiences, because my RCN Internet is so slow that I will forsake multimedia, and thus the story all together.
The Internet has to have somewhere to go, and I think multimedia is it. Each person has unlimited available options online, so they can tailor their choices to their particular tastes, be they auditory, visual, or a/v.
I think my preferences for news in this online fashion come from my film/film audio background. I’ve spent a lot of time cutting documentary and audio, so it feels very comfortable to be doing those things for a future job (even in journalism.)
What I don’t like is the “newscast” online. I guess if you missed the 6 or 10 o’clock and want to see it, that’s helpful, but I would rather see an extended personal interview or and interesting historical photostream to supplement a news story than to see a newscast itself.
