More of my poems, these being from all different periods in my life...
Beauty
I dreamt of Beauty,
Shining bright,
She would fall and touch me,
And she would bring
Much-needed rest
And comfort when she loved me.
Evanescent
As a kiss,
Given in spite of itself,
Given because that's what they do in the movies.
As a touch remembered,
From a time when touch was still unsure
And charged with significance.
As our conviction --
About what, I don't know.
Untitled
After Langston Hughes
“What happens to a dream deferred?”
It does not die, not quickly at least,
It remains, sagging like rotten meat,
Reminding us of its existence
At every opportunity.
Its weight, its whispers --
Sometimes subtle, so subtle
That we could pretend we didn’t hear them,
That we didn’t feel a thing.
Sometimes not so subtle --
Our faces tense and twist and others see
The grinding at the center of our brains.
And we snap, and sneer, and do anything
But tell them of our dream deferred.
Some days we hate the dream for being born:
We retrace the steps from its conception,
We think terrible things about it.
It cries and screams for attention;
We wish it would mind its own business
Or else dry up and explode.
We couldn’t justify or explain why
Our dream was set aside.
Was it foolish? Inconvenient?
Not a one of us could say.
We don’t know why we gave it up,
We only know we’ll get to it someday
If they’ll just leave us be;
Do they think we enjoy the endless grinding
Of dream against reality?
Poetry
Your voice:
How do you speak to yourself?
How do you tell yourself who you are?
Poetry is your voice.
Speak soon, my friend:
The second song is always best.
My friend --
Speak soon.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
MOVIE REVIEW: Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go is based on the 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. It tells the story of three young people -- Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy -- who grow up together at a boarding school called Hailsham House in the English countryside. They have no families, nor do they have any exposure to the outside world. They are clones, bred for a single purpose: to provide organs to extend the lives of the natural-born population. As a result, they themselves live haplessly short lives, few of them living past their mid-twenties.
While it has a decidedly sci-fi slant to its premise, Never Let Me Go functions as a character study as much as a dystopian cautionary tale. As adults, Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy are beautifully embodied by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield respectively. Each character is unique in the way in which they deal with their lot in life. And it is a great credit to the actors that each one is relatable.
Kathy, our protagonist, reminds us of ourselves in many ways: she makes the best of her life, even as she can't always make sense of it. We follow her through all stages of her life as she tries to learn herself and unfurl the mysteries of those around her, Ruth and Tommy in particular. Her problems, while they are undeniably fantastic compared to our own, and magnified due to the abbreviated nature of her life, resonate with us because we have felt all of the same feelings.
Ruth makes for a very interesting foil to Kathy. They have many of the same questions, and many of the same hopes and dreams, but they carry out their lives in very different ways. Ruth gives into that urge which we all have that pushes us to forsake others and only look after our own happiness. Much like the society in the story, which cares not for the organ "donors," Ruth decides early on that she must wrap herself in herself if she is to achieve happiness and avoid suffering, which in her case is the suffering that comes with being alone. That all-too-familiar fear of being alone is something that we all live with and must resist, as it tempts us to be ungrateful for the many good things in our lives and leads us down a path to disaster, as the film shows.
In my opinion, Keira Knightley gives the strongest performance in the film. Ruth is a far cry from her usual roles: we are used to rooting for Ms. Knightley, but Ruth is a far more polarizing character. Ms. Knightley brings to Ruth a convincing air of superiority that helps us understand why Kathy is envious of her, and she is equally effective in the scenes where Ruth's facade is dropped. In these moments, Ruth's desperation is truly unnerving. Additionally, Ruth's third "donation" is one of the most haunting scenes of the entire film. The way the doctors handle her and the other donors like livestock makes for some disturbing imagery, and makes us consider how cold we can be if permitted.
Tommy is an awkward but relentlessly cheerful young man who prides himself on being a good donor. But it is through his story that we most clearly perceive the movie's message about the importance of living life to the fullest. The movie deals openly with our ability to ignore injustice, and Tommy's character arc deals with the other side of that coin: our propensity to create hopes and believe hearsay if it will distract us from the meanness of our fate. However, when we distract ourselves from reality we blunt our ability to live the type of life that will truly make us happy. As he sees the end of his life rapidly approaching, Tommy is filled with emotion and screams out in agony. He finally unleashes his rage about his fate, and we can venture a guess that he is also railing against his own role in limiting the amount and quality of his time with those whom he loves.
The message of the movie is neatly embodied in its title. The film implores its audience to hold on to the things and the people they love in the limited time they have. The message is passed on through the performances, and subtly helped along by a sharp score from Academy Award winner Rachel Portman. Additionally, some of the cinematography (especially later in the film) is breathtaking, a fact which -- given that director Mark Romanek cut his teeth in the world of music videos -- is unsurprising but no less pleasant as a result.
All of our lives are precious, and all of our lives must end. To deny the beauty of another's life imperils one's own -- not in the literal sense, but in the more important sense that it removes from our lives so much richness and introduces indelible impurities that render them less worthy of being lived. We all have cowardly urges to try and enhance our lives at the expense of others. But to do so misses the point of life completely, and such attempts are ultimately doomed to fail. As Hailsham's headmistress tells Kathy and Tommy, "There are no deferrals. There never have been." Never Let Me Go is a film that poses the deepest of questions: How are we to spend the limited amount of time that is given to us? It is a film that attempts to show the preciousness, beauty, and ultimately the fragility of this human experience that we all share. And it succeeds. This is what makes it an exceptional film.
I give it a 9 out of 10.
Friday, November 25, 2011
MOVIE REVIEW: Hamlet (1990)
I have been enmeshed in Shakespeare's Hamlet for the better part of a month now, as my teacher and I are working through a unit on the play in our 12th grade English class. This makes about four times I have read the play, and one time I've seen it performed (that one time being when I watched a filmed stage production starring Kevin Kline). When one watches or reads a play that many times, faults that weren't initially apparent inevitably reveal themselves. All one can hope for is that in those multiple experiences with the play, the beauty of the its triumphs will grow exponentially and thereby overshadow its shortcomings. Hamlet is a play that accomplishes this, and so I don't hesitate to call it a magnificent work.
However, my experience with Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 film was much more limited until recently. I had seen clips of it, and I knew that it starred Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, and Helena Bonham Carter. But it wasn't until my teacher told me she was going to show it to our class that I decided to sit down and watch the entire film. In brief, I was disappointed.
The main source of my disappointment is the casting of Mel Gibson as Hamlet. I feel Mel Gibson is a world-class actor. He is very competent in both comedy and drama: an achievement not many actors can claim. But in my humble opinion he is not the right actor to play Hamlet. His masculinity and Australian gruffness do not work in his favor. Those qualities make it very hard for me to accept him as a pensive, introspective royal with a tragic tendency to delay action. And while I think it's wonderful for actors to try new types of roles, the reality is if they do so, they must really disappear into the role. Mel Gibson does not disappear into Hamlet. In fact, it is one of his lesser performances. Until I saw him in this role, I didn't notice his trademark "heavy breathing occasionally interrupted by exasperated dry swallows" acting technique (but by the end of the movie, it was all I could think about every time he was on screen). Aside from a slight British accent, this is Mel Gibson, doing the movie star thing and playing himself.
Truthfully, he is very good in some scenes, most notably the climatic scene with Gertrude (set in her bedroom). But on the whole, I prefer a somewhat more effeminate actor for my Hamlet. And I prefer a more masculine actor for my Laertes. Nathaniel Parker plays the part in this version of the story, and he comes across as pretty unintimidating. One of the main purposes of the character of Laertes is to serve as a foil for Hamlet, and to demonstrate through his decisive action how pathetic Hamlet really is. When you take a pasty Brit with long hair and a high voice and you put him up against a bearded Mel Gibson, that dynamic is pretty much destroyed.
I was also annoyed by the way some of Hamlet's lines were moved around. Most notably, the "Get thee to a nunnery" lines have been divided into two distinct parts. In the film, Hamlet says part of it to Ophelia when they meet in the castle, and the remainder later on after the play. I can't really see why Zeffirelli does this; it serves only to irritate those who know the play well enough to detect the change. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was also moved so that Hamlet gives it after the aforementioned meeting with Ophelia, as opposed to before. This change bothered me less than the others because I saw a certain logic to it: in the play the soliloquy comes before he realizes Ophelia has agreed to spy on him, whereas in the film it comes after. Having Hamlet contemplate suicide after he has been betrayed by everyone, including Ophelia, makes a certain amount of sense.
One thing Zeffirelli gets absolutely right is the casting of the supporting roles. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen any of her other performances that Helena Bonham Carter is great as Ophelia, particularly in the scenes after she has gone mad. Her performance in those scenes evokes a perfect mixture of creepiness and pity. Glenn Close is also very good in the part of Gertrude. I was especially delighted with the moment when she realizes she's been poisoned. You can see her face change as she goes through a series of shocking realizations: that she's been poisoned, that she wasn't poisoned by just anybody but by her husband, that he was also trying to poison her son, and that he was the one who had poisoned her first husband. It sound silly in writing, but it looks great on film. Alan Bates turns in a very capable performance as Claudius, particularly in the later scenes where Claudius and Laertes plot against Hamlet. He is super slimy and just evil -- the serpentine side of his character is on full display. I also have to single out Paul Scofield, who plays the ghost of King Hamlet, for special praise. He brings so many things to his few scenes: a palpable suffering, a deeply-felt sense of longing, a quiet rage, and a truly otherworldly aura. And thorough it all, he manages to be both frightening and sympathetic.
Additionally, the sets and the costumes are extraordinarily beautiful. The movie just looks fantastic, and for a fan of the play it's a thrill to see the story brought to life like this. I honestly could not tell if they were on set or on location sometimes (Scotland and England stand in for Denmark, and I hope for the sake of the Danish people that their countryside is half as breathtaking).
But on the whole, the movie suffers from the abridgement and reduced running time. Characters don't have enough time to develop, and key subplots are dropped. When one reads the play, Hamlet's inaction is positively agonizing. But when the play is reduced by half its length, it doesn't have quite the same effect. His inaction is less pronounced, and his rashness is more apparent. His killing of Polonius and his appearance at Ophelia's funeral are much more upsetting here than the reading of the play because we don't know Hamlet's mind half as well. Some might welcome the chance to judge Hamlet purely by his actions, but I've always felt that the great strength of the play was the way in which the audience was able to explore the mind of the protagonist -- a mind more fully developed than those of most real persons we meet -- and then struggle with the task of passing judgment on him.
I would still recommend this movie to fans of the play, if only because of the costume and set design (both Oscar-nominated). But it is not a great adaptation of the play. I give it a 7 out of 10.
However, my experience with Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 film was much more limited until recently. I had seen clips of it, and I knew that it starred Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, and Helena Bonham Carter. But it wasn't until my teacher told me she was going to show it to our class that I decided to sit down and watch the entire film. In brief, I was disappointed.
 |
| Mel Gibson as the title character in Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet |
The main source of my disappointment is the casting of Mel Gibson as Hamlet. I feel Mel Gibson is a world-class actor. He is very competent in both comedy and drama: an achievement not many actors can claim. But in my humble opinion he is not the right actor to play Hamlet. His masculinity and Australian gruffness do not work in his favor. Those qualities make it very hard for me to accept him as a pensive, introspective royal with a tragic tendency to delay action. And while I think it's wonderful for actors to try new types of roles, the reality is if they do so, they must really disappear into the role. Mel Gibson does not disappear into Hamlet. In fact, it is one of his lesser performances. Until I saw him in this role, I didn't notice his trademark "heavy breathing occasionally interrupted by exasperated dry swallows" acting technique (but by the end of the movie, it was all I could think about every time he was on screen). Aside from a slight British accent, this is Mel Gibson, doing the movie star thing and playing himself.
Truthfully, he is very good in some scenes, most notably the climatic scene with Gertrude (set in her bedroom). But on the whole, I prefer a somewhat more effeminate actor for my Hamlet. And I prefer a more masculine actor for my Laertes. Nathaniel Parker plays the part in this version of the story, and he comes across as pretty unintimidating. One of the main purposes of the character of Laertes is to serve as a foil for Hamlet, and to demonstrate through his decisive action how pathetic Hamlet really is. When you take a pasty Brit with long hair and a high voice and you put him up against a bearded Mel Gibson, that dynamic is pretty much destroyed.
I was also annoyed by the way some of Hamlet's lines were moved around. Most notably, the "Get thee to a nunnery" lines have been divided into two distinct parts. In the film, Hamlet says part of it to Ophelia when they meet in the castle, and the remainder later on after the play. I can't really see why Zeffirelli does this; it serves only to irritate those who know the play well enough to detect the change. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was also moved so that Hamlet gives it after the aforementioned meeting with Ophelia, as opposed to before. This change bothered me less than the others because I saw a certain logic to it: in the play the soliloquy comes before he realizes Ophelia has agreed to spy on him, whereas in the film it comes after. Having Hamlet contemplate suicide after he has been betrayed by everyone, including Ophelia, makes a certain amount of sense.
One thing Zeffirelli gets absolutely right is the casting of the supporting roles. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen any of her other performances that Helena Bonham Carter is great as Ophelia, particularly in the scenes after she has gone mad. Her performance in those scenes evokes a perfect mixture of creepiness and pity. Glenn Close is also very good in the part of Gertrude. I was especially delighted with the moment when she realizes she's been poisoned. You can see her face change as she goes through a series of shocking realizations: that she's been poisoned, that she wasn't poisoned by just anybody but by her husband, that he was also trying to poison her son, and that he was the one who had poisoned her first husband. It sound silly in writing, but it looks great on film. Alan Bates turns in a very capable performance as Claudius, particularly in the later scenes where Claudius and Laertes plot against Hamlet. He is super slimy and just evil -- the serpentine side of his character is on full display. I also have to single out Paul Scofield, who plays the ghost of King Hamlet, for special praise. He brings so many things to his few scenes: a palpable suffering, a deeply-felt sense of longing, a quiet rage, and a truly otherworldly aura. And thorough it all, he manages to be both frightening and sympathetic.
 |
| Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia |
Additionally, the sets and the costumes are extraordinarily beautiful. The movie just looks fantastic, and for a fan of the play it's a thrill to see the story brought to life like this. I honestly could not tell if they were on set or on location sometimes (Scotland and England stand in for Denmark, and I hope for the sake of the Danish people that their countryside is half as breathtaking).
But on the whole, the movie suffers from the abridgement and reduced running time. Characters don't have enough time to develop, and key subplots are dropped. When one reads the play, Hamlet's inaction is positively agonizing. But when the play is reduced by half its length, it doesn't have quite the same effect. His inaction is less pronounced, and his rashness is more apparent. His killing of Polonius and his appearance at Ophelia's funeral are much more upsetting here than the reading of the play because we don't know Hamlet's mind half as well. Some might welcome the chance to judge Hamlet purely by his actions, but I've always felt that the great strength of the play was the way in which the audience was able to explore the mind of the protagonist -- a mind more fully developed than those of most real persons we meet -- and then struggle with the task of passing judgment on him.
I would still recommend this movie to fans of the play, if only because of the costume and set design (both Oscar-nominated). But it is not a great adaptation of the play. I give it a 7 out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)