Monday Review: A weekend of wonders

I'm going to do things a little differently today. I had a rare weekend during which I was able to see a number of interesting things and read a little. I don't want to choose between them, so I'm going to write 1-2 paragraphs on each of the selected experiences:

1. Star Trek the movie

It was not my idea to go see this... but I'll admit that it's one of the better films I've seen this summer. It's pretty silly, but so was the old TV show. The original Star Trek on television, starring the now buffoonish William Shatner and the still stunning Leonard Nimoy, had its funny problems. What I've picked on the most is the unnecessary obstacles on the ship and the whole "Lookie! Lookie! We got CG galore!" thing. There is a long winding tube of water on the ship that moves towards a slicing device. Scottie is accidentally transported into this water system and Kirk has an amusing race with the water pressure to get Scottie out. I just don't see this happening on a ship in the future or otherwise. Not that there wouldn't be a disposal system of waterworks, but does it need to wind around for a mile?! It makes no sense... it's just there to create the silliness of the scene. Even the enemy ship has its issues... it's designed such that if you need to get from one side to the other, you have to cross this narrow cat walk that straddles a height that would bring any misstep of the pedestrian to his/her death. Good for a tense scene, but, really? Would anyone actually design a ship to be so hazardous (no railings or anything to protect you from falling)? And the CG is dizzying... just because you CAN turn the audience in twelves different directions in 2 seconds doesn't mean that you should! I was see-sick from seeing too much not five minutes into the film. My only other complaint is the weird gremlin buddy that Scottie seems to have befriended... I hope it's a reference to the old show that I've forgotten, because the silly gremlin was just unnecessary in a very Jar-Jar Binks sort of way.

Still, the TV show had many nonsense elements like this, so, it's still an appropriate tribute to Gene Roddenberry's original work. There was a decent amount of "re-inventing" the quippy art of "one-liners." The majority of the great one-liners were delivered by Kirk (of course) or Spock. I've blogged about one already, but, Spock does a nice job making "Live Long and Prosper" to a prejudiced council of Vulcans rather like an insult (never heard it sound this way... it was good, unexpected, angst-y fun). I also liked the exchanges between Kirk and his crew (mostly Spock, but also Bones and Scottie)... quick, smart-aleck, boy-ish entertainment. They picked a great group of people, too, to play the younger versions of the original actors. They matched up looks well enough, but each actor, I think, carried off each part believably. I have no complaints about the acting. I'm quite a fan of their choice for Spock and Bones and I've been a fan of the actor playing Uhura for a handful of years. The only other thing I could say was that they bridged the technology pretty well... all the fancy stuff existed in the future ships rather than those in the time of young Enterprise. The outfits are mostly the same... very new car smell to justify all the shininess.

2. The Muscarelle Museum

The way to experience this museum is to "take a tour" with the docent... I say "take a tour" because we're talking about maybe 20 paintings max and maybe 5 sculptures. If you want to see things as big in the art history books as The Mona Lisa or Starry Night, this is not the museum for you. If you're curious about less well known pieces, the minor works or rough drafts from a handful of great American artists, then the tour should interest you. The docent gives you an hour history lesson on the paintings, their backgrounds, how the paintings came to be in the Muscarelle collection, etc. Our guide was... well, if you take her tour, you'll know what I mean when I describe her as "obscenely polite" (let's just say I would have been very agitated with the ignorant tourists that wandered in and allowed their kids to run around and yell... she simply invited them to tour with us and let them walk themselves out... she's kind of my hero... to make people so uncomfortable by being SO proper).
The only piece you'd recognize, most likely (save maybe the Titian piece and the knock-off of the original Washington portrait), is the O'Keefe painting entitled White Flower. It's much more striking in person... the white is almost translucent like you could see through the petals. The painting used to hang in one of the pointless buildings on campus like a dorm or the business building exposed to weather and students running into it. Part of why the Muscarelle came to be 26 years ago was to protect this particular gem of the College's collection. Other obscure paintings were discovered here and there on campus (like the President's broom closet) encouraging the building project. They don't have much, but what they do have is now protected. If you like learning things you can't find in a text book or very easily online, I'd recommend this museum. It's eclectic collection (at the moment) includes Titian, some Impressionists, three of the 8 commencing Ash-Can artists (two of my favorite paintings fall in this category), two artworks from the Hudson River school, and a handful of scary "This is just a sheet of gray and lavender paint" Modernists.

3. The Coraline DVD

Anyone who knows me knows I adore Neil Gaiman (and all things creepy crawly) and that I'm a big fan of his works for children. He is the modern-day Grimm Brothers with a lesson you're not soon to forget. The film adaptation of his book CORALINE is actually quite good. I'm a stickler about adaptation... I like a film to get creative with the material without destroying the spirit of the original text. Briefly, an example of two adaptations of one written work:, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: The filmmakers were going to have to elaborate a little because the book is just so short that it wouldn't make for a decent film-length feature on its own (big print, double spaced, pictures, 176 pages). The Gene Wilder version (he is still my favorite Willie Wonka) went a little far with the Oompa Loompas and the dismissal of the demise of the other children, but its elaboration works the best... a planted candy making competitor tests the loyalty of the children to help Mr. Wonka choose a suitable successor for his factory. Simple, and appropriate. In the Johnny Depp version, the whole Dad dentist thing and Daddy-issues just... I think it takes away from the silliness and childlike joy of the original work. However, they did other elements marvelously (the texts for the Oompa Loompa songs are direct from the book and we get to see the outcome of the losing, naughty kids).
Anyway, Coraline does have a slightly pointless helper character (Whybie, the average boy neighbor kid), but he's not so far out there that I get angry (not a Jar-Jar Binks type). Everything else is so well done. Even where they take some creative liberties, it maintains the source text's integrity. Of course, the book is better, but the movie is pretty good.
I recently bought the DVD that comes with the glasses so you can see the 3D at home. It's a little weird for the eyes... you need to make the room as dark as possible to catch the color... but you won't catch it all. No matter how I looked at it, the color is richer in the 2D version of the movie. Don't get me wrong- the 3D in your own home this is cool and even slightly more dramatic on a smaller screen, but I'd trade it for some special features. I'd love to know how they pulled this off. The visual energy and movement is astonishing. I've always liked stop-motion, so, it's nice to see something that's not an entirely CG animated film. So, if anyone is crazy like me and wants to buy this movie, get one with special features... the 3D is cool, but not really worth it.

4. The Summer 2009 publication of Parabola magazine

Parabola is a literary magazine that comes out quarterly. Each quarter, it covers a specific topic devoted to spirituality, history, and/or world culture. For summer of this year, they published on the topic of water. Sounds simple, but so many cultures have derived spiritual beliefs, lifestyles, and traditions from water... it is so essential to life, even more than food. You can survive longer on starvation than you can of severe thirst. So, the expressions on water this month range from retelling of old legends, to medieval historical accounts, and to modern poetry on thoughts about the life-giving power of water.
There's something for everyone in Parabola. Whether or not you're going to like all the articles, you'll probably appreciate at least one. I sort of dozed during some of the poetry, but I was intrigued by the legends of water in desert societies (I've blogged on one story last month), deeply enjoyed the Confucian story, learned a few new details concerning the Venusian baths of Greece, and delved into one of my other passions as I read about the Mirror of Heaven from an old Jewish manuscript. There are many more short articles beyond these sub-topics perfect for people who do their reading in small doses (like a story before bedtime or with your coffee/tea in the morning). I'm very impressed with Parabola and how there is little to no discrimination between cultures or areas of the world from which they are willing to find stories to share. They seem to try and touch on a number of significant vantage points (race, environment, female concerns, scholarly pursuits, history, etc) in each and every issue. I'm looking forward to the upcoming winter edition... I haven't seen one yet, but the subject matter is "The Path."

5. The Alice Trailer is finally here!

I've already written (at length) my opinions on what I knew at the time about Tim Burton's 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland (I still can't believe Disney is working with him). You can view the trailer on the Disney or IMDB.com websites, but Disney pulled it in a matter of days from Youtube.com. Just click here to view it, if you're interested.
I've learned a little more about the movie since I last wrote. It appears that one of Burton's disappointments with other adapations of Carroll's book is the plain episodic quality they all share. One meets all those Wonderland crazies such as the Tweedle Twins and the Mad Hatter and The Cheshire Cat without coming across them again or having them remain relevant in the unfolding of events. This doesn't bother me at all... reminds me of one of my favorite children's books, THE REMARKABLE JOURNEY OF PRINCE JEN by Llyod Alexander. Each character has a special power that is used in its time, once, as needed, in the story. I don't know... it just doesn't bother me. But, Burton wants to readdress this aspect of the Alice saga and make the story a more cohesive whole. Therefore, you'll be seeing plenty of The Mad Hatter. From the looks of the preview, he looks like a main character who will have an army of sorts to combat the Red Queen's army. Not sure if I think all this is necessary, but it's going to be a whole new chapter for Alice. She's older and revisiting Wonderland after forgetting all that happened ten years ago in her story. I do like the visuals Burton has created... like Alice shrinking and her dress remaining the same size forcing her to work with smaller fabric to clothe her now shruken stature. The music is a little... action/adventure movie sounding, but, I'm sure Danny Elfman will weird it up soon with his choirs and darkness.

(Images from http://1.bp.blogspot.com, www.tfaoi.com, www.earlyword.com, http://photos1.meetupstatic.com, and http://img5.allocine.fr)