All answered within a couple of hours. Answers below the fold… » Read more..
Tuesday Trivia: Name That Character
A while back Deborah did a few quizzes in which she listed a series of roles, and you were asked to identify the actor who had played them all. This is sort of the inverse of that one: I list three actors, and you have to identify the character they all played (note: the same character doesn’t always have the same name). Some are probably easy; others, I think, not so much. There is no unifying theme to this quiz, unless someone happens to discern one, in which case there is and I meant it all along.
Update: All solved.
- Elliott Gould, George Sanders, James Garner
Solved by Melville (comment 2) and Hogan (comment 6) - Judi Dench, Michelle Pfeiffer, Anita Louise, Lindsay Duncan
Solved by Evn (comment 8 ) and Hazel (comment 9) - Keanu Reeves, Laurence Olivier, Dan O’Herlihy
Solved by Melville (comment 5) - Natasha Richardson, Elsa Lanchester, Jenny Agutter
Solved by Melville (comment 5) - James LeGros, Jon Finch, Toshiro Mifune, Charlton Heston
Solved by Melville (comment 2) - Yvonne de Carlo, Anne Bancroft, Debra Messing
Solved by Evn (comment 3) - John Malkovich, Tony Todd, Adam Baldwin
Solved by Hazel (comment 9)
Note: I’ll be in meetings for much of the day, beginning at 10:30 am PST, so if I’m not confirming your answers promptly, be patient.
Monday Movie Review: The Silence of the Lambs
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 10/10
FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) interviews Dr. Hannibal Lecter—”Hannibal the Cannibal” (Anthony Hopkins)—a psychiatrist who is one of the most dangerous incarcerated serial killers. Starling’s supervisor/mentor (Scott Glenn) believes that Lecter can help find another serial killer known as Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) who skins his victims. Directed by Jonathan Demme.
As the final credits for The Silence of the Lambs roll, a character walks through a crowd. We are interested in watching him, but he walks away from us, off into the distance as the crane shot recedes. The credits obscure the scene, and when they briefly clear, he is gone. We cannot find him, our fear has disappeared into an ordinary, pretty street scene. The fear remains within.
Maybe everyone has already seen this movie, and there is no point in avoiding spoilers. Indeed, the movie is excellent, and watchable, and terrifying, even when thoroughly and completely spoiled. Yet out of respect for its genius, I think I’ll leave its mysteries intact.
Only three movies in history have swept the Oscars’ four major categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Actor. In 1934 it was It Happened One Night, in 1975 it was One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and in 1991 it was Silence of the Lambs. (All three also won Best Adapated Screenplay.) As it happens, I adore It Happened One Night and Cuckoo’s Nest. I’d seen Silence of the Lambs once before, but it was censored and cut up, and it hadn’t impressed me. I was determined to give it another go, and TCM‘s recent uncut showing gave me the opportunity. So here I am, reviewing a movie everyone’s already seen. Go know.
People say “they don’t make ’em like that anymore” with alarming disregard to what is and is not being made nowadays, or what was made in the past. Yet in regard to Silence of the Lambs, I have to say it’s probably true. They stopped making horror movies that scared by making you imagine, and not see, shortly after Psycho. Silence of the Lambs is about what we don’t see. It is the taut, tightly constrained body of Hannibal Lecter, who is sometimes straight-jacketed and muzzled, but always looks like he is even when his limbs are free. It is the expressive stare of Clarice Starling, who flinches even while not allowing herself to flinch. It is the derangement of Buffalo Bill, whom we barely ever see clearly at all; he is almost always in the side of a shot, or bent over so his face is obscured, or seen in so tight a close-up that his features are distorted, so that the one clear shot of him, bizarre, vulgar, intimately revealing, is actually more shocking, than the autopsy or the head in a jar.
The filming is deceptive in its apparent straightforwardness. Opening at the Quantico, Virginia FBI training facility, it has the grainy look of a made-for-TV movie. But look again. Starling works her ass off on the training course, and then diverges, leaving it incomplete. She runs inside, a small, slight woman, while a group of larger men runs in the opposite direction. And that’s Clarice: Smaller, running in the opposite direction, off-course, tough but out of breath. At the end of the movie, she’ll be in the same position; off-course, out of breath, relying on incomplete training while her compatriots move in the opposite direction. Jonathan Demme clearly studied his Hitchcock; symmetrical film-making of that sort is the kind of thing you learn from the master.
Much has been made of the chilling intimacy of the relationship between Clarice and Hannibal. He is the dark side of the mentoring relationship she seeks with Jack Crawford (Glenn). As she reveals her childhood losses, one can see why reaching towards mentors is appealing to her. And with Lecter, there’s also the sheer joy of winning; anything he reveals to her hasn’t been revealed to anyone else. She’s infinitely special and can reflect this success back to her real mentor.
There is also a feminist undercurrent to the film. Starling is a little bird, preyed upon everywhere by larger men. She is a surrogate for the female victims of Buffalo Bill, who likes large women whom he makes helpless. Instead she is a small woman who can fight back. She can connect to Lecter even though he terrifies her, because he is just the worst possible version of every man who surrounds her, looks down on her, judges her, and tries to victimize her. Like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, she’s the poor sexy little girl running away, who turns around and kicks ass.
Sunday Meditation: Darshan
The word darshan in Hinduism means many things. Here I am referring to the visual contact with the deity, and I am going to be translating it into a Western Pagan context.
We’ve been talking about using an altar for meditation. Some people don’t know quite how to use an altar, or quite how to make the vital connection with deity that makes an altar such an important place in the home.
One thing that really works is to create a visual, one-to-one relationship with the idol you’re working with. Pick up the statue or image (perhaps you have a framed picture). If you can’t pick it up, come close to it. (And this is important when determining how to lay out your altar—make sure you can do this.) Make eye contact. Gaze into the beloved eyes of your Goddess or God, and express love in your gaze. Receive the gaze of your deity, and feel loved in return.
Some statues have expressive eyes that are easy to gaze into. But if a deity statue is a solid—brass or stone—the eyes may lack emphasis. You can adorn your deity with cosmetics to emphasize the eyes. In fact, this can be part of your meditation/worship.
I use a liquid eye-liner to emphasize the eyes on my metal Kali statue, and a touch of red lipstick for shading on lips and brows. The face becomes intensely expressive and I benefit from the extra attention I have given my altar. It instantly feels personalized and intimate.
Breath deeply, ground and center, and gaze upon your altar. Are you able to have the darshan experience as it is now? Can you see your deity easily? Can you bring Him/Her close or yourself come close? Adjust the layout as needed.
Now study the deity and make sure you can truly find Her/His gaze. If the image is “just an image” to you, how can you adorn, emphasize, or adapt this image to make it feel more animated?
Now, breathing deeply and grounding again, light your candles and incense, hold your crystal, do whatever you do that says to you “I am at my altar.” And in that clear and focused state of mind, find your deity’s loving gaze. Perhaps there is a message for you, perhaps not. It is enough simply to breath at peace in this state, and feel the presence.
The return of Dating Hell™
I haven’t done one of these in a while, because, well, no dates.
So let me start out by saying that this guy had a terrible profile on the dating site in question. Just terrible. Obnoxious and scattershot. So he was already a no.
Then he contacted me and wrote me a really nice email, and another really nice email. Both were intelligent and warm and about compatibility, and both were also full of spelling errors. So I thought, Hmm, maybe this is a guy who is smart and nice but can’t write. There are such guys. My ex was such a guy; his emails ranged from blah to actual suckitude, and you’d never guess from reading them how smart and funny he really was.
So I’ve done the classic Deborah thing of second guessing myself, and I respond politely to the guy’s email. And what happens is he starts pursuing me via email, very focused, very nice, never inappropriate, but never dropping the ball or forgetting to follow up or letting me forget to follow up. So my head was a tiny bit turned.
Finally, I give him a phone number and he calls and the call is also very nice. He’s a little bit, I dunno, I can say there were things I didn’t like on the call, but at the time it was a really fun conversation with someone with a real vocabulary and real thoughts in his head. He says “Let’s meet tonight” and I say I can’t and we agree to the following night. Around 10:30 that night my phone rings and I don’t catch it in time, but it’s him, and it’s “Just wanted to say good night. See you tomorrow.” Which was so sweet.
So I go to bed that night thinking, what a nice date I have for tomorrow!
3:30 in the morning, the phone rings. It’s him. “Wanna party?”
Oh. My. Gods.
Did I mention 3:30 in the morning?
So he never actually contacted me after that. Which is nice, for his alcoholism; at least he can still remember that he did it. When the blackouts are total he’s in real trouble. But either way, I’ll never know, because that’s as done as done gets.
I got tagged
Konagod tagged me.
1. Grab the nearest book (that is at least 123 pages long).
2. Open to p. 123.
3. Go down to the 5th sentence.
4. Type in the following 3 sentences.
5. Tag five people.
The substance of magical writing, ancient though it is, survives in a very modern technique—affirmations. Affirmations are used by people who follow all sorts of different paths—Christians, Pagans, agnostics, New Agers—and many people don’t realize that in structure, form, and history, affirmations are essentially an act of magic.
Affirmations are a spell of Air, using repetitive spoken or written language to imprint a magical goal onto the self, and/or to send energy in the form of a message out to a target.
Yes, I wrote it. It’s from The Way of Four Spellbook. I keep the books I’ve written in a little cubby just above the computer (handy for reference), so when a meme says “nearest,” unfortunately I am drawn to solipsism. Kona wanted an Ian Fleming book, but they’re all downstairs.
Answers to M Trivia
All solved in a single day!
Steve Gerber, R.I.P.
I’m sorry to have to link to this obituary of one of the great comic book writers of all time, Steve Gerber. Gerber, most famously the creator of Howard the Duck, wrote smart, sarcastic, witty comics (and later, cartoons) that still had a strong core story. He broke the fourth wall without being smarmy. He commented on his work within his work. He embraced the ridiculous without making the reader feel hoodwinked. He was truly one of a kind.