sweden, i’m in sweden

The good news today is that you can now buy the excellent film Let the Right One In with the correct subtitles. Amazon has had a blurb for a while saying that if you ordered the DVD, you might get the regular subtitles (booo!), or you might get the theatrical subtitles (yay!). (Google "Let the Right One In subtitles" to find out the scoop.)

Now they will send you the correct version. Yes, I bought it again, and watched it, and enjoyed it even more than before. The box quotes the Washington Examiner saying, "Best. Vampire Movie. Ever." Not sure I'd be so definitive, but I can't think of one that's better.

(Not to be confused with the upcoming crappy Hollywood remake.)

In other Swedish news, I finished The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Well, I confess I skimmed the last 100 pages or so. The villain is revealed on page 438, the villain is dispatched on page 459, and the final mystery is solved on page 487. And then the book goes on for another 103 pages. Many of which consist of emails the characters write to each other.

I may write more about the book at some point, but I will mention that it is on the cover of Entertainment Weekly this week, and there's an interesting sidebar called "Did Larsson Have a Problem with Women?" by Missy Schwartz. It doesn't seem to be online for some reason – but if it's posted later I will add a link here (link). I think the piece makes some good points. (By the way, I do think Ms. Schwartz may be wrong about Salander getting breast implants – I read that scene as saying that she was wearing falsies as part of a disguise. As I say, though, I was skimming, so maybe I missed the implants. If I'm wrong, that just shows how far things went off the tracks at the end.)

I am still looking forward to the movie (out soon on DVD, not to be confused with the upcoming Hollywood remake).

In news with no direct connection with Sweden, there is more of "The Sister Mystery" posted. The new parts begin here.

agatha and janice and joey

I found this article interesting. My favorite part was the writer's astonishment at the fact that Agatha Christie sometimes started her mysteries with no idea who the murderer would be. The writer is so startled by this idea that she mentions it twice, both times with italics:

"Most astonishing, Curran discovers that for all her assured skewering of human character in a finished novel, sometimes when Christie started her books, even she didn't know who the murderer was. Ah! It makes sense—a brilliant mystery writer must first experience the mystery! Or does it?"

And:

"The most astonishing thing about the wide net Christie threw out each day is that she also cast it over her murderers. I always assumed she just knew who did it, in the same way that, well, a murderer knows exactly who they want to kill. Certainly, at the end of her books, she always made you feel that the story couldn't have happened any other way. It had only ever seemed otherwise because you couldn't see it. But it turns out that for many of her books, Christie often ran through multiple scenarios for the victim, the method of death, and the identity of the murderer."

It doesn't surprise me at all, of course. And, as I've pointed out before, it wouldn't have surprised Rex Stout either. I know that in writing classes they tell you to plot everything out in advance, to make charts and diagrams, and I'm sure some people actually do that, but many do not.

Some people write like Alfred Hitchcock made movies: every scene and gesture planned out before the first word is written. Other do it more like Robert Altman: putting a bunch of interesting characters together in an interesting situation and watching what happens.

I also liked this comment in the article (about Christie's habit of writing in different notebooks all the time, because most days she had difficulty locating the one she had been using the day before):

Christie's half-dozen active notebooks evoke the modern computer desktop. What would she have made of a Mac, apart from killing someone with it?

That reminded me of Steven King's recent comment that he loves all sorts of gadgets, especially if he can think of ways that they could go weird on their owners.

Joey and Janice

When I write about Jan Sleet, especially when she talks about her youth (as she does here), I sometimes think about Joey Ramone, the late lead singer of The Ramones.

I read an article once where the writer happened to see Joey on line at a bank one day, and he (the writer) reflected that, no matter what, Joey would have been a freak. Could anybody imagine him in a suit, or in tennis clothes? But in a leather jacket, a T-shirt, ripped jeans, and sneakers, he looked completely appropriate. He was fortunate to find rock and roll, where freaks of various sorts can be appreciated and even celebrated.

Jan Sleet is a bit like that. In the scene I link to above, she talks about her experiences in high school, where she was clearly a freak. Weird looking, tall and skeletally thin, bookish (and perhaps a bit arrogant about her brains), there was no way she was going to be popular. Any attempt to be popular would have been doomed to failure, which would have galled her, so she didn't try. With the support of her father, who had grown up a different kind of freak in a different small town, she started to develop a plan and a persona which would make it obvious that she should be judged by a different set of standards.

let the right avatar into your existenz

eXistenZ

Hey, somebody wrote an article about eXistenZ! You can read it here.

Wow. I didn't think anybody remembered that movie other than me. I remember it really well, since I saw it four times in theaters and bought the DVD the day it was released.

My excitement at seeing the article aside, I think the writer is wrong about a couple of things. The biggest one is that I don't think the "game urges" are a commentary on games. As I wrote in my review (click on the spoiler warning at the bottom), Cronenberg is not using games as a metaphor for games, he's using them as a metaphor for movies.

"There are things that have to be said to advance the plot and establish the characters, and those things get said whether you want to say them or not." In other words, characters say the things they have to say in order to get to the next plot point, no matter whether those things are "in character" or not.

I also think the idea behind the "why would anybody want to play this game?" point is in order to beg the question of why we accept the idea of playing games centered around violently murdering other human beings. Why is that considered more entertaining than what Allegra and Ted are going through?

Avatar

I saw Avatar. I enjoyed it, and I will probably see it again. However, taste (and politics) are different from person to person, so I can see why some people might not like it.

The thing which is really hard to understand is how some people (as described here have seen it and apparently their strongest reaction was, "Oh, gracious, there's smoking!!" That's sad.

On the other hand, Cameron's response is hilariously disingenuous. She's Sigourney Weaver, she smokes, she drinks, she curses, she's rude, and she's Sigourney Weaver. In what way is that not an "an aspirational role model"?

Let the Right One In

Score one for brick-and-mortar stores. Some people bought this (excellent) film on DVD from Amazon recently and got copies with the (coveted) theatrical subtitles. Others continue to receive the (pathetic) original DVD subtitles. Appparently Amazon has two cartons, and they pull one from the first box, one from the second box, etc.

There's no way to be sure which you'll get, except to buy it in a store that sells DVDs (where you can check the description on the back).

That's if there are actually still stores that sell DVDs (especially DVDs of non-blockbuster Swedish pre-teen vampire romance movies). I'll have to look around, since I really don't need another copy with the (pathetic) non-theatrical subtitles.

keep a-goin’

(Thinking about the recent death of Henry Gibson, I remembered this piece from a bit over nine years ago, which I decided to post here. More below on why.)

keep a-goin' (August 1, 2000)

I've been thinking a lot about persistence recently.

A member of Really Deep Thoughts Right Now (the Tori Amos email list where Bethany and I met) recently saw Patti Smith for the first time, and he was blown away. As he said, "so i got home from patti smith last night spent and wasted and ready to fucking change the world." I think it's great that Patti is being discovered by a whole group of younger fans these days, just as Neil Young was a few years ago. Fads and trends come and so, but Patti keeps on making the music that matters to her. Every time the entertainment industry extrudes one more plastic pop star for our listening pleasure, Patti Smith looks just a little bit better.

And there's Robert Altman, one of my favorite movie directors of all time. He's been in and out of favor in Hollywood, but he keeps on finding a way to make movies. Some have been good and some have been bad, and a few have been masterpieces (McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and Nashville, for two examples). He's usually not considered to be on a par with Coppola and Scorsese, though he's made more great movies than either of them. For a while, in fact, many of his best films were not even available on video. Somebody asked him how he dealt with that, and he said he dealt with it the only way he could, by making another movie. At seventy-five, he's still more interested in the next picture than in all the ones he's directed already.

And, finally, there's Orson Welles. He was 24 when he directed Citizen Kane, his first movie. It is widely considered the greatest movie ever made in the United States. Until then, everything in his life had gone right. He'd been a successful actor, director and producer on Broadway, and a popular actor and director on the radio, and he'd arrived in Hollywood with an unprecedented contract which gave him complete control over the films that he made.

Welles once said that he had the same amount of good and bad luck as anybody else, he just had all the good luck first, and then all the bad luck. And he did have terrible luck after he left Hollywood, and he made quite a few mistakes as well, but for whatever other mistakes he may have made, he never gave up. He could have lived quite comfortably by just working as an actor, but again and again he made money as an actor only to spend it as a director. But some of the movies he made in those later years were great Touch of Evil, Falstaff, and The Trial come to mind).

One of my favorite moments in the movie Ed Wood comes when Wood (at a particularly low ebb when the church that's backing his "grave robbers from outer space" movie decides to pull out, partly because they discover he's a transvestite) goes into a gloomy bar to drown his sorrows, and finds himself face to face with Orson Welles. They commiserate about how difficult it is to make a movie (Welles urbanely ignoring the fact that the other man is in drag), because somebody else always controls the money, and finally Ed Wood asks, "Is it all worth it?"

"It is when it works," Welles says, and tells about making Citizen Kane, the one movie where nobody could touch a frame of it except for him. "Visions are worth fighting for," he continues. "Why spend your life making someone else's dreams?"

I love that moment, partly because the idea of Orson Welles offering advice to Ed Wood (who had tremendous enthusiasm but no discernible talent) is hilarious, and partly because the message is true. And Wood, recharged by this encounter with his hero, goes back and makes the movie his way, and the end result is Plan 9 from Outer Space, widely regarded as the worst movie ever made by anybody.

But, as he says earlier in the film, "The worst movie you ever saw? Well, my next one will be better!"

I guess all of this has been on my mind because I've been thinking about a writing project I put aside a few years ago. It was a huge, open-ended story, with a ton of characters and plots, and I used to post it in installments on BBSs (computer bulletin boards). But then I decided it was getting out of hand, and that it really should be turned into a regular novel (you know, like the ones other people write).

Now I'm not so sure.

Anyway, thanks to Bethany for letting me sit in. I'll see you all in a month for the Hejira One-Year Anniversary bash. I'll be the one in the angora sweater.

(This was written as a guest entry on Bethany's online journal, and it's interesting to read it now, since it's about my decision to finish U-town, which was finished on my 50th birthday, four and a half years after I wrote the above. And the only reason I thought of it now was that Henry Gibson died, and I remembered his terrific performances in The Long Goodbye and Nashville, and inevitably I thought about "Keep A-Goin'," one of the songs he sings in the latter movie. And that reminded me that I'd written something with that title once, thought it took Google to help me locate it. So, I thought I should post it here.)

(Oh, and Bethany, who is mentioned above? She's persistent, too. Her current journal is ladypilot.org, where she says, "i have been writing online in one form or another since 1999 [that’s longer than you and way before the word 'blog' existed].")

Later: I wanted to add the story below, which I first told in a comment on this post on Jo Eberhardt's blog, The Happy Logophile:

Quick story about my ex. After she and I split up, she was living with this guy (we’ll call him Chuck). She called me one night, and as we talked she mentioned that she was taking karate lessons. She explained that it was just for exercise and because it felt good, that it’s very difficult to get a black belt when you start as late as she did (she was in her 30s), that most people who get a black belt start when they’re kids, etc. Then she paused and she asked, “Am I going to try for a black belt?”

I laughed. “Of course you are. And you’re going to get it, too.”

She laughed, and then she said quietly, “Chuck hasn’t figured that out yet.”

And she did get the black belt.

the year matters

I'm still re-reading Inherent Vice, but there is one comment I wanted to make.

Some reviews compared it to The Big Lebowski and even The Long Goodbye (the Altman film, not the Chandler book). There are obvious similarities, as I indicated before, but there's also a big difference. Both Elliott Gould's Philip Marlowe and the Dude are men out of their time, out of step with the world around them.

Inherent Vice, however, is about the brief period when a lot of people shared Doc Sportello's ideas and ideals and habits. In fact, it's about the exact moment when that began to change, so in that way it's much more like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

It even has its own version of "the wave speech" (on page 254, where it talks about "...Doc, on the natch, caught in a low-level bummer he couldn't find his way out of, about how the Psychedelic Sixties, this little parenthesis of light, might close after all, and all be lost, taken back into darkness... how a certain hand might reach terribly out of the darkness and reclaim the time, easy as taking a joint from a doper and stubbing it out for good."). And that scene takes place as he's in a motel, with at least one television on, on his way back from (of all places) Las Vegas.

Thompson was writing at his best in the early 1970s, which was very well indeed. But Pynchon, the old paranoid (and with many years of hindsight that Thompson didn't have, since Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was written at the tail end of the process in question), is much clearer about the fact that the wave didn't just roll back; there was also somebody pushing.

vice and vampires

I finished Inherent Vice, and it was quite enjoyable. I didn't worry too much about the plot, but now I'm curious. The story was very complex (or complicated), with a lot of characters, and I have no idea if it all makes sense or not. And, if it does make sense, is it worth the effort of figuring it out?

So, I'm going to read it again, and we'll see what happens.

Also, it made me think about missing-person mystery stories in general. I've been watching John Ford's The Searchers, which is (among other things) a missing-person story. Ethan Edwards and Martin Pawley (the "searchers" of the title) travel all over the western United States, and into Mexico and Canada, over many years, tracking a missing girl.

Because that's the thing about missing-person stories. Murder mysteries are centered around a dead body. Everything radiates out from there. (Obviously, cases with multiple murders are more complex, but the same general point still applies.) Missing-person stories don't have a center, so they often cover a lot of ground.

Farewell My Lovely
The Mother Hunt
The Big Lebowski
The Moving Target
B is for Burglar
Inherent Vice

I think Jan Sleet should solve a missing-person case.


On another front, I'm glad I did the vampire story when I did, since vampires have now become such a fad. I believe there are two different vampire shows on TV these days, plus all the novels and the movies and so on.

Of course, the fact that I'm rather sick of the whole idea does not extend to the fact that Johnny Depp is going to star in a big-screen remake of Dark Shadows (whoo hoo!), and it doesn't extend to Let the Right One In, which is still a great movie.


Oh, and I should mention that the method of evading the truth that is used in The Golden Mystery (specifically here) is an old Quaker trick. I always thought it was a rather silly distinction myself, but obviously it's important to some people.

Also, I just found this article (I found it in the hard copy magazine, and had some trouble finding it online because they changed the title). I agree with the premise, of course, since I've been doing more or less the same thing for nearly twenty years now (only not on Twitter, and with fiction rather than jokes, but the idea is the same).