so, it has been some five days since i last posted to this blog; i figure a picture per day and you can do the maths (the absence of actual pictures may be a clue). i was claiming chivalry as the reason for my absence from this medium, allowing my CO-contributor jane, amid whose exhortations and general delusions of grandeur i commenced this enterprise, to make her first post (she really does exist). but fearing our baby would wither and die without love or at least constant nurturing, i a forced to ask myself - what have i been up to? i'm glad you asked...
TUESDAY
caught a ten-piece funk outfit perform at barbukka, smith street. signs malcolm may be more drunk than he thinks he is; when discussing partying the night away, repeatedly asking a friend whom he had established at a previous, alcohol-free encounter was from cyprus, whether she did so on the island of crete in her youth. proceeded by the question, "are people from crete called cretans?"
WEDNESDAY
dinner at shakahari, farraday street, carlton to celebrate a friend's birthday. followed by dessert at brunetti across the road, drinking at birra bella which is NOT just around the corner and which another friend and i decided was italian for "beer bitch". shenanigans, misdeeds and further imbibing subsequently took place at a share house in north melbourne.
THURSDAY
day of rest
FRIDAY
received last minute invitation to frolic in the dandenong ranges and take in tea at miss marple's tea house in sassafras. accompanied by anna and catriona who demanded that their anonymity not be respected. probably will be refused entry to that quaint establishment if i ever intend to visit again (altogether due to the tenor of our conversation).
the evening's entertainment was provided by a university club's social function @ strike bowling in the QV centre. it was also nominally a traffic light party although the degree to which this was adhered to was marginal. i wore green cord trousers, and an orange puma long-sleeve tee under a red shirt; i'm versatile! bowled a respectable 122 finishing spare, strike, spare.
SATURDAY & SUNDAY
uneventful weekend of domestic bliss punctuated by an outing to brunswick street for coffee on sunday afternoon.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
sideways & pretensions of criticism
i took myself along to see sideways last night. or, more precisely, was invited to do so by a fellow cinematic recalcitrant some four months after its theatrical release in australia. it had been variously described to me as uncannily pertinent, hysterical (a pisser, in fact; thanks jane, she is everso eloquent) and the most overrated film of the year (an opinion i suspected appropriated from jim schembri, later confirmed). i also had a vague recollection of a short piece in the age citing a new york times’ film critic’s claim that it would have made a more worthy winner at the academy awards than million dollar baby.*
the most I can say for it was that it was pleasant, agreeable and unextraordinary. the protagonist, miles (paul giamati) lives a life of quiet desperation - living, as he says, from bottle to bottle - from which he never resiles and, like in his 700 page unpublished novel, no definitive resolution is offered by this film. this left my companion wanting more but I don’t know of how much more this film was capable. no genuine pathos was engendered for the characters, one of whom (sandra oh’s stephanie) was introduced and discarded as little more than a plot device. although the film attempted to imbue itself with meaning containing several verbose exchanges concerning the nature of wine as analogies for the characters’ lives, poignancy was foregone and the story played itself out seemingly for nothing more than laughs. it was nice but empty, breezy but lightweight (is this what is meant by a european sensibility?). if anything the impression one left with was of a little film, with no over-reaching ambition, that achieved what it set out to accomplish. and in that sense, it was well made. but it didn’t get me.
* subsequent to drafting this post, i tracked down the age article which referred to said critic’s (caryn james) piece as a "blistering" indictment of the institution of the academy awards under the headline swipe at the oscars. it can be found in the metro section in paul kalina’s short cuts column on the 10th march, 2005 and is available at the age website at cost. according to kalina, james was unimpressed with both the ceremony and outcome, railing against the devaluation of the awards and lamenting that sideways (the most "innovative" film of the year) was overlooked. the original source for this piece, which was published on march 1st, 2005, can be found here [NB: you may need to register as a NYTimes.com member to access the full text] and i thought it to be far more sanguine, measured and level-headed than readers of the age were led to believe.
the most I can say for it was that it was pleasant, agreeable and unextraordinary. the protagonist, miles (paul giamati) lives a life of quiet desperation - living, as he says, from bottle to bottle - from which he never resiles and, like in his 700 page unpublished novel, no definitive resolution is offered by this film. this left my companion wanting more but I don’t know of how much more this film was capable. no genuine pathos was engendered for the characters, one of whom (sandra oh’s stephanie) was introduced and discarded as little more than a plot device. although the film attempted to imbue itself with meaning containing several verbose exchanges concerning the nature of wine as analogies for the characters’ lives, poignancy was foregone and the story played itself out seemingly for nothing more than laughs. it was nice but empty, breezy but lightweight (is this what is meant by a european sensibility?). if anything the impression one left with was of a little film, with no over-reaching ambition, that achieved what it set out to accomplish. and in that sense, it was well made. but it didn’t get me.
* subsequent to drafting this post, i tracked down the age article which referred to said critic’s (caryn james) piece as a "blistering" indictment of the institution of the academy awards under the headline swipe at the oscars. it can be found in the metro section in paul kalina’s short cuts column on the 10th march, 2005 and is available at the age website at cost. according to kalina, james was unimpressed with both the ceremony and outcome, railing against the devaluation of the awards and lamenting that sideways (the most "innovative" film of the year) was overlooked. the original source for this piece, which was published on march 1st, 2005, can be found here [NB: you may need to register as a NYTimes.com member to access the full text] and i thought it to be far more sanguine, measured and level-headed than readers of the age were led to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)