Exhale

Haha as a follow up to my previous post, I can assure everyone that no one's going to come out of the Da Vinci Code movie going 'Omg! I've been living a lie!' And why?

It was just lame. Impt moments in the movie where cruical information was supposed to be revealed turned out to be quite laughable because of a poor, heavily condensed script which did not build up any suspense/tension/anticipation which would precede any 'great' revelation. And of course compounded by Tom Hanks' incredibly wooden acting. Why does everyone say Tom Hanks is a good actor? He's not. He's as stiff as a plank. That's why the only role he was good in was the one where he played a retarded guy.

Anyways!

Started work at the law firm last week. Have been attached to a family lawyer in the Litigation department which is really cool because she actually deals with clients who are people as opposed to huge, souless corporations like some of the other departments in the law firm do. So it's more interesting in that sense...and rather humane if you know what I mean. Plus, get to read up on cases which involve salacious details of adultery, betrayal, desertion, callous ex-husbands, scornful mistresses and vengeful ex-wives! Haha...well no not all the time...it's usually very pedantic exchanges between the solicitors' of the spouses who demand increasingly higher levels of maintenance (eager wives) or progressively lower settlements (desperate/broke husbands).But now and then you do get cases involving emotions which are very Meditarranean in nature.

I signed a confidentiality agreement so I can't spill any details regarding the cases. But I always feel strange when reading through all the clients' files because I find I know too much about this person I've never met just by looking through her bank account statements, her expenses, long accounts of her ill-fated marriage, email correspondences with her ex-husband...I mean I actually know the address of the wet market where A always goes when she shops for fresh fruit from reviewing Annex A. I know she always buys honey melons for $5.50 whenever she goes there every 2 weeks. I know that B took 6 cabs on the 5th of November and spent $500 on transport for that same month from her list of declared expenses. I know C had "improper relations" (what a great euphemism) with at least 3 other women..and some men, during the course of his marriage by his own admission. I know D got married when she was just 20 to a man 10 years older than her who later abandoned her for 11 years to start another family. I know E's spouse is contesting sole custody of her children because he thinks she's psychotic. And I know E think's he's psychotic in return from her letters demanding psychometric test results. And I know that their kids have been barred from seeing their father from the affidavits and various angry email exchanges. I even know who E is because she's a renowned personality and I've just visited her website and seen her photo. It's really strange because I feel like I'm intruding upon their private lives and overstepping several unwritten boundaries, forming impressions of these distant yet familiar personalities. Sometimes I try and reconstruct how they and their marriages might have been like based on the affidavits. Haha. Weird huh. Maybe I'm just bored.

However, it's always less fun when I meet them in person. Then they turn out to be less exciting than in the files @_@

But in any case I think family court is a really terrible place to be. Everyone there (excluding the lawyers who charge $500 an hour) look stony. And now and then you have upset children who for some reason, follow their parents to divorce court (why, I can't imagine). Argh not a pleasant place.

So don't get divorced! It's sad and also very very very expensive especially when you have vengeful ex wives on the loose.

posted by Jeanne @ 9:49 PM

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.

All art is quite useless.

Oscar Wilde, Preface of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Ok, before struggling Lit students rejoice, the last bit about 'all art being quite useless' was Wilde's own potshot at the Victorian, utilitarian concept that "good Literature" had to have a social function; ie promoting and enforcing morality, ethics and other desirable practices. He wasn't denouncing his own craft. Sorry.

(And incidently, that preface was also added in later editions of the novel, when Dorian Gray was being used as prosecutional evidence against Wilde to prove and successfully try him of "gross indecency". Ok but that's another story altogether.)

But gross indecency aside, and the fact that I still believe in some form of censorship, he had a point. Wilde simply felt that Art or Literature should not have any obligation to be 'politically correct' or shall we say, 'morally correct', and that books shouldn't be judged based on whether its themes were ethical or not. Novels had their own inherent value/beauty. So basically - He rejected any link between Art and Morality and espoused "Art for art's sake".

Ok so that's aestheticism 101.

Well, there's been lots of hype over the impending opening of the Da Vinci code movie. Some people say it's 'blasphemous' and 'immoral'. I think the controversy is heightened because Dan Brown purports that there is a factual element in his novel. Well that's funny because I thought the 'Factual element' which he clearly laid out in his preface was meant to dispel such type of debate! Let's see now:

"FACT:
- The Priory of Sion ...is a real organization.
- The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a Catholic sect...
- Descriptions of Artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals...are accurate."
(summary of the 3 paragraphs in the preface of the Da Vinci Code)

And that’s it. The only things delineated very clearly as ‘Fact’ take up less than a page – The existence of certain sects/organizations and that descriptions of art/places/practices/objects.

Hm now oh dear, even after that lucid, simple 3-paragraph long introduction, I the poor hapless reader, am STILL SO CONFUSED! So does the Da Vinci Code say that the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is irrevocable fact???? I don’t know! Does the Da Vinci Code affirm that the Church’s sneaky rejection of Jesus Christ as a mortal is the Cold Awful Truth!!?? Oh I don’t know what to believe! So is there really a tomb of Mary Magdalene under the Lourve?? This so hard for me!!! Curse you Dan Brown for your deliberately ambiguous and cunningly misleading Preface!! It’s full of hidden meaning and symbolism and it’s not my fault I don’t have a Harvard symbologist and French cryptologist to help me with basic comprehension! I know there’s some secret, devious message behind all the iambic pentameter (I don’t even know what that is but I bet it’s nasty!) and sly references to sacred feminine in your preface but I just can’t find it! A pox on you!! And so because I could not be bothered to properly read your puzzling and perplexing preface, and because you have like totally destroyed my faith which is as small as a mustard seed, I shall write in tons of complain letters to the Straits Times and tell the government to BAN YOUR MOVIE! HAH! Take that Tom Hanks!

Sigh.

At the end of the day, it was probably a very shrewd, astute move on the part of Dan Brown to write a novel that combines both Fact and Fiction. It sells. Period. And I can totally see why he would do that. And I can understand why there’s this whole renewed emphasis on “educating” people on what’s fact and what’s fiction in the novel, and I strongly, strongly encourage that because it’s a great time to promote awareness of faith etc. But I think it’s sad that we couldn’t have reacted in a more dignified way. What, we all chuckle at ‘racist’ jokes because it’s ‘all in good fun’ but suddenly morph into ultra sensitive, self righteous Christians when we read one book? And then we have people go around lambasting Dan Brown for being a ‘liar’ and a ‘deceiver’. I mean, those labels might work if the Da Vinci Code claimed to be say, The Gospel according to Dan Brown? George Bush’s national address? A treatise on Theology? But it’s not and never did make such bombast claims. Perhaps there is a reason why the novel is conspicuously absent from the ‘Religion’ shelves?

BECAUSE IT’S A MYSTERY/SUSPENSE/ADVENTURE THRILLER PLACED UNDER THE ‘GENERAL FICTION’ SECTION OF KINOKUNIYA. IT’S WORTH $18. GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Of course there’s bound to be fiction in, you know, A FICTIONAL BOOK even though he does use some elements of fact which are clearly stated in the beginning of the novel. But even then, aren’t most novels somewhat grounded in some form of reality so the reader can relate to it? Doesn’t that sometimes enhance the reading experience? Not all of us are fantasy buffs you know (and even then…). Would you call Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose blasphemous as well? It’s certainly historically situated. So are all Franciscan monks murderous, conspiring homosexuals?

This harkens back to the furore over Harry Potter years ago. Granted Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code deal with very different issues and come from dissimilar contexts, but it’s the same old uncalled for backlash and emotive outpouring of righteous rage. Oh – magic wands and broomsticks. Let’s see. So…that can only mean…erh…Occult, occult, occult!!! Antichrist antichrist antichrist!! Ban the movie, ban the movie!!! Harry Potter teaches your children to take drugs!! Bring on the witch hunts!!!

It’s been 7 years after the first Harry Potter book was released. I think our society is still intact thank you very much. No underage Satanic cults rampaging across the country. Yep. No news is good news.

In any case. Take it simply for what it was meant to be. A book. A fictional book. Literary purists might scoff at it. It does heavily employ what may be termed ‘cheap thrills’. But all the same. A work of fiction. Which just happened to touch on a very touchy subject and made it to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller.

Now calm down and let’s all enjoy another mind-numbing, good ol’ action movie. And hope el Hanko is better than el Cruiso at any rate.

posted by Jeanne @ 5:39 PM

By the prickling of my thumbs
something wicked this way comes.

It's the weirder half of TomKat!

I have to say, M:I3 was the ultimate and terrifically shameless ego-rush for the latter. Everyone else including Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote and the MI3 villain) was rendered grossly superfluous. I know its an action movie and Tom Cruise is supposed to be. Well. The lead. And that he demanded significant 'creative control' over this movie. But the film's feeble attempts at maximizing Cruise screen-time while still grudgingly attempting to apportion like 3 seconds for his co-stars to become significant sidekicks to the all-consuming screen monster that is el Cruiso, were so lame that they might as well have never tried.

In fact it was so shoddily done it was funny. In 1 out of the maybe 2 scenes where Tom Cruise's mug was not visible at all for a whole 20 seconds, Maggie Q and Johnaton Rhys Meyers were alone in some vehicle. And then Maggie Q starts muttering some Cantonese prayer for Ethan Hawk's safety or whatever, and goes on to recount some nostalgic childhood tale behind the meditative chant. And then Rhys Meyer's character, after maintaining a tactful, reverent silence, asks her very earnestly to teach him the prayer. But then, what could have blossomed into an intimate, quiet scene, or Maggie Q uttering her third complete complex sentence in the movie ("We're on the move" or "I'm on it" don't really count) or at the very least, a great cross-cultural opportunity was ruined by Tom Cruise dramatically smashing through 5 windows from the 10th floor of a skyscrapper practically screaming OK FAIR'S FAIR! YOU'VE EARNED ENOUGH SCREEN TIME TO BE CONSIDERED SUPPORTING ACTORS! CAMERAMEN, BACK TO ME BACK TO ME BACK TO ME!!!! WOOOO!!! LOOK AT ME EVERYONE!! I SAID LOOK AT ME DAMNIT!!! I'M FLYING!!! LOOK AT MY HOT PARACHUTE!!! WOOO THIS KICKSASS!!!!!! I'M TOM CRUISE!!!! AND I'M IN LOVE!

So while I can get why Tom Cruise pops out in every scene like some mutant mushroom outgrowth, why bother with the Maggie Q/Rhys Meyers-in-the-car-praying take? It's completely useless and only served to underscore how redundant they really were in the movie. Perhaps they were emulating the Shakespearan tradition of having like, brief "comic interludes" in tragedies? Only maybe this was modified to become a wannabe "deep, sentimental" moment revealing teamwork and fraternity etc until withdrawal symptoms hit Tom Cruise and he came trundling down the middle of Shanghai? No. It fell as flat as Phillip Seymour Hoffman's utterly ignominous death by the end of the show. (OK NOW HE'S DEAD SO WE CAN PLEASE TURN THE LIGHTS BACK ON ME ME ME ME ME!!!!???? SWEET.)

But other than that little peeve. It's a decent, no-brainer action movie. The part shot in Vatican city was cool. After all, we should not judge films so critically even if they do become cellulite shrines for the burgeoning egos of some artistes. Hm.

posted by Jeanne @ 3:35 PM

Lindsay Morgan Lohan!

I don't really understand this girl. At all.

Don't get me wrong. I adored her in Mean Girls and Freaky Friday. She was strangely likeable in Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen. And positively sweet in The Parent Trap. And she's not half bad an actress for her young young age.

I defended her even after all those reports of perennial partying and cavorting with dubious company. I sympathized with her when she got hospitalized for "work exhaustion" despite the catty remarks which said otherwise. I stayed calm when she emerged from said hospitalization looking all creepy and skeletal and anorexic. I overlooked her bizzare foray into music and the dastardly effort that was 'Rumours'. I applauded her for coming out with her Bulimia problem and various Daddy issues earlier this year. I saluted how healthy and glowing and fabulous she looked 2 months ago on the cover of Vanity Fair. I supported her attempts to become, you know, a 'serious' ac-tor or thespian or whatever it is she's trying to remould herself into now. I was even willing to forgive her for wearing the above outfit to the Kid's Choice Awards, which someone called a mess of 'unbleached organic paper towels', and for later flashing 10 million american kids when she went up to receive her award. Because, you know, I'm sure it must've been an accident or some mistake (the flashing and the outfit).

And then she transmogrified into some crazy lunatic. My patience is wearing thin!

Lindsay? Why do you insist on making it your life mission to launch multiple jihads against all female celebrities in Hollywood under the age 30? Do you find perverse pleasure stomping on people's toes and ripping them into shreds? I don't know any other starlet with as many feuds as you have. I mean it was pretty interesting in the beginning to read stuff about you and Hillary Duff but now its really getting tiresome and quite worrying. Are you ok? Do you need help? A friend, perhaps? Prozac? Yoga? A straitjacket?

Let's see. There was that little thing between you and the Duff sisters...then Jessica and Ashlee Simpson. Tara Reid (who, I might add, was your former friend and party-mate until you famoulsy claimed you were not some 'crazy Tara Reid-esque party girl"). Kirsten Dunst. Scarlet Johansson. Then Pink went out and dissed you in her 'Stupid Girls' video. And now apparently you've come between Paris and her ex boyfriend. And then I read that you made Jessica cry in an LA bar after she forgot to thank you for buying her drinks. Girl.

What happened? Are you really that hung up over Aaron Carter? Do visions of Wilmer Valderamamma or whatever his name is still haunt you when you're in yet another drunken stupor? Must you hit on Nick Lachey after his divorce? Can you not let go of ex boyfriends? Are you still channelling the spirit of the Plastics? Perhaps you're preparing for a role in a Means Girls sequel? Is the peroxide/hair dye getting to you?

I also think it's telling that the only co-workers you seem to have some semblance of a healthy relationship with are all at least twice your age. Meryl Streep? Virginia Madsen? Brett Ratner? (who may or may not still be a "friend" after you went psychotic finding him in bed with his fiance - oops!) Louis Vuitton???

Lindsay! You're 19 years old! I know you're trying to be a serious thespian or whatever but can't you get some nice, sensible and decent friends your age? Friends who don't have a permanent column dedicated to them in Star, Us Weekly or OK magazine next to the main article of the ongoing sensationalist Jessica-Nick divorce saga? And not ''mentors'' and substitute parents who feel compelled by some maternally instinct to keep defending your bizzare wild schizophrenic side to the media? How about, say, Natalie Portman? She seems well adjusted. She is functionally literate. She's fairly articulate and smart. Or may I suggest Rachel McAdams? Remember? That other talented actress in Mean Girls who fortunately did not remain in character after the production? And can I trust, that after forging a friendship with her, you will not steal her boyfriend and then launch another holy war on poor Rachel? Lindsay? Can I trust you??

No I guess I can't.

posted by Jeanne @ 2:03 PM