I haven’t had much time to read lately so I thought I’d try an audiobook to listen to while I’m at work.  So, I’ve just begun “The Painted Veil” by W. Somerset Maugham. I had already enjoyed another of his works, “The Razor’s Edge,” and seen the film version of “The Painted Veil” so I expected to also enjoy this new expedition into Maugham’s work, and I do. The plot involves a woman, named Kitty, who marries a shy bacteriologist whom she doesn’t particularly love. This is partly from competition with her younger sister, who is about to marry, and also to avoid becoming an old maid. She’s 25 and at that time pushing the limits of how old an unmarried woman can be and still attract youthful suitors. She moves with her new husband, Walter, to the British colony at Hong Kong. Once there she begins an affair with a married man until Walter discovers the truth. I won’t reveal more because I haven’t gotten that far through the book quite yet and it’s not relevant to what I’m going to discuss.

Like when I read “The Razor’s Edge,”  I’m struck by two qualities of Maugham’s characters. The first is that no matter how foreign the lifestyle and outlook of a character they each possess a degree of detail which makes them entirely believable to me. The second quality is that the author is able to make characters which are quite dislikeable possess a fascinating nature. Kitty, whom the book is currently focusing on, is vain, immature and quite stupid. Yet I can’t bring myself to write her off or hope for her misfortune.  Currently I’m wrapped up in her situation.

However, the biggest puzzle I always wonder about in literature, and in real life is, how these cheating housewives begin affairs with married men and expect that if the affair is discovered that they and their co-conspirators will each divorce their respective spouses and remarry each other! To my knowledge, 99% of the married men having these affairs, in real life and in literature, would never leave his current spouse. Instead, he is quite willing to toss away his plaything, usually breaking her heart asunder. This seems to be the situation Kitty has put herself into. My question is: Why?

A woman at my workplace suggested women in this situation have low self-esteem and that the affair affords them a way to feel better about themselves. If they can fool themselves that the man wants them strongly enough they can see themselves in a different way. This sounds as if the affair could be looked at like a drug. Is this a valid explanation as to why?

Or could it be chalked up to pure childishness? Wouldn’t a woman born and raised in a protected British manor situation, which shelters women from the outside world and unpleasantness, remain childish? She would be subject to the same naivety in love that most folks go through in their awkward teenage years. Others would have the benefit of being in love and being heartbroken to use as a guide when picking a suitable suitor and also when evaluating the prospect of having an affair. Kitty is virginal in more than just a physical sense since she has never really delved into love. Is this a valid explanation?

It doesn’t really explain how the scenario described still occurs now, in the post-feminist period. Finally, a different coworker suggested it is simply emotion that leads to the foolish infidelity. Kitty, and others like her, feel strong emotions which drive them to believe that “somehow I’ll be different! He’ll divorce his wife and marry me!” Who knows if this is the answer.

Anyway, these are things I’m pondering as I listen to “The Painted Veil” on my ipod while at work.

Continue reading "First Impressions: The Painted Veil" »

I went to the gym today. I did my workout and then did some cardio too. While I was pedaling away on my upright stationary bike, I couldn’t but help notice a woman to my left on a recumbent bike. As she was biking away in a room filled with large HD tvs showing CNN, the Food Network, and VH1, I couldn’t help but notice the amount of distractions she had with her. Now, I understand the benefits of watching televion as you are on treadmill, bike, or whatnot because it’s can be helpful to put your mind somewhere else while your quads are burning. However, this woman, had positioned in front of her on the bike her Ipod, her cellphone, and a book which she was reading. I was incredulous while I watched her reading, listening to music, texting every minute or so all the while biking. My question is this: Whatever happened to just doing one (or even two) things?

It seems like nowadays we just can’t focus on one thing. While I applaud everyone’s ability to multi-task, I’ve got to worry about the depth of thought each task is receiving. There is something to be said about taking the time to concentrate on one thing and appreciate it.

I see the same type of thought process in the cinema of today. I call it the Michael Bay/Tony Scott style of filmmaking.  If you watch a Michael Bay film carefully, you’ll notice that he almost never holds a shot for more than 5 seconds. Not only that, the camera is always active. It’s always moving closer to, further from, or around the principle actors. With this lack of attention we’d never have such greats films as Lawrence of Arabia. We’d never see that famous mirage shot in the desert. I have this terrible fear that movies will turn into action movie trailers in which we 1 second clips of things exploding and people running cut together until it’s totally incomprehensible.

Maybe as a generation, we should make a deliberate effort to just concentrate on one thing a little bit. Maybe we should cook without the television on so we make a better meal. Maybe the bars should turn off the television sets so their patrons can pay attention to what their friends are saying. Maybe news networks should report on one story at a time instead of having a ticker tape along the bottom of the screen filled with vacuous headlines. Maybe, we’ll be smarter for it, maybe we’ll find more meaning in what we do because of our depth of thought. Maybe the next time I try to discuss something with someone they’ll have more than a cursory opinion.

Just a thought…

Continue reading "The ADD Generation" »

I just reread Shakespeare’s Macbeth again. This is probably the 3rd or 4th time I’ve read the play. I’ve also seen it performed twice and watched Roman Polanski’s awesome version too. Everytime I read the play I’m struck with just how unbelievably unsympathetic Lady MacBeth is.

A Shakespeare teacher I once told me that there is great importance in the first things a character says within a play. Taking that advice to heart, when we first meet Lady Macbeth, her first action is to scheme and fantasize about Macbeth taking over the kingship. Now granted this track was initiated by the Weird Sisters and Macbeth’s own letter relating the sisters’ prophecy, but seriously… The first thing she does in the play is to scheme murder.

I would say Shakespeare absolutely makes Macbeth into a character that fits that Aristotelian model of the tragic hero set forth in the poetics. Macbeth is at heart a morally good man (though flawed) who chooses to make the wrong decision, which leads him down a path of further wrong decisions and destruction. As Aristotle says, he is supposed to evoke feelings pity and fear from the viewer, and he does. However, I can’t call Lady Macbeth a sympathetic. Due to her position within the play she seems poised to become a tragic heroine, but instead she becomes at best a pathetic character and at worst a rank villain. There are several reasons for why I feel this way.

1. Lady Macbeth is a coldhearted schemer.

As mentioned earlier, Lady Macbeth’s first reaction when hearing of the prophecy and Macbeth’s investment with a new rank is to plot the murder of King Duncan. However, there’s more evidence. In Act II Scene II, after Macbeth has murdered Duncan in his sleep, he returns to his wife outside the king’s chamber. Macbeth is so shaken that he cannot will himself to return and place the murder weapons by the king’s attendants. Not only does Lady Macbeth angrily take over for Macbeth in his “weakness” but she adds the cherry on top. She places the sanguine dangers by the king’s men and then smears Duncan’s blood on their faces. Unlike Macbeth who questions whether or not the murder should be committed, Lady Macbeth gleefully leaps onto the train to her oblivion through murder.

2.  Lady Macbeth questions Macbeth’s tenacity yet has none herself

Throughout the early portions of the play, Macbeth questions whether or not he should murder Duncan. Righfully so too. Of course, there are all the moral reasons not to commit murder, but then there is also the enormous risk that goes hand in hand with treason. However, Lady Macbeth continually nags at Macbeth, questions his manliness, and boasts her ability to do the deed if she were a man. However, once the murder is committed she falls to pieces. While her mental breakdown certainly is pathetic, it is difficult to feel sympathy for a boastful person who gets their comeuppance. She certainly was able to talk the talk, but once their was blood on her hands (literally) she couldn’t take it. Macbeth certainly has his moments of mental breakdown, especially during the dining scene in Act III Scene IV, but not only is he able to pull it together, he can also still retains our sympathy. After all, he was pushed into this and his bad decisions snowball into his prophecized doom.

3. Lady Macbeth is NOT subject to prophecy.

If we take prophecies of the weird sisters to be fate, much like the edicts handed down by the Delphic Oracle in Oedipus Rex, then we have to admit that Macbeth didn’t really have much choice in his fate. If Macbeth is fated to become the next king after a healthy king with two healthy sons, it becomes pretty obvious that some shady dealings would have to occur to interrupt the bloodline. Think of it this way. If all roads lead to Rome, than the only real choice you have is which road you take…to Rome. However, Lady Macbeth’s fate is never revealed.  It’s her own choosing. She chooses to embark on the journey of murder. It is also her choice to kill herself, which given the Christian audience is a sin of the lowest order. The fact that Lady Macbeth chooses to do all these things without the influence of any supernatural forces makes her even less sympathetic to the viewer.

Now, while I certainly do feel a measure of sadness for Macbeth when his wife kills herself, you’ve also got to realize that to a certain degree he is better off without her. If he had eliminated such a negative influence from his life in the beginning maybe things would have turned out better for Macbeth. At the least, maybe he could have kept his head. However, I submit that one of the tragedies of Macbeth is the title character’s marriage to Lady Macbeth, a character who rivals Iago in malevolence.

Continue reading "Lady Macbitch" »

I saw this image in a banner ad for Snorg Tees. While I think the shirt is neat because I like the reference to the film There Will Be Blood, I’m curious as to how many of the people who buy the shirt have actually seen the movie or are even aware of the film. Has it thusly become some sort of meme within popular culture? Could be.

Unfortunately, the thing that drives me crazy about such references is that often the person who is propagating them throughout everyday culture is usually blissfully unaware of its origin. While the utterance of the phrase “I drink your milkshake” by someone may appear to be an invitation to discuss There Will Be Blood, it is not. Don’t even try it. You’ll just get blank stares and “uh…I never saw that movie, dog.” The speaker is not unlike those fellows who want to kayak but are afraid of getting wet. You wonder how that can be since it is indeed a watersport. It’s like watching Reservoir Dogs without seeing Asphalt Jungle or Brick without the Maltese Falcon.

I guess what I’m looking for is little more depth. I think I drink your milkshake is cool, but I’m a little tired of getting blank stares when I try  to talk to someone about it. That’s all.

On a side note: I think we’re in kind of a lackluster period of summer movie season. Nothing is really getting me excited.  I’ll probably catch the Hulk at some point, but the idea of CGI men punching each other for an extended period of time doesn’t really appeal to me. I’ll guess I’ll just have to watch more Adam-12 on Netflix to get through the season.

Continue reading "I drink your milkshake!" »