Thank you for viewing / reading my blog posts! I appreciate it!

Thursday, February 06, 2003

I wasn't sure what to write about today, but then I remembered I was going to write about seeing "Gangs of New York".

What a great movie. It was violent as heck, but I really admire the scope and breadth of Scorcese's vision. He directs the kind of story that is so perfect for the big screen. It made me wonder about my screenplay, and how my story is personal and small compared to Gangs.

Daniel Day-Lewis was superb, but then he always is. I don't think that I've ever seen a bad performance from him. I think I would have to agree with some reviewers that Leonard Dicaprio was a bit miscast, but he can't help it if he's Hollywood thin and pretty. Cameron Diaz was also an interesting choice as the only female in the movie. Her irish accent was flawed, and although her acting was adequate, I think that playing next to someone like Day-Lewis made her acting weaknesses stand out. I think Dicaprio suffered from the Day-Lewis eclipse as well.

Day-Lewis is so riveting as an actor, that all attention goes to him when he's in the scene. Liam Neeson has the same power as Day-Lewis, but he was only in the movie for such a short time. Day-Lewis' hair was so darn greasy, that I really got the sense that he was dirty inside and out.

I was surprised by the orgy scenes. It's kind of stuff you see in french movies, and almost never in american movies. I loved the fight scenes movies, which were way better than the fight scenes in Braveheart. I love all that blood and gore stuff when it's realistic. I know that this sounds strange, but seeing realistic violent scenes is the only way for me to visualize a violent fight. I've been lucky in that I've never been seen violence up close, but in some way I think it's unfortunate that I've never really been exposed to the more seamy side of life. My life has been quite sheltered, and to me this explains my love of violent movies. Perhaps if I had a taste of violence in my real life, I might not be so fond of it on the big screen.

The movie really made me want to read the book, and it also start me wondering about what my immigrant grandparents went through when they came to this country. I know they hated it, and vowed for their children and grandchildren to have a better life. I think they succeeded it, but it makes me wonder what hardships they had to go through. They never talk about it, even when you ask them. They just say it was a hard life. I think they want to forget that part of theif life, block it out, perhaps because it was too painful; I wish I knew.

I saw a special on Bravo about the authenticity of Gangs of New York. The show interviewed a historian who said that irish have come a long way in America, and how excited they must have all felt when just 100 years later, an irish catholic by the name of JFK was elected to be president of the country.

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

Wow. I just read Thomas Friedman of the NY Times latest column entitled "Will My Neighbors Approve?".

Here is what Friedman says about the war on Iraq, "Now, truth be told, I think I get this war, and, on balance, I think it is a risk worth taking — provided we have a country willing to see it through."

Friedman is endorsing the war on Iraq. I would put a link to it here, but you have to register with the NY Times to probably see the column. Friedman also writes that much of the country does not support the war, and I think he may be right about that although I'm surprised. Friedman attributes people's lack of enthusiasm for the war to the bad economy, and he has a point there; economics rule.

Still, I thought for sure that there would be more support for the war in the states that voted for Bush. Perhaps Friedman is wrong. What's interesting about the anti-war movement to me, is that there are no publicized anti-war rallies in NYC. Why is that? Is NYC still hurting from 9/11 and in a serious post 9/11 security hangover? Or has 9/11 turned NYC into war hawks or into shell shocked barely surviving peace doves? No one talks about the lack of anti-war demonstrations in NYC, which I find odd, but perhaps the media understands NYC's mood better than I can.
I heard on the news today that if you were predisposed to a war with Iraq, Colin Powell's 90 minute presentation at the United Nations answered all your questions. However, if you were against a war with Iraq, there was nothing that Colin Powell could have said that would have convinced you to change your postion.

I thought Powell gave very convincing evidence, but I was a cautious supporter of the war before his speech.

Two things that stood out for me in Powell's presentation.

1) who is tipping off the Iraqis on the UN inspectors itinerary? Is it someone on the team, or is it a result of Iraqi intelligence.
2) Iraq has never accounted for all the chemical and biological weaponry found by the UN inspectors in the 90's. This issue is frightening for me. I'm like people, what is the silliness about having Saddam Hussein contained? I don't think so. Not if Iraq may still have the chemical and biological weaponry from that period. This is where I don't get why people don't think he's a danger, or that Hussein is a person who can reasoned with like a normal person. Whatever.

Whether the anti-war protestors like it or not, we are on a road to war. There are over 100,000 troops in the middle east preparing for the event. The cost of sending them and keeping them there is enormous, and they wouldn't be there unless we were going to war.

I don't enjoy war. I am not a war monger or a war hawk, but I also don't think the US should make the Neville Chamberlain mistake and think that Saddam Hussein like Adolf Hitler is not threat to the world.

What scares me too, is there are news reports floating around that say that our intelligence sources are showing the same amount of communication among Al-Queda operatives that they saw in the day preceding 9/11. What are those terrorists planning, and why is it so hard for the US to find them and lock them up?

Tuesday, February 04, 2003

JS at Just a Pose talks about feeling homesick. When I watched "Lilo and Stitch" a couple of weeks ago, I felt so homesick.

First of all, Lilo and her sister live on the island of Kauai, where I was born and spent the first eighteen years of my life. Secondly, the music and the flower dress Lilo wore called a muumuu were so familiar to me. I wore muumuus all my life growing up, and I was taking hula lessons as soon as I was able to walk. Talk about being homesick! I wanted to head to the local store and make myself some poke, a local raw fish dish that trendy restaurants are calling ahi tuna tartare.

The movie however, also had an SF Bay area connection. The guy singing the opening theme song and the surf song, David Keali'i Ho'omalu, is someone whom I've heard in person here. I think he lives somewhere in the East Bay, and I've seee him and his hula troop at hawaiian festivals in Alameda and out at Fort Mason. I'm sure it's the same guy, because his voice is so unique.

The first time I heard him was at a hawaiian festival in Alameda. When he started walking to the stage, everyone started clapping and was so excited to see him like he was some local rock star. As soon as he chanted and sang, I realized why he was revered. His voice sent shivers down my spine. There is something so powerful and ancient in his voice, like he was channeling the ancient hawaiian spirits or something. His dance troup does hula in the old style, where it's more like religious rituals and not flowery songs. Some of the hula reminded so much of hula for men, where it's more like choreographed fighting techniques.

My only criticism of the movie is Lilo didn't speak with a hawaiian accent, which they call "pidgin english' in Hawaii. I think all of the other hawaiian characters did, but not Lilo. For Kauai, that would not be normal. If the show took place on the island of Oahu, the pidgin accent wouldn't be so noticeable, but on the outer islands the pidgin is very thick and of course, varies from island to island.

When I was growing up, the pidgin accents drove the teachers nuts and we all went through "elocution' lessons. I've pretty much lost my accent, so that most people can't tell I'm even from there, although if you pay attention to that kind of stuff you'd know. I've taken Speech for Stage classes, so my accent has been smoothed over, although I think it will always be there. And when I go home, it only takes a few days for it come back. My mother can't understand me, unless I speak in pidgin, or at least that's what she says. I think she just likes me to talk the way I did when I was a kid, because it's familiar to her. You can't fake the hawaiian pidgin accent either.

My cousin who was born in Michigan, and spent the first four years of her life in Minnesota, picked up a serious pidgin accent because she lives and works in Hawaii, but I can tell she's not native born. She pronounces certain words in a way that a native Hawaii born person would never pronounce.

My accent is all mixed up anyway. I've been told I've picked up some midwestern speech patterns, because I went to college in Iowa. I also spent some time in Southern California and NYC, so my brother keeps saying I sound like a valley girl and my acting teacher got freaked out because I had some NYC speech patterns. Then just to complicate things, I took an acting dialect class on how to speak with a proper English dialect, called RP or received pronuncation or BBC english, and how to speak Cockney, so some of those speech patterns have slipped into my accent as well. I was thinking of trying out for the play "Major Barbara" one year, and I thought taking the class would give me an edge in auditions. I never tried out for the play, but I can still do the accents quite well, although I mix them up constantly and ended up sounding like high pitched american Michael Caine.