So, yesterday was interesting...

I woke up at my normal Monday morning time at around 8am. I stayed in bed for a few minutes, savouring that time between opening your eyes and climbing out of the warmth. So I eventually got up, had my shower, got ready, etc. Halfway through putting on my rings and necklace, I get an sms from Lisa. Train delays, she says. Catch an earlier train. No problem, I think. I have to rush a little but no biggie. I give her a call anyway to see what's going on. The delays could be an hour long, she says. Ha, screw that. She offers to come pick me up and we'll drive to a later station. Props to you, Lisa.

So we go past Ringwood station. And...my Lord. The cues were HUGE. There must have been 200-300 people in cue. It was just horrible. We eventually got to a later station, but in the papers today it's been reported that over FIVE THOUSAND people were delayed by roadworks THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO FINISH ON SUNDAY. I asked a friend how long it took him to get into the city, and he replied, "Over three hours". It usually takes less than one.

I consider myself a reasonable guy, for the most part. Even though sometimes I don't act like it. I understand delays, I understand cancellations sometimes. Things happen, you know? But when roadworks delay over 5000 people when they were supposed to conclude the day before, I don't think that's right. And what's more. Connex refuses to give compensation.

Bah.

Anyway, my cinema essay is coming along well. I have a detailed plan, and I'm ready to write it, just about. Should be a good one. I hope so, it's worth 35% of my grade.

Communication Law is growing ever so boring. Ever so boring.

Because I'm a show off...

...I'm going to post my cinema essay from last semester that earned me a HD. It's my blog, I can do what I want ;)

Same sort of deal as the essay I'm doing now, except we needed to analyse a shot, not a scene.

Many have attempted to adapt Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ for the screen. Few have reached such critical success as Rouben Mamoulian’s 1932 adaptation. Often exceptionally dark at times, Mamoulian’s version attempts to capture the sometimes sinister essence of Hyde’s animalistic nature. Perhaps one of the best examples of this occurs after Hyde has killed Ivy. As he flees from police, Mamoulian cuts to a static long shot of Mr Hyde entering the frame, then running away from his pursuers while his shadow grows, overtaking the wall behind him. Initially, this shot may be seen as merely one within a ‘chase’ sequence. However, further analysis suggests this shot reveals more about the animalistic behavior of Hyde, and perhaps, captures much of the essence of the entire film itself.

This particular shot is striking because it differs from those preceding and following it, particularly due to its unusual darkness and unexpected length. The shots before it are dictated by speed, and are relatively bright for a sequence set during night. In this ‘chase’ sequence, as soon as Hyde leaves a shot, Mamoulian cuts to the next, extending the sequence further and thus implying a sense of urgency and excitement by the pursuit. Alternatively, the cuts are dictated by Hyde’s actions. For example, Hyde jumping out of a tree over a fence: a quick close up cuts to a long shot of Hyde making the leap. This begs an investigation as to why Mamoulian chooses to differentiate this shot from those around it. This particular shot of Hyde’s shadow differs from the others for as soon as Hyde leaves the frame, Mamoulian deliberately keeps the camera static – thus implying an honesty of the shot. Mamoulian may imply this is no trick of the mind, nor is it a fantasy of Hyde’s in some transformation potion-induced hallucination. The camera previously cut when Hyde left the frame – now the camera cuts when Hyde’s shadow leaves the frame – perhaps Mamoulian indicates the shadow is an extension of Hyde himself. The construction of the shot is quite featureless. On a physical mise-en-scene level, the set consists of a house with a staircase. There are no props. Mr Hyde’s costume consists of his makeup and suit with a cape. The shadow reveals Hyde’s long cape billowing past him as he runs – a cape, often a symbol of a character with evil or sinister intentions – perhaps this is a clue to Hyde’s villinaous nature. (Interestingly, Jekyll also dons a cape – perhaps evidencing there is no separation between the two entities of Jekyll and Hyde). The shot is not one of Hyde merely running away from police, as the viewer has seen a number of these in the shots preceding. The shot is quite abnormally dark in nature. It reminds the viewer of a noir style of lighting, even though the film precedes the pioneering of the genre by a decade. Perhaps this alludes to the darker spirit of the shot and Hyde’s representation of animalistic, and perhaps barbaric, actions and intentions. Additionally, the soundtrack, though not part of Mamoulian’s mise-en-scene, involves the shouts and cries of Hyde’s followers. This reminds the viewer of the pursuit in question, and we are reminded that Hyde has actually done evil against another human being. Indeed, this may be an argument of Mamoulian’s. He may be saying that no matter what Jekyll’s theory of two souls in one body, one cannot allow this total manifestation of one part affect others and do damage towards them. Furthermore, Hyde’s heavy, grunted and animal like breathing is also heard. It is the louder of the two dominant sound tracks in the shot. Again, this is possible evidence of a capturing of Hyde’s raw, perhaps fundamental animal instincts that his character represents.

It is entirely conceivable, then, that the shot is very much a testament to Mr Hyde’s animalistic nature, and the impacts this transformation has on others and the world around him: he has killed someone. Perhaps Hyde’s shadow overtaking the frame is a demonstration of the fact that Jekyll’s ‘shadow’, the side of his soul connected with animalistic instinct, has now fully taken over himself, if only temporarily, as it physically takes over the frame. Mamoulian does not cut until Hyde’s shadow has passed over and across the building behind him – Jekyll’s shadow is an extension of his person. Indeed, the fact that Hyde’s shadow becomes bigger than his physical self may connote he is not his own – his very existence has dominated not only himself, but the very world around him. Hyde’s actions, when he is in a drunken state of barberry, have caused Ivy to die, (indeed, he killed her), his shadow grows upon the wall. Hyde appears to run out of the frame from the direction from which he came – this may imply a backwards step, he is not moving forward, he is always trapped in one direction. Perhaps Mamoulian evidences here Hyde is a complete entity apart from Jekyll – the two are totally separated.

To appreciate the significance of the shot, one must consider Mamoulian’s other possibilities for it. Why did he not simply cut to the next shot of the police chasing Hyde, missing out his shadow all together? To make the camera tilted, such as those angles so liberally used in Carol Reed’s ‘The Third Man’, would imply something is off centre – something is not right. Morality may be twisted, or perhaps the character’s perception may be unbalanced. However, Mamoulian’s static shot implies a certain honesty. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson comment on this in ‘Film Art: An Introduction’. They write ‘A static composition…may keep pulling our attention back to a single element’[1]. Indeed, perhaps Mamoulian intends for us to focus on Hyde’s shadow, the single element in the frame. This shadow is the key to understanding this particular shot. Additionally, Hyde is framed coming from the left of the camera – this implies disjointedness, and uneasiness, something being off centre. Furthermore, if Mamoulian had filmed Hyde himself becoming increasingly larger, not his shadow, and taking over the frame, the impact of the shot would differ significantly. Additionally, the choice of soundtrack for the shot is interesting. If Mamoulian were to insert music here, (as he did so creatively using a mixture of elements in other scenes), it would change the personality of the shot. Replacing Hyde’s animalistic grunts with an orchestra, perhaps playing a fast-paced tune would place more of an emphasis on the chase, not what Hyde has become. That is, a murderer. By leaving the soundtrack without any orchestral and musical background, an emphasis is placed on the reality Mamoulian is trying to create. A reality that has rules and consequences. Additionally, the shot is large, in the sense that it encompasses a large amount of space. This is not a close up – the audience is not focusing on Hyde’s facial expressions, thus gaining insight into his thoughts or feelings. Mamoulian pulls back to reveal the entire scope of the scene. Perhaps the viewer is meant to see Hyde as a whole. Indeed, perhaps Mamoulian wants the audience to feel that there is actually no depth within Hyde’s character.

This examination is, of course, only one interpretation. Mamoulian may simply have wanted this shot to be pleasing to the eye, or perhaps visually stimulating on merely a physical level, thus making the reader entranced by the excitement of a pursuit. If this is assumed, however, one must ask why the shot differs so greatly from those preceding and following it. This particular shot is cut to the next one not on a dictated basis of rhythm and speed. It is a lengthy shot, considering the sequence in which it appears, and its lighting is darker than other shots in the sequence.

Based on this analysis, one can assume Mamoulian deliberately staged this shot for the audience to grasp the nature of something significant within its frame. There is much debate as to whether there is really a ‘villain’ in this film – and whether Mr Hyde’s character is actually a manifestation of any possible ‘evil’ there may be in Jekyll. However, due to the extremely dark nature of this shot, and its unusual structure, perhaps Mamoulian gives us a key to this debate – that, indeed, Hyde may be the real villain of the film, or at least, the essence of villainy.

Patrick Stafford

S3138006

---

[1] Bordwell C & Thompson K, Film Art: An Introduction, McGraw-Hill, New York, Pg. 218

I'm fairly proud of it. I'll try and top it with my next one, however.

Have a good day, folks.

In my Authorship and Narrative reading log this week, the main article was the development of genres.

Now, I know a lot of people, my mother included, who don't like the word 'genre'. I can understand that view; it has the appearance of constricting art and defining rules and boundaries, etc. However, I see this as a good thing. I think that genre conventions are a good thing for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they allow the audience to 'pre-watch' a film, for instance. Not in terms of predictability of plot, but expectance of what is to come. For example, wouldn't you be dissapointed if you went to see a serious courtroom drama, but instead recieved a Singing Western?

Secondly, genre conventions can help film-makers. They can guide the film-maker in terms of what should or shouldn't be in his or her film. Because genre conventions have created audience expectations, the film-maker must now be cautious of what is and isn't in the film. These conventions allow for...not simplicity...I don't know the word. You all see what I mean.

Additionally, genre conventions are a defence of criticism. I know of one person who criticised "West Side Story" (Jerome Robbins, Robert Wise; 1961) [U.S.A.] for being an unrealistic portrayal of gangs in New York during the early 1960s. While this point has merit, the film is certainly not a perfect picture of what happened during that time, the representation of gangs in the film is true and accurate according to genre conventions. In the genre, The Sharks and The Jets are the toughest guys on the block...and they sing and dance to prove it. They are acting according the conventions of the genre.

Brilliant film, by the way.

I've started writing my essay on "Breakfast At Tiffany's" (Blake Edwards, 1961) [U.S.A.]. Here's the question I'm answering:

Question 1 of 4:

1. Examine in detail the narrative construction and style of a scene in any one of the films screened in weeks 1 -5 of the course.

Your answer should consider such things as the ways this scene constructs and defines character, and relates to the overall narrative structure of the film. You should also consider how and whether the scene creates (or doesn't) a 'continuous' flow of action, constructs narrative time and space, relies on causality, and deploys classical style (including the 'system' we call continuity editing). You may also like to consider the significance of questions of genre and authorship to your chosen scene. You may focus on only a couple of these aspects in relation to the scene you have chosen but please specify clearly the approach you are taking - and the scene you have chosen - at the start of your essay. Read the section below titled "Specific Mandatory Requirements for all Essays" very carefully before commencing your essay.

Wish me luck! I'm doing the second scene of "Breakfast At Tiffany's", in which George wakes up Holly at her apartment and helps her get ready to go to Sing-Sing. I'll probably end up posting my essay when it's all finished.

I enjoy Audrey Hepburn.

Films, films and more films.

Tonight, I'll be looking at a few films coming up and offering my views on them :) Cast, director, etc.

"Man Of The Year"

This one actually raised my eyebrow. Stars Robbin Williams and Christopher Walken. The gist of it: Robbin Williams, a comedian, jokingly runs for president but actually wins. When I read the blurb, images of Chris Rock from "Head Of State" flashed before my eyes. Thankfully, the trailer looks quite amusing! It's good to see Robin Williams teaming up with Barry Levinson again - they made a good team for "Good Morning Vietnam". I'm not sure when this is released in Australia, but I'll definately go and see it. It's good to see Robin Williams in a comedy again that isn't slapstick shlock like "R.V.". No offense, Robin. Just not my cup of tea.

"Eragon"

Film version of the book series written by...some guy. Can't remember his name and cbf googling it. He wrote "Eragon" when he was 19, or around that age. There isn't a trailer yet, unforunately, but the artwork and some stills look promising. Jeremy Irons is part if the principle cast, so that should be interesting - I love his voice. Out December for the yanks, not sure when it'll be here. Hopefully the film won't suck as much as the storyline of the books - borrows from Tolkien and Star Wars to the point of stealing.

"The Last Kiss"

Zach Braff's new film - is getting married to his sweetheart of two or so years, but discovers another young woman who captures his heart. The trailer looks great - comedy/drama. I never imagined seeing Braff in anything other than Scrubs, but he's just amazing. I'm somewhat dissapointed this isn't written or directed by Braff, seeing as how Garden State was so kick-ass awesome, but this looks like an enjoyable romp nonetheless. The scribe, Paul Haggis, wrote "Million Dollar Baby" and the upcoming Bond flick "Casino Royale", so it should have some depth to it. Which reminds me, I have the "Million Dollar Baby" DVD and I haven't watched the extras yet.

Oh Lord, Paul Haggis wrote for "The Love Boat". I guess everyone has a dark side.

And SPEAKING of Zach Braff - The sixth season of Scrubs will be Braff's last - http://www.zach-braff.com/. And I doubt the show will continue without him. Hopefully they'll end on a strong note - it's a fantastic show. Fourth season on DVD next month!

"The Holiday"

Yes. A romantic comedy. But...Kate Winslet. I will go and see this film just go Kate Winslet - I love her. I mean, it looks half decent. Of course, it's not going to be a "Vivre Sa Vie" or a "Bridge On The River Kwai", but does everything have to be so meangingful? I'm all for the development and analysis of film theory, but this trailer just made me laugh. It looks fun. That's it - it looks fun.

One more.

"The Number 23"

This looks quite...unusual. I haven't read the book, but Jim Carrey in a dramatic role always allures me. See "The Truman Show" and "The Majestic" if you don't believe me - watch the latter for Carrey rather than the film itself. And hey, Joel Schumacher is good at these types of flicks.

This seems rather shallow, doesn't it. All these Hollywood films. Well...I don't care. So there.

Peace out, I'll update later tonight. I have a short essay/article I want to finish up. I'll probably post it.

I really want to see Billy Joel in concert. Perhaps only to see him play "Only The Good Die Young".

I am extremely bored today, I'm leaving for work in about...50 minutes.

*twiddles thumbs*

I need to see a movie.

...what a worthless post.

Dude.

"The Little Mermaid" on DVD. October 3rd.

Laugh all you want, I don't care, I'm VERY excited!

Film reviews

As I said yesterday, I have two films to review. I'll go in chronological order.

"Ninotchka" (Ernst Lubitsch, 1939) [U.S.A.]

This was the third of our Lubitsch films on the syllabus this semester, the first two being "Trouble In Paradise" and "The Merry Widow". Ninotchka stars Gretta Garbo in a somewhat unusual role, admist her usual performances of stern woman. Some, in fact, would dare to call her a man.

Anyway, the film's plot revolves around the crown jewels of Russia, and three Russian delegates arguing over the jewels' rightful owner - A rich countess, or the people of Russia. The Gretta Garbo character, Ninotchka, arrives in Paris with the delegates to settle the jewel issue. The countess's representative, Leon, falls in love with her, etc, and tries to break her tough exterior. She laughs, they kiss, etc. All is well.

I have to admit, this was my favourite of the Lubitsch films we've viewed so far. In the first two films, the jokes seemed to come...not forcibly, but sparingly. They seemed to work themselves into the conversation, whereas the jokes in this film seemed to come more naturally and just worked.

Gretta Garbo was great, except her transition to light and fluffy was VERY sudden, and somewhat unexpected. She looked quite uncomfortable after the end of the first act, and I must say, I preffered her when she was grumpy.

In terms of technical specifications, I adored Lubitsch's continued use of close-ups in this picture. They created an intimate atmosphere for a 'light' romantic comedy, a feeling one doesn't seem to harbour after watching a picture like 'Hitch' or 'You've Got Mail'.

Acting was fine, many solid performances.

The last joke was just lame. Lubitsch...what happened there?

I know this isn't a decent review, but I honestly want to move on to my next one.

I think "Ninotchka" earns 4 out of 5 stars. I took one off for some jokes that didn't work, the focedness of Garbo's character in the second and third acts,

(Additionally, the transition between the ideals of socialism and capitalism worked very well, and the characters' relationships reinforced this motif. Another jewel in the crown for Lubitsch).

Now, on to...

"Brick" (Rian Johnson, 2005) [U.S.A.]

I saw the trailer for this film quite a few months ago, and I haven't been able to get it out of my mind. The stark cinematography, the moody trumpet tunes and those haunting, absolutely spine-tingling handbells still ring through my ears. Unfortunately, it has taken over a year for the film to be released in Australia, and only on a limited screening bill. But no matter, I managed to see it today at the Kino Dendy on Collins Street. I even scored a poster of the film for my troubles ;)

"Brick" takes place in present-day southern California. Brendon, a street-wise loner, recieves a call from his ex-girlfriend Emily. She's in trouble, she says. Or, more specifically, "I didn't know the brick was bad, and now the pin's on it". Concerned for Emily, Brendon investigates, only to find her dead two days later. And thus starts the film, in which Brendon encounters the shady underworld of a Californian high school.

A lot has been said about the language the characters in this film use. Language that is taken straight from the 40s and stuck in a modern day setting. While this may alienate some viewers, I found it fascinating, and although it takes five minutes or so to get used to, thrillingly engaging. It gives the story a sense of outer-worldness, and Johnson succeeds in placing the viewer in a world they know absolutely nothing about. This is a priceless tool for a director, because when he puts you in a world you know nothing about, he can do absolutely whatever he wants to you, and you just have to trust him.

That said, this is a solid debut from Johnson. Fresh out of film school, you could be forgiven for predicting a film of this type - a noir, with kids speaking the language of Bergman and Boghart, set in present day - would crash and fall. But it does the exact opposite, and exceeded the already high expectations I had for the film. The acting is great, with the exception of a few forced lines now and then. However, I imagine this comes from reading a script of this type.

The darkness of the film, typical of a noir, attracted me greatly. Each shot is filmed like a panel in a comic book or graphic novel...it gives the story an edge that most thrillers...for lack of a better word, don't have today.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who I last saw in "10 Things I Hate About You" seemed focus and always on top of his game. His character, a street-savvy loner, exuded so much confidence and boldness I was actually frightened of him at times. He has amazing energy in his eyes. Great things to come from him in the future.

I thought the soundtrack was excellent, with the lonely trumpet giving that homage to "The Maltese Falcon". The handbells were particularly chilling, and I think, a very good choice.

That said, there were a couple of problems. As with many films, the second half of the second act seemed to drag for about 15 minutes. I don't know the scenes specifically, but I do remember thinking some scenes or shots could have been cut to avoid this.

There are a few other little things, like line delivery, but really, I'm just picking up semantics. It's so hard to find faults in this film.

In short, I loved this film. Taking a dead genre, the film noir, and sticking it in a high school absolutely worked. It might not have, it took some effort, but it worked. It just exuded darkness and reminded me of films like "The Third Man", "The Maltese Falcon" and "Double Indemnity". In fact, "Brick" could sit along those films with great ease.

4 1/2 out of 5.

That's it from me for today.

I just watched a fascinating interivew on Enough Rope. Apparently it was with a man who investigated the science behind God...or something like that. I was only really half listening, and came in half way through. But it was fascinating, and I'll try and track it down.

I'm seeing Brick tomorrow, finally. Been waiting for months for it to come out here. And we watched 'Ninotchka' in Authorship and Narrative today, so I'll review that tomorrow night as well. A night of film reviews, hooray!

I've just realised, no matter how clean my room is, I always think it's messy. I'm going to clean things up in a second.

So, in conclusion: Brick tomorow. Hooray, and such.

"Beauty and the Beast" (1991) [U.S.A] is one of the best films produced in the history of motion pictures.

If anyone disagrees, I will shoot down all of your points one by one until you admit I am right.

If you think I'm even remotely joking, try me.

"It's her...the sparkling diamond".

There are stars out tonight.

If it wasn't so cold, I'd go outside and watch them.

I realise I should have listed these films properly, a la Peter Kemp. (My Authorship and Narrative lecturer).

1. "Moulin Rouge!" (Baz Luhrman, 2001) [AUS]

2. "Beauty and the Beast" (Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, 1991) [U.S.A]

3. "Singin' In The Rain" (Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly, 1952) [U.S.A]

4. "Finding Neverland" (Marc Forster, 2005) [U.K]

5. "Lord of the Rings" (Trilogy) (Peter Jackson, 2001 - 2003) [N.Z.]

6. "Star Wars" (Saga) (George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Richard Marquand, 1977 - 2005) [U.S.A]

7. "Titanic" (James Cameron, 1997) [U.S.A]

8. "The Matrix" (Andy & Larry Wachowski, 1999) [U.S.A]

9. "The American President " (Aaron Sorkin, 1995) [U.S.A]

10. "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" (Gore Verbinski, 2003) [U.S.A]

It's dubious many of my favourite films come from the U.S. Maybe I'm just de-sensitized to classical Hollywood narrative.

And yes, Kristyn. People do surprise you.

I'm quite angry right now. I'm quite angry right now because someone has been violated, hurt and humiliated. And I know I'm mean and wrong for thinking this, but I want it to happen to the person who caused this hurt.

Ugh.

It's a funny thing about forgiveness. We can say we forgive, but we only truly mean it when we feel it in our heart.

How cheesy.

Moulin Rouge makes me happy...it's such a perfectly and classically crafted piece of film.

Sigh. I am angry, but content.

My top ten films of all time...for now...And a quote from each.

1. Moulin Rouge.

"I don't care about your ridiculous dogma! Why shouldn't the courtesan choose the maharaja?!"
"Because she doesn't love you!"

2. Beauty and the Beast (Disney).

"Oh...isn't this amazing. It's my favourite part because, you'll see...here's where she meets prince charming...but she won't discover that it's him 'til chapter three."

Think about this quote in relation to the film. I mean, really think about it.

3. Singin' In The Rain.

"Hey! Hey Cosmo! Do something! Come on! Call me a cab!"
"Okay, you're a cab!"

4. Finding Neverland.

"She went to Neverland...and you can visit her anytime you like."
"How?"
"By believing Peter...just believe".

"But I'm not Peter Pan...he is."

"This is absurd, it's just a dog"
"Just a dog? Porthos dreams of being a bear, and you want to dash those dreams by saying he's just a dog? What a horrible candle-snuffing word. That's like saying, "He can't climb that mountain, he's just a man", or "That's not a diamond, it's just a rock." Just. "

5. Lord of the Rings (Trilogy)

"Do you remember when we first met?"
"I thought I had strayed into a dream"

"Ride to ruin! And the world's ending!"

"You are Isildur's heir...not Isildur himself"
"The same blood flows through my veins...the same weakness"

"I would have followed you my brother...my captain...my king"

6. Star Wars (Saga)

"I have a bad feeling about this"

"Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

"I find your lack of faith...disturbing"

7. Titanic

"But this ship can't sink!"
"She is made of iron, sir! I assure you, she can. And she will. It is a mathematical certainty"

8. The Matrix

"Do you believe in fate, Neo?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I don't like the idea I'm not in control of my own life"
"I know...exactly...what you mean"

"There is no spoon"

"Don't worry about the vase"
"What vase?"
(Neo knocks over a vase)
"I'm sorry..."
"I said don't worry about it..."
"How did you know?"
"Oh what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't have said anything?"

"Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"

"What is real?"

9. The American President

"I want to buy her some flowers. That's what men do when they break a date."
"That's not what men do. I know no men who do that."

10. Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.

"You cheated!"
"Pirate...move away"
"No."
"Please move?"
"No! I cannot just stand aside and let you escape!"
(Jack points his pistol)
"This shot...is not meant for you"

"Whose side is Jack on?"
"At the moment"

Keep in mind, this is NOT my list of the top ten BEST films ever made. Just my favourites. And there are so many more. I hate to rank them.

Band practice should be good tonight.

Why am I posting if nobody is reading? I suppose it's just good to vent now and then.

But for now, I am very interested in my reading log for cinema this week.

Everyone check out: www.purevolume.com/mei

Listen to "The Other Side of Autumn"

Great song, I went to school with this girl. Fantastic songwriter, very talented.

Hearing someone's parents are moving halfway across the world is...an odd experience. I hope you're okay mate, if you're reading, and I'll give you a call soon.

Pecae out.

I haven't updated in a while. Oh well.

Things are good, for the most part. Uni is going well, I'm enjoying my subjects. I am so fluent in French, oh yes. I can say things like 'Pick up the chalk' and 'close the door'. I don't really like the teacher, but thank God she was only a substitute, and we have a new

Is it just me, or is the extreme left less tolerant of others' beliefs than the extreme right? Maybe it's just me, but I don't like being told by the Queer association at Uni that I don't have the right to believe what I want. But hey, each to their own...or not, apparently.

I don't know if I've talked about Gangs of New York on here, but I just watched it again the other night. It's not Scorsese's best, but it's still a good film. Daniel Day Lewis is great. Leo DiCaprio is...hm, not his best, but decent.

But speaking of DiCaprio, I saw Catch Me If You Can for the first time the other night. I really, really enjoyed it. The cinematography reminded me of Citizen Kane, particularly with the use of light. The story was interesting enough, and the plot's pacing was steady enough, (thank God for editing), that it was just easy to get sucked into the story. And I guessed that he studied for the bar exam ;)

It's rumoured that Muse, Tool, Foo Fighters, Stone Sour and Audioslave are coming for the Big Day Out 2007. If this turns out to be true, I am definately going.

I don't like apathy.

I should really update more.

In other news, I've secured work experience at LivingNow magazine, might get work experience at Empire and I've applied to the Melbourne City Council's media unit :) And I got an article printed in the local paper yesterday. Woohoo!

Anyway, I'm off. For the next few hours, anyway.