Yes, I know.

It's not that I FORGET to update, it's just that whenever I think about doing it, I either can't think of something to type about or I just can't be bothered. And I'm procrastinating now.

This week, I bought the 4th season of Scrubs on DVD. Yep. Fun week. I'm actually on a week off, but I've either been working or doing homework. I just finished one article and am now about to start another - Carl, if you read this, we'll fix it up on Tuesday before submitting it.

So...another entry with nothing substantial.

Yep. I'm a 19 year old Journalism student with nothing to write about - fantastic.

I will argue against one thing, however. The new myki system. Absolutely ridiculous. 500 million dollars to introduce a new ticketing system that does nothing to address the problems of the current one? And when there's a massive public schools damage bill to address?

BAH.

500 million dollars could up the amount of services by a third - I really don't think anyone would complain if they used the money on THAT instead.

Anyway. I'll post the article me and a mate are writing on the topic shortly.

Random Picture Time...

With your host, The Guy On Thornton Court Who Can't Be Bothered Studying French...

Filtered flowers...

"The Age Of Innocence" (Martin Scorsese; 1993) [U.S.A.]

Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder star in Scorses's adaptation of Edith Warton's novel covering the class distinctions in 19th century New York. Day-Lewis, always delivering solid work, plays Newland Archer who is engaged to wed May Welland, (Ryder). When May's cousin, Pfeiffer, comes to visit, he finds himself defending her, as she has become somewhat of a social outcast following a separation from her husband. Undoubtedly, they both fall in love.

This is Scorsese's last film before his stylistic "fall from grace", as many critics claim, and it differs from his previous work in many ways. Well, I guess he made "Casino" afterwards, but still. No guns, no gangs...at least in the typical sense. In fact, many attacked this film for deviating from these themes and thus losing Scorsese's impact. However, the violence in this film comes from a glance, a look, even silence...words that aren't said stab, twist and pull.

Visually, the colours are bright and vivid, with Scorsese often framing plates of colourful food to evoke thematic elements. In fact, it's a motif that works quite well to reinforce the audience's participation in the high class society which Newland detests. Scorsese is renowned for his use of colour, particularly crimson, (for which he holds a distintive attraction), and this film is used in many ways to portray that. May is pictured in white dresses against pink roses - a diluted crimson. Three guesses as to what that means, in the context of his other work. Instances like this give the film thematic weight alongside the story, which could easily be dismissed as a taboo romance in a period piece...well, perhaps not easily, but it very well could have been.

Pfeiffer and Day-Lewis work very well together. I'm not a huge fan of Pfeiffer's work but she portrays the countess believably enough and solidly enough for me to be engaged by it, and that's something. Day-Lewis, as always, is fantastic. Such a

Winona Ryder does little, but she is effective enough.

Interestingly, other issues of this period were captured in Scorsese's "Gangs Of New York", which is set in roughly the same time period. Also, starring Day-Lewis in a decidedly different and unusual role. Not Scorsese's best, but a career highlight, I feel, for Day-Lewis.

Overall, a beautifully shot exploration of a classic storyline, and class struggles. 4.5/5.

I'll review some more tomorrow if I have time.

And yes, I realise this isn't the best review in the world, but this isn't a publication. I'm skimping a tad.

"The Dark Knight" will be starring Heath Ledger as The Joker, alongside Christian Bale who is returning as Batman in a follow up to 2005's "Batman Begins". Look, I'm going to be honest - I don't know if Ledger will be able to handle it. The Joker is a wacked out piece of work, and I question if Ledger has the range to portray that...pure evil quality. Alas, we'll see. If Christopher Nolan thinks he'll work...

I go, now, to sleep.

Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that my blogs are not very profound, or deep, or offer anything that remotely consists of a little thing called 'substance'.

I hope to remedy this in the near future.

I entered a lively debate tonight with my brother and his fiancee - I argued the 'art film' was a genre, and they did not particularly partake to this piece of musing.

I define the art film, along with others such as the infamous and legendary film theorist, David Bordwell, as a film where the protagonist has no clear goals and there are few, if none at all, causal relationships. Just because a film does not adhere to Hollywood convention does not make it automatically an 'art film'. "Donny Darko" is not an art film. "Before Sunrise" is not an art film....well, maybe borderline, but not really. "Brick" is not an art film. Independent films are NOT art films. An art film is not defined by a visual style or a method of production and distribution.

An art film, loosely and very briefly, is a film in which there are no clear goals, (although there are exceptions) and there are little if no causal relationships. A lot of the French New Wave films were art films - "Vivre Sa Vie" and "Une Femme Est Une Femme", for instance. Truffaut's later films were art films.

Just because a film does not look like or is not structured quite like a Hollywood narrative, it does not make it an 'art film'. Additionally, just because you say you enjoy 'art films' like "Donny Darko" and "The Notebook", etc, does not make you a film theorist or a great enlightened critic.

Though the 'art film' is indeed a genre...

A film is a film, I suppose Godard would say.

Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that my blogs are not very profound, or deep, or offer anything that remotely consists of a little thing called 'substance'.

I hope to remedy this in the near future.

I entered a lively debate tonight with my brother and his fiancee - I argued the 'art film' was a genre, and they did not particularly partake to this piece of musing.

I define the art film, along with others such as the infamous and legendary film theorist, David Bordwell, as a film where the protagonist has no clear goals and there are few, if none at all, causal relationships. Just because a film does not adhere to Hollywood convention does not make it automatically an 'art film'. "Donny Darko" is not an art film. "Before Sunrise" is not an art film....well, maybe borderline, but not really. "Brick" is not an art film. Independent films are NOT art films. An art film is not defined by a visual style or a method of production and distribution.

An art film, loosely and very briefly, is a film in which there are no clear goals, (although there are exceptions) and there are little if no causal relationships. A lot of the French New Wave films were art films - "Vivre Sa Vie" and "Une Femme Est Une Femme", for instance. Truffaut's later films were art films.

Just because a film does not look like or is not structured quite like a Hollywood narrative, it does not make it an 'art film'. Additionally, just because you say you enjoy 'art films' like "Donny Darko" and "The Notebook", etc, does not make you a film theorist or a great enlightened critic.

Though the 'art film' is indeed a genre...

A film is a film, I suppose Godard would say.

Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that my blogs are not very profound, or deep, or offer anything that remotely consists of a little thing called 'substance'.

I hope to remedy this in the near future.

I entered a lively debate tonight with my brother and his fiancee - I argued the 'art film' was a genre, and they did not particularly partake to this piece of musing.

I define the art film, along with others such as the infamous and legendary film theorist, David Bordwell, as a film where the protagonist has no clear goals and there are few, if none at all, causal relationships. Just because a film does not adhere to Hollywood convention does not make it automatically an 'art film'. "Donny Darko" is not an art film. "Before Sunrise" is not an art film....well, maybe borderline, but not really. "Brick" is not an art film. Independent films are NOT art films. An art film is not defined by a visual style or a method of production and distribution.

An art film, loosely and very briefly, is a film in which there are no clear goals, (although there are exceptions) and there are little if no causal relationships. A lot of the French New Wave films were art films - "Vivre Sa Vie" and "Une Femme Est Une Femme", for instance. Truffaut's later films were art films.

Just because a film does not look like or is not structured quite like a Hollywood narrative, it does not make it an 'art film'. Additionally, just because you say you enjoy 'art films' like "Donny Darko" and "The Notebook", etc, does not make you a film theorist or a great enlightened critic.

Though the 'art film' is indeed a genre...

A film is a film, I suppose Godard would say.

Yes, I am alive...

Sorry, Erica ;)

Yes, I'm still alive, just haven't updated in a while. Been busy with uni and what not. Starting a new job, study, youth group, etc.

And I regret to inform you all I've entered the realms of nerdism - Yes. I have started to collect Magic: The Gathering cards. And honestly, I don't care if I'm labelled a nerd - it's too cool a game to care!

Yeah. Total nerd.

I am listening to The Seekers. I enjoy them.

I have heard two good pieces of news about Anthony Warlow:

1. He will be in Pirates of Penzance in Melbourne next year.
2. He will also be performing the title role in Phantom of the Opera next year.

This is very, VERY good news, especially about Phantom. Nuts to all you Michael Crawford fans - Anthony Warlow = best Phantom ever. No questions.

Watched a brilliant film today - "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" (Jacque Demy, 1964) [France]. Entirely sung! Great use of colour in a lot of the scenes, and I liked how the costumes often represented or matched the colours around the actors. Gave a good sense of consistency.

Anyway, enough for tonight.

Well...

I was going to write an entry about fairy tales, but I'm not in the mood anymore.

"With no apologies..."

I realise I haven't updated for a few days, but I really don't care because I've been so busy. I finally finished my cinema essay, except I have reservations of posting it; I'm not really happy with it. Look, well...hm. As I said to Lachlan tonight, I could have done better. I'm sure I'll pass; I put all the infromation I needed to in there. It's just, when it comes to cinema, I'm a perfectionist. Alas, Mr Peter Kemp probably will not take this into account ;)

Expedition into the city tonight. Was fun, guys. Sorry I had to leave early - staying up all night the previous day does that to you.

Speaking of which, I have finally left McDonald's. Yes, I finished my last shift last night - overnight shift. Bleck. But still, I am gone. 'twas a good two years, I liked the people, but the job just wasn't for me.

And what blog or social commentary would not be complete this week without a thought or two on Steve Irwin's passing. I'm the first to admit I was never a big fan of him, and found him downright annoying. I'm sure if I spent large amounts of time with him, he would have driven me crazy. Nevertheless, this small intolerant gesture on my part does not constitute a wish for death, and nor is it an attempt to discredit Irwin. He was a great environmentalist, and he tried to do what was right. He did a lot for animal care and education. He will be sorely missed; annoyance or otherwise. Secondly, Peter Brock's unfortunate accident. I know very little about Brock, except that an old high school friend's father knew him quite well. Two infamous Australians passing in one week...as a friend pointed out tonight - these things usually come in threes. Will there be another?

I've been watching Season 5 of Gilmore Girls, and I am not happy with Rory. It seems as if she's completely changed...and it isn't an improvement.

Anyway, this is all for tonight, I shall ramble on more tomorrow.

It is 12.53.

And I am frustrated with my cinema essay.

You know...

I had a bunch of things I was going to write about...but now I've forgotten them all.

Oh yes, a short quip. Forgive this post for being somewhat trivial, but you'll get over it. It has come to my attention that a certain subplot is being cut from the upcoming 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' film. The subplot concerns Ron playing quidditch, and a song other students sing to taunt him. The fanboys are up in arms, claiming David Yates is going to butcher the film, that WB should burn in hell, and the film will suck.

Firstly, it isn't David Yates choice. He did not write the screenplay, and has nothing to do with that order of things. Secondly, WB has nothing to do with it either, and from what I hear, have unusually little creative control over the Harry Potter films. As they should! They are what's called a DISTRIBUTOR. They are not a production company. And no one knows if the film will suck yet, it hasn't even finished principal photography.

Additionally, the cutting of this particular subplot is a GOOD THING. Think about it:

*SPOILER*

Sirius Black dies at the end of the film. He was barely in Goblet of Fire, and in Prisoner of Azkaban for merely minutes. The audience is supposed to care about his death - Harry grives over it very much. Why on earth should I care about Ron sucking at quidditch when I can see 15 minutes of relationship and character development between Sirius and Harry? The tone of this film should be dark and gloomy. Besides, quidditch is boring. It serves nothing to the plot, and I don't care who says 'it adds character development to Ron'. Whatever. It's not like anyone sees Ron as deep and meaningful after a few games.

Anyway.

I'm at uni. I should probably get going on my cinema essay - finished my intro. w00t.

Peace out.