New Moon?

I believe New Moon is the first movie I've seen in theatres three times, and I'm still planning on seeing it a couple more times. Does that mean I like it then? Well, yes, but it isn't so simple as that. When I walked out of the theatre after that first time (which just happened to be the midnight showing -- a couple people invited me last minute), I was split. There were some things I loved, some I was in complete denial of. But the second time, I understood what the filmmakers were getting across.

Because even after that first time, I had to admit, the movie fit pretty well into my list:

1. Not a problem at all. Everything happens so differently that it wasn't an issue.

2. I think it worked. I loved (if that's the proper word) the way Kristen Stewart screamed for Bella's nightmares. A tortured, strangled sound, definitely.

3. This one's questionable. But how can you force an audience to give up hope? I think the characters' hopelessness is clear, and that's what matters most.

4. Definitely have a physical change in Jacob. And Taylor Lautner handled the emotional change, as well.

5. Oh, yes, the Volturi were creepy. In fact, Aro was one of the best parts of the movie for me. He's such a crazy character, I knew a competent actor would have to play him to do him justice. I don't even know how Michael Sheen does it, but he's an amazing Aro. I wish we had seen more of Jane; Dakota Fanning seemed to be doing a good job with her, as well. Of course, the improved red contacts helped the overall creepy factor.

6. There's a love triangle in New Moon the movie, even when I don't see much of one in the book. I guess that was inevitable, though, wasn't it? It's handled well, but I do wish we saw that Bella still thinks of Jacob as only a friend at this point.

7. The proposal was a little different, but I think the tone was mostly kept intact. I just really missed out on seeing Bella's reaction (she's not pleased?! what's wrong with her?!); maybe we'll see it in Eclipse?

And my three minor hopes:

1. Yeah, the wolves were big. Big and powerful-looking.

2. I wasn't expecting satisfaction on this one. I was pleasantly surprised; everybody in the theatre jumped when we see her right there in the shadows. And she's upset, Alice who we've never seen upset before. I like that, though I do think it jumped too quickly to the comfy moment talking in the living room.

3. Another inevitable one. Of course there's more action in the movie than the book. It really bothered me at first, but not so much anymore.

You see, the reason it bothered me so much in the beginning was because I felt the whole tone of the movie was skewed. It didn't feel right. But it wasn't because they added action or couldn't spend more time on Bella's zombie days. When you first read New Moon, it isn't right, either. The story and characters you thought you knew go places you don't expect. It takes a while to reconcile yourself to that fact and realize why everything happens as it does.

That's just how the movie is. I see now how everything in it keeps that sorrow, that sheltering of the mind Bella forces onto herself. Even at Bella's party, the Cullens are warm and friendly, but there's a difference between them and Bella. You can feel that something is off, something has to change; it can't work like this. The score that I thought bland at first reinforces the pain that sits under the surface of every event. (I do really like the soundtrack, though. It's a great selection of songs that I'm enjoying listening to.)

I could really go on and on about this forever. Let me just mention the things I really liked, then I'll be done.

1. The sequence where the wolves chase Victoria and Bella heads to the cliffs. "Hearing Damage" provides the right emotional tone, and Victoria looks amazing. The way she moves, her unyielding expression, her outfit.

2. I already mentioned Aro. Also loved the way the painting came to life in the beginning of the movie.

3. Bella's cliff-diving. That is, once she's in the water. The look on her face, that joy, before she sees the danger she's in. The way the waves really bash her about (thanks for putting up with that, Kristen.) And how it looks like she has died and exists in a perfect moment with Edward. Again, "Slow Life" was the perfect song.

Those are all the big things, I think. I'm not even going into what I don't like; the overall effect was good, and that's most important. Chris Weitz did it. New Moon is a sorrowfest of a book, but he still managed to put it onto the screen well.

New Moon Musts

Before I saw Twilight, I only had a couple of days to form expectations since I had just finished the books. That's usually the ideal way to go into an adaptation movie. Otherwise, you form too many ideas of how it should look and compare the movie to how you wanted it to be instead of really seeing whether or not it's a good adaptation. One of the concerns I got in that short time was over Edward and Bella's acting. Both characters hide a lot of what they're feeling in Twilight, and so the things they say and do might look stiff or unemotional to outsiders; that means an actor/actress needs to be good enough that they can hint at what's under the surface instead of just looking like a bad actor. Robert Pattinson completely nailed this. You can really see it when Edward and Bella stop at the police station going home from Port Angeles. They ask Carlisle what happened, he glances at Edward briefly while holding a conversation more with Bella. And Edward freezes, hearing what really happened. But you can see his concern, fear, tensing up in his eyes, in the very way his face stands motionless.

Now that I've had more than a couple of days to wait for New Moon, I've come up with a list of things I think the movie has to have to stay true to the book. In no particular order:

1. Both books share some similar plot points; it's all part of the story. But the moviemakers added some things into Twilight that are more like what happens in New Moon. The police tracking various attacks is one of these -- events are similar, but they need to be presented in a way that makes the story completely different. Because Bella is different.

2. Which leads us to our next must. New Moon has the ultimate sorrow. Bella really loses it, she drowns completely. That part has to be just as strong in the movie. Where you simultaneously just want to stop because it hurts so bad, but also have to keep reading/watching because you want it to end.

3. Along those same lines, the audience can't be given hope. You're left pretty hopeless in the book, even while you're intuition begs to differ. The departure of the Cullens (Edward in particular) has to be permanent; we can't be told that they're coming back into the story.

4. We have to see a big change in Jacob. First emotionally from the innocent, smiling character to the angrier Jacob, and also physically.

5. The Volturi have to be creepy. Volterra is my favorite part of this book; the Volturi are just plain weird. They can't always be understood, which is why they invoke fear. Keep them creepier than creepy.

6. There has to be a big difference between Bella and Edward's relationship and Bella and Jacob's. At this point, one is love and one is temporary comfort (where Bella is half-insane, so she really doesn't know much of what she's doing, anyway.) Movies love love-triangles; there's not really a love-triangle in New Moon. Almost, but not quite.

7. Edward's proposal should be as similar to the book as possible. I know they always have to change some of the wording and this and that, but it needs to keep as much of the same essence as can be done. It's perfect the way it is, plot-wise and emotion-wise; changing it too much would affect other aspects of the movie(s).

These are just minor hopes; they wouldn't be as big of deals:

1. The wolves are huge, not just big, huge.

2. When Alice comes back, there's a distance between her and Bella. Something edgy that wasn't there before. It dissolves quickly, but it creates the distrust you need as you slip into the truth of why the Cullens left.

3. Resist the urge for action. New Moon only has a little, and movies always like to up the action level. That's fine as long as they don't overdo it, just as long as you still look at it through Bella's passive eyes.

I'll probably come up with something else after I've seen the movie; I made this list pretty quickly. There's my experiment though. We'll see how it matches up to the movie in about twenty-five hours.

Flyleaf & Liz

Two weeks since Flyleaf's Memento Mori came out, I can say that I'm quite happy with the CD. It has growth and just as strong a message as their previous work. The way Lacey Mosley sings, it's like her heart is right in her throat. I haven't found anyone who sings quite like she does. This album seems less heartbreaking than the first one, more ethereal, its songs find piercing joy amongst the sorrow. And one thing I could never grow to like before were the occasional screams; Memento Mori has practically none, of which I'm glad.

"Again" and "Beautiful Bride" are great starters to the album. "Missing" and "Set Apart" are two of my favorites. But the one that wins hands down for me, right from the first listen, is "Treasure." It's beautiful and bittersweet and fantastical and real and calming and encouraging. I think it's my new favorite Flyleaf song (it was probably "Sorrow" before . . . which is a kind of different song.)

And what is it about the "Liz" in the title? That's Liz Curtis Higgs I'm referring to. I decided I needed a key in, some author whose work was comparable to Flyleaf's. You see, Flyleaf puts so much feeling into their music. They don't stop at the surface, but keep on going in and in until it hurts, only to come at the kind of joy that's practically opposite happiness. That's what Liz Curtis Higgs does (with her historical fiction, that is . . . I've only read one of her other books.) Try reading Rose in Bloom (second in the Thorn in My Heart series) without at least getting very close to tears. She's not afraid to write everything down, and that means her happy moments are all the happier. So, Flyleaf and Liz Curtis Higgs, not sure how many people besides me are fans of both, but they have a great deal in common. Anyways, diversity is good: if everyone made their point in the same way, what would be the fun in that?

(The New Moon premiere was last night -- just a couple more days until it comes out. I'm trying not to think about it much, but I do promise a post about my expectations either tomorrow or Thursday.)

Ironic

True, some of my favorite books are part of a grouping. The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Twilight Saga, the Thorn in My Heart books, among others. True, I talk most about them, refer to them most often, know the most about their worlds. But, ironically, I have a general problem with books that are part of a series.

That isn't to say that I disagree with the format as a rule. It has its place, like everything else. But I think people can fall too easily into writing continuations instead of starting new ideas. We all love the characters and stories, but we don't always need to follow their whole lives. There is a proper place to end everything; if it drags on too much, I think we lose the ability to savor each moment. We think of quantity and let quality suffer.

Writers need to consider the question, what is the purpose of this book? Even if it is only written off of his own need, if it's published, it needs to be accomplishing something. Entertainment (then, what kind of entertainment?), a message, information. Just like writing a paper, everything needs to lead up to the greater purpose, including format. Like I said, entertainment can suffer if a book never ends. Or a message can be lost in copious pages.

I feel like a series ties me up too much. I have to read all the books, I have to keep track of when future books are coming out, I have to always be wanting more. I can't just read one book and savor it in my mind forever after. Reread it when I like, replay scenes in my head, discover new beauties. A series keeps going and going. Maybe it's reflective of our society: we always want more and forget to value what we already have.

Various Forms of Entertainment

I've been busy this past week, I guess. On Thursday, I stopped to watch Where The Wild Things Are on my way home; I'd been to the Toy Story 3D double-feature a couple weeks earlier, so I guess I'm falling for the kids' movies lately. I know the former book is such a classic and I remember seeing advertising and such for it, but I don't remember actually reading it. I knew the gist of the story, at least, though. It makes for an interesting movie, not the average fuzzy family film. Even better that I saw it on the Harkin's Cine Capri screen for the first time. That screen is huge, especially given that there were only sixteen people watching. Yes, I counted.

Sunday night I went to the Fireflight concert. I've known they'd be in Arizona for a while, but I didn't think I'd be able to make it. I was glad I did. Abandon and Remedy Drive also played; nice to hear live, but I don't plan on getting into their music. This was probably my first rock concert . . . I didn't like "loud" music before. And the upside to liking a small band is that you can actually meet them. I got to have my bag (which I bought there before the show started) signed by the band.

Yesterday, I finished Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones. It was one of those books I'd heard about, thought I should maybe read, never got to. With Peter Jackson's movie version coming out soon, which I thought I might like to see, I decided I'd better get to reading first. I knew the basic story: a girl is murdered and she watches her family in the aftermath from heaven. I can't say it was quite what I expected, though. I don't want to go off and give spoilers, but I will say that it was a good read. I like imagery (along with metaphors and such), which this book has in clear originality. And predictable can get boring . . . this book wasn't all predictable. I expected Susie's case to be solved at the end; it wasn't really because there was another point to it all. I like that this book remains simple while still making you think. (Molly really liked it, too. She said it tasted delicious, hence my taping together of the cover after her teeth attacked it. All this time, I thought she was a good dog.)

And today I got the CD's for the audio drama on CS Lewis's The Screwtape Letters (which happens to star Andy Serkis aka Gollum as Screwtape.) So far, I'm loving the design work on the website and packaging. It fits in perfectly with the crazy tone of the book. I listened to the first two letters when I got home; I'll give my opinion when I've moved through the whole thing.

Last thing: today was freezing. I know, a high of 60 degrees isn't that bad, but it was 87 two days ago. A little transition, please? And the wind. It would've been nice weather (except for the cold morning -- and evening that's settling in) without the wind. I don't like wind. A bit of breeze on a hot day is nice; rushing wind on a cold day is horrible. But it seems that the weather will go back up soon.

Word of the Week 7: Excited

Excited (n) - 1. stirred emotionally; agitated 2. stimulated to activity; brisk

(Dictionary.com)

When people ask me if I'm excited about such and such upcoming event or other, I'll often say that I'm trying not to think about it much because I know that won't help. If I look forward to something, I can't stop thinking about it, which doesn't allow me peace of mind and mars the moment when it finally comes. Excited, it almost has a bad connotation as applies to me, unless it's for a short time period. I'm quite quite pleased with this definition, then. "Agitated?" That's never a good thing. "Stimulated to activity," that follows naturally. When excited isn't a bad thing, activity should come next. Either you see that movie you've been waiting for or you work for that cause you just found out about. The only thing I'm surprised isn't in this definition is time. People usually use it to describe looking forward to something. That's covered in the second part only in a round-about way. Dictionaries are usually so detailed, but this time it could be more specific.

The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Bronte

Although the cover and the words "Charlotte Bronte" had a magnetic pull on my hand when I saw the book in the new authors section at Barnes & Noble, I must admit, I'm not keen on the title. I have a sort of bias against the word "diary;" I prefer "journal" as it sounds less like a girly book of girly confessions. Add "secret" to "diary" and I really don't like it. But I have absolutely nothing against getting into Charlotte Bronte's head, which is exactly what this book does.

Author Syrie James explains that it is almost entirely taken from fact, based off of letters and other writings, though a couple of things are added to or embellished to suit it better to a book. And my goodness, is it real. I had thought I knew a decent bit about the Brontes, but this book has so much information in it. It's a fascinating look at the lives of the Brontes (with a particular emphasis on Charlotte, of course, since she is the one telling the story.) It discloses many inspirations they had for their writings. I already knew about Roe Head School and how the two older sisters died there, but I didn't know, for instance, about Monsieur Heger, Charlotte's Belgian professor whom she based many of her male leads on. Or, most tragic, much of Heathcliff (Emily's creation, not Charlotte's) was based off of their brother Branwell. This book drove me to tears more than a couple times. I hadn't read much about Branwell before, now I see the tragedy of his story. Then there's Arthur Nicholls, Charlotte's father's curate. All I had known was that she married him and died soon after, having gotten sick while pregnant. I had wondered, though. It sounded like a "convenient" marriage (since he worked for her father), but wouldn't Charlotte want to marry for the love her characters followed? I won't go into what I found out so I don't spoiler it, but I highly recommend picking the book up for yourself. It's highly potent.

Reading this was simply amazing. It both reminded me why I picked up on Charlotte's vision and reinforced that connection I feel with so much of her work. I can understand the perspectives in here more than anywhere else; so many things I've felt are there in another form. Unfortunately for Syrie James, I'm lead to read the last of Charlotte's books, The Professor, rather than her other book, The Lost Memoirs of Jane Austen. She did such a flawless job at putting this book together in truth that I'm sure she did the same for that one. While I adore being able to read Charlotte's voice, I don't like Jane Austen's, so I don't see much point in reading the book. I'm sure it's as well done, though, for any Austen fans out there. I'll just stick to the Brontes myself.