Crazy People

Saturday, 21 August 2010

Today we went to my parents-in-law’s house. This marked Isla’s longest car ride and, apart from a visit to the midwife, her first time in another home. More importantly, it was her first time meeting her cousins Lyric and Asa. Actually, it was the first time Jennifer, Owen, and I had met Asa, too (he was just born earlier this month).

It’s funny, when Isla was born, the midwife said she looked like a girl (she was referring to the dainty features of Isla’s face, and not to the more obvious girl-looking areas). I wasn’t really sure what the midwife meant at that time – to me, babies just look like babies and I have a tough time ascertaining gender based on facial features alone (at least until they start shaving).

But today, seeing Isla up next to her boy cousin Asa, man, I gotta say: that kid looks like a boy. Sorry I can’t be more precise than that, but he just had the look of a boy and, seeing my daughter next to him, she did look like she has girl’s face.

Anyway, as you can imagine, there was all sorts of photography going on; what with two babies getting together and all four cousins being there along with the grandpa and grandma and great-grandma. My dad-in-law commented that it was like the paparazzi in his living room with all the flashes going off. I shot some video, too.

ISLA WITH HER NEW COUSIN:

Sunday, 22 August 2010

I submitted four articles to The Humanist some months ago, and the editor wrote back saying she was interested in publishing two of them, only she wanted to mash them together into a single article. I told her this was fine, and she sent me a draft of the conjoined articles. I responded with a few suggestions. Six suggestions, actually, and she decided to go with five of my six suggestions. A couple of days ago, I received the magazine in the mail, and I felt quite please with myself to see my article on page 36. I posted on Facebook telling people to go check it out at their local library or bookstore, but I’ve since discovered that the article is also available online. So, READ IT HERE.

Also, I wrote this article for The Minnesota Atheist (MNA). It’s actually a little long for MNA, so I may shorten it for the paper edition, but I’m gonna submit this article to a few places, too.

Monday, 23 August 2010

This morning, I watched the last half of the movie Psycho II (I’d watched the first half a few days ago). In case you don’t know, this is the sequel to Psycho. It was made 22 years after the first film, by witch time Hitchcock was dead. It’s safe to say, I think, that there was really no need for this movie, and that Hitchcock had no intention of ever filming a sequel to Psycho (or any of his films, for that matter).

I’m not really a fan of sequels. I hate the way they sully the memory of the original. They’re almost always disappointments – tacked on stories out for a quick buck once it was realized that the original made more money than expected. All sorts of great films have had lousy sequels made – and I would list them off here, but I think there are already a good number of lists of bad sequels to great films elsewhere.

But, I feel compelled to admit: Psycho II was a rather good flick. I mean, it was worth the watch. In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say that if you’ve seen Psycho, then go ahead and rent the sequel. It’s fun. Oh – and if you haven’t seen Psycho, what’s wrong with you? Put it on your Netflix queue and bump it up to #1.

Psycho II owes a deep debt to Hitchcock, a fact they graciously admit in the closing credits. Perkins reprises his role as Bates and is, again, brilliantly creepy, unsure, just plain mad. The music, while not as inspired as the first, is well done. The cinematography is reminiscent of the original and just as cool. It employs two of the great tricks of the master: first, the camera moves from one place to another to heighten the emotion. When characters are scared or confused, the camera rises up and we look down on the players from a bird’s eye view. In one particularly inspired bit of camera work, the camera pans out of the attic window as we watch Norman looking out; it then tilts straight down and head – in a single shot – for the cellar window. It’s at the same time disorienting and clever. The camera also takes the place of the characters’ eyes from time to time, another homage to the original. This is pure Hitchcock – nothing puts you into the action like sitting behind the actors’ pupils.

My favorite scene was near the end. Norman kills Ms. Spool. The scene was so jolting and well executed that I had to rewind the film and watch it again. In the days before digital manipulation, I was amazed at how precise the scene was. I can’t imagine how many takes it took to get that scene just right.

Still, the film has its detractions. The first two minutes of the film is simply a clip from the first film. And, predictably, it’s the famous shower scene. Out of place, and at the start of the film, the scene loses all meaning and becomes simply a murder scene. Other scenes in the film, while not using the same footage, are nonetheless exact copies of the original. Boring. And some things are just a bit too contrived – Norman is released from a mental hospital after being in the for over 20 years, and his doctor sees no problem in letting him return to his creepy home where all his problems first started. The home itself is so troubling for Norman that he can’t even go into some of the rooms. Then there’s the young woman who knows Norman’s past, yet still decides to stay in his house with him for several days. She and Norman even spend a night in the same room, where Norman stands guard…with a knife. Why is she risking her life like that? Oh, there’s a reason, but it’s a lousy reason.

Then there’s the case of the film showing us what’s about to happen. In the original, I enjoyed when the camera took viewers aside, as if to say, “but what about this?” That’s great film-making, but this sequel, instead, tries to say: “guess what’s gonna happen!” Yes, yes, I am guessing, but don’t make it so obvious. The worst offense is when Norman offers a guest some tea, and then we see him reach into the cabinet and grab the tea…and the poison. Come on. That scene would’ve been so much better had I not known for sure if he was going to poison his guest or not.

Bottom Line: B+