Movie Review: Shutter Island

Tonight we went to see Shutter Island, the new Scorsese film based on the book by Dennis Lehane. I haven't read the book yet, but if the film is any indication then I think it's a must.

Early trailers provided an enticing look into what is billed as a top-notch thriller, but for the first hour or so I'll admit that I checked my watch more than once. Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent as U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels, but the exposition drags and the dialogue falls flat even with DiCaprio's practiced Boston accent to punctuate his statements. Composer Robbie Robertson's score is rife with bass chords and heavy strings that swell to heighten the viewer's suspense but fail to deliver for a substantial portion of the movie. Scorsese is a master of the shot, however, and is faithful to a depiction of Ashecliffe as home to many secrets.

Fortunately, the action begins to pick up early into hour two and doesn't stop until the end credits roll. There are significant, accurate references to early psychopharmacology and antiquated psychiatric practices such as psychosurgery that further increase the tension as Teddy continues his search for answers. The conclusion, while not entirely shocking, is moving and well presented.

The more I think about Shutter Island, the easier it is to justify the first hour I spent waiting for something to happen. The plot points are so carefully woven together that one is caught up in Ashecliffe and its secrets as deeply as Teddy. In order to comprehend the story you have to pay attention -- definitely not the right choice for a "light" movie night -- but even so it really takes a few hours after seeing it to fully understand what you've seen and how everything fits together.

I walked out of the cinema with more questions and theories than answers, and my original rating for this film was a B+: the acting is good but not Oscar-worthy, and the plot leaves you more than a little confused. However, having had the downtime after watching it to process and consider, I give Shutter Island a solid A and my firm recommendation.

Happy viewing!

Review: Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him

I made a jaunt to Half-Price Books last week, one of my favorite places in the world and probably my greatest source of new and interesting reading material that, let's face it, I probably wouldn't find otherwise. I especially enjoy browsing the special section with $2 and $3 books, because those are probably some of the best understated deals around. On this particular journey, HPB had carts set up throughout the store with $1 clearance books -- thank you for saving me the walk back to your (poorly arranged, I will admit) clearance section! I had to take a look.

Unfortunately there wasn't too much to catch my attention, but on the top of one cart I saw a title that grabbed me: Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him, by Danielle Ganek.

Ganek is a first-time author and the book itself is about three years old, and I was momentarily turned off by the blurb's claim that "As The Devil Wears Prada demystified the world of high fashion, this funny and insightful debut novel dishes the crazy and captivating Manhattan art scene." After all, I still have visions of the interminable exposition from Little Pink Slips, which made a similar comparison to Jennifer Weisberger's 2003 debut hit. Still, for one little dollar I figured what's the harm?

Great choice.

The story opens on an art auction in the fall. Mia McMurray acts as witness and commentator to what even a reader unfamiliar with the art scene comes to understand quickly is more than your everyday auction. At the center of bidding lies Lot 22, Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him by the recently deceased Jeffrey Finelli. With the first chapter Ganek expertly back-starts the exposition and leaves the reader with a mind full of questions -- who are these people? what is so great about this painting? -- that are unrealized until Chapter 2 pulls the story back to the beginning.

Ganek's prose is straightforward and clean; she isn't flowery or overexpressive and because of that she is able to weave a complicated plot without any unnecessary tangles. Lulu, a haunting figurative portrait, becomes an object of fixation for the collectors vying to add her to their collection, as well as for Lulu Finelli, its subject. Mia, the receptionist at the gallery housing the painting, and Lulu develop a bond over shared experience, loss, and a growing attachment to the painting and whatever message Jeffrey left within for Lulu to now understand. Mia and Lulu are clear, obvious protagonists, but even at the close of the story it is impossible to determine for certain who the main character is - Mia, Lulu...or Lulu.

The plot moves at a brisk pace, giving the reader just enough time to process what is going on but never so much that it starts to drag. Intelligent commentary and witty banter aptly frame the underlying philosophical questions that this excellent first novel poses to the reader.

Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him is by no means comparable to The Devil Wears Prada, except that like the latter, the former is a spectacular sortie for the author into the world of contemporary fiction. Lulu, though about half the length of TDWP, does more than move the reader with a good story -- it haunts the reader with the same question plaguing the characters who make their way through the Simon Pryce Gallery: "God, is that you?"

You can buy the book through Amazon, Borders, or any book retailer.

One can't move without the other, they just have to be together...

So I'm back from an interesting weekend. This is the first weekend that Brian and I have spent almost entirely together in...well, ever. It was quite a different feeling to wake up next to him, leave and then come back to him after a day of work. Even with his roommates there it was...nice. Saturday night was a little touchy, as was yesterday morning, but I'm so glad that we have both made it to the point where we can talk out our frustrations and irritations instead of turning things into a major fight.

Also, I'm sure the entire world is aware that yesterday was Valentine's Day...

It did not get off to an auspicious start. First, I woke up about 3 hours before I needed to in order to go to work (which was not a planned thing -- I was asked to cover on Saturday afternoon); then, when I tried to get Brian's attention for a little bit of snuggling, he kept going back to sleep! Finally I just decided to read a book and pout a little (yes, I do pout on occasion...). He woke up as I was getting ready to leave, so we did get some time together and I gave him half of his present: an 8-pack of mini Mountain Dew bottles and a few candy bars. If you know Brian you know that this went over well.

After work I went back to his house, and we exchanged our real gifts before dinner. I thought I was being sappy/cute/romantic with my gift, a 2GB flash drive pre-loaded with a playlist of the songs that make me think of him and of course, the requisite card. But he blew me away with his last-minute idea: along with a card that just summarizes our relationship perfectly, he bought a packet of poppy seeds ("when we first met and decided to date, we planted seeds...") and a gorgeous bouquet of roses ("...with love and care, they'll grow into a beautiful bouquet").

Stop gagging, it was adorable. And it reminded me of so many reasons why we're just good together.

After the cute crap, we went to dinner at Red Lobster (always a favorite) and saw From Paris With Love (review to follow shortly). Since we weren't ready to call it a night just yet, we made a stop at Steak 'n' Shake for milkshakes and coffee. Then, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 am, we got back to the house and crashed. Now, even after only about 5.5 hours of sleep, I feel wonderful.

What I felt for him then pales in comparison to what I feel for him now.

And I will stand, and I will break the silence...

(Lyrics from "Break the Silence" by The Code)


This morning on the KISS FM morning show (visit the homepage here), Elvis read an email from a listener looking for advice on a new relationship v. girl code issue. For those unfamiliar with girl code, check out Urban Dictionary, or this interesting article that uses popular songs as a guide: "The Laws of Girl Code". (Note: I am undermining my own place in the girl community by even acknowledging the existence of girl code...but they did it first.)

One of the things you will notice in both these articles and any Google search of same is that there is one core tenet around which the girl code edifice is constructed: DO NOT DATE YOUR FRIEND'S EX. This also applies to crushes, flings, hook-ups, and that cute guy that she locked eyes with for 2.5 seconds at your brother's cousin's party three years ago, depending on your interpretation. And, of course, this was the very topic of said listener's email.


Eva pointed out that she's always had difficulty finding a good guy, but she started dating a new guy recently and they get along very well. She told her best friend about him, and her best friend proceeded to inform her that she and this guy had gone out on two dates a few years ago, that she is uncomfortable with them dating now, and that Eva should back off.


I'm sorry, what?


This is where my interpretation of the Golden Rule of girl code deviates to the somewhat unacceptable level. If it was two dates...several years ago...and nothing else came of it, then there is no foul. It isn't like two dates is a reasonable amount of time to decide that this person is the love of your freaking life. I don't remember if it was Carolina or Danielle who said it, but I am with the lovely lady who pointed out that not only should this not be an issue, but the "friend" should be supporting the letter writer!


Also, this coincides with a few other examples of the girl code coming into play over the last few weeks, examples that have been rankling me because of the circumstances involved:


1. A girl is not a "bitch" for getting together with a guy she dated first, no matter how much you've had to drink. This is especially true if no prior friendship between you existed during either relationship, if her relationship was more serious to begin with, and if you specifically indicate that you are over him and have no desire to see him again. Case closed.


2. A girl is not a "whore" just because she got action and you didn't...especially if she's your best friend. Take your green eyes and channel them into something useful, because what kind of backstabber are you to begrudge your "best friend" some enjoyment?


3. When you work to hook your best friend up with a guy, you forfeit the right to be pissed off when they actually hook up. Though circumstances may in fact play a role here, it is hypocritical and disloyal to throw your BFF together with somebody - being fully aware that their opportunities for face-to-face contact are limited - and then to be disgruntled that they actually make a connection and to hold it against them.


And people wonder why girls fight...

To be or not to be GOP...

On January 24, Meghan McCain posted this entry on her Daily Beast blog. 

I love Meghan McCain. While I may not agree with most of her ideology our views coincide in a few key areas, and I think that she could take the GOP in a good direction if more of the old guard would be willing to listen to her. The linked post discusses once again the negativity that she faces from so many members of the GOP who find her "too moderate" to represent their interests, only this time she has posted her views according to the GOP's own "litmus test". Check out the post for her answers...

I decided that I wanted to go ahead and do the same. I am a fiscal moderate, after all, and a social liberal, and over the last 8-9 months I have struggled with my own political identity as I've felt the shift toward the center from my previous far, far left stance. So...below you'll find the questions to the litmus test in bold, with my answers. I'll add a point for every "yes" answer; totals are cumulative.

Do you believe in...

1. Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.

Yes and no. By being fiscally responsible and making wise appropriations we can reduce our national debt and cut taxes. President Obama's stimulus bill did less for the people of this country than for the corporations, but a stimulus more geared to the people who are suffering would have been a responsible decision.

Total: .5

2. Market-based health-care reform and opposition to Obama-style government-run health care.

No. This is an area where I believe we need some intervention from the government to prevent extortion by insurance companies and continually rising costs of health care. We have price-inelastic demand for healthcare coupled with what has increasingly become a widespread inability to pay for the same. Something has to be done.

Total: .5

3. Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.

No. The environment is one of my biggest issues (after foreign policy and defense), and cap and trade is the only way to encourage businesses to make the environmentally conscious decision rather than to pollute all they can. Progress is no longer progress when we lose our landscape, clean drinking water, and ignore research that has already suggested innovative ways to address global climate change. (For more information, pick up Superfreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Health Insurance.)

Total: .5 (Note: At this point I have already missed the threshold that President Reagan set forth, that anybody who agrees with 8/10 of these statements could be considered a friend rather than an opponent.)

4. Workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.

Yes. I don't think that workers should be exposed to retaliatory action by either employers or fellow employees for expressing their position on the presence of a labor union in their workplace.

Total: 1.5

5. Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

No, because of the wording. I am completely in support of legal immigration and assimilation, but we need to have a more comprehensive immigration framework that allows undocumented immigrants the right to participate in an amnesty-to-citizenship process as well as systematically redefining the criteria for immigration and providing for stricter security standards. By extending amnesty to undocumented immigrants who are already in the country, we will know who is here and where they are, and we will keep children in complete households rather than continue to tear families apart.

Total: 1.5

6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.

No. Instead of continuing with troop surges we should seek international cooperation from our NATO partners in ISAF and other partners in the region to focus on state-building and transition of security operations to the Iraqi and Afghan people. The longer we remain entangled in the region, the more credibility and national security we sacrifice.

Total: 1.5

7. Containment of Iraq and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear-weapons threat.

Yes, especially with regard to North Korea. We should continue to use diplomatic channels to discourage weapons development, but since Kim Jong-Il's government has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with international mandates and legislation already in place, we should not disregard the possibility of a more active containment policy. Of course...this would also mean that we need to expedite our disengagement with Afghanistan to alleviate the strain on our resources.

Total: 2.5

8. Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.


No. No, no, definitely not. This is actually a contradiction to the idea of smaller government -- we do not have the right to legislate marriage, nor does any person have the right to impede the right of two people who are of sound mind to enter into a marriage contract.


Total: 2.5 (Note: this, according to MMc, is the central issue of the litmus test. Regardless of her own score, 8/10, she posits that it is her response to this specific question that makes her an outsider in the GOP.)

9. Protecting the lives of vulnerable people by opposing health-care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion.

Yes. While this is contradictory to the idea of eliminating government-run health care (hello, Medicare!) I think the Republicans actually have this one right. We have a responsibility to all of our citizens to provide the utmost level of health care and access to treatments, regardless of age or medical condition. Nobody should be denied medical care. Also, I know the abortion debate is heavy, and I personally believe that every woman has the right to make her own reproductive decisions. However, there are more effective methods of health care that can protect the mother without resulting in abortions, and I believe we should dedicate resources to effective sex education and expanding access to birth control to promote personal responsibility early on. I would much rather pay for a teenager's birth control than for her abortion.

Total: 3.5

10. The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Yes...and no. I believe in the Second Amendment, but I also believe that there are people in the country who through their own actions have abused that right and privilege, and should therefore not be allowed to enjoy it further. My own father is an example of this; much as I love him, I would fight any legislator in this country who would put forth that my father deserves to ever own a firearm again. Because of that, we do have to have some regulations to make sure that people who will actually take advantage of this right are not taking unfair advantage of it. I'm not talking about tracking and spying on gun owners; I'm just advocating responsible registration and background checks.

Total: 4


Verdict: Apparently, I am not a Republican. I do, however, lean more toward the center than many of my friends. I can't consider it a tragedy that President Reagan and I would not have seen eye to eye, nor can I really mourn the fact that the GOP of today would never count me as one of their own. I am comfortable with where I am.


So, where do you fall?

Home of the brave

This morning, instead of answering phones and working on EOCs, my work for the Senator took me to the District Courthouse for two naturalization ceremonies. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a naturalization ceremony is the legal step that makes a U.S. permanent resident a U.S. citizen. Ceremonies usually honor 50-60 individuals at a time, making them a somewhat lengthy process.

First, new citizens arrive to the courthouse and meet with a representative of Customs and Immigration Services (CIS). The CIS representative collects a survey from them about activity since their final immigration interview, as well as their green card, and has the new citizen sign her or his certificate of naturalization. Then, a federal judge begins the ceremony proper: often there is a reflection about the citizenship process, and an introduction of persons of interest in attendance; then, the judge administers the citizenship oath, in which new citizens renounce loyalty to any other "prince or potentate, state or sovereign..." and swear to live by the same laws that born U.S. citizens are bound to uphold. After the oath is administered, each new citizen comes up to receive their naturalization certificate and to be recognized.

All of this is a very technical treatment that does nothing to describe the atmosphere in that room. There was excitement edged with solemnity, but more than anything there was hope. I looked out each time into a sea of faces, each representing an individual heritage from a different corner of the world -- Peru, Liberia, Russia, Syria, Jordan -- and each eager to take the final step toward citizenship and their first step as citizens of their new country. We told each one, appropriately, "welcome home."

In some ways we are lucky to be born citizens -- we don't have to actively participate in the political process, understand how our government works or even have an accurate grasp of history. We can say what we want about our country and the people who run it, and never will someone question us or test us to see if we pass muster. But these new citizens, our latest brothers and sisters in stars and stripes, demonstrate the sort of passion that we should all have for the land of our birth, the land of our hearts. They chose to come here, to overcome personal and political challenges to stand before a judge who declared to be legal what they already know: they are home.


I can't wait until I get to see another ceremony. How uplifting!