lookingland

i write a lot of lj entries that i never post. i suspect a lot of people do this. i also know some people just post compulsively everything that comes to their fingertips. having just deleted a lengthy discourse on style and influences prompted by a question in

queenoftheskies journal, i wonder at all the lost posts in the Land of Nod.

morning ramblings.

since last we discussed enid blyton, she would have completed at least a novel and a quarter at this point. by mid-week she'd be more than halfway done with the second.

and what have i done lately?

i'm quitting ADV after this contract is up in december. it's too much work and even though the money is great, i was so crabby yesterday from having worked all week and then having to spend my saturday grueling away at yappy animé that it can't possibly be worth it. okay, there's the matter of that huge school bill looming over my head, but between death and debt, i think i will choose debt for a change. i've had enough of death.

in reading: i'm gearing up to tackle a Dr. Who in the Civil War novel that my friend

utter_scoundrel sent me for my birthday ~ at a quick glance it looks to be epistolary in nature and very cool! i'm excited. meanwhile, reading some stephen crane and a book about friendly fire as palate cleanser from that last blechhy book i read.

in film: my mailman (who i am convinced is a perfect idiot) broke my netflix dvd by cramming a package on top of it. so, having nothing to watch at the end of the long day, i went and rented a couple of flicks. last night i watched a small-budget indie film called Wicked Spring. it was well-intentioned to be sure, a curious little film. not great, but i am glad i saw it.

it opens with a long montage of two men on opposite sides of the mason-dixon answering the call to war. one leaves his wife and children, the other leaves his sweetheart. the whole sequence is presented without dialogue and very highly romanticized: soft lighting, slow movement, violins, the whole nine yards. at one point i was like: what the heck are we watching? it was inneresting, but weird ~ like an endless hallmark commercial.

then the film jumped three years later and the same guys are in the middle of the Wilderness battle and the action picks up and gets grittier. some good special effects, lots of bad acting, and a whole lot of stock characters (except the dressmaker ~ i thought that was a nice touch).

the premise of the film is a hard one to swallow. three Feds and three Rebs run into one another when night falls and without knowing they are on opposite sides, sit down to wait out the darkness. they share a fire, food, and thoughts of home. the two lead characters seem to know each is on the opposite side (how can they not? ~ that would be ridiculous). but the other characters don't seem to know and it seems rather ludicrous given how clear it is that some of them are wearing blue coats (and who doesn't talk about their regiments, hometowns, etc.?) i think the filmmaker tries to get away with it by implying that they all don't want to be taken for deserters, so are keeping mum about where they belong, but it doesn't really work given the level interaction. i didn't buy it.

of course, when morning comes, they wake up to realize they are not only on opposite sides, but are in the middle between the armies and about to be shot. i swore one of the main guys had to die for the movie to redeem itself and was well-rewarded when all six get mowed down in the crossfire.

not a great movie, interesting to watch, some really fine attention to historical details, but far-fetched and rather talky once it gets into it. if you're a Civil War freak you'll dig it for the visuals. otherwise i wouldn't recommend it. kudos to the production company that put it together though. i'll always support stuff like this when i can and will prolly buy a copy just to give them my money.