House of Leaves

I just finished reading House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski.

Tempting as it is to indulge in the kinds of odd typography layout used in the book in a review, it just doesn't seem worth the effort. The one indulgence I'll allow myself is the color blue applied to all occurrences of the word "house". The rest is just too much work to do here.

The book as a substantial work, at something like 700 pages. Some of those pages are crammed with text to the point of almost not fitting inside the trimmed size of the page, and some are nearly empty.

The story is told on three layers, two of which are physically present in the book. The first layer is a documentary film about the house on Ash Tree Lane, made by its owners during their occupancy of the property. Intended as documentary, it also functions as horror, and at some strange level as a love story. The film is presented as real, and as the subject of a substantial amount of critical review and analysis.

The second layer is a critical work about the film, written by an old, blind man, left unfinished when he died in somewhat mysterious circumstances. This is the main text of the published book, and takes an erudite approach to the subject of the film, and incidentally recounts the content of the film as it progresses. It is heavily footnoted both as citations to the source material quoted, and to provide translations of some of the many quotations presented in their original languages.

This text is set in unconventional ways in several of the chapters. It often gives the impression that just writing about the events of the film forces the text layout to reflect some of those events. This is most obvious as changes to the shape of the house are reflected in the page layouts, with claustrophobic sections trapped in a tiny section of an otherwise blank page, a maze represented by text and footnotes tangled and running all ways on the page, and so forth.

The third layer is provided in footnotes by the younger man who acquired the manuscript after its author's death, and has become obsessed with pulling it into form suitable for publication. He too is subject to the subject, and given that he has his own personal demons joining the party, it isn't entirely clear that he'll survive the work.

At times, the reader gets the distinct impression that the three layers are at war with each other, and the reader is playing the role of battlefield, or perhaps civilian collateral damage.

I picked up the book due to an XKCD cartoon titled House of Pancakes. I've since spotted it in several bookstores, but oddly shelved. It is usually in the horror section, but I've spotted with the graphic novels and manga as well.

Would I recommend it? Certainly not to everyone.

Would I seek out other books by the same author? I'm not sure.

What about music by the author's sister that was inspired by the book? I don't know, but it seemed to move the principle character in the third layer story when he happened on to a band playing music inspired by an internet bootleg copy of the book he hadn't published yet...

Having finished it, I have to wonder if it was worth the effort. I'm still not sure. From one point of view, the book is a self-indulgent waste of time and the paper it was printed on. However, it is probably the best researched and most complete hoax of its kind I've ever seen. It is reminiscent in some ways of the seminal volumes Why Paint Cats and Why Cats Paint which both produced some of the same reactions.

Coraline, now in theaters in 3D

We saw Coraline^[IMDB][wiki] the other day. It was shown in one of the new digitally projected 3D systems at our local multiplex.

Wow.

I was very taken with the book by Neil Gaiman, who is one of my favorite authors. It is a simple story about a young girl who feels neglected by her workaholic parents. They move to an old house that has been divided into flats, taking the large flat for their own. While exploring the house, Coraline (not Caroline!) finds a locked door in the parlor that appears at first to open onto a brick wall. Later, she finds it opens into another world where her "other" mother and father dote on her. They seem a little creepy, an effect enhanced by having large black buttons sewn in place of their eyes. She can stay, but only if she consents to have the buttons herself.... Read the book and you'll never look at buttons the same way again.

The movie actually extends the story beyond the book in several ways, and it does it without breaking it. In fact, the film's version of the story is better at least as handled on screen. The writers added an entire new character and improved the depth of the back story of the villainess. They even managed to fit a musical number in that was written (but not performed) by They Might be Giants.

Given that it was directed by Henry Selick (who directed Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, and Monkey Bone) the stop-motion animation is as striking as could be expected. More striking is the delicate use of 3D projection. The 3D was used to give extra depth to the scenery without abusing the audience. It was not used as a gimmick. There is a hint of the effort expended on the animation in a short segment after the credit roll that shows a sequence shot from a wider angle and without any of the clamps or wires removed. There was some CGI used, but mostly for cleanups and wire removal.

In short, see this movie.

Twin Musicals to End the Year

We ended the year on a Hollywood Musical note, but perhaps not the traditional sort...

First, over the weekend we made it up to our local Krikorian branch to see the Tim Burton treatment of Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Then on New Year's Eve, we watched John Travolta carry off Divine's role on the "Shake and Shimmy" DVD edition of this years film version of the stage musical made from John Waters' classic cult film Hairspray.

The short version of what follows is simply that both are quite entertaining and well worth pursuit on either disc or screen.

Sweeney Todd

First, I should say that I have never actually had the chance to see a production of the original musical, but I have known of it and the story for some time. Also, one of my favorite misuses of musical theatre in film occurs in the Kevin Smith film Jersey Girl, where the little girl Gertie (Raquel Castro) coerces her father (Ben Affleck), grandfather (George Carlin), and his blue-collar work buddies into performing some of it as a grade school project. (Incidentally, the film is worth seeing for those scenes alone, even if it could have benefited from reducing the Jennifer Lopez role all the way down to a brief cameo and a photo on the mantelpiece.)

And, of course, I have been a fan of Tim Burton since tripping over his short animated film Vincent many years ago. Since then, his films have always proved to be nicely odd and edgy, and generally among my favorites.

This film is no exception. It is the highest class and highest budget slasher film I have seen, bar none. The supporting cast is as strong as the lead roles, but never draws attention completely away from the strong horror film plot. And there is enough blood around to satisfy just about any fan of the genre. At the same time it is also a Shakespearean tragedy, as well as a light romantic comedy.

Without seeing the original staging, it is hard to be too critical of the musical choices that were made. However, all of the main characters hold up the musical ends of their roles quite satisfactorily.

All in all, we were thoroughly entertained by this one, and look forward to adding a DVD to the collection.

Hairspray

The original film is probably the most mainstream of all of the John Waters cult films, and certainly of those films that Divine was involved in, but it still has the Waters touch in spades. I wouldn't call it his best work ever (I'd favor Polyester or Pink Flamingoes of the ones I've seen ahead of it) but it is worth watching even if only for the ensemble cast.

Then they made a Broadway Musical out of it, which just seemed like a nutty idea at the time... but it apparently worked. I haven't had the chance to see the a production of it, but it did well and won awards.

Since other musicals have been doing well when moved (back) to film, it then made sense to try doing that to Hairspray.

One key feature that makes the 2007 adaptation work is the choice of John Travolta to replace Divine. I don't know who else could have brought as strong a voice to that role without being overshadowed by Divine himself or the makeup job required for the part.

With the cast anchored by Travolta as Edna, the rest of the ensemble is suprisingly strong, including new discovery Nikki Blonsky as Traci, and Christopher Walken as her father Wilbur. Travolta and Walken really do play well off each other although there are a couple of moments where one wishes the scene had cut a moment or two sooner... The rest of the cast is just as strong, the song and dance sequences are well structured, all the cast can sing, and there are even some nice cameos by original cast members to watch for.

I doubt I'll benefit personally from the song lyric subtitle track or the detailed dance instruction sequences that were included as extras on the DVD, but some of the alternate versions and dropped musical numbers were also nice to see.

This is one DVD that would really benefit from a quality sound system...

Rosemary's, Mac King, and Spamalot

We just returned from a short jaunt to that great blinding spot in the desert, Los Vegas. The trip was designed to let us stuff ourselves silly, and see some silly shows. It was a complete success.

We had a phenomenal dinner at a small restaurant well off the strip called Rosemary's. The whole experience was wonderful, with just the right combination of good service, great food, and good beer. We both had the night's five-course tasting menu, including matching beers in my case. Every detail of the service, presentation, plating, food, (and matching beer selection) was perfectly executed. My only note for a return visit would be to go easier on the early beers... four 150ml servings and a smaller dessert beer do add up, especially when cleverly served in half-full 300ml mugs. The dessert course for two was a sampler of half-servings of pretty much the entire dessert menu which itself is a menu item they call their Dessert Storm. It is highly recommended if you manage to have room for dessert and can't make up your minds.

We had a very fine lunch at a hard to locate Thai restaurant called Lotus of Siam (known to foodies as LOS). It too is well off the strip, although in this case you could easily drive right past it due to the mini-mall it sits in having its face turned away from the street. Those in the know order lunch off the menu, although their buffet certainly looked and smelled good.

For entertainment in between sessions of overindulgence in food, we managed to see the classic cars at the Imperial Palace, Shrek 3, Mac King's afternoon show at Harrah's, and Spamalot at the Wynn. 

Each of those probably deserve separate reviews, but...

Mac King is a friendly down-to-earth guy who's performs as a bit of a hick in an ill-fitting plaid suit. The show is fun, and in between bouts of silliness he does some seriously good magic and gets really strong reactions even from the relatively jaded (and quite often slightly tipsy) Vegas audience. Be warned, however, that his style is not the classic gentleman magician...

Spamalot is the Vegas version of the Broadway Musical (somewhat loosely) derived from the classic Python film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. For Vegas it seems to get an extra dose of showgirls, is cut a little shorter, and runs without intermission. Fans of the film are pretty certain to find most of their favorite bits and lines preserved, although some of the longer sequences from the film have been simplified. The result was a very effective translation of the experience of the film into the completely different medium of live theatre.

Back at home, we find ourselves in need of a vacation from our vacation...

SSSnakes...

I don't know if there is anything to really add to the great blogosphere about the film Snakes on a Plane, and yet here I am.

We saw this B-Movie gem the other night. As B-Movies go, it was exactly what you want out of the genre. Screams, slithers, laughs, and bad acting raised to a level that can only be reached by really good actors enjoying themselves. The audience screamed at the right moments, and then laughed at themselves for screaming.

Naturally almost nothing about the plot (there is one?), the situation, the snakes, or the resolution is plausible.

But it shouldn't be. This is a B-Movie, not grand cinema.

To the critics that reviewed it as art, hissss.

The paying audience wasn't hissing.

 (Well, except possibly in an Arizona theater where some pranksters let loose two live diamondbacks during a screaning, which quickly was shut down by screaming but luckily not by any snakebites.)

π (pi)

We watched a very strange film tonight. Pi. It was released in 1998 after winning awards at Sundance.

It has a surreal, stark, grainy, high-contrast black&white look with gritty sets and locations. It was shot in a lot of New York subways and streets.

Its billed as a SciFi/Thriller, probably based on the heavy math content mixed with two independent groups attempting to get inside the head of our anti-hero. Alongside the elements of a thriller, it is also a chance to watch a mathemetician descend into insanity while getting involved in the stock markets, kabala, go, computer hardware seemingly inspired by Brazil, and quite a few ants.

I liked it. But then I liked Ishtar....

A break from the pattern

<rave>

When I find something done right, I have to mention that too, right?

First, a movie. Commentary on the Star Wars cycle can certainly be found in quantity on line and off. I do see the occasional film (note understatement) and read the occasional work of fiction (ditto), so I feel qualified to make a couple of observations. (I am not one of those fans who you will find in local news coverage or mocked by a late-night commedian. I merely enjoy a good, well told story and have never gone to a theater in costume. Well, not often, and only when its legitimately part of the story...)

Episode III is a masterful film. It manages the nearly impossible task of fitting seamlessly between penultimate Episode II and the original Episode IV. That is not as easy to do as Lucas makes it appear.

Lucas did succomb to the temptation to redo the F/X and tweak some details of (again, with the understatements) Episodes IV through VI. But that gave him the opportunity to get better continuity with Episodes I through III.

The cycle is now a complete story, and tells in grand epic style the of the rise, fall, and redemption of Anikin Skywalker. Luke and Leia become supporting characters, and Yoda remains, well, Yoda.

Second, a book. My latest acquisition is the just released first novel by Elizabeth Kostova, The Historian. At 625 pages, its certainly not a casual night's reading...

</rave>