The Culture Enthusiast

*spoilers*

I have a love and hate relationship with Woody Allen.

So much so that I only watched Midnight in Paris because it was being played at my gym. The movie was so interesting that I ended up working out for much longer that I wanted to.

Midnight in Paris is about a young Hollywood writer, Gil, who is inexplicably transported to 1920’s Paris every night. There he gets a chance to enjoy the company of Hemingway, Dali and Bunuel – all extremely creative people unlike the snooze that are his fiancé and friends in the present.

While none of the characters understands Gil’s nostalgia, the movie supposes the audience does.

I, for one, am normally very pessimistic about the present and being in a gym where everybody (including myself) is spending lots of money, time and energy on losing weight through moronic exercises probably enhanced the feeling that we are all in pretty bad shape.

Don’t expect a great conclusion to Gil’s dilemma though.

Between a barren, boring present and an electrifying past he will compromise. The only problem with that is that is a bit conformist and not original.  Conformist because there is a big difference between dreaming of living in the past and looking at your present critically. Not original because how many recent movies end with the message: “be happy in the present, follow your dreams, don’t sell out and find a quirky girl who loves you for who you are”? Of the top of my head I can think of Stranger than Fiction, Little Miss Sunshine and Ruby Sparks.

What’s strange is how Gil came to terms with the present. It's only because he discovers everybody is nostalgic and unhappy with their present - whatever that time that is.

It's what Woody Allen puts in the mouth of one of his characters "The present is unsatisfying because life is”.

I wonder if deep down Allen believes Gil will be happy. 

I'd say, based on his other movies, that he thinks Gil should be happy his life is not totally horrible. But I guess anyone who thinks life is that unsatisfying cannot be happy for long.

What did you think of Midnight in Paris? What time would you like to live in? (I'm highly favorable to the 1920's myself)

Sorry everyone for leaving the blog a bit abandoned. I was half busy, half out of town and half without ideas.

Speaking about traveling, I had a very difficult decision to make on my last trip - what book to read on the train.

It might seem a banal decision but it’s one I take seriously. Even though technology helps passing the time while on a train or an airplane, you can’t trust technology or an airline taste in movies.

I learned my lesson when on my last plane ride I watched School of Rock (for the tenth time) and ended up hating it for good.

It’s just like that “what book would you take to a desert island” game. In both scenarios you are stuck in a place with nowhere to go, nothing to distract you and a cannibal sitting next to you. 

So before boarding any type of vehicle that requires the use of the verb ‘board”, I think about the book I’ll read. The most practical choice is the book I’m reading at the moment. 

I wish it were that simple.

I was reading the library’s copy of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and I wouldn't risk something happening to it. I know from experience that losing the book is not the worst that can happen to it. I once had to buy my college’s library another copy of Paul Auster’s The New York trilogy because my dog peed on it. In his defense it was on the floor and in my defense I didn’t keep the peed book to myself.

Another issue is weight. Art through the ages is too heavy and C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man is too light.

The subject of the book is something else to consider. Many people read in trains so that no one will bother them, but the thing is: you don’t want to talk to a strange stranger.

If you have a strange stranger sitting next to you, you just want to bury your head in a book and give the impression you are a medieval scholar. But if you have a tall dark stranger type sitting next to you, I bet you’d be kicking yourself for not being the type of girl who packs lipsticks instead of books.

So a trip book must be multi-action: interesting and not embarrassing.

At last, I took Shadowplay, a non-fiction book about the works of Shakespeare.

It’s the book I’m reading at the moment, it’s medium size, neither embarrassing nor a conversation killer. It’s also mine so if anything happened to it, I wouldn’t look like a careless punk in the librarian’s eyes.

What books do you read when you travel? 

Image via National Railway Museum

I love going to museums and while I was visiting the National Gallery in Washington the other day I realized how important it is to have a light bag filled with everything you need to enjoy your museum trip.

Here what I usually take with me:

1) Small notepad and pen. 

Once I had to ask the security guard for a pen and wrote notes about the art works in my hands. Another time I had to come back to the museum to copy the name of an interesting book that was quoted in one of the explanation boards. After this I learned to always carry a pen and a small pad – everywhere, as a matter of fact.

2) Cash

Sometimes the audio files' booth doesn’t accept credit or even debit cards, so it’s good to have some extra money for this.

3) Camera

I used to be a little skeptical about this and never took a camera with me. I guess it's optional, but cellphone cameras are pretty light. 

4 and 5) Water and a little snack. 

I always take an inexpensive water bottle because some museums don’t allow water so you might have to leave your water in the entrance. Also most museums don’t allow food, but you can sneak in a cereal bar or some fruit.

6) Strap bag

Comfort is key. Strap bags allow your hands to be free and you can't put too much extra stuff in them.

  

What do you take with you in a museum trip?

I’ll be honest: I’m not a big Clint Eastwood fan.

I stay clear of any type of western, no matter how much they try to lure me by associating themselves with spaghetti. Growing up, I have a faint memory of watching a movie with Eastwood and either Johnny Deep or Christian Slater, can’t remember which. His last movies were simply painful to watch and too disturbing for a second watch.

I couldn’t even finish watching Bridges of Madison County.

Gran Torino, on the other hand, is a completely different case.

Eastwood is Walt Kowalski, an intolerant old man who, after his wife's death, has to deal with his estranged family, an insistent priest and too many immigrants in his neighborhood.

Walt is alone and feeling completely alienated from his environment. As a Korean war veteran and a long time worker of a Ford factory, he doesn’t fit in a world of ethnic gangs and cocky teenagers.

Things start to change when his neighbor Thao tries to steal his coveted, vintage Gran Torino. Under Walt’s wings, Thao, also alienated from his surroundings, will learn how to be a straight up guy.

Many people don’t like this movie because Eastwood’s character is just so politically incorrect. But there's more to the movie than Walt's rants. At times, the movie is very funny, like in the scene where Walt and his barber teach Thao how to talk like a man. There are also very moving dialogues, such as the one when, replying to a man talking in a foreign language, Walt approvingly says: “You said it, brother.” 

Following the general tone of his latest movies, Gran Torino has some strong scenes, but it is a much easier watch than Changeling or Mystic River.

And whether we like it or not, Walt is one of the most interesting things about Gran Torino. He is this crazy 80 year old Dirty Harry - who will totally surprise you in the end.

For last year's Easter I talked about the film The Passion of the Christ and this year I chose Gran Torino. It deals with very real human dramas and several modern problems but presents an utterly Christian solution to them. 

Who knew a Clint Eastwood movie would be such a fitting option for Easter?  

Have you seen Gran Torino? What do you think about Clint Eastwood movies?

Screwtape, the author of the letters, gives out advice to Wormwood, his nephew, on how to better tempt his "patient", a man recently converted to Christianity.

It’s a very short book, but also very unusual. The way Screwtape talks is the opposite of ours. What he calls "the Enemy" is God and when he says "our father" he means Satan. Through this inverted worldview, the reader gets something like a secret insiders view on the devil's tricks and plans.

What I liked best about the book is how it shows that the devil acts primarily on the human intellect. Less like what we see in horror movies and more like what we see in cartoons.

Be prepared: the book is most times very funny, but it get very scary pretty fast. The fate of the two demons and of the damned souls is horrifying. And with each letter we see a description of the seemingly unimportant, day to day dramas of our very own lives. I doubt anyone can read the letters and not find the situations described in them familiar.

Who knew that the author of the wonderful children's saga, Narnia, would write something this complex, funny, eye opening and easy to read?

I’m off to read the rest of Lewis’ work. Partly because I'm so impressed by his writing and partly because I don’t have the guts to listen to Andy Serkis reading the letters.

What do you think about Caravaggio's realistic style?

Image via Wikipedia