I love Pride and Prejudice. It was one of the first real romantic novels. It has a bit of everything - drama, romance, and comedy. I have ended up with 2 copies of it somehow, and really enjoy re-reading it.
And I love most of the movie and tv versions I have seen of it - from the really old BBC version from the 80s (watched on video) to the Colin Firth version from 1996. I liked the version with Keira Knightly, but it wasn't a favorite.
The bollywood version Bride and Prejudice was amazingly done. Anyone that can sing a song about "No life, without wife" and keep a straight face is awesome.
But the latest version of Pride and Prejudice is wonderfully done. It is a modern re-telling through a series of video blogs made by Lizzie Bennett, and post grad student, and her best friend Charlotte Lu, her sisters, Lydia and Jane, along with impromptu visits by George Wickham, Bing Lee, Fitz, and finally (after 60 episodes) Darcy.
Lizzie is a wonderfully flawed character who sees the world from her own unique viewpoint, which her friends and family accepts is "just Lizzie".
The way the story is told reinterpreted through the world of social media is so well done, with not only the actors having their own twitter accounts, each of the characters does as well, and you can friend and follow everyone on twitter. There is a facebook page, and on Tumblr and their is a LBD blog (however whenever I see LBD I think little black dress, not Lizzie Bennett).
If you haven't seen it, here is the first episode:
Enjoy!!!
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The fantasy changes....
So I have been watching Smallville from start to finish, but have
also watched the original Superman movies. I am not so much into comic
books, so I can't comment on them, but I find it fascinating the
juxtaposition between the fantasy of Lois Lane and her role in
Superman's life between the 70s and now.
In the 70s, the dream for women appears to be the busy, successful career woman. Sure, its nice to have a big tough guy sweep in and rescue you when in dire, life and death situations, but the rest of your life you support and get yourself into and out of scrapes. And the mystery of who Superman is keeps her hooked. The relationship between Superman and Lois is always unbalanced.
Even though she has her own life and supports herself she can never be a full partner for Superman and help him out when necessary. There is the real comic book fantasy that Superman's only weakness is kryptonite. He knows who he is and is able to overcome everything and find out all the information he needs on his own. Clark Kent also is comfortable with who he is, and understands the need for the disguise, but no one questions where he disappears to and why.
Superman in the 70s is the real comic book Superman, which is fine because it is a movie and the ideals of what should be in the movie have changed. Heroes of the 90s and 2000s have faults and doubts, and are less of the comic book caricature. Compare something like X-men and Spiderman movies to Superman.
Smallville's version of Superman and Lois relationship is much more of the partnership. Yes, being a TV series there is more time to explore their faults and their history than in the movie, but that also means that there is more time for Lois and Clark to develop their relationship.
The big thing that stuck out to me though was in the 70s marriage would be nice, but it wasn't the fantasy for women, whereas now people want the big fantasy wedding and and equal partnership. It really interested me to see this change. I think the idea of a fantasy life is to settle down and get married but have that partnership and equal footing.
The admission that neither character is perfect and that a good partnership is made up of people that help balance out each others' faults is what makes the fantasy work.
Lois still gets into trouble, and Superman is still there to rescue her, but she helps him out when necessary by protecting his identity and doing research for him. She explains his disappearances and would do anything to keep him safe, as he would do anything for her.
I guess my theory is that being the independent career woman is fine, but the evolution of the relationship into a true partnership was nice to see.
The other thing I liked about Smallville was the relationship between John and Martha Kent. They had a very balanced relationship even though she was a stay at home Mum initially. Even so, they both did equal work with raising Clark and around the farm.
There is something positive to see about how feminism has evolved into equality in tv shows at least. Unfortunately in real life, we still mostly haven't achieved that balance. I am hopeful though. If tv shows are getting it right, then real life will follow.
In the 70s, the dream for women appears to be the busy, successful career woman. Sure, its nice to have a big tough guy sweep in and rescue you when in dire, life and death situations, but the rest of your life you support and get yourself into and out of scrapes. And the mystery of who Superman is keeps her hooked. The relationship between Superman and Lois is always unbalanced.
Even though she has her own life and supports herself she can never be a full partner for Superman and help him out when necessary. There is the real comic book fantasy that Superman's only weakness is kryptonite. He knows who he is and is able to overcome everything and find out all the information he needs on his own. Clark Kent also is comfortable with who he is, and understands the need for the disguise, but no one questions where he disappears to and why.
Superman in the 70s is the real comic book Superman, which is fine because it is a movie and the ideals of what should be in the movie have changed. Heroes of the 90s and 2000s have faults and doubts, and are less of the comic book caricature. Compare something like X-men and Spiderman movies to Superman.
Smallville's version of Superman and Lois relationship is much more of the partnership. Yes, being a TV series there is more time to explore their faults and their history than in the movie, but that also means that there is more time for Lois and Clark to develop their relationship.
The big thing that stuck out to me though was in the 70s marriage would be nice, but it wasn't the fantasy for women, whereas now people want the big fantasy wedding and and equal partnership. It really interested me to see this change. I think the idea of a fantasy life is to settle down and get married but have that partnership and equal footing.
The admission that neither character is perfect and that a good partnership is made up of people that help balance out each others' faults is what makes the fantasy work.
Lois still gets into trouble, and Superman is still there to rescue her, but she helps him out when necessary by protecting his identity and doing research for him. She explains his disappearances and would do anything to keep him safe, as he would do anything for her.
I guess my theory is that being the independent career woman is fine, but the evolution of the relationship into a true partnership was nice to see.
The other thing I liked about Smallville was the relationship between John and Martha Kent. They had a very balanced relationship even though she was a stay at home Mum initially. Even so, they both did equal work with raising Clark and around the farm.
There is something positive to see about how feminism has evolved into equality in tv shows at least. Unfortunately in real life, we still mostly haven't achieved that balance. I am hopeful though. If tv shows are getting it right, then real life will follow.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Documentary and thoughts "Holy Rollers"
I am watching a documentory called "Holy Rollers" which is about
Christian Black Jack players who are trying to take as much money from
casinos as possible by card counting, but the more I watch it the more I
think they are dumb and hypocritical. I know gambling in the USA is
different to Australia, but seriously, their little group is not going
to make an impact on human nature doing what they are doing.
I really think they enjoy what they are doing as they are now talking about losses and losing $60-100,000 in one session, which means that they aren't getting up and walking away when they have a bad night. I believe some of these people may have a gambling problem, and are using their "Christian" views to justify it. Especially as I watch more of it. They are now losing $10,000 in an hour, so their system isn't working, and being Christian does not justify anything.
Also, the Christian investors who fronted the money for the players received a 35% return on their investment which is more than the casinos get from the patrons (in Australia anyway), so you could say that the investors are actually worse than the casinos, as the money they are winning is coming from the other punters, who have already lost it to the casino.
Long and short of it, I don't think what they did actually had an impact on the casinos or gambling, was just a really good way to make a lot of money...
Humans have the tendency to gamble. I know casinos have the reputation of being places that lead to sin, and that they promote themselves as being places to be entertained and the chance to win big, but I think most people know when they walk into the casino there is the chance they will lose whatever they are willing to put on the table. I even have had that conversation with patrons.
Casinos, especially in Australia, are places where gambling is regulated and has to follow certain laws and regulations. We are not allowed to deal to players who have had too much to drink, and those players are escorted offsite when they are recognised. We don't serve free alcohol.
They are also safe places where the regulars know each other and are reasonably social with each other and with the dealers. Where else can you go at 1am any day of the week and know that you will be safe, warm and be able to get food, drinks and people to be around. I know most people would say what are they doing about at 1am, but we get all sorts of people in the door. People with insomnia, people who really don't cope with being alone, people who normally work night shift and want to do something than staying home alone for their days off.
A casino is not a good or a bad place. It just is. I am not justifying it because I work in one, but I do understand human nature, and how it works, and understand that a well regulated casino is better than an underground game with no regulations, where cheating and nefarious schemes can occur. As a dealer I have seen people win and lose, some walk away happy, some distraught, but at the end of the day, if you were going to gamble that money anyway, isn't it better to do so in a place that is governed by the law?????
I really think they enjoy what they are doing as they are now talking about losses and losing $60-100,000 in one session, which means that they aren't getting up and walking away when they have a bad night. I believe some of these people may have a gambling problem, and are using their "Christian" views to justify it. Especially as I watch more of it. They are now losing $10,000 in an hour, so their system isn't working, and being Christian does not justify anything.
Also, the Christian investors who fronted the money for the players received a 35% return on their investment which is more than the casinos get from the patrons (in Australia anyway), so you could say that the investors are actually worse than the casinos, as the money they are winning is coming from the other punters, who have already lost it to the casino.
Long and short of it, I don't think what they did actually had an impact on the casinos or gambling, was just a really good way to make a lot of money...
Humans have the tendency to gamble. I know casinos have the reputation of being places that lead to sin, and that they promote themselves as being places to be entertained and the chance to win big, but I think most people know when they walk into the casino there is the chance they will lose whatever they are willing to put on the table. I even have had that conversation with patrons.
Casinos, especially in Australia, are places where gambling is regulated and has to follow certain laws and regulations. We are not allowed to deal to players who have had too much to drink, and those players are escorted offsite when they are recognised. We don't serve free alcohol.
They are also safe places where the regulars know each other and are reasonably social with each other and with the dealers. Where else can you go at 1am any day of the week and know that you will be safe, warm and be able to get food, drinks and people to be around. I know most people would say what are they doing about at 1am, but we get all sorts of people in the door. People with insomnia, people who really don't cope with being alone, people who normally work night shift and want to do something than staying home alone for their days off.
A casino is not a good or a bad place. It just is. I am not justifying it because I work in one, but I do understand human nature, and how it works, and understand that a well regulated casino is better than an underground game with no regulations, where cheating and nefarious schemes can occur. As a dealer I have seen people win and lose, some walk away happy, some distraught, but at the end of the day, if you were going to gamble that money anyway, isn't it better to do so in a place that is governed by the law?????
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)