Movie review: Mickey 17

This is also partially a book review because I read the book prior to seeing the movie. I saw a poster for this movie in a theater lobby, which intrigued me enough that I looked into more information about it. I found out that it was based on a book, Mickey7. This review contains some spoilers for Mickey 17 and The Substance.

Mickey7, book

The book was a relatively quick read. It was published within the last few years, so it's fairly recent. I thought the premise was pretty interesting, although the execution by this author wasn't my favorite. I would've found it more interesting if a different author had written something with this premise, such as Murakami. 

Additionally, the book had a rather young-adult fiction writing style, which isn't my favorite. I prefer books that are a bit more literary in style, or at the very least, are not written in the style of YA, even if they're not high literature either. 

Still, I found it interesting enough to finish and the concepts it involves are interesting to think about, even if the author could have approached them in a more artful and skilled manner. For some reason I don't feel like I can remember much detail about the book, even though I read it within the last week or two. I think that I wished it had addressed the premise/themes in a deeper way somehow, rather than being more surface level.

 

However, in some ways, the book did delve a bit deeper than the movie did. The ship of Theseus idea is specifically discussed in the book, and Mickey ends up using his spare time to read about what caused the success or failures of other space colonies, wondering what implications that might have for the planet he has traveled to. There's also some more depth in what's going on with the strange worm-like creatures inhabiting the planet. 

Mickey 17, movie

This movie was directed by Bong Joon Ho and starred Robert Pattinson as the eponymous character, Mickey 17. I was curious about what the adaptation would be like. I have not watched any other work by Bong Joon Ho, or Robert Pattinson (aside from maybe some of the Twilight series, years ago. I was somewhat interested in the series around the ages of 10 - 13, which is when it was really popular). 

The movie differs rather substantially from the book. Although there are similarities in some of the broader elements, much of the details were changed, including some of the plot. I was hoping that the movie would take a deeper approach to some of the ideas in the book, but this wasn't really the case. The movie went in a different direction than the book, and the themes and/or emphasis were changed. 

Thematically and tonally, the movie was somewhat disjointed. There were a lot of different elements that just didn't get explored too deeply. Robert Pattinson's acting was very superb and he really managed to embody the two versions of his character. There's a certain intensity (and depth?) to his performance that reminds me of Peter Sarsgaard a bit. 

I thought that Robert Pattinson didn't really look like I expected him to for some reason. My mental image of him is more like a vague recollection of what he looked like in the Twilight series, which is different enough than what he looks like in this movie and maybe in real life too. In this movie, his hair was darker and not as curly or tousled looking. In Twilight/etc, I think his hair was more coppery (lighter in color, I guess from highlights of some sort) and had a slightly curly texture. He also had vampire makeup for that series to make him appear very pale and sparkly. He was rather pale in Mickey 17 too, but not sparkly. He appeared very hairless (regarding body hair) in this movie, which I'm not sure if that's how he naturally is, or whether he was shaved and/or waxed to look like that. In any case, he's an attractive man. 

Pattinson played his character rather straight and seriously, which is in extreme contrast to the caricatured performance that Mark Ruffalo gave as the movie's primary villain, the commander/caption of the space expedition. I found this juxtaposition rather disjointed and Ruffalo's performance and character seemed out of place with how the rest of the characters were portrayed. 

I would have preferred to see a more subtle and sinister or ominous portrayal of the villain, instead of a bombastic, over-the-top demagogue. Although the movie was originally filmed a couple of years ago, Ruffalo's character is like a strange Trump-Musk amalgamation. I could actually see Peter Sarsgaard playing this role how I envision it, or maybe Jeff Goldblum? Perhaps even James D'Arcy. I'm not familiar with Ruffalo's other work so I can't really say whether he's generally a mediocre actor, or it's just this performance that wasn't great. 

I also possibly would have liked if the movie had a different director, someone who'd emphasize the more surreal and deeper ideas/elements rather than trying to incorporate a significant campy, satiri-comical tone. Maybe someone like Darren Aronofsky? 

The ending of the movie (which is a little similar to the book, but also has significant changes) was a bit contrived too. Ultimately, I don't think it necessarily benefited from the plot and other changes that were made in the adaptation, particularly the way the commander character was built into something rather different than the analogous character from the book, and the impact of that on the plot. 

In an interview I read prior to seeing the movie, Pattinson did mention that he was surprised about how the director adapted the source material. It might be more enjoyable to watch this movie without having read the book first, because it doesn't feel like a highly satisfying adaptation of the source material. In some ways, the source material is rather corrupted in the adaptation. 

I wish the movie had been more of a character study (of Mickey) since it would be an interesting way to explore the premise. It also would've benefited from more development of Mickey and Nasha's relationship, as well as the other woman that sort of almost gets involved in a love triangle. The book does this at least somewhat better, if I recall correctly. 

I would have liked to see more reflection from both/either Mickey and Nasha about the strange situation with there being two of him and what they thought about it. In the movie, Nasha is eager to have a threesome with the twin Mickeys (the threesome also occurs in the book) and does notice the difference in their personalities. She describes 17 as mild Mickey and 18 as habanero Mickey, but doesn't end up addressing these differences further. 

I thought it was interesting that there's a tenuous connection to the premise of The Substance, but Mickey 17 takes a very different approach to it. 

The common premise in these two movies is the idea of having two bodies, which are two versions of yourself that are both technically supposed to be you, but they're at odds with each other in some way, and are different from each other in some way(s). 

In Mickey 17, he ends up with two versions of himself unintentionally and is part of a larger crew of people in a space colony, whereas in The Substance, Elisabeth voluntarily takes a substance to create a better version of herself and is rather isolated personally. The Substance, overall, was much more expertly executed in terms of the direction and plot. I also enjoyed its allusions to Requiem for a Dream and some of Kubrick's work.  

In both, it was interesting to see how the different bodies/versions of the character were foils for each other. Since the context and premise of the movies are pretty different, this foil effect plays out in distinct ways. Both Mickeys are physically the same, but differ somewhat in personality. Mickey 18 is more diabolical than the hapless and nervous Mickey 17. 

Elisabeth is using the different, younger body of Sue to live vicariously, trying to relive Elisabeth's former glory. Her desire to continue living as Sue instead of Elisabeth ultimately leads to Elisabeth's destruction. Mickey 18 holds a bit of disdain and disregard for 17, and for some reason is more diabolical than his previous version. The reasons for him being more diabolical are never directly explained. Perhaps it's just a reaction to being confronted with a duplicate version of himself, putting them both at risk in the context of the ship's regulations?       

   

Overall, I did like the movie and would probably watch it again at some point, it's just that are there some aspects of it I have criticism of and think should have been done differently. It was somewhat underwhelming relative to what I think/wish it could have been. I like this review on Reddit that also discusses the differences between the movie and book.

I took a look at AO3 to see what fan fiction about the movie exists, though it seems like the majority of it involves clone sex because I guess people just wanted to get their freak on and write about that. Personally, I think that's one of the more uninteresting ideas that could be explored in fan fiction for this movie. 

Movie review: The Substance

I just now finished watching this movie [at the time of starting to write this review]. It is a newer movie that premiered in theaters in September 2024 [it was originally shown at Cannes Film Festival earlier that year] and I think it may be up for an Oscar in some category or other [it is nominated in five categories: Demi Moore for leading actress, Coralie Fargeat for director, makeup and hairstyling, Best Picture, and writing for original screenplay]. I don't remember hearing about this movie when it was originally in theaters, only within the last couple of days, which probably had something to do with the Oscars. 

I watched the trailer and was intrigued. In order to thoroughly discuss the movie, this review will contain spoilers. The premise involves an aging celebrity who is offered a chance to take a Substance that will create a better, more perfect version of herself. This movie is a drama with body horror. It's also somewhat meta, about fame and celebrity and the entertainment industry's focus on beauty and youth. 

The way the Substance works is that it creates a second body for the person who takes it. The new body contains the same mind/consciousness as the original body, just in a better exterior package. Each body can be inhabited for seven days in a row, and then they are supposed to be switched out. The person is reminded repeatedly that both bodies are still them, rather than two completely separate people. While one body is not being inhabited, it exists in some kind of stasis (eyes open) and is fed intravenously. 

The Substance is something that is injected and is a neon yellow liquid. This causes the new body, the Other Self, to emerge from an opening down the spine of the old body, as if the old body were a cocoon. While inhabiting the Other Self/new body, the person is supposed to inject themselves daily with a Stabilizer fluid that is withdrawn from the old body (while it is in stasis). 

Things begin to go wrong when the main character tries to extend her time in the Other Self body beyond the specified seven days at a time. 

This movie was pleasingly surreal in the way that I like, which I describe as light surrealism. To specify further, I like surrealism that has some dystopian or unsettling/darker element to it as well. 

I feel like there's possibly some Greek myth allusion here but I can't think of which one. In various different ways, the movie reminded me of the conceptual video artwork Safe Conduct, Cinderella, The Picture of Dorian Grey and Requiem for a Dream. (Requiem for a Dream and Safe Conduct are some of my favorite things). 

It has the surreal body horror elements like Safe Conduct, the changing states of Cinderella, a changing version of oneself that's kind of metaphorical like The Picture of Dorian Grey [please note I haven't actually read that, I just have a vague idea of its premise], and some cinematography that's similar to Requiem for a Dream (repeated motifs, closeups of eyes, injections, also a manic scene). Also, Demi Moore resembles Jennifer Connelly quite a bit. I would also say there are cinematographic similarities to some of Stanley Kubrick's work, like The Shining or A Clockwork Orange (in that some scenes in The Substance seem to allude to scenes in those Kubrick movies, and perhaps some more distant thematic similarities too). 

It was left vague as to when exactly the movie was supposed to take place. It has a bit of a 1980s aesthetic, including the fact that the main character Elisabeth and her younger version Sue are stars of a dance-exercise television show and wear 80s-inspired dance leotards and legwarmers. Additionally, the interiors of various buildings/rooms have a 1980s-esque look too. However, a smartphone is featured occasionally in the movie, as well as a modern-day flat screen TV and a flash drive. These are the only things that hint at it taking place in the 2010s, at least. 

I thought it was a very thought-provoking movie and I'm almost a little surprised that it was a more mainstream movie, since it seems a bit out there. I'm not really sure what the overall/prevailing opinion of it is (among professional movie critics as well as the general public), although it seems like the kind of thing that not everyone would find appealing or interesting.

It makes me ponder about whether I would choose to take the Substance that could create a more perfect version of myself. Whether I would take it right now in my life, or perhaps at some future point when I'm older (like Elisabeth's age in the movie). The idea of being able to intermittently inhabit a more perfect version of oneself is quite interesting to think about in the theoretical sense. 

In the movie, it seems that the Substance is primarily intended to create a more perfect physical version of the person, rather than substantially altering their inner personality and mind. However, Elisabeth-Sue behaves differently depending on which body she is inhabiting at a given time, even though it's emphasized that the person in each body is one and the same. But I'm not necessarily sure if this was the Substance creating a new/different personality for Sue's body, or if it was more like some sort of 'physical determinism' -- the fact that she was living in Sue's perfect body caused her to act differently than she did in Elisabeth's older, less perfect body, and vice versa. 

Personally, when I think of taking a Substance that creates a more perfect version of myself, there are a few physical things that would change to become more "perfect," but there are also a number of personality/mental changes that I also think of as being part of a "more perfect" version of myself. If anything, the personality/mental changes take precedence in my mind over the physical aspect of a Substance-induced better version of myself. I don't know if everyone else would think the same way in terms of what changes a more perfect version of themselves entails. 

If I were able to take a Substance that creates a "better" version of myself, would I begin to resent the original, inferior version of myself and/or the "better" version as well?

Some themes or concepts this movie addresses are vanity, beauty, self-esteem and body image, hedonism, and trade offs. What is beauty (and youth) worth? What would you do in order to become more beautiful, more perfect? What would you be willing to trade? 

If you were sapping life out of your old body (and making it increasingly more decrepit) in order to sustain the more perfect Other Self, would you find that an acceptable trade off to make? If you did take the Substance like in the movie, would you be able to stick to the schedule of seven days in each body, or would you become tempted to extend your time as the Other Self at the expense of your original body? 

A potential takeaway from this movie is that it's better to be happy or at peace with your existing body instead of trying to make loaded trade offs in exchange for a more perfect body. 

Further reading: an interview with the costume designer for the movie. The leotards and yellow coat were custom-made for the movie. 

Book review: The Hall of Singing Caryatids

I have made a goal of reading at least one book per each letter of the alphabet this year. It remains to be seen whether I'll accomplish this goal, but making it in the first place is the first step. The list of books already exists but I won't publish that in full, as it's more suspenseful to reveal it one by one as I finish and review a given book. 

The first book I'm reviewing here is a novella by Victor Pelevin, originally published in Russian. I wanted to see what contemporary Russian fiction (available in an English translation) existed out there and this is one of the first books I came across. The original Russian version was published in 2008, and the English version was published in 2011 (translated by Andrew Bromfield). 

Apparently the author is very popular in Russia. I had never heard of him before this week, so he isn't particularly well known in the US. In fact, I can only think of two contemporary authors (21st century, let's say) whose translated works became very popular in the US: Haruki Murakami (1Q84) and Stieg Larsson (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and subsequent books; originally published in Swedish with a different title). And even those aren't all that recent. 

I didn't know much about what I was getting into with this book at the start. I was aware of the basic premise: the main character, along with a number of other women, are recruited to become singing models ("caryatids") in a secret underground club for Russian oligarchs. It is about that, but it also has a surreal element that was a bit of a surprise to me. I don't think I realized it would be surreal until I read far enough into the book where the surreal things begin to appear. 

I don't want to spoil how it's surreal, but I did find the surrealism quite intriguing. I wasn't expecting it to have the type of surrealism I enjoy, but it did. It reminded me a bit of how Haruki Murakami's 1Q84 is surreal. It also reminded me a bit of the music video for the song Lights by the band Interpol.

It ends in a bit of an abrupt way, which isn't my favorite, but it does come to a neat climax with the ending. I'd be interested in reading more books like this one and/or by this author, if there are any others available in translation. Personally, I quite enjoyed this novella although I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to everyone, since it is somewhat bizarre in its surreal elements. If you like surreal things, such as 1Q84, I would recommend this novella. 

On a mildly related and tangential note, I read something interesting the other day about the current state of the Russian publishing industry and censorship of authors who write about topics the Russian government doesn't approve of: ‘The number of words you can say keeps shrinking’ Meduza investigates how wartime censorship has (and hasn’t) reshaped Russia’s book industry

Museum exhibition review?

I might start trying to do these? It will add a new dimension to the content of this blog. It seems a bit more difficult to write museum exhibition reviews since it's not as common to see other examples of for reference. I'm not entirely sure what kinds of things are typically touched upon in such reviews.

This attempt at a review is about the Impressionist painting exhibit that is currently on view in the National Gallery of Art, west building. It is available until 19 January 2025 and I intend to go see it again at least once. 

It contains primarily Impressionist paintings, although a decent portion of the paintings are not strictly impressionist. Those are include for contrast, demonstrating the more conventional style of the time. I didn't find these as interesting. There are also some works in other mediums, like etchings, watercolor, pastels. 

The exhibition is pretty dense and contains a substantial amount of artwork. It took 2 hours for me to look at the entire thing, perusing most of the artwork pretty closely. The time spent in this exhibition depends on how long you want to contemplate each work, and how many you just look at very briefly. 

On the whole, it was a lot for me to process, taking it all in. By the time I finished looking at this exhibition, I felt I had more or less reached my threshold for the amount of artwork I had the ability to process in-depth for the day. 

Representative artwork (even if it is loose and impressionistic) entails a different way of thinking about it than conceptual artwork does. I don't know if I have a higher threshold for the amount of conceptual artwork I can process per day. 

It was also pretty crowded in the exhibition because it was very popular. There was a line at the entrance, but the wait wasn't too long (on a Wednesday, shortly after the museum opened). There were a lot of old people viewing the artwork at the time I was there. But I suppose that's the primary demographic of people who have free time in the middle of a Wednesday to go to museums. 

The entire NGA is pretty expansive, and there were many gallery rooms of the permanent collection that I did not get a chance to look at. I don't think it's possible to thoroughly look at everything in the museum in a single day. It might take closer to a week or something like that. 

Anderson Cooper, hurricanes

A brief post before I go to sleep tonight... as you may know, tonight is the night that hurricane Milton (as discussed in the previous post) is striking Florida. I was watching CNN this afternoon and evening. As of last night, Anderson was still in the studio and I was thinking maybe he would just stay in New York while other reporters went to Florida to cover the hurricane on location. This evening, I saw on TV that he was in Florida; Bradenton to be specific (a city on the south side of Tampa Bay). 

I don't think I've necessarily written much about Anderson on this blog before, though be assured he certainly holds a special place in my mind. I've liked him for quite some time, really. I think he is cool and interesting, I admire him, etc. I would probably describe him as a significant factor in my interest of being a journalist. Just to get the backstory about my general thoughts on Anderson out of the way. It would be cool to meet him someday but that has not happened for me yet. 

Anyways, I happened to be scrolling through Twitter for hurricane updates and whatever else comes through on my timeline these days, and I saw that someone had retweeted the following tweet: 

"Why is a man apt to feel bad in a good environment, say suburban Short Hills N.J., on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon? Why is that same man apt to feel good in a very bad environment, say an old hotel on Key Largo during a hurricane? -- Walker Percy" 

Briefly, a little more context about the origin of that quote. It's from the book The Message in the Bottle by the author Walker Percy who wrote novels set in the American South and found hurricanes thematically interesting. I was not previously familiar with his work, so that description is just from what I saw with some quick searching and partially skimming parts of this essay about Percy's work. 

This was a quote-tweet of another tweet from the author Joyce Carol Oates, whose tweets can be a bit... wacky, shall we say. At least that's my fleeting impression having sporadically seen mildly unhinged tweets from her. Her tweet said the following: 

"Anderson Cooper started his career decades ago as a journalist / news person without an employer; traveled to trouble spots around the world, made videos which he then sold, or tried to sell, to TV stations back home. seems sad that he is now out in a hurricane putting himself in more danger." 

It was a quote-tweet of another tweet showing a brief video clip of Anderson while broadcasting live during the hurricane as he gets hit by some flying debris. At one point during the evening while I was watching him. he said that a lot of the debris consisted of palm leaves and styrofoam, which he was unclear about where all the styrofoam was coming from. [maybe it was coming from some debris pile of wreckage and garbage from Helene?] 

As an aside, Oates' description of the very beginnings of Anderson's news career is more or less accurate. Read Dispatches from the Edge, Anderson's first memoir, for more detail on this. Somewhat later into his career, once he was on CNN, he gained acclaim for his coverage of Katrina. He describes covering Katrina in that book too.  

There were some amusing replies to Joyce Carol Oates' tweet, which I'll transcribe for you here, and also for me so I can easily refer back to them in the future if I feel like it. 

"He's there because he wants to be. It's a point of pride for tv anchors to do such things. Get out from behind the desk. He's always covered both storms and wars. A real reporter, a hunting dog, not a show dog, despite those gorgeous blue eyes." 

That tweet reminded me of something I saw at some point, not when it originally aired, but some years later after I became interested in Anderson. It's from a skit on Saturday Night Live and I think they have Seth Meyers playing Anderson, and he says "see the news reflected in the shimmering blue pools that are my eyes." Coincidentally, this also happened to be an episode that Peter Sarsgaard hosted (!), so I think I may have watched it much later after I became interested in Peter Sarsgaard. 

Back to the amusing tweets... it is interesting to see others' impressions of Anderson. 

• At least he's getting paid for it. Some people do stuff like that for free.
• Maybe he wants to feel actually alive again. [I can't tell whether this is supposed to be a dig at Anderson or not...]
• There are not many people who I think care about others but I believe he does.
• i wish anderson was this brave when it comes to interviews with republicans...sadly, he's NOT...
• Postmodern Ernest Shackleton [from Wikipedia: "Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton CVO OBE FRGS FRSGS was an Anglo-Irish Antarctic explorer who led three British expeditions to the Antarctic. He was one of the principal figures of the period known as the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration." He lived during the late 1800s to the early 1900s.]
• he always works to prove himself because he's a Vanderbilt [there were multiple tweets mentioning his wealthy ancestry and how he is technically a nepo baby]  

*I know proper AP style is to put titles inside quotation marks, e.g. "Fahrenheit 451" but I kind of find italicizing them to be more aesthetically appealing. Anyways, this blog does not necessarily hew to any particular editorial standards other than "I find this topic interesting and want to make a post about it, or I want to write a review of something."  

AP style also instructs referring to people by surname on subsequent reference, but again, this is my random personal blog and I prefer to refer to Anderson by his first name. 

Hurricane Milton

This is a little bit of a sequel to my post from earlier in this year about the book Five Days at Memorial. That book detailed the harrowing events in the five days after Hurricane Katrina at one New Orleans hospital where patients and doctors were stranded by the storm and floodwaters. 

As readers may know (well, if my blog actually had any readers...), Hurricane Milton is approaching Florida in the Gulf of Mexico as I write. It is forecast to make landfall in the middle of the night on Wednesday (tomorrow) into Thursday and is currently rated a Category 5.  

This is an extremely severe, strong hurricane that's going to do a lot of damage. As I await the arrival of the storm (from multiple states away, well north and out of its path), I have a certain morbid fascination about what will happen with this hurricane. I just know that things are on the precipice of something major with this hurricane. On a trivial note, I also think the name Milton is interesting, and most likely it will be retired from the list after this storm hits.  

I was in elementary school and too young at the time to be completely aware of all the details and metaphorical weight of what happened with Katrina, so my memories of that are more simplistic. I remember watching the nightly news about it and being aware that it was a significant thing that had happened. I also think I found it somewhat interesting, in that it was something different and unusual (to see/hear about on the news), and it caused me to wish something "interesting" would happen...  

So now, with full adult awareness of this, it lends an interesting mood. I think this will be like the Katrina of the 2020s. It is a little strange to me to think that I could be on the brink of observing (indirectly) the Katrina of the 2020s. It's also kind of strange to think about how Katrina was almost 20 years ago by now. Damn, I'm getting old. I heard Coldplay's song 'Paradise' in McDonald's last week and I said "I remember when this album came out," which is a thing that people say when they're Old. That album was Mylo Xyloto and it was released in 2012 [actually late 2011], if I recall correctly. 'Paradise' was on the radio a lot back then. The album artwork was this bright blue graffiti design. I digress.

This hurricane also could potentially result in another 'Five Days at Memorial' scenario occurring somewhere in Florida in the hardest-hit area(s), so I wonder if that will happen. While we're on this topic, I do think it could be fascinating to have a career in emergency management, since I'm a meticulous, resourceful, logistical planning person and like figuring out what the best way to do something is.  

On TV, the news is showing a chyron with current hurricane status information, like the category and position of it. As of this evening, it was saying it was a couple hundred miles away from a place called Dry Tortugas. This name sounded interesting to me and I wanted to know what/where exactly this was. It is a tiny cluster of islands off the tip of Florida, west of Key West. It is also a national park. 

I was looking at Associated Press photos from the prelude and preparation period for this hurricane. Some show massive debris piles from a recent previous hurricane, others show people trying to make preparations and/or evacuate. Seeing the preparations gives me a foreboding feeling because I think about how the preparations may pale in the wake of the storm's impact and things will just get destroyed anyways. It's a very strange feeling to see the photos and know that a bunch of things will be severely damaged and destroyed in just a day from now. 

The level of destruction will probably be apocalyptic. Some portion of what I see in the photos from today will be destroyed by the hurricane and will look very different by the end of the week. The photos depict things like people boarding up windows, trying to clean up debris, empty shelves at stores for items like bottled water and food, gas stations that ran out of gas, and heavy traffic from people trying to evacuate. 

There is a photo showing a man carrying his friend's cat in a cage to evacuate it [AP photo ID 24282650725969]. This photo was from an island outside of Bradenton (slightly south of Tampa). Last week, I saw a video showing a group of people sitting (?) in a flooded living room somewhere after hurricane Helene. Among the people is a cat sitting on a floating sofa cushion. There was also a dog sitting on another floating cushion.    

So all in all there's an intriguing-foreboding feeling for me. It's sunny and clear this week here, which is an interesting contrast to the meteorological horror that awaits Florida tomorrow. In a way, it's as if I'm watching things in a snow globe. 

Society's normal functioning will break down in the areas that get demolished by the hurricane. It's strange to think about. A lot of human-nature-y things will be laid bare in ways that don't typically happen during regular everyday life. People's will (or lack thereof?) to survive, and the anguish of experiencing something like that firsthand. How does that affect someone on the individual level? How does it affect the country at large on a broader level?

And of course people will die, perhaps quite brutally. The potential for a Five Days at Memorial situation to happen again. There are a lot of facets here that I find rather intriguing/morbidly fascinating from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, even media analysis lens. Especially since I'm now able to be fully aware of the gravity and complexities here in a way I wasn't back in 2005. 

For another little digression, I've thought about and discussed recently the concept of historical awareness, let's say. One's perception and conceptualization of events. "Living memory." 9/11 as a "real" thing in my mind, even though I was too young to remember it actually happening. To a 16 year old today, it's not a real thing to them. It's more of an abstract notion, if that. Katrina isn't a "real" thing to a 16 year old today either. This tangent is pretty meta.          

Also thinking about hurricane Milton in general makes me wonder what I would do if I were in a scenario like this. I live in an area that's blissfully not prone to natural disasters, so I've never had to seriously think about emergency preparedness. Earlier this summer there was a serious tornado scare, but even then, that's just a matter of sheltering in the basement. 

In a hurricane, I suppose I would try to evacuate if possible, if I lived in a mandatory evacuation zone. If I lived in an area without mandatory evacuation orders and/or was unable to evacuate, I guess I'd have to do the best I could at surviving in place and preparing for the immediate aftermath. Stockpile food, clean water, other necessary supplies... 

How things would go in the immediate aftermath, assuming I survived, would depend on whether my home is severely damaged/flooded by the hurricane. If the only place I could evacuate to was a government-run shelter, what would I do in that case? There would only be so much that I could bring with me -- what would it be? I find it all interesting to think about in a theoretical sense. 

As usual, but especially so now, I'm going to be keeping an eye on the news because I want to see what happens. I wonder what Anderson Cooper is thinking about this, as he covered Katrina on location back then. I wonder if he's seeing the (probable) parallels too.   

Movie review: Memory

Double feature! Both for me in terms of watching movies, and for the reviews on this blog. I think Memory (being a more typical movie) worked well as a palate cleanser after Post Tenebras Lux, which was rather experimental, abstract and somewhat incomprehensible. 

This is a movie that Peter Sarsgaard was in, so this post is going to be more relevant to the stated description of this blog. Earlier this year, it was playing in a couple of movie theaters, but it was not widely screened. I never managed to drag myself out to see it in one of the theaters it was showing in, specifically at one of the open-captioned showings. It is a more independent film but it's not extremely esoteric and experimental. 

Anyways, I watched it (with captions, how luxurious) in the comfort and privacy of my own home. The premise of this movie is about a man (Saul, portrayed by Peter Sarsgaard) with early dementia and his relationship with a woman (Sylvia, portrayed by Jessica Chastain) he meets after following her home from a party one night. Sylvia is a social worker, as well as a single mother. I don't think it was specified how she ended up as a single mother, but in any case, her daughter is 13.

The movie had more layers and elements than I was initially expecting. In addition to the part about Saul having dementia (and therefore memory problems), there are other topics involving parenting, caregiving for adults who cannot fully take care of themselves, contentious family relationships and past trauma that the movie explores to some extent.    

It is fairly brief, clocking in at 99 minutes long, so some of the key scenes are tightly scripted and don't belabor their points. There wasn't any part where I thought things were getting slow. I thought the ending was somewhat abrupt and that the movie could have extended further to continue the plot a bit more. I did also wish that Peter Sarsgaard had some more scenes that were a bit meatier, where he could really express a bit more depth, emotion and intensity, because that is what he excels at.  

Overall, I enjoyed it and probably wouldn't have regretted seeing it in a theater had I been able to do so. Peter Sarsgaard co-stars in this movie, but the movie is somewhat more centered on Sylvia, Jessica Chastain's character. The song A Whiter Shade of Pale is heard in one of the scenes briefly and later used as background music the credits, which was mildly interesting to me because I remember (from a long time ago, relatively speaking) this song being used in the soundtrack of an episode of House M.D.