St Trinian's and The Culture Of Death
Aug. 13th, 2009 08:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alobearI think that would actually make quite a good title for the next film!
Anyway, Dave borrowed the modern St Trinian's film and we watched it at the weekend. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't really very good, either. I liked the first years, and there were isolated moments that were quite funny, but it was rather overdone and somewhat less than subtle. So, Dave downloaded the original St Trinian's film and we watched that on Tuesday. Acting-wise, humour-wise, script-wise and plot-wise, it was infinitely superior - I actually found it funny throughout, and anyone who knows me will realise that doesn't happen often, as I don't tend to get comedy.
About four years ago, when Dave and I were only six months into our relationship, we had a conversation which left me paranoid that he would lose interest in me once he found out I didn't have anything intellectual to talk about. Don't ask me what the conversation was about, because I really can't remember, and the whole thing seems very bizarre now! My response was to go immediately to Amazon and buy some books that I hoped would inspire profound discourse. The first of those was Architects Of The Culture Of Death by Donald De Marco and Benjamin Wiker. These two gentlemen are intensely religious nutters, who have written a book all about how the most eminent scientists and philosophers of the last couple of centuries have contributed to the growing "culture of death", which threatens the existence of humanity. It's very entertaining stuff, believe me!
The reason it's taken me four years to finish reading it is because I initially started out making notes as I went along (for quick reference during the subsequent profound discourse), but ran out of steam about half way through and never got round to carrying on. I just read the second half in the last couple of days, without bothering with the note-taking, and found it much easier.
Now, the scary thing about the book is that a lot of what the religious nutters say actually makes sense. This is because a lot of the people they're writing about were total nutters too, and it's easy to pick holes in their theories when you apply them universally in a practical sense. Examples would be Ayn Rand, Friedrich Neietzsche and Alfred Kinsey. However, where their argument falls down is that they always fall back on the same thing - in their view, anyone who is not violently opposed to abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia or atheism is inherently evil and dangerous, and that's most definitely where I can't follow them.
It's a fascinating read, and I'm glad I finished it - it's a really interesting exercise to read stuff by people you vehemently disagree with, and it certainly makes the brain work!
Anyway, Dave borrowed the modern St Trinian's film and we watched it at the weekend. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't really very good, either. I liked the first years, and there were isolated moments that were quite funny, but it was rather overdone and somewhat less than subtle. So, Dave downloaded the original St Trinian's film and we watched that on Tuesday. Acting-wise, humour-wise, script-wise and plot-wise, it was infinitely superior - I actually found it funny throughout, and anyone who knows me will realise that doesn't happen often, as I don't tend to get comedy.
About four years ago, when Dave and I were only six months into our relationship, we had a conversation which left me paranoid that he would lose interest in me once he found out I didn't have anything intellectual to talk about. Don't ask me what the conversation was about, because I really can't remember, and the whole thing seems very bizarre now! My response was to go immediately to Amazon and buy some books that I hoped would inspire profound discourse. The first of those was Architects Of The Culture Of Death by Donald De Marco and Benjamin Wiker. These two gentlemen are intensely religious nutters, who have written a book all about how the most eminent scientists and philosophers of the last couple of centuries have contributed to the growing "culture of death", which threatens the existence of humanity. It's very entertaining stuff, believe me!
The reason it's taken me four years to finish reading it is because I initially started out making notes as I went along (for quick reference during the subsequent profound discourse), but ran out of steam about half way through and never got round to carrying on. I just read the second half in the last couple of days, without bothering with the note-taking, and found it much easier.
Now, the scary thing about the book is that a lot of what the religious nutters say actually makes sense. This is because a lot of the people they're writing about were total nutters too, and it's easy to pick holes in their theories when you apply them universally in a practical sense. Examples would be Ayn Rand, Friedrich Neietzsche and Alfred Kinsey. However, where their argument falls down is that they always fall back on the same thing - in their view, anyone who is not violently opposed to abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia or atheism is inherently evil and dangerous, and that's most definitely where I can't follow them.
It's a fascinating read, and I'm glad I finished it - it's a really interesting exercise to read stuff by people you vehemently disagree with, and it certainly makes the brain work!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-14 10:16 pm (UTC)I'll be interested to hear what you both thought of Sugar Rush (which I adore) and Gossip Girl (which I adore just as much but am pretty sure that everyone else I know will hate).
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 07:13 am (UTC)I didn't really get into Sugar Rush - for some reason, it just didn't appeal. I am, however, completely hooked on Gossip Girl and it's shot to the top of my viewing list of an evening. It goes perfectly with the new giant TV at the foot of the bed!
no subject
Date: 2009-08-16 07:04 pm (UTC)It's a shame you didn't like Sugar Rush, it's one of my favourites. I'm glad that I'm not alone in my love of Gossip Girl though. I was slightly worried that I only enjoy it because I have exactly no standards. As I mentioned before, most of the characters are sort of annoying (Dan - self righteous, with a massive chip on his shoulder; Nate - beautiful but boring; Jenny - just ugh) but Serena, Blair and Chuck are just fabulous. I love them sooo much.
God, sometimes I sound so much like a teenage girl it's not even funny.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-17 12:37 pm (UTC)Interestingly, Dan and Rufus are my favourite characters so far, with Serena and Chuck coming close behind.
I'm really not keen on Blair at all.
As for Jenny, I think she's got a lot of growing up to do, and what she thinks she wants at the moment is really stupid, but I had to be impressed by her revenge against Chuck at the masked ball, and the way she got out of being arrested for breaking into Eleanor's shop.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-17 10:26 pm (UTC)Well you did ask for it ...
Date: 2009-08-17 10:52 pm (UTC)Most of these photos have been iconised somewhere. Both of the actresses seem to be incredibly good sports, and there are a fair few others around. If they ever actually both turned out to be gay, and together, you'd probably be able to hear the sound of ecstatically squeeing fangirls from space (even if sound can't travel in a vacuum) :D
This icon is my favourite, mostly because it's rather sweet.
Of the adults, I actually really like Rufus as well. He tries very hard to be a good parent, he's incredibly nice, and he's also quite ridiculously nice to look at.
Serena is likewise radiantly nice, and Chuck is just hilarious (and God, his clothes. They're just so incredibly bad ...). I also find him surprisingly sympathetic as a character. Well, occasionally.
Blair I like for her weaknesses more than her strengths, and her relationships with both Chuck and with Serena makes the show for me. I think she becomes more sympathetic with time - the brittle, bitchy facade drops more often, and you can see that she's actually awkward and horribly insecure - but I still love her when she's being a complete bitch. I just think she's loads of fun as a character. I wouldn't argue that she was in any way very nice though :)