Monday we took in the latest episode of ‘Mad Men’ (a men-vs-women episode featuring ketchup, a swinging couple married 18 years, and Harry being his terrible self) as well as our normal rotation of ‘Millennium’ and ‘The X-Files’.
Ms. S. and I are both completists in a way. Once we start, we can’t stop. If there is a movie series and we begin it, we commit to it … of course, there are exceptions. This is just a preface.
Sunday is for us, as for many people, a ‘day off’. We’re working through Ebert’s year-by-year list of the greatest films of his career and are now around the mid-70s, but we do not limit ourselves only to ‘great’ films. Or even ‘good’. And after the heaviness that was “Cries and Whispers” — and, not wanting to just fall back on our usual television rotation — we opted for some so-so movie magic during our enjoyment of pizza, chips, and wine.
Consumed? “The Prophecy” (1995), which I’d seen previously, “Exorcist II: The Heretic”, and “The Exorcist III”.
After a couple American films (“Five Easy Pieces”, “The Last Picture Show”, “The Godfather”), we returned Sunday afternoon to Europe and got the first of two back-to-back Bergman movies, “Cries and Whispers” (1972; Ebert’s top movie for 1973).
I’ll keep my comments cursory.
A: Brook Taylor.
Online a friend inquired, “Do you know who invented integration by parts?” Off the top of my head I did not. Did I ever? I was not sure. Did I have suspicions? Sort of.
I love Mike D’Angelo’s review of “Future Weather“, which he gave a ‘B-‘ over at The A.V. Club.
Love is, of course, an exaggeration, and it’s a shame that it is. Perhaps not in this case, but so frequently. That we are always so moderate and moderated and that we so often lack irrational exuberance these days. But I appreciate D’Angelo’s review; I find it a wonderful counterpoint to even more wonderful January 30 article, “The “gentleman’s F” and the scourge of deliberate mediocrity.
‘Top Chef Canada’ is back and we’re watching it; it was also our dinner time, and I decided to try something new (to me): oysters.
The blog post is titled “3D Print the Impossible! Turning Escher Drawings into Read 3D Models“. As the first paragraphs states, “The researchers […] have used their own Objet 3D printer to re-create the impossible Escher Drawings as real, tangible 3D models.” The video is fascinating, and I’ve always been fascinated by Escher … it was a preexisting love of Escher and Bach that drove me to “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, on to Gödel, and on to the world of Hofstadter in general. Life is full of strange loops.
Here I’m just interested in the blog post and how it leads me to thoughts of aesthetics, paradox, and metaphysics. This is more rhapsody than argument, with loops back to time spent abroad, museums and art, and plenty of videos from YouTube.
Bobby works on oil rigs in southern California, hangs out with his girlfriend Rayette, and the two end up on a road trip to the Northwest to visit Bobby’s ill father. And while that’s the movie in a nutshell it says nothing about it.
