I am coming to like this series pretty well. I think I still do prefer the Hornblower novels, but these books do have a lot to offer. For one thing, the characters seem a bit more three-dimensional than Forester's. In Post Captain, for example, a fair amount of the beginning of the book has to do with events on shore while Jack Aubrey is waiting for a new command. It seems like that might detract from the story, being primarily a naval adventure, but watching Jack and Stephen as they meet the women they fall in love with, for example, or following Jack's attempts to avoid debtor's prison really serves to round out the characters. And, like the previous episode, there is plenty of action to go around, both at sea and ashore. My only complaint is that there wasn't much in the way of denouement. It's a minor flaw, though, given the structure of the book, and really all it did was make me jump right into the next one.

Started: 2007-11-06 | Finished: 2007-11-18

Purchase from Amazon

One of the things I like about this time of year is that the studios bring out all of their heaviest hitters in anticipation of the Oscars, and with the combination of Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, and Ridley Scott, this one is about as heavy-hitting as it gets. As you might expect with two Oscar winners in the lead roles, the acting is outstanding. In addition to the leads, I also particularly liked Cuba Gooding's performance as Nicky Barnes, a friend and rival of Washington's Frank Lucas. Gooding's swagger contrasted perfectly with Washington's more business-like mien. In many ways this is a film about contrasts. There's the obvious one between Frank Lucas—a criminal who, on the other hand, appears to uphold traditional values by providing for his family—and Crowe's Ritchie Roberts—an honest detective whose personal life is in shambles. But there's also, as I mentioned, the comparison between Frank Lucas and Nicky Barnes, as well as between Lucas and his former mentor, not to mention between Roberts and his police counterparts. The film's only real problem is its length—if you see it in the theaters with the trailers it'll come out over three hours. Personally, I didn't think it was too long for its content, but in discussions with some other people I have heard some complaints about the pacing, so your mileage may vary. Nevertheless, I do recommend this one, and I'll be pretty surprised if it doesn't get multiple Oscar nominations.

Viewed: 2007-11-09 | Released: 2007-11-01 | Score: A

IMDb Page

I keep putting off writing in this section. My ten-year high school reunion was about a month ago; I intended to write a whole piece about it but for one reason or another I've kept putting it off. This past weekend I rejoined a gym for the first time in five years and I had meant to write about that as well, but it just keeps slipping out. But this one I can't put off—my grandfather, Roy Sakasegawa, died this week.

I don't think it's really sunk in for any of us just yet, as it all happened so quickly. On Tuesday night he was apparently fine—he ate his dinner, did his normal evening stuff, and went to bed as usual. When he woke up on Wednesday morning, though, he couldn't get out of bed, and when they got him to the hospital they told him he was having a heart attack. Apparently, he'd had some severe blockage in his arteries for some time now and had only one clear artery left. They tried to put a stent in and even though it didn't look good at first—he developed fluid in his lungs and his kidneys also looked bad—we had some hope because he was alert and seemed in good spirits. Later his lungs started to clear and he urinated, which seemed good signs, but later that night he crashed a couple of times and he had to be put on life support. The doctors said there wasn't any use at that point, that three-quarters of his heart was basically gone, so they decided to take the tubes out. My grandmother said that they gave him a lot of painkillers, that he didn't seem to be suffering at all, and that he kept repeating that he'd had a good life and that he loved us all. My dad said that it only took about five minutes for him to pass after they took him off the machines.

When I think about my grandfather I have to admit that I didn't know him very well. He wasn't an easy person to know, I think—he never did say much, and for my whole life his low, sort of mumbling, gravelly voice was kind of hard to understand. Though, he was always clear in how proud he was of me and my brothers and cousins.

One thing I know about him is how proud he was of his military service. My grandfather served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team in World War II. The 442 was an all-Japanese-American unit, and for its size and length of service it remains the most highly decorated unit in the history of the United States. It's always astonished me how the men of that regiment could have done so much for a country that didn't take care of them, that they fought and died while at the same time their relatives were rounded up and placed in internment camps. It's something that always made me proud of my grandfather.

What he actually did in the war has remained a mystery to me, though, and to the rest of the family. Like so many veterans, he was always reticent to speak about it, and what little he did say generally played down his part in it. I remember when I interviewed him for my high school history class, he spoke about his friend who always dug really square foxholes, or the time he spent resting in Nice. He would say that he only ever fired his weapon a few times, and mostly war was about jumping into foxholes. And yet, the accounts I've read of the 442—indeed of his company's actions—make it clear that he must have been involved in some intense fighting. Among the medals he was awarded were the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star, but when you'd ask him about them he'd just wave off the question, saying that they gave those to everyone. I know he was involved in the action rescuing the Lost Battalion (1st Battalion, 141st Infantry Regiment, 36th Division) in the Vosges mountains in France—for which he and the rest of the 442 were made honorary citizens of Texas—and that he was wounded in Livorno, Italy. (Coincidentally, my mother was born in Livorno nearly 10 years later, when her own father was stationed there.) From what I can piece together by tracking his company's actions, he must have done a lot more, as well.

What else do I know about him? Like most Japanese-Americans I've known, he valued hard work and family. He had eight brothers and sisters—consequently, Sakasegawa family reunions have been impressively huge. He was married to my grandmother for 57 years. He owned a farm when I was little—some of my earliest memories are of the hayrides he would take us on.

There's more, but when you add it all up it doesn't seem like much. I suppose that it may not be possible to truly know someone else but what's really coming home to me is that there's a lot I don't know about the people who are close to me, and that the time I have to learn it is limited. I hope that I'll take this opportunity to find out more about my family's story, that I don't let it slide by like I've done so far. I guess we'll see. But in the end, I suppose it is some comfort to me that I knew him at all, that some piece of him remains in my mind and in the memories of those around him.

Rest in peace, Grandpa.

Having previously read García Márquez's most recent novel, Memories of my Melancholy Whores, it was interesting to go back in his career with this one and see the similarities. Both novels explore old age, but where Memories is more concerned with nostalgia, this one is about love. We follow two characters from youth to old age: Fermina Daza and Florentino Ariza. The latter declares his eternal love for Fermina Daza at a young age and eventually waits most of his life to pursue it after she marries another man. Sort of—in the intervening years he goes on to have 622 affairs. It's this kind of dichotomy that makes the novel—such is García Márquez's skill that we are lured into sympathizing with Florentino Ariza despite all of his flaws. The novel expertly blends the comic and the profound, commenting on the progression of age, the struggle between progress and tradition, the relationships between men and women. And, as always, García Márquez delivers a strong sense of place, managing to be both critical and reverent of the city and country in which the story takes place. An excellent read that I highly recommend.

Started: 2007-09-04 | Finished: 2007-11-05

Purchase from Amazon

I was pretty excited about this one, being a fan of Wes Anderson and not having had a new one in three years. I think that this one wasn't his best but I did like it quite a bit. In some ways this one covers a lot of the same ground as The Royal Tenenbaums—an absent parent, three damaged siblings—but even though there was still definitely the trademark Wes Anderson ridiculousness to The Darjeeling Limited, I think that this one was ultimately heavier and, perhaps, more personal. I think that all of Anderson's films have moments of real emotional depth but they're usually somewhat fleeting, which works really well by giving the films a little more substance underneath the silliness. In this one, though, there's at least one long stretch of the movie where the silliness is completely abandoned. I don't know whether that makes it a better or worse film but it certainly felt different to me. The performances were, as usual, odd and idiosyncratic but also wonderful. The one thing that made it a little uncomfortable for me was the juxtaposition of Owen Wilson's character with the current emotional trouble he's been having—at many points I found myself feeling genuinely bad for the actor rather than the character. In any case, I do recommend this one, with the one caveat that if you haven't seen any of Anderson's previous work, this may not be the best one to start with.

Viewed: 2007-10-11 | Released: 2007-10-25 | Score: A-

IMDb Page

If I tell you that this movie is about a man whose mental breakdown takes the form of a delusion wherein he believes that a realistic sex doll is his actual living, human girlfriend, well, you can probably expect that it's a bit, well, weird. And it comes as no surprise when I tell you that there are a number of very uncomfortable moments as he takes his "girlfriend" to church, to a party, to dinner at his brother and sister-in-law's house. On the surface, it doesn't seem like the kind of movie that I would like. I mean, beyond what I've already said, the movie really stretches credulity with the way that this man's community plays along with his delusion, that one woman even maintains her crush on him (this is the other figure that I believe the "Real Girl" in the title refers to). But if the story isn't quite right, the performances really are. Ryan Gosling, who plays the delusional title character, is rapidly cementing his position in my mind as one of today's best young(-ish) actors—and considering how much I hated The Notebook, I think that's quite an accomplishment. His performance in this film was just amazing. I also always like Emily Mortimer, and Paul Schneider also handled his role quite well. Patricia Clarkson's performance wasn't exactly breathtaking but what I noticed is that she seems to have a good range as an actor—her wise, maternal character in this film is nothing like her part as the irresponsible, hippy-ish aunt on [i]Six Feet Under[/i]. I really appreciate that sort of unpretentious competence in a character actor. Lars and the Real Girl is not one you need to rush out to see—I'd say you can safely wait and rent it—but if you're looking for an offbeat film with some great acting you might consider checking it out.

Viewed: 2007-10-27 | Released: 2007-10-24 | Score: B-

IMDb Page

I think I've liked just about everything I've seen Steve Carell in over the past few years and Dan in Real Life is no exception. It's not really surprising anymore to see comedians make the leap to more dramatic roles, some with more success than others. What's great about Carell is that he has a good feel for balance such that his performances never feel inappropriate, over the top, or self-indulgent. So, certainly, this movie has that going for it. Even more than Carell, though, what I really loved about this movie was the feeling of family that it evoked for me. In so many "family reunion"-type films the plot is driven by either a newcomer trying unsuccessfully to fit in (e.g. Meet the Parents or The Family Stone) or by dysfunction or in-fighting (e.g. The Royal Tenenbaums or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof). What felt so refreshing about Dan in Real Life was that the family, despite at times being annoying or intrusive, genuinely loved each other and tried to do right by each other. It really made me nostalgic for the vacations my own family took when I was a kid. Overall, the film was both funny and touching and I really enjoyed it.

Viewed: 2007-10-25 | Released: 2007-10-25 | Score: A-

IMDb Page

I recently received an email forward that really bothered me. Now, I'm not a big fan of email forwards in general but, for the most part, they're relatively harmless. However, rather than the normal message detailing some fictional email tracking system or inspirational (but also usually fictional) story about a cancer survivor, this one was all about spreading, in my opinion, xenophobia and bigotry. Now, before I say anything else, I need to make it clear to anyone who may know the particulars of this situation that I do not think that the sender is xenophobic or bigoted. On the contrary, he's one of the most generous and empathetic people I've ever met. Really, that made the forward all the more shocking.

The email describes an incident between a Michigan State University professor and a Muslim student group at that same school. Apparently, the student group had protested some political cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. In response, the professor in question sent the following email to the student group:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France .

 

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

The originators of the email then go on to complain about the predictably outraged response by the student group and ends, as is usual for forwards, by requesting that you pass it on:

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same. Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it. We are in a war. This political correctness is getting old and killing us.

Now, at first glance you might be tempted to agree with some of the things this professor is saying. Most people do, after all, think rape, murder, and terrorism are awful things, and rightly so. And I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who are tired of what may seem like endless frivolous protesting. But this is exactly why this sort of thinking is so pernicious and problematic.

Let's take a closer look at the situation being presented. First of all, let's notice that the group in question is a student group at an American university. Now, chances are that a fair number of this student group are not American citizens. But I would find it extremely surprising if I were to find out that there is not also a large portion of the group that are citizens. So, right off the bat, telling them to stop "troubling Americans" is at the very least narrow-minded. What does it take to be considered an American these days? Does practicing a different religion now mean that you're not an American? Or having a different ethnic background? What about being foreign-born or having foreign-born parents? Sounds like bad news for all the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus out there. Heck, it's bad news for just about everyone—how many of us have no other "ancestral homeland," whether it's in the Middle East or Asia or Africa or Europe?

What about the issue that started the whole thing off in the first place, the offense taken at the cartoon. Well, there's certainly an argument that can be made that it was an overreaction. After all, political cartoons are supposed to be inflammatory and controversial, and maybe we should all be a little more thick-skinned about these things. But what if the situation were reversed? What if it weren't Muhammad but, say, Jesus that were being defamed? Maybe it wouldn't bother you, and in that case, more power to you. But, let's be honest, most people probably would be offended. Back in 1999 people were up in arms about a portrait of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant feces. If that was out of bounds, why isn't something like this? I'm all for the idea of people letting stuff like this go but only if it goes both ways.

Now let's take this line: "I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'" Here I might be slipping into the unreasonable realm of "political correctness," but if I'm wrong for thinking it's unacceptable to paint whole religions or races with the same brush, I'm fine with that. I mean, consider what your reaction would be if he said something like, "you greedy, money-grubbing Jews" or "you ignorant, dirty, violent, criminal blacks." Would that be OK? There are over 900 million Muslims in the world, more 3 million in the United States alone, it is clearly not possible to call them all terrorists and slave traders. More to the point, how many of the individuals in that student group—again, I remind you, a student group at an American university—have ever planted an explosive, raped a woman, or bought a slave? If we can really hold these students accountable for things that other members of their religion have done then nobody is safe—horrible injustices and atrocities have been committed in the name of every religion. (In the name of secular ideals, too, lest anyone think I'm just picking on religion.) By this professor's logic, I guess that makes us all rapists, slavers, and murderers.

Finally, there's this line: "This political correctness is getting old and killing us." Is it really the political correctness that's killing us, or is it the fact that we can't seem to get along with people and ideas that are different? Obviously, my opinion is the latter. I understand that political correctness may seem stupid or aggravating to many people, that it's a lot of work to retrain yourself to treat people the way they want to be treated instead of the way you're used to treating them. I understand that it's tiring and sometimes annoying to have to always put yourself in the other guy's shoes. But, really, isn't it worth it? Sure, maybe it's a bother to have to watch what you say and do, but don't you want people to look out for your feelings, too? Tolerance, ideally, is a two-way street—what's good for me is good for you, too.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to say what's on their minds. Just because I happen to think that this professor is small-minded doesn't mean that I think he shouldn't be allowed to express his opinions. But if more people spent some effort trying to understand each other instead of pounding their fists on the First Amendment, I think the world would be a much better place.

Juliette and I had been thinking off and on about seeing this movie ever since a random stranger recommended it to us when we were out at a Japanese restaurant. Over the next couple of months one of Juliette's friends mentioned that she liked it, and then last night Juliette noticed that Dooce also recommended it. So, even though it was late on a school night, we decided that we weren't satisfied to end our movie weekend with Death at a Funeral, and drove downtown to see Once. I'm so glad we did. The movie tells the story of a Dublin street musician and a Czech immigrant girl he meets, and of the music they end up creating together. The plot is relatively sparse and is more or less standard "boy meets girl" stuff; what really drives the film is the music. If, like me, you have a taste for indie/alternative acoustic singer-songwriter pop, you will love this movie. The first duet that the two leads sing actually brought tears to my eyes, partially because the song was pretty but more because of the emotion in the scene, awakening on their faces and bursting through their voices. The home-made feel imparted by the handheld camera and grainy film stock worked wonderfully, giving the whole thing a very intimate feel. The one word of caution I will give is that if you're not the kind of person to be grabbed by this kind of music then you may not love this film. For me, though, I think the highest praise I can give is that it made me want to sing.

Viewed: 2007-09-22 | Released: 2007-05-15 | Score: A

IMDb Page

Having not been out to a movie together in over a month, Juliette and I went and saw Death at a Funeral this weekend, mainly because it was the next movie playing when we decided to go out. We've had some good luck picking movies that way before—notably Waking Ned Devine back in college—but, unfortunately, this one wasn't that good. Not knowing what to expect, we both had high hopes for a witty British comedy after the opening scene, but things descended pretty rapidly into the sort of sitcom-style humor that revolves around people being put into awkward situations. If that kind of thing appeals to you then most likely you'll find this movie hilarious—certainly many of the other audience members were laughing uproariously. For us, though, it's just not our bag.

Viewed: 2007-09-21 | Released: 2007-07-10 | Score: C

IMDb Page