Archive for June, 2012|Monthly archive page

Sophisticate

Initial b/w brush test sketch done in 15 minutes on iPad with stylus in Sketchbook Pro. Color done in 1 hour.

Not sure who or what this guy is. He seems to think he’s pretty hot stuff, though.

thumbnail

from deviantART: gallery:ironsoap/14915780June 22, 2012 at 07:45AM

Abstract Number One

A collaboration with my two and a half year old daughter. She drew the original spiral design in Sketchbook Express on the iPad with a stylus. My contribution was colorizing and a little layering work to extend the borders into a regular rectangle.

thumbnail

from deviantART: gallery:ironsoap/14915780June 20, 2012 at 10:34AM

Mr. Peanut

Mr. Peanut
author: Adam Ross
name: Paul
average rating: 3.42
book published: 2010
rating: 3
read at: 2012/06/18
date added: 2012/06/19
shelves: novel
review:
Every once in a while I run across a book (or a movie, or game, or show, or album, etc) that even my hyper-opinionated mind just can’t seem to come to a consensus about. I’m at a loss in these moments, with my go-to analytical predilection fails and I’m left unsure what I think about something. Did I like it? Hate it? Perhaps I just didn’t understand it? Adam Ross‘s warped, layered and origami-like novel Mr. Peanut falls firmly into this category. I just don’t know what to make of it.

Indulge me, then, if you will, as I try to work through my confusion through review.

Mr. Peanut is about David and Alice Pepin, a long-married, childless couple living in New York City. David is a video game designer, head of a successful company and husband of Alice, a woman haunted by demons that have caused her to lose the battle with her self-control and her weight has begun spiking the scales into morbid obesity. Alice suffers from a myriad of food allergies, notably peanuts and early in the novel she appears to have died from ingesting a handful of Planters Peanuts. David is accused of murdering her, though he insists it was a suicide on her part. This seems unlikely to the investigating officers, Detectives Sheppard and Hastroll, who note that at the time of her death, Alice had lost hundreds of pounds, slimming down to a svelte 130, regaining her sense of beauty and self-confidence.

But the investigation into David opens wounds in Sheppard and Hastroll, both of whom have struggled with their own marriages. Thus begins the overlapping, layered narratives that pull parallels from strange, dreamlike free associations. Detective Sheppard is actually Sam Sheppard, former doctor and inmate, convicted in the fifties of bludgeoning his wife to death and supposedly struggling with the murderer (or murderers) who were never recovered. The case became the inspiration for The Fugitive and following the overturning of the conviction due to lack of evidence, Sheppard left his medical career to instead (I guess) pursue a career in law enforcement. Ross dissects the turbulent marriage between Sheppard and his wife, Marilyn, through the cold resignation of a bitter wife to a philandering husband, her own desire for revenge and closure or revelation.

Ross also delves into Hastroll’s union with his wife, who has at some point decided to confine herself to bed in some sort of test or trial or battle of wills that Hastroll must decipher or accept or comprehend. Sheppard and Hastroll may have their own baggage when it comes to marriage, but they still have to decide what role David Pepin played in Alice’s death. Then they discover the book that David is working on, a book called Mr. Peanut that becomes a meta-novel, part MacGuffin, part self-referential tool for Ross to weave his brazenly pretentious and ambitious structure around, trying to create the literary equivalent of an M.C. Escher painting—Escher in fact being oft-referenced in the novel.

There are stacks of meaning being applied here, with the parallels between the agonized, faithful resolve of Hastroll with his uncooperative boor of a wife, and Sheppard and his reactionary, revelatory adulterousness, his utter contempt and longing for the clarity of love and then David with his dual-nature, overlapping motivations and hazy, shifting persona. Each treatise on marriage and fidelity is woven around pop cultural reference touchstones, intentionally vague at times, maddeningly complete at others, always falling back on the curious parallels between the yin and yang of Escher’s mirror worlds, the works of Alfred Hitchcock, the time and place context of marriage in the “halcyon” days before feminism versus the enlightenment of modern times, the conflict at the core of monogamy and union that both must but also cannot on its own endure the ultimate erosion of time and routine.

In a way, trying to find the real plot inside Mr. Peanut is like trying to find the back side of a Möbius strip, and I can’t help but think this is intentional. Ross is really showing that the nature of marriage is conflict, and the interlocking plots that rest not just on top of but within and through each other as well are ancillary in a way to the treatment here of wedded bliss as anything but. Not that Ross seems to think of marriage as useless or foolish, he seems to genuinely be trying to sort out how the paradox of love that leads to commitment and then must transform into an ideally unending stream of compromise and negotiation, of which love is perhaps not even a real component (other than as a remembered facet in earlier decision-making). He tries to look for where the self fits in to the increasingly blurred entity that is the married couple, the swirl of him and her, me and you, I and us.

It’s weird because I don’t know that Ross ever succeeds in this, unless perhaps his only goal was to make it all the more confusing, to showcase how abstract and dizzying it really is. His choice of using Escher as a model seems apt until you realize that most of Escher’s work does resolve, to an extent. Eventually the birds blend into focus, wings and feathers no longer hinting at the rows of field and crops; the inverse true. The black gremlin and the white dancing man do finally shake hands. The stairs lead to somewhere. Mr. Peanut, though, I can’t say does resolve. Ross tries to split the difference by pulling a Clue (the movie)-like stunt at the end, a sort of Choose Your Own Finale that made me kind of resent him for leading me into this complex maze of piled translucency and then shrugging as if to say, “Well, I dunno either. You figure it out.”

Unlike other novels with disappointing ends, I didn’t dislike the direction or the destination in the closing pages, instead I revolted against his indulgence, his spineless decision to try to have his cake, eat it and come back for thirds. This is especially true because even with all this intentional contradiction, he neither unties the laces and displays the conviction to let them lie loose next to the shoe, nor does he do the reader the service of tying them up. Rather, they are half-knotted, dangling, a tripping hazard.

Admittedly, the book is gripping, thought-provoking, challenging and showcases a very, very talented writer. I don’t think you can ignore the enviable way Ross constructs his descriptions or arranges his ambitious structures. But, it’s not a flawless work. The long diversion into Sheppard’s case and past overstays its welcome. The introduction of the curious (and delightfully enigmatic) hitman, Mobius, is poorly handled. David Pepin’s character himself suffers from a lack of believability as he is a computer scientist and video game designer who doesn’t play video games; his malleable body is strangely unappealing in description yet (as with most self-insertion characters) commands sexual attention from secondary female characters. Some of the ways in which Ross characterizes women are uncomfortable not in specific instances but in totality, where they all come across as some flavor of cruelly manipulative, inscrutable just to be enigmatic and spitefully guarded.

Yet in a lot of ways I respect the novel, and I enjoyed the exercise of reading it, of following the path Ross lays out. There are sequences, such as the analysis of Alfred Hitchcock’s work and his diagnosis of suspense and several of the conversations between Sheppard and Mobius that are breathtaking. There are also characters that are given the exact right amount of narrative exposure to make them cement in memory, like the man from the airline who comes to rescue David (and, by extension, Alice) following a harrowing experience en route to Hawaii, and the man who could be Sheppard’s brother, a simple house cleaner who harbors all manner of secrets and represents Marilyn’s possible door to a different life. There is also a strange lack of emotion present in a book that, maybe, ought to be ripe with pathos, as if Ross were slathering on complexity to keep not just the reader but also himself at arm’s length from the grim subjects and darker conclusions almost arrived upon.

In the end, my relationship with Mr. Peanut, the novel, is as twisting and conflicted as the Escher paintings the book fashions itself after. For every amorphous white blob there is an identical stain; for every point at which the horizon seems identifiable, there is a competing perspective that results in a book both wonderful and awful, both inspiring and disgusting. It is, then, both a triumph and a failure, something that results in me wanting to brush myself off, to retreat to less conflicted territory of YA science fiction or glib mystery novels. My final, perhaps only lucid takeaway is this: I can’t wait to see what else Adam Ross has to offer.

from Paul's bookshelf: readJune 19, 2012 at 10:31AM

Zombie At Night

Drawn over about 4 hours on iPad with stylus in Sketchbook Express.

thumbnail

from deviantART: gallery:ironsoap/14915780June 20, 2012 at 07:42AM

Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted (2012)

Madagascar 3

★★☆☆☆

Directed by: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath and Conrad Vernon

Written by: Eric Darnell and Noah Baumbach

Sometimes you go to a movie just for the company, just to engage in leisure with someone you like or love or enjoy company. I think this is often the case with kids: parents endure children’s entertainment for the sake of seeing the delight in their offspring. I like taking my daughter to the movies because it helps confer the love of the theater experience to her, to watch as she delights in the spectacle of the darkened room, the larger-than-life screen and sound, the dedication to sustained activity. Plus, when it’s done right, kid-friendly movies can be enjoyable for adults, too. I liked Tangled and Despicable Me and I often enjoy Pixar movies; everyone wins.

Of course, sometimes you have to endure stuff like Madagascar 3. The series, which I’ve never really thought had much to offer (I’ve seen snippets of the original and labored through the second), returns to wear out its continually thinning welcome with uninspired art design and a curiously talky script that has the lion, the zebra, the giraffe and the hippo (who have names, but I can’t ever seem to keep them in my head, nor does it appear to matter) loose in Europe after yet another credibility-straining mishap, trying to duck a relentless French animal control officer by hiding out in a traveling circus.

The jokes are abundant but few are really funny and after awhile the “comedy” dissolves into a one-note repetition of the trailer-highlight “Circus Afro” song. Eventually the refrain is remixed with the “You Got To Move It” power dance track that so annoyingly worms its way into ears from the first two flicks, resulting a sort of unholy brain-sticking über-irritant that cannot be scrubbed clean even with hours of quality redirection in the form of Arcade Fire or Blind Pilot. Take it from someone with experience.

I think the principal issue with Madagascar 3 is that it tries to find the magic formula that Pixar has developed for blending memorable characters with touching, affirming plots and avoiding to much dip into traditional, slapstick cartoon formula. The problem is that Madagascar 3 is really only noteworthy when it trades on its Saturday Morning roots because the characters aren’t memorable and the script isn’t that good. Similar to the well-trad Ice Age franchise (notably also executed by Dreamworks Animation), the funniest parts are those that channel Friz Freling or Chuck Jones, not Brad Bird and John Lasseter.

Madagascar 3 isn’t so bad that I felt I needed to walk out of the theater, and my daughter said she enjoyed it so it’s hard to feel like it was a waste of time. Somewhere, though, in the back of my mind, is the list of movies coming out this year that I want to see and I note how ridiculously long it is and I think that no matter how many of them I see, I’ll still miss a few and I’ll have to review the list of theater experiences I had in 2012 and note that one or more of those is not present, while Madagascar 3 is.

from No Thief Like a Bad MovieJune 18, 2012 at 02:03PM

One For The Money (2012)

One For The Money

★★☆☆☆

Directed by: Julie Anne Robinson

Written by: Stacy Sherman, Karen Ray and Liz Brixius

Based on the Novel by: Janet Evanovich

Up front, I need to clarify that I have read the book this movie was based on. However, I’m not what you’d call a huge fan of the series; I’ve read the first few and I’ll probably read some more. The books are fun, not fabulous; good, not great. So unlike some other adaptations, I didn’t really go into this with sky-high expectations, fearful that the filmmakers might ruin my beloved stories and characters. It felt like all they needed to do was capture a few key notes from the beach-ready books and they’d be fine.

Well, they didn’t really do that. I mean, the one thing the books aren’t is boring, and I found this movie to be surprising in how uninteresting it was. It sort of meanders along, missing a lot of the flavor that gives the book its heart, and then right at the end it floods the narrative with too much happening at once. Don’t get me wrong, the plot of the first novel is hardly stellar to begin with, but what makes the book work that is lacking from the screenplay is the dynamic secondary characters. But where the book can devote enough time to making each of them shine, the movie feels compressed and rushed so none of the fun supporting cast is ever really given a chance to shine.

But the worst problem with the adaptation is that it gets two characters wrong who need to be right. One is part of the supporting cast, Grandma Mazur, who in the books is specifically non-judgmental of the protagonist. Here, Grandma (played with too much camera-winking by Debbie Reynolds) is sort of an uninteresting hair-tousler which basically ruins her character from the book. Even more egregious is the depiction of heroine Stephanie Plum, herself. I put a lot of the blame on Katherine Heigel, who plays Plum as this kind of smirking, gun-toting, poorly-Jersey-accented tough gal. My umbrage is that isn’t how Plum is presented in the books at all. She’s far less certain of herself, less casually accepting of the mayhem that unfolds around her, and it endears her to the audience. Here, Heigel’s blasé Plum eyerolls her way through the caper and there’s never a point at which you really feel the tension between her and Morelli (played with washboard-stomached inconsistency by Jason O’Mara) that kind of drives Evanovich’s novel.

Like I said, I’m not a superfan of the book series which is why I actually had some hopes that this adaptation could streamline some of the clumsier elements in the early Evanovich novels, but instead director Robinson, who seems to have mostly worked in TV prior to this, amps up the pace to an attention-deficit level that the script can’t keep up with and leaves the actors untethered to create shadows of what they ought to be.

I’m actually a little surprised I didn’t hear more outrage about this film. I know the books are well-loved by a lot of people and as I watched I couldn’t help thinking that I’m just glad they didn’t do this sort of disservice to a book I actually liked a whole lot, such as The Hunger Games. Best to skip this one and read the book instead.

from No Thief Like a Bad MovieJune 18, 2012 at 02:00PM

City Hall (1996)

City Hall

★★★★☆

Directed by: Harold Becker

Written by: Ken Lipper, Paul Schrader, Nicholas Pileggi and Bo Goldman

This tightly-packed thriller reminded me a bit of a newer movie I reviewed here, The Ides of March. This is a movie about politics, choices, courage and convictions, with workman performances by John Cusack as the Deputy Mayor of New York City and Bridget Fonda as the representative of a slain cop. The standout is the layered work done by Al Pacino as fictional mayor John Pappas, a nuanced character who is both pragmatist and idealist. I particularly liked that the movie had a lot of intrigue and life-or-death elements, especially as the powerful men behind the scandal try to cover up their tracks, but at no point did it descend into silly or outrageous territory. Worth watching.

from No Thief Like a Bad MovieJune 18, 2012 at 01:51PM

Punk

Drawn in 1.5 hours on iPad with stylus in Sketchbook Express.

thumbnail

from deviantART: gallery:ironsoap/14915780June 18, 2012 at 09:22AM

Apparently, I’m drawing again. http://t.co/dTBshrrt

@ironsoapJune 18, 2012 at 10:25AM

Callie came up to me, uncoached and unprovoked, hugged my leg and said in a soft voice, “Thank you for being so nice.” Father’s Day complete.

from Paul Hamilton — June 17, 2012 at 09:51AM