Nevertheless, after sleeping and resting and sleeping and resting, my imagination and ambition began to revive. I lay on the futon, imagining going to a few places tonight, and I actually managed to pull it off.
The plan was first to walk to a store I was unfamiliar with, to see if they had carrots, so I might start making a batch of wet dog food ASAP. No luck. Interesting though - it has a side window that serves up BBQ. I proceeded to walk to Walgreen's, where the cashews were on sale. Then crossed two highways to walk to the large liquor store. I chatted w/ the woman there and bough SIX bottles of Berringer's for $3.99 each. I was imagining doing this sort of thing on my long walk, Thursday, but why not now - and cheaper? I will eventually drink 6 bottles of wine, so it's great to stock up for the winter. believe it or not, I am not interested in being drunk that much. I mean to moderate, for health reasons.
Walked to library. I was planning on getting to the theatre to see, "Little Women," by 7:10pm - but I saw that it was already 7:15. Picked up 3 DVDs and dropped off 3. Decided I wanted to see no other movie, so I walked in to the theatre at around 7:30pm. I am very glad I did. For one thing, I needed the rest! Nice looking girl at the countre, as well. But, the movie was great.
I figure I missed 15 minutes of the beginning. And, I had cognitive and eye fatigue. So, I was rather confused for a while, because thew film kept bouncing around from one historical time zone to another. That is the primary fault I see in this movie. In the same way that I got tired of herky-jerky camera, or of Judy Densch, I am tired of skitzo movies that go all "Time Traveller" on me. I know this can be a good device for movies, esp. when it comes to recalling memories, since movies cannot do what novels can. However, the device has become cheap by its ubiquity. For once, I would just like to follow a normal, life-like timeline. But, producers don't want this, because you can pack in more bang for the buck with fractive timeliness - which basically amount to sporadic mini-episodes - which is are like outtakes, or music sampling. Seriously, most of the time, I don't want my mind to be concentrated on doing detective work on which scene connects to which scene, and rather being surprised by the smoke and mirrors dance of the whole thing.
That being said, I'd still want this movie on DVD, as I would watch it again more than once. The movie got an, "A", rating, on NPR's, "1A." I would only give it a B, however - for the reason I mentioned, and also because the acting was not aces, especially in the first half. I did not see a concerted accent, in the same manner as was done in the, "John Adams," TV miniseries, (which was odd), etc. Mostly, the accent more resembled modern-day than the 1860's. Ronan's Irish kept sneaking through, etc. However, another actress seemed to mirror Ronan's accent, with a little added proper English, which was interesting. This actress, name forgotten, reminded me of the girl who starred in, "American Pie," which makes me wonder how she and Ronan are still playing teens or young women(!?) I will say that this may be my favourite Ronan role. I am glad she keeps going.
What is good to be said about this movie is that it still shines. The actors still radiate wonderful energy and emotion. The cinematography is beautiful. For me, the movie was inspiring.
"Little Women," is, like most Austen novels, about the love and adventures of sisters. Children of any gender can be animals, but in some ways, girls tend to grow up into an arena where caring is the name of the game. So, it was warming to see how these females cared for, and hinged upon, each other. For me, this movie was par for the course, in my study of Austen, the Brontes, etc. And, for me, it brought me back to the ages of Transcendentalism, Mark Twain, the Civil War and Cowboys. I also study the crafts of writing and of movie-making. And, I will have to admit, my mind is female. However, many a smart male would like this movie, for some of these reasons, and for the sheer, base humanity of it. I am sorry that this film did not come out over the Xmas season, (like the recent movie about Dickens), as it would have fit in and resonated.
I recently rewatched the movie, "Some Girl(s)," which is very good in its own right. One reason for males to watch such a movie - just basic males on the prowl - would be to learn more about females. I guess the same goes for movies like these, or books by Alcott, Austen, etc.
I think there is more than base humanity, and more than learning about females, for males to appreciate here. The heroine of the movie, "Jo," is strong willed, and devoted to writing, as she is to being independent from males suitors. Despite her will and her pride, she feels lonely. In the end, she succeeds in writing, and in loving. So, any man who seeks to fight against the tide and prevail, as I do, will find that the end of this movie will uplift you and bring tears to your eyes. What good is will without wings? So, what good is life without inspiration. And the hope that builds civilisations...
I think, to write, it isn't what you know. It's what your heart knows. That came through, in, "Little Women."
Note: "Some Girl(s)"... This movie looks different, depending on your mood. Sometimes, it feels way too scripted, like theatre, (it was derived from a play). Sometimes the male seems nice, sometimes he is a total jerk. This movie was a forerunner to the #metoo movement. I know I see faults in the main guy that I have had, and/or dealt with, in myself. I know the females all have points of view I can relate to. I do recommend this movie, which includes Zoe Kazan, Kristen Bell and Jennifer Morrison. I think my friend space_66 might like it, just out of interest - NOT suggesting he was any kind of jerk ever(!) It's just an interesting, sometimes a little stiff, movie about relationships, created mainly by females.