Saturday, June 20, 2009

No One Mourns The Wicked

I love the Wicked soundtrack.
I fear that my life will end up being defined by the role of the Wicked Witch of the West.
I'm starting to adore anything green.

The thing about volunteer work is that you have to volunteer to do it.
Otherwise you die.
On the same coin, you have to be able to end the volunteering when you are maxxed out.
It's not volunteering if you are trapped.
For example:
Yesterday, my mom came home at two in the morning.
She said, "I don't like having a job."
I replied, "A job would have let you off hours ago."

I have two goals the summer.
1. Beat three videogames (Titles already determined.)
2. To play with my band.
I haven't started on either and my summer is moving far to quickly.

Remember the Twilight movie?
Remember the disappointment?
Kristen Stewart's face was only capable of producing seizures.
Instead of sparkling, Edward just became pixlated.
Of course, I blamed the actors and special effects people at first. However, upon examining Kristen Stewart's other films, I have come to a new conclusion.
Twilight's failure was the director's fault.
In the movie representation of Speak (which was fantastic), Kristen Stewart was amazing. I didn't see a single seizure grace her face. Then I remembered that in her other films (I've seen every movie she has been except one), she didn't have facial seizures either. Now this didn't make any sense! Why did she suck all of a sudden? Obviously, the direction was at fault.
This infuriated me.
Considering that I am planning to go to school to become a director, it doesn't make any sense to me that someone who has been educated to direct a film would fail at it. Especially a film with the resources that Twilight had. An audience rarely thinks of the director when the see a film. If they think of anything other than the plot, it's usually a special effect or an actor's performance. Usually, if an actor sucks, it's obviously the actor's fault. If the movie sucks--all the actors suck, the special effects are bad, the editing is bad--one usually comes to the conclusion that the movie had a budget issue. This was not the case with Twilight. Most of the actors were pretty good--even Kristen Stewart had some good moments--about half of the special effects were good, the editing was alright, and everyone knows the budget wasn't really an issue. So why did the movie suck? Really, the only conclusion left to draw is that the director simply failed.
I did some research and the director of Twilight, Catherine Hardwicke, experience in the movie business has mostly been as a production designer and she had only directed three other films (two were absolute flops) before directing Twilight. Seriously, who hired this person?
Fortunately, they have hired a different director,Chris Weitz, for New Moon. He has directed four films before directing New Moon (three of which were box office hits), produced ten films and several TV series, and written for three films and two TV series. This is a much more quailified individual. So if this movie sucks chances is are it won't be his fault, but I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed anyway.

I started reading My Sister's Keeper.
It's really good.
I am really excited and nervous to see the film.
If it's good, it will be amazing.
If it's not, I will cry and curse the film industry.

This was really long.
My mom's gripping at me to get off.


MyBlueHeaven said...

Oh Natalie you think too too deep. Judy just got done reading "My Sisters Keeper" and I aim to read it too when it comes up next in row. She really liked it.

Can't Jump For Joy said...

You should definitely move "My Sister's Keeper" up on your list.
It's amazing.
I finished it today.

MyBlueHeaven said...

Natalie, I just read where they radically changed the ending in the movie "My Sister's Keeper". Don't go berserk now.

Can't Jump For Joy said...

I know Mamser!
I read the same thing.
I am sooooo worried.