The American midterm elections and a very good infographic

This infographic in today's NY Times, entitled Sizing Up the 2018 Blue Wave--is worth taking a look at: https://nyti.ms/2D9AnrV .

I'm so glad Democrats control the House of Representatives. Who knows what the future holds, but at least the Republicans no longer control Congress. That's a step in the right direction......

Good song--Plush, by Stone Temple Pilots

This song was on the radio yesterday when we were on our way to work. I hadn't heard it before (or if I have, I don't remember it) and I immediately thought I was listening to Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam. But no, I wasn't. It's just that the lead singer of Stone Temple Pilots, Scott Weiland, sounded remarkably like Eddie Vedder. And when I googled Eddie Vedder and Scott Weiland, sure enough, there were many articles about how Scott Weiland copied Eddie Vedder' manner of singing, and all the negative reactions to that. Unfortunately, Scott Weiland died in 2015, and has since been hailed by Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins "as one of three "voices of the generation" alongside Kurt Cobain and Layne Staley" (source = Wikipedia). I think he has a really good voice, and I really like this song (from 1992). It grows on me the more I listen to it. I don't understand how I missed this song and band, but I did. In any case, enjoy......

My Saturday night movie watching--Two Weeks Notice and Basic Instinct

Saturday evenings are often good opportunities to catch up on movies I've missed or ones that I want to see again (infrequent occurrences but they do happen). Last night was one of those evenings. I watched Two Weeks Notice (2002) with Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant for the first time (I don't know how I missed it when it first came out), and after that I watched Basic Instinct (1992) with Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas for the second time. While both movies belong to different genres--romantic comedy and noir erotic thriller, respectively, and both are very good, the portrayal of women in each film is quite different. Sandra Bullock's character is far more realistic and nuanced than Sharon Stone's character, oddly enough for a romantic comedy, and far less cool. In Basic Instinct, Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone's character) is a writer of murder/crime books, with firsthand knowledge of murder. She is a psychopath and pathological liar, brilliant yes, but completely without morals. I can understand an actress wanting to play that role, but the character remains unexplored--a superficial view of a murderess who surrounds herself with other female murderesses. In 1992 when the movie was made, this was probably heavy stuff--a female murderess, extreme behavior, graphic sex scenes, bisexuality, cocaine use, reckless driving--all thrown in the mix. God knows we have had a plethora of murder/slasher films (too many of them) where the psychopath is always a man with a penchant for raping and torturing/murdering women. So now we had a female psychopath. But Basic Instinct makes the female psychopath cool. When I first saw the film in 1993, that thought didn't dominate my impression of the movie. It did last night, and now that I'm older, I waver more about the implications of making a psychopath (male or female) cool. Because psychopaths are not cool--that's an unrealistic presentation of them. They're frustrating and annoying to be around and to deal with. They make you feel uncomfortable in their presence, like you are pinned to a dissecting board, waiting for the worst. There is a certain 'creep' factor associated with them, as in--they are creeps and they make your skin crawl. They are often intelligent, charming, attractive, unattainable to most, narcissistic, amoral, pathological liars interested in playing games with people. They are ultimately destructive individuals and that is their aim. But they are not cool, rather anything but. I have met men (and perhaps one woman) with psychopathic tendencies (intelligent and amoral pathological liars) but they were neither interesting nor attractive people, and after a short time, their superficiality was a turnoff. After a few encounters, you avoid them at all costs. For most men, I would guess that a female psychopath would be the same after a while, after the initial attraction wore off. Few people talk about their experiences with a psychopath, unsurprisingly, since most of those interactions don't go well for the non-psychopath. Most psychopaths are probably not killers, but a number of them can be violent if it serves their purposes. So why does Michael Douglas' 'prone-to-violence' character Nick Curran risk his life by getting involved with Catherine Tramell? Because he has an addictive personality--he's obsessed with her. The film's atmosphere has been compared to that found in some Hitchcock films. I was rather reminded of both Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill (1980), with Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, and Nancy Allen, (a lurid film if ever there was one), and of Harold Becker's Sea of Love (1989) with Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin. Sea of Love is a much better (but underrated) film than either Dressed to Kill or Basic Instinct, mostly because it had a logical plot, gritty NYC atmosphere, and characters you actually cared about. If you're looking for an erotic murder/crime film that makes sense, where policemen behave rationally (or at least try to), this is the film for you. Basic Instinct is not (in my opinion); it is rather a superficial illogical thriller with a lot of sex and violence thrown in. Guaranteed to earn tons of money at the box office, which it did, thanks to the presence of actors like Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone and some soft-core sex scenes. At this point in my life, I'd simply say--sex sells--the sex scenes are what made this film so popular. None of the characters even remotely interested me, in terms of the types of people I'd like to get to know in real life. But it's a wild ride toward what for me was the obvious conclusion, so in that sense it was enjoyable.

So that is why Two Weeks Notice won out over Basic Instinct for me last night. Because despite the fact that I had few expectations of a romantic comedy being well-written (intelligently-written), non-superficial, and with interesting and witty characters, I was pleasantly surprised. Sandra Bullock's character Lucy Kelson in Two Weeks Notice was intelligent, witty, engaged and attractive. I would want to get to know her. She wanted to make something of her life; she stood for something. Working as a pro bono lawyer when we first meet her, we understand that she has inherited her parents' commitment to working for justice and good (often underdog) causes. So when she meets charming, handsome, and superficial millionaire George Wade (played by Hugh Grant) who mostly cares about what suits/ties to wear and the next woman he will bed, sparks fly and we know how it is going to end since it's a romantic comedy. They're diametrical opposites who are attracted to each other, who like each other and who are willing to change a bit for the other, albeit not immediately and not without major resistance. It surprised me, considering the awful romantic comedies I've seen lately (you can ask me for a list--many of them with Jason Bateman and/or Jennifer Aniston), that this one was so good and so well-written, with characters I could root for. It was actually a lot of fun joining them on their journey toward maturity, watching them admit that they were human and could change. Of course I know that the basic plot was inherently unrealistic; how often are pro bono lawyers offered a 250,000 dollar a year job at a major corporation, how often does said lawyer end up in almost daily communication with her boss, etc. But I can suspend my requirement for logic and my skepticism and just accept the (often far-fetched) premise when we're dealing with romantic comedies. That is not the case with crime thrillers and series; I expect a certain amount of logical thought and reasonable responses to certain events. When I don't get that, I get disappointed, and that happens with a lot of crime movies/series these days.

Speaking kindly

In the age of Trump, who has little to no idea of what it means to speak kindly, it would behoove us to remember the following, especially when trying to 'teach our children well' (my apologies to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - Teach Your Children):

You reap what you sow

It's been said many times before, but it's worth repeating, especially in these times of hate rhetoric and incitements to violence. "You reap what you sow". If you open your mouth and nothing but anger, hatred, aggression and meanness comes out, you will attract the same. You will attract the types of people that most well-behaved people wish would stay hidden under their slimy rocks. The types of people who will feel emboldened by you, and who will repay your bad behavior in kind. The types of people who use social media as their soap box to unload their vitriol on others. If you are the president of the USA, this is not a good thing, no matter how much you would like it to be. The fact that these types of people are your supporters should trigger every alarm inside you. But it doesn't. You seem mostly unperturbed by it. Yet it would behoove you to behave decently, properly, kindly, and carefully, rather than incite these types of people to behave badly. It would behoove you to lead the nation in the right direction. It is not a good thing that your behavior opens the doors to all sorts of terrible behavior. A truly intelligent leader would have understood this by now. And if you are truly intelligent and still choose to lead the nation in the wrong direction, then that is evil. Because really, what else is evil but the deliberate choice to do wrong in the face of right? We as a nation are reaping what we sow. We persist in prioritizing the right to own and carry guns rather than tackling so many other important issues that should have been prioritized a long time ago, like universal healthcare for all Americans. We persist in speaking unkindly, aggressively, meanly, because we are led by someone who does so, who has made it a priority to do so. He is making a mockery of all that we stand for as a Christian nation. We are letting it happen, and we let it continue.

I find it strange that in 2018, we are going backwards. We are regressing as a nation. Our values as a nation are at stake. What do we stand for? We need to figure that out rather fast, because we are sliding quickly down into the muck. Who knew that it would take so short a time to undo the progress that has been made concerning racism and personal rights? Who knew that there were so many white supremacists just waiting in the wings for their turn to walk onto the stage? Who knew that a nation could be so divided? Who knew that there was so much hate bubbling under the surface? 

But now we know--where we came from, and where we are going to. It's neither a pleasant journey nor a pleasant destination.

October full moon

A very large and full moon this week, and since the skies have been mostly clear, I've been able to get some good photos of it with my camera attached to my telescope. I wish I could get more detail of the moon's surface in the photos, otherwise I am fairly satisfied. Here are some of the ones I took tonight.

Celibacy for priests is discipline, not doctrine, and it can change

Good to see that Pope Francis might consider allowing priests to marry, at least in areas of the world where there is a shortage of priests. I think he should just open for allowing all priests to marry, if they wish to. After all, as the article states--"Francis has long said he appreciates the discipline of celibacy, but that it can change given it is discipline, not doctrine.".

https://nypost.com/2018/10/23/pope-francis-willing-to-consider-letting-priests-get-married/

Autumn last year was also lovely

And this was my post last year on this date--Saturday October 21, 2017, also about the colors of autumn in Oslo.........

https://paulamdeangelis.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-colors-of-autumn.html

Lovely autumn in Oslo

I went for a long walk along the Akerselva river last Sunday afternoon, and yesterday I spent a couple of hours in the garden raking leaves and taking up some plants that need to go indoors for the winter. The fall colors this year are striking--some really beautiful reds and golds. I took some photos as I walked along the river last Sunday, and some photos of the garden yesterday. And one photo taken last week of a building that is located on the grounds where I work. Autumn in Oslo--this year, it's lovely!

a covered bridge over the Akerselva river

leaves and more leaves

gorgeous autumn colors

a path you want to wander along

Akerselva river 

the beautiful Akerselva river

so many leaves 

the wild ivy has turned red

the mushrooms are back--these are Pholiota squarrosoides 

the daisies are still blooming 

a building not far from where I work