Friday, July 22, 2005

Favorites of the first half of 2005

I've read, heard, and watched many works of art in the first half or so of this year. Many were bad, and I am tempted to recommend my readers against them. But there is no end to the making of books, as Solomon wrote, and my warnings would likely be wasted on those who would not have experienced them anyway, and interest others in them who would otherwise have remained unstained. So instead, I will recommend the best.

In each section, I listed the works roughly in order, with the best first.


Movies (DVD and cinema)

Brokedown Palace
Man on Fire
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
Batman Begins
Collateral
Napoleon Dynamite
School of Rock
Bourne Supremacy


Books

The Day Boy and the Night Girl - George MacDonald*
On the Abolition of Christianity in England - Jonathan Swift*
1984 - George Orwell
Pride and Prejudice
- Jane Austen*
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series - Douglas Adams
The White Company - Arthur Conan Doyle*


Music albums

Your Daughters and Your Sons - The Duhks. I'd rather not label them, other than "modern folk/world", which also happens to be my favorite style of music.
Young and the Hopeless - Good Charlotte
The Reason - Hoobastank
Writing on the Wall - Jill Phillips
Be Not Nobody - Vanessa Carlton
The Very Best of Sheryl Crow - Sheryl Crow. Folk-rock is also a favorite.
Under My Skin - Avril Lavigne


* Work is in the public domain and no longer subject to copyright, because more than 70 years have passed since the death of the author. 1984 will pass into the public domain in 2020, and the other books, movies, and music will be released, roughly speaking, after you are dead.

6 Comments:

Blogger Rebekkah said...

I watched most of Napoleon Dynamite, and I honestly can't see how you put it before Bourne Supremacy.... *grins* I've been told that in order to like Napoleon, you have to be from Idaho to get all the many hidden jokes. I only live here, not from here.

Jul 31, 2005, 9:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe you included Napoleon at ALL. bleh. Though you may have redeemed it by including Batman . . .

However, your taste in music shows great insight ;-) Good picks for the most part.

Jul 31, 2005, 9:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant "girlish" in the sense that the book centers around women (their struggles, their ideas, etc). Granted, men are a part of it; but it's more the girls trying to figure out how to get a man, while the men play a passive role. And, no, I didn't mean that men and romance are diametrically opposite. There are a few instances in which they are not. *grins* Just joking.

And, David, honestly, when was the last time you heard Pride and Prejudice referred to as a "manly" book? :-) I rest my case.

Aug 3, 2005, 2:18:00 PM  
Blogger Undeserving said...

Hey David,
It was good to hear from you. In answer to your question, yes, Peter and Holly are living here in VA, well actually WV. Harpers Ferry is their new home. They are both doing quite well. :-)

Aug 4, 2005, 8:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Pride and Prejudice is entirely about men. Men should not overlook this important work by a woman author.

In Pride and Prejudice, Austen was showing the distinction between men of character and lying posers. The women are portrayed as trivial and silly, even the most honourable is easily deceived and cannot trust her own judgement.

The major theme is redemptive love--a uniquely male attribute--, as pictured by Christ, and mirrors the Gospel. Darcy as an authority figure is considered proud, harsh in his judgement and unfeeling by foolish women, even when he was risking his standing by associating with those that repulsed him to redeem one insignificant family from the pit of shame, sin and depravity that they rushed headlong into of their own free will.

The constant contrast of men like Darcy and Bingley to pompous and outwardly pious Messrs. Collins and Lucas provided the secondary theme: What is a man? What is honor? What do we call good? Christ called them whited sepulchres, while Lady Catherine had high praise.

When Collins tempted Elizabeth with security and familial position, he was not taking a passive role, nor was she a predator. Like God made clear in the Bible, man is responsible, woman secondary.

When Mr. Bennett placed his daughter outside his area of protection by indulging her in her willfull desires, trusting Colonel Forster to care more for Lydia's honor than he himself had, no woman made him do it.

The manipulation of Bingley, though attempted by women, was ineffectual. Bingley's respect for Darcy and his counsel led him both to forsake and reclaim Jane. It was the man to man bond that carried the force and power necessary to shape both events.

The major action takes place in London attended by various males. The only females present were the victim, who sat passively while completely unaware of the drama, and her aunt, who served only a small supporting role help her dress for the wedding that was arranged by the men, paid for by Darcy, and occurred only because strong men redeemed her.

The female characters are backdrops to the strong male leads. No one would read about Elizabeth Bennet without Fitzwilliam Darcy and the intricacy of discovering true nobility which is often called harsh and judgemental by a libertine world.

Aug 4, 2005, 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger em said...

While I certainly agree that Pride and Prejudice is an important book and men should read it, it is hardly so male dominated as was suggested. Austen is writing about humanity--and her insight into the world shows both men and women to be human. By human I mean fallible and something more. Both Darcy and Elizabeth are wrong on more than one point, and both of them come to understand about a love that is not blind, but also covers the weakness of each other.

And I would argue with the idea that redemptive love is strictly male. I'm not advocating being a femi-nazi, but on the other hand, just because the "men are superior and bring virture, women are inferior and can only bring temptation" view is western tradition, it doesn't mean its Biblical.

Give Austen some credit for speaking truth in a way that sees the humanity of both genders, in spite of being surrounded by a male-dominated canon.

Aug 9, 2005, 8:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home