Blood for Dracula = Friggin' ridiculous

Alright, I did not know what I was getting myself into when I put Blood for Dracula on my Netflix queue. I knew that Andy Warhol was involved, and that there was probably going to be sexual overtones, but I was not expecting what I saw. First, Dracula is this pale, scrawny guy with a bad accent, who travels with his pale, scrawny male secretary to Italy (I think) to search for virgins to drink. Second, he finds a family of a gambling-addicted father, a money and status obsessed mother, and a young man hired hand who is only concerned with communism and banging as many of the four beautiful (and beautiful in this sense is defined as skinny, pale, reddish haired young women) sisters as he can. The three oldest sisters are either obsessed with sex (with the hired hand, or with each other, or some combination of the two (yes, that means that there are threesomes, or some weird combination of a sister and the hired hand having sex while a second sister watches, eating chocolates) ), or with kissing each other (yes, now I've implied insestial (not a real word) lesbianism). The youngest, being "fourteen" (the actress is clearly not fourteen), is the only one who is really innocent and non-corrupt, and therefore the only character worth giving a damn about.

Now that is pretty much the entire cast, so who am I supposed to care about? The fourteen-year old virgin. Okay. But in the end, there's just her and the hired hand, who end the movie by closing a back door of the mansion, so they're probably going to have hot, ridiculous, creepy sex after the credits role.

Alright, if that doesn't make the movie worthless, I'll try to look at its treatment of vampirism. The opening scene, I should have recognized, was an indication of the entire film. The opening credits show Dracula applying makeup and painting his gray hair black in front of a mirror. Then, the camera pans to show the mirror, and the lack of a reflection. So this movie starts out by giving a big "F*** You!" to the rules of vampirism. How can a vampire groom himself in a mirror? But it's kind of clever, so I laugh and accept it. It does, however, cost it a Suspension of Disbelief Point (SoD Point), which I'll explain in a moment. Then, after the basic plot is laid out, Dracula walks out into the sunlight to travel to Italy to feed on his virgins. Another SoD Point lost.

When I watch a movie like this, I usually give it somewhere between five and seven points of suspended disbelief (SoD Points). Every time the movie fails to suspend some of my disbelief, it loses a SoD Point. If it uses up all of its SoD Points, I stop caring about the movie. So, by starting out with the vampire/mirror contradiction, and the vampire/sunlight contradiction, it lost two SoD Points. But one of them was comedic, and actually made me laugh, so I didn't mind all that much.

But then, once the plot gets into full bloom, and I hear the word 'wirgin' (the pronunciation of the word virgin with their awful accents) every other word, and witness scene after scene of unnecessary nudity, or some form of rape, either at the hand of the hired hand (forcing the daughters to have sex with him, which they first resist, and then seem to enjoy) or at the hand of Dracula (who isolates one of the daughters, asks her if she is a virgin, and then tackles them and forcefully sucks their blood (which they first resist, and then seem to enjoy) ), I realize that the movie has used up more than its allotted number of SoD Points.

Need I continue? The acting is horrible. The dialogue is forced and unconvincing. By the end, when the hired hand realizes that Dracula is a vampire, I don't care anymore because any logic or rule (besides the "Booby Rule," which I'll discuss in a moment) is thrown out the window, I have stopped caring about the characters, their plights, and the movie as a whole. The "Booby Rule" seems to be the only real driving force of the movie, where each scene is either a build up or the scene itself where one or more of the sisters show their breasts and/or have sex with the hired had and/or each other.

Oh, yeah. And one more thing. At the end, when two of the older (non-virgin) sisters, who have been turned into pseudo-vampires, are trying to bring the youngest sister to Dracula, she runs to the hired hand for help. He explains what's going on, and then recommends that "...you should lose, that, uh, virginity of yours" so that Dracula won't chase after her. He then proceeds to force himself on her, which she initially resists, and then seems to enjoy, and then is caught by her mother, who breaks them up. Then, Dracula walks in, and laps up the remaining blood from the forced sex...I'm sorry if this is getting too graphic. It's the movie's fault, and I feel like it's my duty to splay it out like this.

So, yeah. Stupid, pointless, unnecessary, ridiculous, insulting and mind-numbing movie. Don't watch it. And I want to apologize for any incoherency in this post. I consumed a high-alcohol beer in the process of watching this film (which I think was crucial to me actually sitting through the entire film) so if some of my logic seems fuzzy or my sentences (and added parenthetical annotations) confusing, you have my deepest apology.

Nosferatu in 1922, 1979, and 2000

The first movie version of Dracula came in 1922 as F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. He couldn't convince Stroker's estate to give him the rights to the Dracula story, so Murnau just changed the name and embellished a little bit, and out comes Nosferatu. It's a choppy, silent, black and white film of around an hour and a half. And yet it manages to have some of the most unsettling, creepy moments in a vampire film to date.

Max Shreck, who played Nosferatu, is simply terrifying, with no need for speech. He has this rat-like appearance, with long creepy claws and two small fangs towards the center of his mouth, rather than the popularized Dracula appearance that everyone knows today.

But, truth be told, Bram Stroker's description of Dracula is nothing like this at all: "...a tall old man, clean shaven save for a long white moustache...his face was strong--a very strong--aquiline, with high bride of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forhead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profuse elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose (almost a unibrow), and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips..."

So really, Dracula isn't all that scary. And that just wouldn't do for the movie business, so they created Nosferatu and Dracula as we all now know him. And it worked out for them. For instance, a old man with a mustache couldn't make this scene from Nosferatu scary, only a pale, clawed, rat-like thing could:





This, among other scenes in the original Nosferatu, were used (or stolen, or "homaged") in many other Dracula/Nosferatu films to follow. But you cannot match the level of creepy that this first one had. Maybe it's because of the black and white, silent choppiness. Maybe it's because this Nosferatu just looks so scary. I'm not sure. Roger Ebert explains it like this: "The film is in awe of its material. It seems to really believe in vampires."

There was another version of this film done in 1979 by Wernor Herzog, one of my new favorite directors, called Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht. Klaus Kinski, the brilliant and regular actor in Herzog's films, plays the Count. Since the original Nosferatu was German, Herzog (being also German) felt like this movie should be redone as soon as Dracula entered public domain. The film is very similiar to the original Nosferatu, and manages to enhance the story without diminishing the power of the original.

Kinski is fantastic, as he always is, as the count. He's creepy, rat like, a very sad character, and completely believable as a several-hundred year old vampire who's well past his prime. The use of sound and dialogue is very well done, and the story has more of a coherency to it that the original Nosferatu didn't have. Or maybe that's just my closer relationship with films with dialogue over silent films.

The scenes when Harker is held prisoner in the count's castle, and especially when he cuts himself and Kinski dives for the cut, claiming that the knife may have been dirty and the wound must be sucked to ensure no blood poisoning, is very scary. The movie even made me jump a couple of times, which none of these vampire films have done to me yet. Herzog is also a very good filmmaker, and there are creepy scenes with thousands of gray rats roaming the streets, spreading the plague. And Renfield, Harker's boss and as it turns out the Count's servant, has this laugh that is unbelievable in it's creep factor.

And finally, as it seems with anything vampire related, there is also a strange comedy/horror hybrid that deals with Nosferatu, called Shadow of the Vampire. I want to thank Hatrack.com forum members for letting me know about this one. It stars Willem Dafoe who plays Nosferatu, who plays Max Shreck. Now, no, that's not a mistake. The movie plays with the idea that the person who played Nosferatu in F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu really was a real vampire, and that Max Shreck was just a made up name to cover his true identity. And they cover his appearance by stating that Max Shreck is a character actor who completely immerses himself in the character. Sounds bizarre and conveluted, right? A movie about the making of a vampire movie where Dafoe plays the part of a vampire who's playing the part of an actor who is supposed to be playing the part of a vampire. And bizarre it is, and ipso facto must have John Malkovich, who plays the director F.W. Murnau. Much of the movie is tounge and cheek. It's a ridiculous premise, but they make the most of it.

And, just like Buffy, the comedy seems to heighten the serious moments. Dafoe has a scene where some of the crew asks him about the book Dracula, and if it was factually accurate, since he is apparently so deep into his role that he should know about vampires. And his response is quite unsettling:

Shrek: It made me sad.
Albin: Why sad?
Shrek: Because Dracula had no servants.
Albin: I think you missed the point of the book, Count Orlock.
Shrek: Dracula hasn't had servants in 400 years and then a man comes to his ancestral home, and he must convince him that he... that he is like the man. He has to feed him, when he himself hasn't eaten food in centuries. Can he even remember how to buy bread? How to select cheese and wine? And then he remembers the rest of it. How to prepare a meal, how to make a bed. He remembers his first glory, his armies, his retainers, and what he is reduced to. The loneliest part of the book comes... when the man accidentally sees Dracula setting his table.

(...and then he grabs a bat out of the air and eats it.)

Dafoe does a great job, which is good since the part was specifically written for him. Malkovich is weird and unsettling, but convincing as the obsessed and crazy director.



So here ends the first post relating to my vampire extravaganza. There are others coming soon, which will walk through the other vampire films (Oh yes, don't worry. There are plenty more vampire films) before I conclude with Buffy.

'Tis the Season of VAMPIRES a.k.a. Damn You Joss Whedon

It wasn’t even two months ago that I considered vampires a stupid, pointless thing to read about or watch. Being that they don’t exist, and never have existed, and never will exist, the idea of wasting my precious reading and watching hours on vampires just didn’t appeal to me. And furthermore, two summers ago I had read Bram Stroker’s Dracula, and that was good enough, wasn’t it? How much more could vampires give? And then in strolls Joss Whedon, all cocky and comical and clever. Damn you, Whedon. Damn you and your unbelievable wit and ability to make me care about your characters.

I had completed Whedon’s Firefly series and Serenity movie years ago, and have wallowed like a pig in the mud of Joss’ brain. I’ve read about Firefly, watched the episodes over and over again, and had my close friend knit me a hat so I could further idolize Jayne’s character and ergo Whedon’s brain. I had many reliable sources tell me that I should watch Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. My aunt, my high school librarian, Craig, a regular at the video store I worked at. I respected there decisions, so somewhere in the last few years, in the back of my distracted brain, I knew that I was going to watch Buffy. As time went on, there was no thought about whether I should, it was just a question of when I should. And this last summer, I stopped denying the voices in the back of my brain and asked to borrow the first few seasons of the series from my aunt.

Now, my aunt, in her conniving ways, delivered to me a black trash bag filled with the entire seven seasons. That was three months ago. Today, I have passed the seven seasons on to my brother, Jake, and have purchased for myself the complete, 44 DVD 6,000 plus hour boxed set of the entire freaking series. I am in the middle of the fifth season, and I pop episodes off like I used to pop pimples, compulsively, shamefully, and in private. My brother has surpassed me (in Buffy episodes, not pimple popping) for several reasons. First, he wasn’t also watching the entire seven season television series Trailer Park Boys, which he had already completed and had hooked me on this summer. He also wasn’t trying hard to watch one or two of Roger Ebert’s top 200 movies every week. And I think he doesn’t read as often as I do. And most importantly, he is open about his obsession and inability to control it, as he watches several episodes in a stretch.

If my Summer of Kurosawa has taught me anything, it’s that you can watch a long progression of movies, or I guess television shows, too quickly and miss them when they’re done. You can read my last post, and my inability to watch Kurosawa’s final film for a whopping two

months. So I have fought sorta-hard to limit my consumption of Buffy and her Scooby Gang. And this next series of blog entries in a continuation of that sorta-inner-battle I’m fighting. I want to savor the last two and a half seasons of Buffy that I have left. So I’m going to watch as many vampire movies as I can get my hands on before Halloween. And there are seven of them, plus a rereading of the original Dracula novel.

Now Buffy, don’t feel like I’m abandoning you. I LOVE YOU so much that I’m avoiding you. Don’t look at me like that! I swear I’m yours forever. Please don’t kill me…(and I promise I’ll explore why I am so obsessed with the show towards the end of this series of posts).

Akira Kurosawa

Over this previous summer, working at the video store in East Rochester, I set myself on a trek to watch all of the Akira Kurosawa films I could get my hands on. I had read much about Kurosawa, and already know that many of them were available in the store, and had too much spare time on my hands. So I searched for a book that could act as my guide, and found one (The Emperor and the Wolf: The Lives and Films of Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune - by Stuart Galbraith).

I went to the Rochester public library to pick up the book (it was out of print), and was surprised to find it to have over 800 pages. Soon after, I as surprised to find that Kurosawa had directed over 28 movies. So, on June 20, I started on the first one that I could find anywhere (No Regrets for Our Youth) and just tonight (Septembr 30) finished his last one (Madadayo).

The strange thing is that I've put off this last movie for almost two months. It was delivered by Netflix (which is awesome, by the way) before I left for my family vacation in early August. It's sat on my shelf or on my desk for now just over 2 months, for two reasons. First, I knew from my reading that this wasn't one of Kurosawa's best films. Second, I didn't really want to be done with my Kurosawa experience.

So from June 20th till July 31st, I watched 24 of Kurosawa's films. And wow, was it fun.

Akira Kurosawa was most famous for his epic samurai films (Rashomon, the Seven Samauri, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha and Ran), which really only amount to less than a third of his movie output. However, of his other films, I would really only recommend three of them for those who didn't really care too much about Kurosawa (Ikiru, Red Beard, and Dersu Uzala).

Ikiru is one that I would strongly recommend. It deals with a public works officer (in Japan, of course) who, after a few decades of mindless, dedicated work, finds out he has terminal stomach cancer. Sounds depressing? Not really. It will surprise you, and it is up there in my top five movies that could change your life after viewing.

Red Beard is the last Kurosawa film to have Toshiro Mifune, who was one of Kurosawa's favorite actors, and one of the most memorable and powerful performers in any of Kurosawa's films. The plot is of a struggling hospital, a newly transferred intern, and the hospital's director, who is called Red Beard due to his unusual red beard (sure it's a black and white film, but you can see the red beard clear enough if you have any humanity in you). It's a good movie, with several subplots, that again are surprisingly powerful. In one, there's a mental patient who seduces and kills young men. At one point she escapes. And it's rather terrifying. In another, a poor boy in near the brink of death, and to ensure that his soul doesn't escape, the nurses run out to a well and call his name down to the underworld to bring him back. A unexpectedly powerful scene.

And the last non-samurai film of Kurosawa's that I'd recommend would be Dersu Uzala. It's in Russian (quick tangent: Kurosawa had extreme trouble finding funding in Japan during his later career, and had to fight and beg and plead to get financing for another fill after a relative flop. The Russians finally gave him the money.) It's about Russian soldiers paroling a remote part of the Russian forest / tundra land. At one point, they hire a local forest man to be there guide (Dersu Uzala) who quickly befriends the captain of the troop. Dersu at one point saves the captains life, and at another point, the captain saves Dersu's (I understand that generally quickens the development of friendship among us mortals). There are some twists, and fantastic scenes. Watch it.

Now on to the really good stuff. Kurosawa's samurai films. If you're into movies at all, or are tired of the new choco-block-buster-a-thon movies (e.g. Eagle Eye), or are affected by movies at all, you need to watch some of these films.

First, in the black and white category, you need to see the Seven Samurai. It's perhaps one of the most influential movies of all time, inspiring directly the Magnificent Seven and A Bug's Life. The story is well known, and the directing and editing style has ripples throughout movie makers across the world. On top of that, it's a great story. Sure, it's over three hours long, but it's worth it. Do it in chunks. Do it all at once. However you do it, do it!

The other Kurosawa samurai B&Ws are good too. Not great, but they all have their great moments. In decreasing order of must watch down to you should watch, I'd list them as Seven Samurai (see above), Rashomon, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo/Sanjuro (they really go together), and the Hidden Fortress. Rashomon is another unbelievably influential movie, and arguably changed the way movies were made, Throne of Blood is based on Shakespeare's Macbeth, and has a mindblowingly great scene in it that involves a lot of archer's arrows (just ask Jake, he'll tell you about that scene). Yojimbo/Sanjuro are like cowboy westerns set in feudal Japan. You'll know exactly what I mean when you see them. They in turn inspired many American cowboy Westerns (Fistful of Dollars, etc.). The Hidden Fortress is good, not great, except for the fact that George Lucas credits his portrayal of C-3P0 and R2-D2 after two characters in this movie (he also doesn't credit the incredibly powerful hidden princess who saves the day, but I think he's lying about that).

And now, ladies and gentleman, the really good ones. I mean really good ones. After Red Beard (or maybe Dodes 'ka-den, which is one of the ones I couldn't find anywhere), Kurosawa's films transform into color films. The first was Dersu Usala, which I've already talked about. The color made it a better movie. I don't think this one would have worked in B&W.

And in walks Kagemusha. AKA The Shadow Warrior. The movie is like nothing you'll ever see until you watch Ran (Kurosawa called Kagemusha a "dry run" for Ran). It follows a poor, thief / nobody who has a striking resemblance to the lord of a huge, powerful clan. He is brought in to double the lord. At first to increase efficiency and spread additional terror. Later because the lord gets injured, etc. The movie is epic. With ginormous samurai / army battles, in breathtaking use of color and editing and story development and character development. It's good.

Now, if you've ever been part of a high school musical production, you know how painful they can be. Well, take a high school production of, say, the Fiddler on the Roof on the first day of dress rehearsal. Painful, right? And compare that to the movie version of Fiddler on the Roof, with huge ensembles and excellent casting (Topol kicks some serious ass), excellent musicians and a movie-level budget. Similarly, Ran is Kagemusha on a totally different level.

First, it's based on Shakespeare's King Lear (yes, Kurosawa liked Shakespeare), which means that at the very least, the story will be interesting. Second, take the success of Kurowasa from Kagemusha and give him complete control of the production, including massive extras, a couple million dollar castles built on the slopes of Mt. Fuji, costumes and colors that astound, music that takes one's breath away, and a sad old man who tries to give his hard, blood-drenched empire away to his three sons, (think plot of King Lear), and you've got a phenomenal movie. Just awesome. The battle scenes are color coordinated among the three sons, and are on an uber-scale. The father goes stark raving insane as he watches his son's battle, his empire crumble, his sword snap in half, and his castle burn, and one of the best scenes in any movie I've ever seen, and you're beginning to understand the power of Ran.

So, well, yeah. Watch some Kurosawa. I have purchased the Seven Samurai, Kagemusha, and Ran from the not-so-cheap Criterion Collection (sure the Seven Samurai cost me $50, but it has three disks, tons of commentary, extras, essays, and downright sexy packaging). I think it's totally worth it. I hope to purchase more of Kurosawa's in the near future.

McCain /Obama

In my mind, I have trouble honing in on my opinions without writing them down, reading, editing, rereading, reediting them, etc. So, being that the election is forthcoming, I just sent in my absentee ballot application, and that the first major debate is this Friday, I thought I'd explore what I believe.

I don't understand all that much about what's going on with the economy, and have not been following political news all that closely. But I have a new goal, to read every article on the front page of the New York Times every day. It's available to me at school, for free, and I don't know whether it has a left tilt or not, but it's a rounded, all encompassing, relatively in depth daily news source, and I'm going to take advantage of that.

In regards to the economy, it seems like McCain is more on the "leave it to it's own doings," or at least he was until recent events. Now, he can't do anything but say that there must be changes to the way things are done. He also seems to be that "hands off" way towards corporations, and many other important and unwieldy aspects of daily life. In particular, I'm thinking about things he has said about emissions and environmental regulations, things which I feel to be one of the most important issues today.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to tilt more towards regulation and intervention. I may be professing my ignorance, but isn't that a major splitting point between the Democrats and Republicans? Democrats are for greater government intervention while Republicans are more for that hands off approach.

Also, in regards to my vote for president, I cannot imagine voting a evangelist like Palin into the VP seat. Before, I was relieved to see McCain emerge as the presidential candidate, being that he seemed more sane than many of the other candidates, but faced with a choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, my feelings are clearly towards the Democratic side.

Okay, I probably should delve a little deeper into the issues that that. A quick Google search brought be to www.issues2000.org, which goes through each candidate's stance on the major issues. I'll first tackle the environment, being that I feel that is very important.

First an foremost, me on the environment:

I take environmental issues very seriously. I feel that in the next 50 - 100 years, our decisions today will have drastic implications for every aspect of life on this planet. Our populations is continuing to grow as a disastrous rate, fossil fuels are running out, environmental refugees are on the rise, pollution and lifestyle seems to be poisoning all of us so that cancer hits every other person during their lifetime, we're eating and burning and consuming at such a rapid rate that ecosystems are on the verge of collapse (e.g. fisheries worldwide, rain forests worldwide, pretty much every ecosystem worldwide), etc. etc. etc.

So, now John McCain on the environment: he supports state's taking charge in regards to environmental matters (e.g. California with off-shore drilling). He is a Federalist, which means (I think) that each state has the right and duty to make laws and regulations of its own. He has worked to bring money to the national parks, but supports a bill to allow more roads to be built in them. Alright, not great but not bad.

Now Obama on the environment: he has worked on environmental justice campaigns, lead paint and mercury reduction / control. He opposes the idea of Yucca mountain nuclear waste storage. He is willing to change ethanol subsidy rules to lower food prices, etc, etc. Alright, looks good too.

Sarah Palin on the Environment: she opposed a ballot to give more protection to salmon against mining contaminants, sued the US government to take polar bears off the endangered list, thinking that beluga whales shouldn't be considered endangered, wants to open ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) to development, supports subsidies access to mines and development of other natural resources such as oil and gas. Okay, I don't like many of these things. But it doesn't list much about the bigger issues of climate change, emissions, etc.

Joe Biden on the Environment: he supports taking away subsidies to oil companies, thinks that fuel mileage is a critical issue (one that should be mandated), voted against roads in national parks, and scores a 95% in the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) tally. That's impressive. McCain scored a 53%. Obama scored a 60%. Palin scored a NA.

So, from this cursory look at the presidential / vice presidential candidates' views on the environment, I'm voting for Obama/Biden.

First days at Cornell

I've had at least one of each of my classes now at Cornell, and have had now over a week to adjust and to settle into my apartment and Ithaca in general. It's difficult, and drastic changes like this always are. I miss my family (but most of all I miss my dog! Rudy!), but none of them are too far away.

I guess the hardest part is the transition to living alone. I've never done it before. I've always had people around when I wake up and when I go to sleep, and have had people to talk to before and after the daily activities. And now there's no one except me when I get up, or go to sleep. It's a lot quieter, and I don't talk as much when I'm by myself, which is probably a good thing.

It is also a strange transition to cooking food for just myself. The first stir fry I made lasted me three nights. On the other hand, there is no negotiation with housemates over what to eat, when to eat, etc. I have my parent's old wok, a gas stove, and am now stocked up with most of the cooking essentials, so I just have to build up the motivation (and the nerve) to cook strange and possibly horrible things. I have recently purchases cookbooks that feature Asian foods (in general), Chinese foods, Japanese foods, Vietnamese foods, foods from Norway and Finland, and cookbooks that focus on salads and soups (two separate books). I also have a large baking cookbook, and the Moosewood vegetarian cookbook. Add that to the gas stove, wok, KitchenAid mixer, and no one to disagree with what I make, and I have a wide world of foods in front of me.

Besides this food freedom, I've adjusted pretty well to Ithaca/Cornell, at least so far. The campus is on a hill, and my apartment is on the bottom of the hill. Now, this isn't just a regular hill. Oh, no. It's a beastly, unforgiving, almost comically steep hill. The first couple times I walked (read: climbed) it, I was out of breath and not a little sweaty. There are neighbors who walk to campus every day up this hill, and they require no other exercise to keep in shape. It takes me just over half an hour to get to my building on campus. But of course, there's an alternative route: a 10-15 minute walk (very flat) to Ithaca commons, and then a 10-15 minute bus ride to the center of campus. So I'm working on the hill, but taking the bus most of the time.

As for Cornell, it's big. Things are far apart, and there is a lot of people on campus. Well, obviously. But those were my first impressions. I'm taking four classes and TAing a class. I could list the names of the classes, but they're long and somewhat intimidating. In short, it's a Matlab (programming) refresher class, a statistics class, thermodynamics class (both focused heavily in the realm of the atmosphere), and a planetary atmospheres class (heavily math / astronomy based). The class I'm TAing for is an introduction to atmospheric chemistry class.

So, in a nutshell, it means that for the first time, my academic realm matches pretty closely with my spare-time imagination realm. Or, in other words, I am studying in full force the things that I dwelt on outside of classes at Clarkson. I find myself surrounded by meteorologists and astronomy majors, and I find the text books I'm reading and the work I have in front of me in a domain that floats above the surface of the earth. Pretty much everything from the air I breathe up to the planets and stars in the sky. I still can't believe I'm taking a class that walks through the atmospheres of the nearby planets. I mean, the freaking syllabus mentions specifically Venus, Mars, Titan, Jupiter, and Saturn. I don't think I've ever had a syllabus that has gotten me so exited before.

Now, I'm also terrified. The guy who ran the first class (who was not the prof., who wasn't there) said that we all should be relatively comfortable with vector calculus. Now, I remember vector calculus, and have been reviewing it over the weekend, but I don't think I'd call myself comfortable with vector calculus.

Oh yeah, and I have two classes in the same room, on the eleventh floor of a building. Clarkson had a maximum of three floors for all of its buildings. Now I'm on the eleventh! But damn, it has a nice view. Many buldings have a nice view, and many random locations on campus have a nice view. I guess that's the trade off: I have to climb a steep hill and get all sweaty, but it looks really pretty when you take time to stop and look. I left my camera at home, so will include some pictures when I get that (probably this weekend). I'll also post some pics of my apartment. It's already a pretty comfortable, cozy place.

Change

The end of summer is always a period of change. I am so comfortable at home with my family, it is always hard to leave. But it is also always very exiting, none more so than this summer, where I move into my own apartment. I've never lived alone, and I'm looking forward to it with apprehension and excitement.

So, on the topic of change, there are a few notable writers who I want to look at. First up is the late Octavia Butler, from Parable of the Sower:

All that you touch
You Change.

All that you Change
Changes you.

The only lasting truth
Is Change.

God
Is Change

- - -

Any Change may bear seeds of benefit.
Seek them out.
And Change may bear seeds of harm.
Beware.
God is infinitely malleable.
God is Change.

- - -

We are Earthseed
The life that perceives itself
Changing.

- - -

Changes.
The galaxies move through space.
The stars ignite,
burn,
age,
cool,
Evolving.
God is Change.
God prevails.

- - -

And from the sequel: Parable of the Talents:

Here we are--
Energy,
Mass,
Life,
Shaping life,
Mind,
Shaping Mind,
God,
Shaping God.
Consider--
We are born
Not with purpose,
But with potential.

- - -

Chaos
Is God's most dangerous face--
Amorphous, roiling, hungry.
Shape Chaos--
Shape God.
Act.

Alter the speed
Or the direction of Change.
Vary the scope of Change.
Recombine the seeds of Change.
Transmute the impact of Change.
Seize Change.
Use it.
Adapt and Grow.

There are many more, but these ones speak of change directly. For a little background, the story is about a woman who creates what she calls Earthseed, a religion? pseudo-religion? that holds as it's central tenant the idea of change. Or, as it it stated: God is Change.

This concept of accepting change, and shaping the changes to a common goal, or personal goal, or lofty ideal stuck with me. Especially now when there is going to be so much change in my life. I have a desire to change dramatically what and how I eat (thanks Michael Pollan). I have a desire to continue my academic life in climate change science and modelling, but to also continue my desire to study films academically (i.e. this summer with Kurosawa).

The second if from Сталкер (Stalker), a Russian movie by Andrei Tarkovsky from 1979. The movie follows three people, a professor, a writer, and the stalker (think of him as tour guide) as they trespass onto a quarantined property called "the Zone" where there is some strange power at work, and supposedly a room that will grant anyone's wish. The Zone is treacherous in the most subtle ways, and their trip is slow, cautious, and long (the movie is 2.5 hours long). It comes about half-way through, when the Stalker is monologuing:

"Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world. And most important, let them believe in themselves, let them be helpless like children, because weakness is a great thing, and strength is nothing. When a man is just born, he is weak and flexible, when he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing, it's tender and pliant, but when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of the freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win."

While this never hits 'change' explicitly, it deals with states with which change comes easily: Pliancy and weakness, as opposed to hardness and strength. Those that are pliant and weak have more life, more future. Those that are hard and strong are closer to death, unwilling to adapt and accept change. I think of many of the older people I know, who are so set in their ways that they simply cannot change (I have a great aunt who is racist, but she was so old that no one tried to tell her that that time has past. She had become hardened. On the other hand, my grandmother adapted pretty well to the news that one of her granddaughters was a lesbian. And when the marriange ceremony was held at our family cottage, she took it as it was. She was plaint. I was happy to hear that when she and her old lady friends went to see Brokeback Mountain, not really knowing what it was. She ended up explaining to her old lady friends that the two guys were gay, because they just couldn't accept it in their hardened old age.)

Change is hard, especially when change is tending away from a comfort zone. But change is life, and when you get down to it, would you really want nothing to change? Would you like to spend your entire life in your largest comfort zone? What about the rest of the planet? What about the experiences that define life, and make it a life worth living?

Finally, form the Dalai Lama: "Change only takes place through action. Not through prayer, or meditation, but through action."

If any one reading this has other quotes or ideas about change, please let me know.