Sophie Marceau ( pronounced <mar-Só> ) is a French actress, writer and director. Today, a friend and blogging buddy asked me if anyone ever mentioned that I resemble her.
I figured out who she was for certain when I googled her. She’s one of the Bond girls, in “The World is Not Enough” (1999) and has acted in 35 films.
This has to be one of the nicest comments said (inadvertently, mind you) on my Birthday, since…well, maybe the early 1990s.
Neither me nor Sophie can help how we look (to a certain extent), but it’s still a nice boost to hear an affable comment like that, on a day when one considers the aging process in more depth. To be honest, I didn’t think I’d be affected so deeply, let alone bother to blog about it. But, it goes to show just how far kind words can go, especially on special days. Let’s remember that concept today. :)
So, on this “special day”, I want to take a little time, right now, to thank all of you for reading the posts here. You, make it a joy. May you be blessed.
xoxo
I’m going to see the film “Where the Wild Things” are today. I’ll post a review, of sorts, on here after a little reflection. Then we can discuss it, along with how the book has had an effect on you over the years.
Leave any comments you have about the movie, (whether you’ve seen it or not) or your thoughts and feelings about the book.
MOVIE REVIEW (of sorts)
OKay I saw it.
General thoughts: If you think of this movie strictly as an adaption, not film based on book, you can fully enjoy this work. It takes different turns then the book, so I kept noticing that, and it got in the way for me.
The movie has some sweet moments, of both innocence and profundity; and Max is a boy dealing with his faults and fears, in a way that the best he can do alone, with wild things doing the same sort of thing. All the same, the movie has a middle area with a slow spot, and it seems like the plot has disappeared. What plot there is at the island meanders hopelessly, but that’s not all bad. Max is a boy who cannot, after all, be King for long. The dialogue of the monsters often left we wanting, but the puppets/actors/CGI is done in a way that carries the entire wild thing off. Jonzes’ movie-making style is suited for this type of piece, and he does many creative direction work I loved. Wildly effective.
Of a 100%, I give it a 78%. It’s worth seeing, if you drop your expectations of the beloved classic tale. Nothing can recapture Maurice Sedick’s work in feature length, so far. However, Spike Jonze has made a good, but not flawless, film.
(for parents) *I detected 2 language usage (damn was the word I think), for those of you who don’t want children exposed to this sort of thing. As far as me taking my 6 and 9 year old, I might wait until video. This is mostly because Max is so unruly at the beginning, I picture my kids imitating his antics as fast as they get a chance. The “scariness” was there, but wasn’t all that terrifying. It wasn’t so much TEETH, or realistic gore, but suspense. A creature loses an arm, but it’s not blood that comes out, and he complains, but doesn’t appear to be in pain. It could be that the dull spot in the middle, could make children, teens (and some adults) bored, or worse, whinny. This movie is fine for children over 8, in my opinion. Under that age, I think the parent would have to decide based on the sensitivity of their particular child.
The dominant worldview in hoodoo is usually strongly Christian. Historically there has been an Old Testament strain in hoodoo thought. This is particularly evident in relation to God’s providence and his role in retributive justice. For example, though there are strong ideas of good versus evil, cursing someone to cause their death might not be considered a malignant act. For example, one practitioner explained it as follows:
“[In] Hoodooism, anythin’ da’ chew do is de plan of God undastan’, God have somepin to do wit evah’ thin’ you do if it’s good or bad, He’s got somepin to do wit it . . . jis what’s fo’ you, you’ll git it.”[12]
Not only is God’s providence a factor in hoodoo practice, but hoodoo thought understands God, himself, as the archetypal hoodoo doctor. On this matter Hurston stated, “The way we tell it, hoodoo started way back there before everything. Six days of magic spells and mighty words and the world with its elements above and below was made.”[13] From this perspective, biblical figures are often recast as hoodoo doctors and the Bible becomes a source of conjurational spells and is, itself, used as a protective talisman.[14]
The goal of hoodoo is to allow people access to supernatural forces to improve their daily lives by gaining power in many areas of life, including luck, money, love, divination, revenge, health, employment, and necromancy. Due to hoodoo’s great emphasis on an individual’s magical power, its basic principles of working are generally felt to be easily adapted for use based on one’s desires, inclination and habits.
Hoodoo and Voodoo are often mistaken for one another. Some believe that the terms may have a common etymology. Simply put, Voodoo is a religion, whereas Hoodoo is a group of magical practices.
Check the next few posts for more depth on this: (plus a fun self test!)
