Missing the Cute One

Sir Paul McCartney is playing FedEx Field this Saturday and I'm totally bummed that I have to miss it. He gives great concert. I do have this interview to console me, though.

Or I can watch him back at the Ed Sullivan Theater:

Not an Easy read

I started reading Beyond Band of Brothers recently; it's the war memoir of Dick Winters, one of the men followed in Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers and basically the main character in the miniseries. It provides a bit of Winters's background, but largely covers the same events we saw in BoB.

I gave up in the middle. Mostly because the book was due to the library, but I wasn't motivated to renew it. As much as it pains me to say it, but I couldn't get in to the book...and worse than that, I didn't really like the Winters I saw in the book. Not that I don't think he was brave, but there was an arrogance running through that I have to believe was his coauthor's, because the Winters I've heard in interviews didn't really come off this way.

A lot of it was stuff about how the paratroopers were the best! So much better than, God forbid, regular enlisted men. And don't even get him started on replacements! One of the things I was never comfortable with in the miniseries was how the guys who were in Easy from their training days at Toccoa treated the replacements, and Beyond BoB does nothing to make me more comfortable. I honestly don't see anything honorable with treating those guys badly, and there is nothing to be proud of in talking about how you don't sit with them at company reunions. I mean, really? I can understand why Winters and that original group would be closer than they would be toward guys who came in later, but it still comes off badly. And it's fine to be proud of your company, but it's not cool to bash everyone else fighting. I mean, what about the guys who had been fighting in, say, Africa since 1942? Easy spent 2+ years training--which is great, but not everyone had that luxury. Plus, this attitude contradicts the frequent claims of being just a humble soldier.

It's almost like Winters isn't human, almost. In seeing interviews with him, he comes off as warm, and Damian Lewis's portrayal gave him that element, which just does not translate in this book.

I may need to go back and rewatch some episodes of the miniseries; I prefer that Winters (and the Winters of Ambrose's book--which makes me continue to place some of the blame on the coauthor's shoulders) to the Winters in this book.

Barb and the Penultimate Harry Potter

Naturally, I saw Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince pretty much as soon as I could (Thursday night). And I liked it. A lot. I did find myself slightly incapacitated by the fact that I haven't read the book since the day it came out, to the point where I had to look up whether they had created a character for the movie. (No.)

Overall, it was enjoyable. I thought that Tom Felton, who plays Draco, did a great job. I found the costumes of Lavendar Brown confusing. (Is she in some weird 1980s alternate universe?) I'm not sure how I feel about some changes at the movie's climax, and am a bit sad about the excising of a big battle--though I can understand why they cut it, seeing how it's a lot of action after the big emotional moment. Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe both did wonderfully in their scenes where their characters are under the influence of potions--totally hilarious.

One thing that bothered me is the lack of flashbacks. Now, it has been a while since I've read the book, but my big memory of it is the flashbacks. I remember it as a nice interlude between the emotional fifth and seventh books. The movie is too, but I miss that backstory. I enjoyed the third movie (Prisoner of Azkaban), but for me, it failed on a certain level by the almost complete lack of backstory of Harry's parents and their friends. That story is what made that book resonate for me...and it was gone. No matter how great Cuaron did and how cool Gary Oldman did (and David Thewlis--Lupin is one of my favorite characters in the Potterverse), the movie failed for me because of that depth.

Obviously the movies have to focus more on the action, but I really, really miss those backstories, for all of them--Harry's parents, Tom Riddle, Dumbledore. I like the movies, but they really only scratch the surface of the world.

However, I now desperately want to reread all of the books. And probably rewatch the movies. I just need to finish the books I have out of the library first! /frustration

Of adaptations and awesome talk show appearances

So apparently Michael Gambon, the actor who's played Dumbledore since the third Harry Potter movie, hasn't read any of the books. And neither have Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) or Alan Rickman (Snape). As actors, they don't want the books to influence them--they want to rely solely on the script. Which is fine, I guess, though it's not like they'd be watching another actor play the part--they can't steal anyone's ideas except the author's, which doesn't really seem like a bad idea. It bothers me in Gambon's case, though, because there's a piece of Dumbledore that seems to be missing; I can't quite put my finger on it, but some of his empathy and whimsy or something isn't there. He does fine, but I feel like the movie version of Dumbledore just isn't as great as the book version. Fiennes and Rickman are both fine in their roles, but neither role is as complex, really, as Dumbledore--or, at least, have as much that's not in the script. I think Gambon's missing out by not reading the books, and I think the audience is missing out because of it.

In other news, I am kind of in love with Daniel Radcliffe now.

Movies I Want to See This Summer

If I somehow manage to see the movie, I'll scratch it out. Hopefully I'll do better than earlier this year, when a ton of movies I wanted to see came out, and I managed to see, like, none. Good job! (Well, I saved money, at least.)

Star Trek
Up
The Hangover
Public Enemies
The Proposal
I Love You, Beth Cooper
Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince
(500) Days of Summer
Funny People
Julie & Julie
The Time Traveler's Wife
Inglourious Basterds

Another Lincoln assassination book

So back in January I wrote about a book signing I went to for a book about the Lincoln assassination. I finally got around to actually reading the book. And...it was pretty good. I was surprised, though, that all the reviews on Amazon were 5 stars. I mean, it wasn't that good. So I wound up writing my own review, which I was going to quote liberally here, but it hasn't been approved yet and I can't access it. Argh! I was annoyed that I couldn't give it 3.5 stars, which I really wanted to. It doesn't seem 4-star worthy, but is better than 3 stars.

In any case, it didn't help that I was going into the book with a negative impression. The book was good. What I think Pitch did best was give a great illustration of Washington, DC in April 1865. What he did more than other authors writing about the Lincoln assassination is use original sources from regular DC citizens, so there's a lot of depth to his story. He describes the illuminations celebrating the defeat of Richmond and Lee's surrender wonderfully. Throughout the book, no matter what he was talking about, he used diaries and letters to give readers a fabulous picture of what was going on--it's a great book to get the feel of life in Washington at the end of the Civil War. And Pitch gets kudos for that; I really liked that aspect of it.

I also really enjoyed that Pitch managed to cover the entire assassination--from threats on Lincoln coming into the city for his first inauguration to John Surratt's trial to Johnson pardoning the three surviving conspirators before he left office. The problem is that the book is only 400 pages long. For example, in writing about the trial, he goes into a lot of detail about what the people on trial had to deal with, which is great, and impressions of the media and spectators, also interesting, but lacks details of what actually went on during the trial. You know, evidence. Testimony. That sort of thing. If I have one big question about the Lincoln assassination and its aftermath, it's "Why did they wind up putting on trial the people they did?" Specficially I'm talking about poor Ned Spangler, who worked at Ford's Theatre. Booth rode up to the theatre, told Spangler to hold the horse, Spangler handed the reins to someone else. The end! So how did he wind up on trial and not, say, Thomas Jones, who harbored Booth and Herold in a pine thicket for days, knowing full well what Booth did? I mean, nobody probably knows at this point. Clearly I need to write the book about this pressing topic. But anyway. I'd like to know the content of the trial a bit, not just that women in the crowd were fascinated by Lewis Payne/Powell.

Plus, the book loses points with me for not going into detail about Boston Corbett, the soldier who killed Booth. Seriously, the dude castrated himself. How do you leave that out of a book? It's just wrong, I tell you.

And Pitch continues to come across as a little too self-congratulatory. In the acknowledgments, he goes on about how it took him 9 years and he wanted to quit, but his daughter, who doesn't care about history!, and his agent were both all, "No! You must keep going! I'm only partway through the manuscript and am moved to tears!" Look, I get it. These books are a labor of love. Give yourself a pat on the back and move on.

So, in general, points for giving readers a good idea of the region and for covering all aspects; I did learn new stuff, particularly about the chase of John Surratt. But, overall, it didn't go into enough depth. Points for being a good overview, though.

(Also, you should see the pictures from my usher appreciation night at Ford's last week. I got to see into the box!)

Ben's looking for some fireworks

I like reading the comics on holidays to see which comics address the fact that it is a holiday, and see which choose to ignore it. I don't have a preference; I just find it interesting. Today, it seemed that most comics ignored that it's Independence Day. But what really amused me was that not one, but two strips decided to commemorate the day by making a "Ben Franklin was a horny beast" joke:

Frank & Ernest

and Mother Goose & Grimm

It's not that I disagree with the characterization, it's just really funny that that's how the artists decided to acknowledge the holiday. Screw your work on the Declaration, Ben! You were a hound! Happy 4th!

(Apropos of nothing, the Frank & Ernest Ben is cuter, don't you think?)