Braddy Reads The Killer Angels

So I'm in a book club that is composed of far more women than men. We met last night to discuss July's selection, Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels. First words anyone said about the novel? "I thought this would be a book the guys would love."

Sadly, I'm not really one of "the guys." I've never had a fantasy football team. My high school gym credit was covered by Social Dance. And, frankly, I was not all that excited to read The Killer Angels.

I was actually pretty biased against the book from the beginning. A while back, I read another fascinating book on the American Civil War, called Race and Reunion, where the author posited that the way the Civil War has been remembered set back the civil rights issue by nearly a hundred years.

Basically, in an attempt to reconcile the damage done by a divisive war, the American people chose to remember the war as a test of the nation's mettle, an honorable meeting of gentlemen soldiers, rather than a war to define the freedom of a repressed people. As a result, when people discussed the Civil War, they spoke only of the valor of the soldiers, while the plight of the slave who was supposedly freed by the war was ignored.

The Killer Angels mostly avoids the issue of slavery in its discussion of the Civil War. One black character appears for maybe four pages - a barely literate runaway described in almost animal terms - to illustrate how complex the issue was for both North and South, but no blacks appear in the story again. Frankly, as an avid "white guiltist," I was pretty upset with how the race issue was completely glossed over.

But that was me judging ONE book based on the opinion a DIFFERENT book thought I should adopt. So maybe I was being a little unfair.

I had to learn to accept that the book was intended to show the valor and courage of men on both sides of the conflict. It wasn't about the race issue because, in the middle of the conflict itself, the issues weren't all that important. This isn't a book about ideals and policies. It's about soldiers.

And, with that in mind, the book's a success. The Battle of Gettysburg is presented from the point of view of several different soldiers, each one given a distinct voice by the author. The reader comes to feel for each of these individuals as their inner turmoil is laid bare.

Of course, that raises the issue of how could a novelist KNOW what these men were thinking over 100 years after the fact, but I'll save that discussion for later.

In the end, The Killer Angels isn't my type of book, but it was well-written, well-researched, and worth diving into.

On the Opposite End of the Hitchcock Scale...

...there's Birdemic.

Last week I settled down with a bunch of friends to watch Birdemic, a film legendary for it's... well, horrifyingly low quality. And as far as bad movies go, I can't say that I've ever seen worse. Birdemic has got some of the worst production values I have ever seen. Ever.

I mean, the CG birds look like they came from After Dark.

I'm pretty sure you can still see the orange tips on the guns people shoot:

Overall, the film has all the crisp video clarity of a low-budget porno... or, um, so I hear.

Speaking of "porn" (please don't read too much into that, Mom), I don't think I've ever laughed harder than I did during the "love scene" in Birdemic. We see our two lovebirds shacked up in some third-class hotel. As they snuggle down for the night, the camera pans tastefully down to their feet, where we see...

...that our lovely leading lady has been running around in the parking lot outside.

Oh, and then there's the music, which mostly sounds like someone made MIDI files of the bass track of several popular songs - like John Lennon's "Imagine," for example.

Really, we could talk about all the terrible aspects of Birdemic and be here all day. Seriously, if you took all this movie's faults and laid them out flat, to look at it all would somehow take longer than it takes to actually WATCH the movie.

Which, by the way, you should never do.

This may sound strange coming from someone who (almost) unironically called Shark Night 3D the best movie of 2011, but something about the way Birdemic was put together REALLY rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was the outright theft of classic music. Maybe it was the less-than-YouTube camerawork. Maybe it was the complete insanity of the presumption that somehow global warming causes birds to explode acid.

Actually, I can sum it all up to one word: effort.

See, even when a movie (like Shark Night 3D) KNOWS it's going to be bad, the production staff can still turn the movie into an enjoyable experience. Bad writing can be spiced up with a tongue-in-cheek tone. Bad effects can be played up for their cheesiness. Movie makers can give the audience SOME sign that they're in on the joke.

That's what I loved about Shark Night 3D. Everything about the movie - from the camerawork to the performances to the plot itself (I STILL go ga-ga for the concept of "shark snuff films") - indicated that the minds behind the film were trying to make an enjoyable movie experience, if not a particularly QUALITY one. Birdemic, on the other hand, takes itself ENTIRELY too seriously without ANY of the skills it would take to back it up.

And, yes, I mean skills. Surprisingly, as much fun as I had watching Birdemic, I was ultimately kind of offended that this movie, which gave no indication that it was actually TRYING, achieved some sort of cult status. The actors phoned in every line, the plot was poorly thought out and formulaic, and the camerawork was so amateurish it actually sent my filmmaking friend into spasms of physical pain.

If I got the impression that Birdemic was some kind of labor of love, I think I'd be a bit more generous in my evaluation. Of course, if Birdemic HAD been a labor of love, there is NO WAY its mother would let it come outside dressed like it is.

Catching Up with the Classics: Vertigo

Still working on plugging up those holes in my movie history knowledge. I think this is the last Hitchcock film I can count towards completing my goal, although I'll definitely be coming back for more. Heck, I might even watch The Birds again.

Of course, that might just be to wash the taste of Birdemic out of my brain.

I'll admit I was a little disappointed in Vertigo. Some scenes were genius - especially poor ol' Jimmy Stewart's dream sequence, but, all in all, I found myself getting BORED.

The bulk of the movie is just watching Mr. Stewart trailing a woman he's been hired to stalk. There are a lot of driving scenes and almost no dialog. I spent about 30 seconds wondering what the woman was up to, and then another two minutes asleep on the couch.

Sorry, Mr. Hitchcock, but you're just not that good at suspense.

Like the rest of Hitchcock's films - and really the suspense genre in general - Vertigo gets a twist ending that's the REAL payoff. Sometimes, a film endures even when you know the twist ending. Psycho, for example, has a lot of very compelling acting and memorable scenes that are a joy to watch even when you know the twist. Unfortunately, Vertigo just wasn't as compelling. The twist was good, I guess, but the ending felt far too abrupt - there wasn't really enough time to process it. You almost missed the fact that you'd been fooled.

I'm not saying Vertigo was BAD at all. Neither, for the record, is The Sixth Sense. I don't feel a strong urge to watch EITHER of those films again.

The Morality of Fiction

I spend a lot of time reading books and watching movies, probably more time than I should really cop to on the internet where (I hear) ladies have been known to spend some time. Truth is, though, I love fiction.

There's a morality behind every story told. I would wager that the vast majority of storytellers - be they writers, artists, or actors - imagine that they're a force for good in the world. I don't know anyone who writes stories with an intent to harm. Stories are written to entertain, to motivate, and, on occasion, to teach.

Of course, some stories are more competent at teaching than others...

If you're wondering whether I'm really so petty that I would snipe at a random Facebook wall post... well, you have your answer now, don't you?

Brave - A Movie Not About Toasters

I remember a lot of buzz surrounding Brave. People seemed equal parts excited and concerned that Pixar was putting out a female-led story. Now that the movie's out, it seems to be doing very well, but there's been a lot of finger-wagging. "The movie's competent," they say, "but it doesn't feel like Pixar."

I got a chance to see the movie on Saturday of last week, and I've got quite a few thoughts on the matter. I'll say right off, though, that Pixar's Brave is probably the number 2 movie that I've seen so far this year, beating out The Avengers easily and losing only a little ground to that OTHER movie about a girl with a bow.

Above: Antz and A Bug's Life

It seems to me that the critique I'm hearing most about Brave is that it's not as good as Toy Story, to which I say, "...Really?"

Sure, when it came out, Toy Story was a revelation. Toy Story was the first fully CG feature-length film, and it wowed everyone. It had a heartwarming story about courage, friendship, and blahblahblah, and the story appealed to children and adults alike, even with the prominent protagonist playthings.

Of course, everything looked like it was made out of plastic. Now, when you're dealing with action figures, that's not so bad. I WISH real action figures looked as good as the toys in the Toy Story movies. However, when you look at the people...

Sid's a terrifying creature, but that's not necessarily his design - he's pretty snugly nested in the uncanny valley. The ability to animate humans in CG has improved dramatically over the years. Take another look at Brave's Merida.

She's obviously not life-like, but there's a stronger sense of stylistic design with her character. The departures from realistic norms - like the size of her head and neck - feel more like animation choices. The character designers weren't going for strict realism or abstract cartooning, but something in-between.

Oh, and can we talk about that character design for a minute? One of Brave's real victories, I think, is in it's non-conventional heroine. Compared to most leading ladies, Merida's a bit different - her hair's not perfect (in fact, it's wildly out of control), and her face isn't as elfin as most princesses. You still see a bit of baby fat. She's not really the "standard" of female beauty, yet she's still a beautiful character. And it's kinda refreshing to see a curly-haired character not freak out about the curls.

I guess the question is, then, is that enough? Brave doesn't really have the most original story - it's about as unique as every other fairy tale. Is it really enough to praise Brave for its unconventional protagonist when most of the rest of the story is formulaic?

Well, yes.

Don't get me wrong, MY idea for Brave would have been MUCH less derivative (think Predator meets White Fang with a female protagonist), but, for what it is, Brave does a fine job of telling a good story with fresh characters, great pacing, a rich environment, and a satisfying conclusion. What more could you ask for?

By the way, I will be accepting Kickstarter donations for my next project, Braver: The White Fanged Predator starting soon.

Cooking with Braddy: Cake Bites

Okay, hands up: Who's never heard of cake bites before?

Their a sweet looking dessert with a really simple underlying concept. Have you ever gone to a wedding reception or something, and you see the three-year-old kid eating their cake by the fistful? They don't break off pieces, but they mash the whole thing, frosting and all, into a ball and shove it in their mouths.

Basically, if the three-year-old washes their hands first and then dips them in chocolate, that's a cake bite.

My aunt brought a couple different kinds of cake bites to our Father's Day celebration, and we all kinda went nuts for them. They were delicious. So she ran off a couple recipes, and I decided to give them a try.

I felt a lot like that three-year-old mashing up the wedding cake. Seriously, you start by baking a cake.

Then you tear the cake to little pieces.

Then you mix it together and roll it all into little balls. And you do most of it by hand.

Of course, after the whole thing is done, you dip them all in chocolate and let them cool. They're pretty tasty.

I've got a batch of Cookies and Cream Cake Bites all done now. They turned out pretty well. There's a batch of Root Beer Float Cake Bites I still have to coat (and is there a more Utah-ded treat than "Root Beer Float Cake Bites"?).

Not too bad for a dessert invented by an antsy toddler.

Cooking With Braddy: Kadahi Chicken

Trying to do a web search for this recipe was frustrating - the only result that ever came back was for "kadai chicken." I'm pretty sure it's the same thing.

Now, you may notice that there's no garlic in the picture above. I noticed it, too. The author of the Mighty Spice Cookbook must not have, though, because he lauds this recipe for the simple flavor the garlic adds.

The author's not the only one to make a mistake, though. I wound up chopping the onion, ginger, and chile all at the same time and dumping them into a bowl together, when the recipe CLEARLY states that the garlic is to be sauteed first, and the other ingredients added later.

Oh, well, obvious errors aside, the recipe's a good one.

I hadn't ever tried cooking with turmeric before, but I knew about the spice already. Turmeric is the yellow spice. It colors EVERYTHING yellow (including my fingers, for the record).

The resulting dish has a great curry flavor, and made more than enough for several people. I only had one person to share it with, which left me with a ton to eat over the next several days. In fact, I still have some at home, so I think I'll help myself to one more portion.

Right after I clean up the kitchen.

It may be time for me to invest in a wok or something. I've never heard of a wok boiling over.