Eau de Toilette

Perfume, subtitled The Story of a Murderer, by Patrick Süskind is quite the read. It's a unique and original story of the life of a man told with exquisite detail, considering the subject matter.

Really, how good could you describe a particular scent to somebody? It's a challenge indeed, and Süskind's efforts of basing an entire story around just such descriptions is impressive.

The tale follows the life of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, born into complete and utter wretchedness, as a person who quite literally has no scent of his own, but who is paradoxically born with, also quite literally, the world's finest nose. Against absolutely all odds, he grows into the life of a journeyman perfumer on his own mission to create the world's greatest perfume. Oh, and one more thing, people are murdered.

The story is thoroughly absorbing, suspenseful and beautifully written. It's not a murder mystery per se, as there really isn't any mystery to the reader, but the trials and travails of anti-hero Grenouille make for an enthralling read.

Stardust

Stardust is a fantasy fairy tale that rather defies description. As a quick disclaimer, I knew next to nothing about it before watching it. Whether it was based on a book of some sort, I don't know, but it was largely original to me, and to good effect!

The film is often light-hearted, funny, and clever. It centers around inhabitants from the village of Wall and mysterious folk from the nearby fantasy realm on the other side of the wall for which the village is named. A young lad from the former, smitten with an object of his desire, sets off into the latter to fetch a fallen star in order to prove his love. An epic journey ensues involving an alternately hot and ugly Michelle Pfeiffer (it takes a LOT of makeup to render her unattractive, but they do succeed), and one fruity pirate played by De Niro.

I know that's a crap description, but really, just go rent it. It's really good, and you'll likely enjoy it!

Eagle Eye

Good action flick. Gotta hand it to Shia, the dude's been busy. We find him yet again on the silver screen, this time in the techno-thriller Eagle Eye. This film has undercurrents of both 1984 and Terminator running through it as a cautionary tale about big brother and the use of technology as a resource for crime control.

Let's see...things you've probably gathered from the trailer or the back of the video...

Shia's character is a relatively unassuming underachiever, doggy-paddling through life while others swim past him. He comes home one evening to find out he's been set up, in a big way, as a terrorist suspect. He's brought before Billy Bob Thornton who, for this movie (like almost all others) plays the part of Billy Bob Thornton giving a dramatic reading of his character's lines. Seriously, outside of Sling Blade, the dude's character is generally the same, perhaps modulating levels of lewdity. I digress... Shia's in big trouble, but, thanks to a mysterious caller who has tapped into and controls pretty much everything (electronic road signs, security cameras, phones, etc.), he is aided in his escape. Monaghan's character is similarly "recruited" by this mysterious phone caller.

So, who is the caller? How do they know so much about our two protagonists? Is the caller working for good or evil?

Some parts of the movie do defy belief, but, overall, it's a good solid thriller. The action is pretty well non-stop. The main mystery is resolved in good dramatic fashion with follow-up back story that explains how it all began. I'd certainly recommend it for a viewing and have to say that, generally speaking, I've been enjoying the characters that Shia's been inhabiting. Good stuff.

Beyond this point, here be spoilers! Arrrrrrr....

Now, in my book, suspending belief seems to come in two flavors at the movies. There is the "stuff that is written into the story that works because it's part of the universe the story is playing out in," and then there's the "huh??? that seems like it was contrived because they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to get out."

This movie has 'em both...the first one, which is minor and mostly me just being a dork. The super-computer is the bad guy. There. I said it. How bad? Well, it decides, based on the founding documents of the US, that it is obligated to take out the ENTIRE executive branch all the way down the line of succession. The manner it chooses to do this is pretty wild. Remember, this is a computer. The goal of these things is to analyze problems and find the best solution. So, this thing architects a tremendously complicated plot when I could think of a dozen ways the computer likely would've REALLY done it. It totally would've made for a much shorter and totally lame movie though...so, like I said, minor quibbling.

The bad one though was when they asked us to believe that this super-evil-computer could automagically break power lines!!! Yes. You read that right. Our heroes met up with another pawn in the computer's evil game under some high voltage power lines. He wasn't supposed to take off running, but he freaked out and did so anyway. The computer then caused two lines to break off and fry the dude. Really. That was, for me, the major bad spot in this film. That took me right out of the story for a bit. I'd still recommend it, but really...can't believe they wrote that in.

REM, Mad Max, & James Lovelock

James Lovelock's career as an independent scientist has long been one of that kook on the fringe that respectable scientists tended to point and sneer at, likely while chanting something like "Nya nya your hypotheses are stooopid!!!" (this is sooo commonplace in science departments around the world, or so the documentary TV series "The Big Bang Theory" would have me believe)

But then, as also seems reasonably common in science, some of his theories and projections started looking none too crazy in retrospect. All of a sudden that kook didn't look so kooky and independent verification started to align itself with the views he'd held all along.

With that background in mind I read The Revenge of Gaia, and here I must say, if there was ever a time for this guy to be off his rocker, I hope this is it. The picture he paints here is of the sort where Mad Max could relocate from the "Action" section to "Documentaries". He refers to himself as a pessimistic optimist, and to that extent he does hold out a small glimmer of hope that humanity could - if they get their act together in very short order - slow down the inevitable misery coming down the pipe from an increasingly hostile planet. Notice I didn't say "keep going on as before," or "fix things," but merely slow down the inevitable problems by acting, quite suddenly, in a seriously environmentally friendly manner. So, we're screwed, but we could potentially slow down the rate at which the final boot falls by acting as one society in the interest of the planet.

Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as Lovelock the pessimist, but a quick look around the world at political events and it's not hard to see that, by these measures, civilization is full-tilt pedal-to-the-metal heading for extinction. Like I said earlier, boy I hope this guy is wrong.

This book touches on topics of agri-business, alternative energies (wind, solar, bio-fuels), nuclear, polar ice, ocean temperatures, and many others with the intent of painting the planet as a living self-regulating system. Lovelock's views of many energy alternatives such as wind and solar are a mixture of too-little-too-late and not a viable and realistic alternative. He provides a strong argument for nuclear power, widespread, and ASAP. He discusses the lip service paid over the years by politicians and governments to environmental goals and how these are ultimately unproductive efforts.

I thought the book was well written, informative, and it compels me to seek out further reading on climate change and alternative energies. As for the science presented, well, I'm not a climatologist nor an expert on any of the other topics discussed. As mentioned earlier, I base part of my analysis on Lovelock's reputation for hitting this stuff fairly close to the mark. Certainly, I can look at the current political climate and see governments jockeying for profits and business opportunities and I feel comfortable agreeing that they do not have the long-term health of humans as a species or the planet at heart. Society is very much on the "what's in it for me and mine" track and we haven't shown the ability as a species to change that.

I would recommend this book. I'd also recommend, as should always be recommended when it comes to science (and any other topic for that matter), doing further research from a myriad of sources to form a more complete picture. For myself anyway, that's the plan. There is a gut feeling, which I will freely admit is terribly UNscientific, but which sits there as I see various things both local and global of humanity's use and misuse of planet Earth. It's not a stretch to imagine Lovelock's vision coming to pass.