Finished?

The Christmas before last, in 2006, My mom got me, at my urging, the box set of the first three volumes of Edward Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: the Everyman edition, in hardcover. Though I started reading it that very day, it was an off and on affair, and I just finished it today. Yay! I have read the first three volumes (out of six) of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire!

Or did I? See, after finishing reading the book, I wanted to know what happened next. So after checking out a used book store, I went to the Library and checked out the lamentably abridged version of the whole work, and I was suprised to find that this volume includes chapters 36 and 37 as part of Volume III. But my Everyman edition ends on chapter 35! So, did I miss out on two chapters? Did Everyman gyp me? If so, for shame, Everyman! On the other hand, maybe there is no clear consensus on the division between the Volumes. So now I have the abirdged version checked out, which does not excite me the way the unabirged version does. It seems to basically just be Gibbon, and it's nice that it interposes the dates of events that happen, something that Gibbon doesn't actually bother to do, so you have to keep checking the table of contents or just allowing events to floating in an etherous solution of possible years. But it baiscailly condenses by just leaving huge chunks of texts out, and I see the brackets denoting the omissions and think, I would like to read that! The Everyman edition is selling for 45 dollars or so on Amazon, which is kind of a pretty penny. But it's just hard to work myself up over an abridgement.

On the other hand, at the used bookstore I splurged and spent 17 bucks on four William Gibson novels, just because they were there and I haven't read them. Gibson is right now the only author other than Joyce (A few nights ago I read the first ten pages of Finnegans Wake out loud to myself. It's actually becoming more and more clear wat's supposed to be going on, which is both kind of cool and kind of scary) that I like to read just for the texture of the prose, and not having fresh, new Gibson around to read is kind of stifling, so I wanted to have the books here, as a kind of rainy day type of thing. This means I am now only missing two Gibson books, All Tomarrow's Parties and Spook Country. And I have listened to the audiobook of Spook Country. Need to get that one. I really like Hollis, but the narrator's voice gets in the way, I feel. He does this deep breathy voice whenever he does her dialogue, which sounds off, and the intonation is also all wrong. Really, audiobooks are annoying if it's not the author. Gibson in particular, seemed to really nail Neuromancer the one time I heard him read the opening. It sounded perfectly realized and evoked, even thoughGibson sounds nothing like the characters. He just has the emphasis in the sentences all right.

And sometimes audiobooks just seem to comepletely miss the point. I kind of wanted to hear the audiobook for Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, but I found the authorial voice of the novel so feminine, somehow, that I didn't want to listen to it read by a male voice. I mean, sure, most of the characters are men, but it seemed important that most of the men be funneled through a feminine voice; it seemed like the narrator's humourous tone towards the male character was very much the things women find funny about men, not the things men find funny about men. Whenever I read it, I always hear a woman's voice. But maybe that's just knowledge of the "author" playing with me. I know the writer is named Susanna, I hear a voice that could come from someone named Susanna.

Funny, I don't feel like a hear a specific voice whenever I read male author's. I don't feel like that is a tone of voice in books written by men at all.

Casting Couch: Neuromancer

So, they are making a Neuromancer movie. I don't know how I feel about it. Apparently the director is the guy behind the "Toxic" video and the movie Torque, which is bad, but he also did the video for "Knights of Cydonia", which was pretty awesome. My general opinion of most music video directors is that they are hungrey young things taking work to get work who dream of getting their personal dream project. Hey, maybe this will be Joseph Kahn's personal dream project.

Hayden as Case? Eh, I don't know. Christiensen seems more just incredibly uneven to me than necessarily bad, but I don't like his track record. Case is either an incredibly easy character to play—blank, empty brooder—or an incredibly difficult role to play—just what is going on under that blank exterior? Can it be conveyed while still being blank? (Oddly, despite much belly-aching from the io9 commenters, I actually think that (a younger) Keanu would have been just right for Case. I have always thought Keanu is less blank than stoic; there's things going on in his head, but it's hard for it to get across—exactly like with Case. And Case seems kind of gruff and short with people, and Keanu's gruff voice would seem to fit really well for that.) I am just not sure Christiensen can pull off the more complicated version of Case, and his tendency to come off as petulanet would work against Case's gruffness. But then, Case isn't exactly tough either. That's Molly. He's at least naturally pretty enough to buy that Molly would take an interest in him even though he's a half-dead drug addict. (Although I think one of the reasons that Molly became "interested" in him was as much a part strengthening their ties to each other compared to their ties to their controller. Molly was creating an insurance policy against a possible double-cross from Armitage).

Speaking of Molly, that's the casting decision that I see as crucial to the movie's success. cast the wrong pop starlet and the character will just not work. Change the character to fit the actress and the story on't work. Personally I my tentative pick would be Nora Zehetner, who was on Heroes for a while. Her character wasn't for the most part any like Molly, except in the flashbacks, where despite being petite she was able to convey coldness. I think she could do Molly's casual cruelty well, and the voice fits, all casual and low-pitched. Basically, she seems capable of conveying both Molly's maks as well as what is going on underneath (mostly occasional regret, not remorse). Also she has the correct, dancer's frame. Molly just doesn't work unless you cast someone who looks a bit like an acrobat. Someone like Hayden Peniatierre would just look wrong. Too tiny and stumpy.

Also, she has big eyes, would give the make-up department plenty of room to work with in coming up with permanent mirrorshades that don't restrict facial movement. More important than you would think.

For the rest of the cast? I would go with William Fichtner, (last seen getting perforated by the Joker) who does brooding military man intensity on the edge of snapping better than anyone. Thomas Haden Church would be an acceptable substitute. The Finn seems like a no-brainer Steve Buscemi role. Old Julie would be a fun Peter O'Toole cameo. Or maybe Michael Gambon? Maelcum? Um, Malcolm Jamal-Warner? He has dreadlocks. I think that Owen Wilson would be great as Riviera. Beautiful with a broken nose? Also, he once played a serial killer in something, (The Minus Man?) and I heard he was good. James Franco would also be good, (I still remeber that smile as he's eating pie in the mostly crappy Spiderman 3) as would Heath Ledger, if he wasn't dead. Actually, Franco would be fun as Lupus Yonderboy. They better have Lupus Yonderboy!

God, I hope they don't fuck this one up.

Edwards

So today during break at work, I find the channel, previously set to the awesome Batman Begins (goddamn I am loving those Nolan/Bale Batman movies these days) set to some news channel, reporting on the latest news, the Edwards controversy. I am still a little uncertain of all that has occurred, but I gleamed then, and gleamed later, that Edwards admitted to having an affair with the woman from the whole love child rumors, that he is denying that the baby is his, and that his family has known about it since 2006. Shit. As I said to my co-worker, I guess this means he's out of the running for vice president.

I have been kicking around a bit of the left blogosphere, and a couple of broad motifs are poping up. 1) Fuck Mickey Kaus (even though he was (generally) right about all this). 2) I feel sorry for Elizabeth. 3)Fuck Edwards, this was politically risky. 4) Fuck Elizabeth too, I can't beleive they ran a campaign knowing this was out there. 5)Goddamn, we dodged a bullet. 6) Various asscovering excuses for verbal assults on espousers of the rumor before it was confirmed.

Personally, in my own small petty way, I feel kind of vindicated in that, though my faith was often tempted, Obama was always my favorite of the Big Three in the Dem primary. Sure, it's probably just the Illinois bias that did it, but still, I picked not only the winning horse, but the right horse. Bill had to many shady business deals for Hillary to be viable, and if Edwards had been the nominee now, we would have been fucked for no reason. Somehow, we lucked out and got the super devoted family man. Seriously, for a bit of hubris, here, I will go all in (mark it!): There will never be a personaly scandal involving Barack Obama. The man simply cares to much about the concept of family. I read his book, trust me. My take is that Barack Obama, because of his own upbringing, and because, I think, he was conditioned to approahc situations as a kind of objective, analytical observer, places unquantifiable value on his family unit as a source of identity. It's the value of the impossible dream. I think Barack Obama thought he would never get a stable, "normal" life, and so he feels incredibly blessed that he was able to get one. Watch that father's day speech. The man really really cares, on an almost primordial level, about his role as the father in his family. And hell, Michelle? The accumulation of anecdotal evidence I have come across leads me incontroveribly to the conclusion that those two are just incredibly protective of one another. I just don't see anything coming between them. They are a team.

But then, I thought John and Elizabeth were a team. And maybe they are. But still, this completely changes the understanding of the dynamic at work. We are no longer dealing with two faithful soulmates. So what are we dealing with? The quality was changed.

And I think the anger, or sense of betrayal, in the blogs is right. Whether or not it is fair, adultery is something that must be factored into politics, and the hiding of it is dangerous, and can effect the lives of other people. Whether it is fair or not, had this come out now , it would had lost the election, and that makes it irresponsible. Sure, it's a double standard for democrats. But if you want to be a democrat, that doesn't mean you can have affairs. It's that nature of the Game that you can't. Complaining about it at this point is like plaing chess and complaining that White always gets to go first. Of course white gets to got first! That's the rules asshole. If you don't like it, don't play black! Me, I like to play black. I like getting something to react to right off the bat. I like the limitations. But if you don't, you are playing the wrong game. Go play something else. And for God's sake, don't play something that might fuck up my life when you lose.

Casting Couch: Neverwhere!

Is there anything as fun as trying to figure out who should play the characters in one of your favorite books? Yes, but those are not things I have been doing since I woke up. Today, Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman!

While Neverwhere actually kind of started out as a BBC television miniseries, meaning it has already been filmed once, that show doesn't really capture the grandeur of the book version. Meaning there's space for a big-budget Hollywood movie version. But who to play in it?

Richard Mayhew—I kind of see James McAvoy in this part, although I think when I first read it a I saw someone like Ben Chaplin, I think he is too old for the part now. Lots of points for McAvoy, though. For one, he's Scottish, just like Mayhew, so no need to fiddle with his accent. Also, he has a kind of unassuming disposition, and though I haven't seen Wanted yet, I assume he can carry of the role of the unlikely action hero, or the role of the almost but not quite an action hero. Also, it's the lead, and he has some star power that could launch such a project.

Door—A tricky role, since age is appearance is so important. You need someone who simultaneously possesses childlike innocense and some degree of muturity, and is actually quite possibly an adult. Also, she has to be kind of pixieish, without being a manic pixie dream type or anything. Oh, and red hair. Really, really, red hair. So, though I haven't actually seen her in anything, I am going to go with Rachel Hurd-Wood, who played Wendy in that last Peter Pan remake, and was in Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, a movie I really want to get around to seeing sometime soon. Basically, she looks exactly like Door, seems, from the Perfume photos on IMBD to possess the self-possession necessary to play the actual hero of the story, and hey, she worked opposite Alan Rickman, so she has to be pretty good, right?

The marquis de Carabas—Hmm, a theatrical, cunning black Englishman of uncertain motives with hints of casual cruelty? Really, this part is so Chiwetel Ejiofor I was picturing him as I read it. It's like someone was just trying to come up with the ultimate part for Chiwetel to have fun with.

Hunter—Um, I really don't know who should play Hunter, but she is kind of important, so I still wanted to include a spot. You could really cast Halle Berry for all I care with this part. Sophie Okonedo? Freema Agyman?

Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar—Hard. My two favorite characters in the book. For Mr. Vandemar, I would go with Ian Whyte, the 7'2" Welshman who played the Predators in the recent Predator movies. For one, he's 7'2," and not as a result of Gigantism. He seems perfectly porportioned. I calculated once that, since Mr. Vandemar is described as two and a half heads taller than Mr. Croup, and if Mr. Croup were, say, 5'6," and a head was about eight inches, then Mr. Vandemar is 7'2." In other words, in the book Mr. Vandemar is huge. Ian Whyte seems to be identitcally huge, and that is fortuitous. Also, Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar are described as looking like a fox and wolf together, and Ian looks suitably wolfish, even without makeup.

Mr. Croup is distinctly harder for me, as he is my favorite character in the book, and consequently the most higly focused in my mind, and no actor really looks like that image. However, having given it some thought today, I think Michael Sheen would do the part justice. Like Ian, Sheen is Welsh, and I have always thought it preferable that these two have similar accents. They are a duo! (And I always found it disconcerting in the BBC version that Mr. Vandemar had the same accent as Richard Mayhew; there should be no familiarity between those two.) Sheen is also not to tall—IMDB lists him as 5'9," so he would probably have to take his shoes off when doing scenes opposite McAvoy—that the height differential between Croup and Vandemar wouldn't be lost. He can obviously play vicous characters, as he did in Underworld, as well as cerbral types, so I see him as perfectly capable of pulling off the specific quirks of Mr. Croup. And damn if he doesn't look like a fox.

Islington—Sinead O'Connor. I love Sinead O'Connor. Islington needs to be larger than life, ethereally beautiful,yet neither female nor male. Reading the book, I always pictured it as bald, white-skinned almost to the point of translucence, and with a voice that was as ethereal as it was. Sinead is very good as pulling of the bald look, has the beauty for it, and there is no realy reason to cast one sex or another with androgynous characters. But really, I am also kind of thinking about character here. Though I haven't seen her turn as a foul-mouthed virgin Mary in The Butcher Boy, He songs are actually really well-played emotional peices, and display the exact range needed paly both angelic gentleness and angelic wrath. Anyone who can sing "Troy" the way she does can play the former angel of Atlantis. I can't wait to hear her scream "They deserved it!"

Robocop

I just got done watching Robocop for the first time. Good movie. Fun movie. Slight movie. Actually, I was kind of amazed how insubstantial the plot was; the film only clocked in at 104 minutes, which compared to something like The Dark Knight, around 150, is pretty short for an action movie. I mean, the movie is basically about a guy who dies in the line of duty and then becomes and empty cyborg, get revenge on his killers and reclaims his identity, even though he has no real contact with it. There really isn't much plot, just a bunch of setting that subtly satirizes modern America. The kind of critiques that, unfortunately, are still very very valid, although probably a bit simplistic for our times. There is definately room for a sequal, which I think is written by Frank Miller, and I kind of want to see, since I saw it already, but years ago, and I remember liking it, although I think it didn't get the best reviews. It's just that the first movie doesn't really do much other than setup, though in an enjoyable way, and you leave it kind of wanting to see more of the concept.

Unrelated to anything, I got kind of a cyberpunk feel off of the issues raised in it, or at least in the issues that could have been raised by it, but were really just kind of hinted at. The whole mind-body kind of thing, and what is the self: could it be downloaded, or is there something more emepheral about it? What makes a person a person, and not just a robot? That kind of thing.

Shit. Now I need to start watching that Ghost in the Machine series.