rococo shoes

shoes

Posted using ShareThis

I really find them interesting to look at. Especially the shape. I think the practicality of the heal, but at the same time the delicacy of the material… what they must have looked like.

LAC New York Trip p1

This year I finally went on the New York Trip with the Liberal Arts College. I’ve been invited to go along numerous times while I was pursuing my Theatre degree, but was always unable to go because of time constraints. I was very excited to be going down. I only deviated from the trip by staying with my boyfriend instead of with the group.

Here are some reactions and reflections:

Day 1: The Bus Ride down

We all met to depart early in the morning and there was some delay waiting for one student to arrive. It fun to see how excited everyone was. I’ve been fortunate to go down many times during the past year to visit my boyfriend, so the novelty of going to a new celebrated city for the first time has faded. But the excitement, as well as the colds on the bus, were contagious. Once we arrived I left the group to meet with said boyfriend and made him dinner. I went to Trader Joes, my favourite grocery store in the world. I made a simple dinner because I was tuckered out from the long (9 hours) drive down: Linguini with Vodka Sauce with a baguette and salad with italian dressing.

Day 2: Met and Cloisters and Mamet

This was the third time I’ve been Met, and each experience so far has been different. The first time was overwhelming, the second was romantic given the special exhibit was on Italian Renaissance Art and done over the Valentine’s weekend, and now the third was very educational and illuminating.

Our art history professor concentrated on Medieval Art, especially sculpture for the Virgin Mary and Child and the difference in the representation throughout the period. We also saw a detail that I never noticed before: unmotivated movement in drapery on statue. When on my own I used that time to explore the the Greek and Roman Art in order to see the different styles first hand that I’ve been looking at in pictures all of this semester.

A small group of us ate on the Met steps, I had two hot dogs from a Street vendor. Which was tasty but I’m certain wasn’t the best choice, but the quickest. Then we went off to the Cloisters.

That was a definite first for me. It was interesting and beautiful. Although I have to say by the time we got there I had a few moments of feeling “museum-ed out”. But that quickly faded as we started to explored and learn. Seeing images that we had seen in class up close with a professor speaking with us was the interesting. Walking around the museum felt like a time warp. The most memorable were:

• Tomb Effigies: Seeing the stone, and shape of the people who had died was beautiful but also eery.
• Bonnefont Cloister garden: this was the moment of time travel for me. I’ve been always been interested in Paganism, and it’s place in history  so seeing so-called magical plants up close was fun.
• The Unicorn Tapestries: They made me sad, and affected me. The images of conquest, attack, capture- they made me feel for this creature. We were told of that it was a representation of X, but that didn’t change my reaction. A lot of people expressed that it was beautiful but I couldn’t get past my first reaction.

After we left the Cloisters, myself and a small group of students went to TKTS. The majority went to see Chicago, but myself and a new friend went to see the revival of David Mamet’s Oleanna at the Golden Theatre. This two-hander starred Julia Stiles as Carol, and Bill Pullman as her professor John. As a fan of Stiles, I was excited to see her perform live. The power play on stage was- well wasn’t balanced, or reflective of the Mamet’s work. Carol is suppose to be seen as confused, and John to be strong. And for that power to shift throughout the play. But Stile’s is defiant and strong, and it’s hard to feel as if she truly is falling apart. In contrast John seems to be a victim of Carol in the first scene. The dynamics were off. Even the blocking, seemed to be stagnant. But overall it was a satisfying play, and interesting to watch the struggle between the two characters.

Move over Twilight

Vampires are back in a big way. Not since Buffy, Angel, and Blade has bloodsucker-mania been so big. Much of the thanks-or blame-must go to Twilight. Twilight is the hit book-to-movie explosion that has the tween-to-teen set buying everything related.

But credit is long due to Dead Until Dark, the first book in the Sookie Stackhouse series by Charlaine Harris, which has spawned the hit HBO series True Blood. Small town. Girl meets boy. Boy is a vampire. Love ensues. Some people don’t approve. Love conquers all?

Luckily this series isn’t that simple. The series is set in the fictional town of Bon Temps, Louisiana. It’s erotic, and violent. If you thought Twilight was too tame, this might be for you.

In this world vampires are out of the coffin, so to speak, drinking synthetic blood made in Japan, and living among … the living. Sookie is a sassy waitress who is also a mind reader. Bill is the new vampire in town. They court in old fashion Southern style—and local murders are the only complication.

Just be warned: the first book is the entire plot for the first season of True Blood.

3.5/5

This article was published March 24th 2009 from the Link and can be found in their archive.

The Age Old Question: How Old is too Old?

The moment after I first watch Breakfast at Tiffany’s, I knew I had to watch all of Audrey Hepburn’s films. Sabrina. Funny Face. Roman Holiday. Charade. My Fair Lady.  Children’s Hour. I’ve been impressed by all of them. I recently joined Zip.ca, and received one of the films I had never seen or heard of; Love in the Afternoon.

Paris. Love story. Maurice Chevalier is a gem as he plays Hepburn’s private eye father, who keeps an eye on all of the love affairs around town. Hepburn stars as Ariane, a cellist who is wrapped up in the tales of love and betrayal she reads in her fathers files. She seems to have a childlike, inexperienced in love character. You can still see her hiding in the tree as a young Sabrina Fairchild in Sabrina- instead of the 28 year old woman she is.

It’s delightful. Shot beautifully and comically by Billy Wilder. It embodies Paris.

But…

The romantic lead is Gary Cooper. Normally not a problem, I loved him in Mr.Deeds Goes to Town. But that was when it was the 1930s, and he was 30 something. In 1957 when Love in the Afternoon is produced, he is 56 years old- literally twice Ms. Hepburn’s age. You simply can’t get over that the age difference.

One might question why this bothers one so much, when in Sabrina, which I loved, Hepburn’s love interest in Humphrey Bogart. At the time he was 55 and she was 24. Or even Fred Astaire- who was 58 when she was 28 in Funny Face.

Well I would argue a few things: a) Ariane stays young and playful, and doesn’t mature as Sabrina or Jo Stockton (Funny Face) does, and b) Cooper simply didn’t age as well as Bogart. Bogart’s characters were usually rough in one way or another and seemed to age well- but Cooper, especially in this instance played the youthful man- and it’s difficult to buy him as an American ladies man in Paris. And finally- c) Fred Astaire- he can sing and dance- and the love between the two comes more from comedy than seduction.

Over all it seems the answer to the question is… Gary Cooper was just too old. And didn’t have chemistry with Audrey Hepburn at all.

Young Actresses as Icons in Glamour

Alexis Bledel as Rosie the Riveter in Glamour

Read more here