FILM: I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man is a fun and funny film which can probably stake the claim of being the first "brom-com". This has many of the ingredients of a good rom-com, but renovated around the trendy notion of "bromance". The story centers around Peter (Paul Rudd), the "perfect guy", who is soon to be married to a lovely girl Zooey. (So already, the rom-com formula is upside-down, as we're starting with a perfect happy couple.) But as Zooey is talking to her two BFF girlfriends about everything including wedding plans, they stumble onto the quandary of who is going to be Peter's best man, since he has no male friends. And from there the improbable and hilarious quest is launched of finding Peter a best friend to be his best man. Zooey and her girlfriends and Peter's Mom all set Peter up on various "man-dates", with amusingly dismal results, until Peter stumbles onto Sydney (Jason Segel). Sydney really gets Peter, and it's the start of a beautiful friendship. Until Peter starts spending so much time with Sydney that Zooey starts getting jealous. The whole farce has its finger on the contemporary pulse and skewers it in the style of L.A. Story. The earnestness of Paul Rudd and the natural goofy hipsterness of Jason Segel make for great chemistry. We left with big grins from this fun and original film.

FOOD: Lou on Vine

It's always fun to discover a new hidden gem of a restaurant. I'd been hearing about a place called Lou, on Vine, specializing in tasting-size pours of interesting wines, complimented by a farmer's market-inspired weekly-changing menu. (On the radio show Good Food, they've often found the chef, DJ Olsen, at the farmer's market and asked him what he's up to. It's always been mouth-watering.) So when we were looking for dinner after a movie at the Hollywood Arclight, I thought it'd be good to try Lou. I knew it was hidden in a strip mall, but this place is practically a speakeasy. Not only is it in an obscure corner upstaged by a dry cleaner, but they have a simple unlit sign, and they keep the front dark and the curtains drawn, given the place the appearance of being closed. Fortunately, we tried the door, fully expecting to find it locked, and surprised to find it open. Thru the door and pushing aside the curtains reveals a smallish space with a long common table down the middle and rows of banquette tables on either side. There's a blackboard listing the wines being poured (by the bottle, the regular glass, or the "taste") as well as the freshly made sausages, cheeses, and other specials. On one part, there's a chalk map of the US, with arrows pointing to the provenance of the various ingredients. There's also a small bar where you can enjoy wine while waiting for a table (which you should expect to do if you get there past 7pm on a Saturday night). The food was as marvelous as all those wonderfully fresh ingredients promised. I savored a Niman Ranch pork loin over mustard greens with wild mushrooms (chanterelles!) and gnocchi. We'll definitely be back here again.

FILM: Duplicity

We enjoyed watching the sparks fly as Julia Roberts and Clive Owen matched wits in Tony Gilroy's smart spy-vs-spy thriller romance Duplicity. Their volatile chemistry called to mind classics of the genre like Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn in Charade. The background for the high-stakes corporate espionage was hilariously brought to life by the antics of battling mega-CEOs Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, with the tone set in an opening sequence of the competitors physically wrestling one another in front of their appalled executive teams and their corporate jets. Gilroy's peel-back-the-onion style of revealing the story works fairly well to keep you wondering what's really going on, and who's really doing what to whom, although I had figured the final wrinkle before the end. Even so, it's a funny and suspenseful way to spend a Saturday night.

FILM: Sunshine Cleaning

Some movies defy easy description. Sunshine Cleaning definitely falls into that category. When I've tried to give a plot synopsis to people, I'm usually met with quizzical reactions: "Would I really enjoy seeing a movie about a struggling single mom who starts a bio-hazardous waste removal business with her slacker sister?" Yes. You would. It's a fresh, quirky character-driven story with some laughs and a lot of heart that transcends its unappealing-at-first-glance plot. It's kind of like Six Feet Under in that regard, you just have to see it. One big good reason to see the film: Amy Adams. She's been everywhere the last year or two, and we've loved her in Enchanted, Miss Pettigrew, and Doubt. Here she plays a much more down-to-earth character, still optimistic, but definitely not a princess or a nun, and with a lot more dimensionality, a hard-shelled pragmatism alloying her sunny side. Emily Blunt provides a great disfunctional sister character (think Claire, speaking of Six Feet Under) who has a heart buried under her cynicism, and Alan Arkin is charming as the outspoken grandfather full of schemes that never quite pan out. I enjoyed the original story, but what really sticks with me most are the scenes that really show off the characters more than move the plot: the grandfather encouraging his grandson about school, the grandson talking to a shopkeeper (sensitively played by Clifton Collins Jr.) making model airplanes, the sister taking her new friend "trestling", Amy Adams' moments of quiet desperation. And of course Amy Adams' reconciliation with her sister in the end is heart-warming, in a genuine and non-maudlin way. I'm very impressed with director Christine Jeffs and writer Megan Holley (her first film), and their original story with its quirky, genuine, and engaging characters.

BOOKS: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

I hadn't read Jonathan Safran Foer's first novel, but we loved the film version of Everything Is Illuminated, so I was intrigued to check out Foer's second novel, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I found it extremely moving and incredibly beautiful. I savored every word of it, often smiling or crying or both. Foer's story centers on Oskar, a 9-year old boy coming to grips with the loss of his father in the World Trade Center on 9/11, and what makes the story so transcendant is Foer's marvelously authentic first-person narrative, making the reader see and understand the world as such a boy would see it. I certainly saw flashes of my godson in him. Just as children sometimes in their innocence, undefiled by hackneyed turns of speech, will come up with superbly fresh metaphors and honest turns of phrase, the prose of Oskar's narrative is brimming with that kind of beauty and integrity. He's a precocious boy who's constantly coming up with inventions, and writing letters to all manner of people from Jane Goodall to Stephen Hawking. As a boy will, his narration occasionally veers into fantasy without warning, only to be regrounded by "well, that's what I wished I had done, what I really did was…" Oskar deals with his grief by embarking on a unique quest to systematically visit every person in New York named Black, searching for the lock that goes to an unusual key he found in his father's closet. His story is interleaved with the story of his grandparents, who both survived the Dresden bombing and re-met years later in New York. Most of their story comes out in letters they write to their son and to their godson, and it is often poignant to hear how two people can recall the same experience so differently. Their lives unfold in a timeline that jumps from their meeting in New York, to the present day, back to their childhood in Dresden, and back again, a chronological jumble that makes perfect emotional sense. In the fullness of the story we come to see how the events in their lives all relate, and how character traits may be a legacy between a grandfather, the son he never met, and his grandson. (It's only been in recent years I've come to appreciate how much of my parents are in me. I just wonder how Foer, who is much younger than me, came to be so wise about these things.)

I gather that the print version of this book made integral use of photos and graphics that I missed by listening to the audiobook. But I have to say that the readers of this audiobook did a splendid job. There were multiple actors voicing the main characters, and I think they really brought the characters to life. That's no mean trick, as Foer's characters are vivid and somehow authentic and slightly surreal at the same time. He has managed to create a world very like New York, but where the laws of time and reality are sometimes fluid, and which is somehow all the more real for that. His work reminds of the magical realism of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Isabel Allende. And reading this book was certainly a magical experience.

Bulgarini Gelato Artigianale

We are still faithful to our Friday night tradition of Pazzo Gelato in Silver Lake, so I feel a tinge of betrayal, but I must admit I have found an even more superior gelateria. I had been hearing tell for a while of a superlative gelateria tucked away in a rather random location behind an auto parts store in a nondescript strip mall in Altadena. It's not near anything, it's not open every day nor late nights, so you really have to make a special effort to get there. I finally had a good occasion to check it out when, with a burst of new year's resolve, I started riding my bike again, and found that its location made the perfect midpoint and high elevation point of a 36-mile loop from my house, perfect for a Sunday afternoon. My first sampling (and by the way, I love their petit scoops, which means you can try three flavors in the small cup) comprised banana, almond, and lemon custard. Each was an absolutely divine burst of fresh flavor. The banana was so flavorful that I wondered I wasn't eating Earth bananas that had just been pureed moments ago, and the almond had both the flavor and the texture that there was no question that select almonds had been freshly ground. And the lemon custard was a perfect balance of creamy and tart. Bulgarini is legendary for his passion about fresh, specially chosen ingredients, and his flavors change weekly as he obtains the best fruit and nuts from farmers per the season. His milk comes fresh from Broguiere's dairy in Montebello, and the gelato is crafted based on artisinal techniques he studied in Italy. (And he had to hunt around to find an old craftsman to study from, and most gelato isn't made the old-fashioned way anymore even in the old country.) I've had the delight of sampling his famous pistacchio only once. He insists on using only pistacchios that he personally selects from small farmers in Sicily, claiming that the California pistacchios just don't have the same flavor profile. The proof is in the product, with these marvelous pistacchios ground to a coarse meal, such that the gelato gives your tongue a double-delight of flavor and texture, approaching the experience of God revealing the essence of pistacchio through your senses to your soul. Alas, pistacchio gelato is finished until he makes another trip to Sicily.

Bulgarini also has a genius for flavor pairings. One Sunday, his tangerine gin granita and blackberry red wine gelato had me savoring each bite with my eyes closed in ecstasy. The next week, my mouth and mind were blown by an extraordinary marriage of rich dark chocolate and cayenne pepper. The flavors vary day to day and week to week, and I've enjoyed going in without preconceived desires, and just asking the thoughtful young man behind the counter what's fresh and new this week. The hand-written signs on the display case are in Italian, and they don't always match up to the actual flavors on offer anyway. I've learned to just ask him to tell me what I ought to try, and trust his recommendations. He's observed that unlike most regular customers who have favorite flavors they return to, I like to try new things, and when he sees me pull up on my bike, he's eager to tell me about the new flavors I might like. This afternoon, he steered me to a strawberry pepper granita, coffee gelato perfumed with anise, and a yogurt "al olio" which was a wonderfully tart yogurt gelato with fresh extra-virgin olive oil poured on it, an unexpected pairing that was just amazing. (He said the oil won't mix in to the gelato properly, so you just have to pour it on at the moment it's served.)

This extraordinary gelateria has definitely done wonders for my bike-riding motivation.

Prop 8 Challenge - Oral Argument Impressions

I'm wondering whether Thursday's oral arguments at the California Supreme Court in the challenge against Prop 8 set a new "ratings" record for a court proceeding. In addition to the packed courtroom, there were jumbotron TV screens set up for crowds at San Francisco and LA City Halls and an auditorium in West Hollywood, and the proceeding was streamed live on the Internet, where it was watched by countless more. That's certainly a good thing in terms of civic interest as well as court transparency. I'm also wondering how many of those people really understood what the case was about. Contrary to the common understanding, this was not a case about gay marriage. While gay marriage was at stake, it was not at issue. What was at issue was a procedural question about "revising" versus "amending" the constitution, and the underlying crucial philosophical questions about the purpose of a constitution and the meaning of inalienable rights.

All four of the attorneys for the petitioners were very good, but as with their briefs, I thought that Therese Stewart (representing the City and County of San Francisco) most eloquently expressed the core principles at issue. She expounded the centrality of the protection of minorities against the majority in the drafting of the Constitution, and the deliberate distinction between a revision and an amendment as the people intentionally restraining themselves through the Constitution. While the small body of precedent concerning amendment vs revision has focused on "quantitative" or "structural" changes, at least some of the Justices seemed to agree that this was a case of first impression on the question of an amendment abridging a fundamental right with respect to a suspect class (i.e., exactly the sort of thing that would get tossed on equal protection grounds if enacted as statute), and further, that the grounds for revision were not necessarily limited to the categories of quantitative or structural change. I thought Stewart got the heart of it when she stated that the purpose of the Constitution, particularly of its Equal Protection clause, and of its separation of powers (checks and balances) is to protect politically vulnerable minorities, which is why structural changes require the revision process. But to put this safeguard against tinkering with the constitutional protection mechanisms to ensure liberty, but not to safeguard against direct assaults on liberty, would be to "defend the moat while letting the castle burn". (Her written brief presents the argument more eloquently than I can here in a brief blog.)

Unfortunately, the Court seemed pretty skeptical of the revision argument, both from reluctance to forge new ground (which is what they were being asked to do) and from remaining unpersuaded that Prop 8 was such a significant assault on equal protection. That latter was crucially disappointing, as Justices George and Kennard seemed to have forgotten what they wrote so forcefully last year. Both of them made repeated comments to the effect that Prop 8 was not really abridging signficant substantive rights, but that it was really just tinkering with nomenclature. Huh? They spoke as if the decision last year had been about some quantitative disparity between the treatment of marriage and domestic partnership, when in fact the whole issue was whether a difference only in nomenclature was a significant impairment of equal protection. Chief Justice George wrote for pages and pages on why nomenclature matters. And now: eh, it's just a name. I expect it was just seasoned discretion on the part of the petitioners counsel not to quote the Justices own opinions to them (the one time Stewart started down that road, Justice Kennard got very defensive).

There was also the "novel theory" from the Attorney General, who didn't do anyone any favors by needlessly undermining the petitioners' theory while advancing a novel one of his own, and then sending an inexperienced and not-well-prepared underling to advocate it. Jerry Brown should have had the cojones to defend his theory himself, especially in such a high profile case. This seems like political thinking all around: flip sides to be where he thinks would be more popular with his base, but then send someone else to argue the case so he can distance himself from a failure. It would be one thing if he had a junior attorney on his staff who was a classical liberal zealot steeped in John Stuart Mill and the other classical philosophy in which the novel theory was grounded, who could have argued passionately. But the attorney he sent was clearly not that, and he stumbled painfully in defending an argument he himself seemed not to clearly understand. Some potentially interesting philosophical ground was broached in the question of "inalienable rights", which rights are inalienable, what exactly inalienable means. Alas, no good answers were given. And it doesn't help that the California Constitution, having been amended some 500 times (as was repeatedly remarked), is rather a jumble. As C.J. George noted, reading from Article I, Section 1 (the "bill of rights") of the California Constitution, it identifies liberty, property, and privacy among the "inalienable" rights, but the same section also includes the right to fish, and the right to travel navigable waterways. Do Californians really have an inalienable right to fish?

One thing I was glad for was an affirmation of something I have been saying all along: that Prop 8 does not nullify the Court's decision of last May, and that the findings of sexual orientation being a suspect class, and marriage being a fundamental right entitled to strict scrutiny with regard to equal protection questions -- all of that is still in full force and good law, regardless of what happens in this challenge. That point was made emphatically and repeatedly by several of the Justices (particularly George and Kennard), and was agreed to by the intervenor counsel. The Justices also referred to the "constitutionalization" of the equal marriage rights, which if I understand their meaning, means that even though it was the legislature who created domestic partnership and has given it all of the same rights of marriage, it would violate the Constitution to take any of those rights away.

I was glad to see that the implications of upholding Prop 8 (or more accurately, holding that the voters of California may abridge a fundamental right against a suspect class by a bare 50%+1 majority) were laid bare. Intervenor counsel Kenneth Starr freely admitted that by the theory he was arguing for, a bare majority of the voters could amend the Constitution in practically unlimited ways, including deleting the right of free speech from the California Constitution, or by amending the Constitution to prohibit any legislation protecting the rights of gays and lesbians. Justice George mused that the problem may well be that the California Constitution is too easily amended, but that's a problem that should be resolved politically. (Hello, Sacramento? Can we get a legislative initiative to revise the amendment process? Certainly all the same legislators who earlier this week voted for the resolution that Prop 8 should have been a revision should support the codification of the principle behind the instance.)

There was also some discussion of the "split the baby" proposition offered by Pepperdine law professors Kmiec and Saxer in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle. They ventured that the best way to reconcile the religious liberty interests of Proposition 8 with the equal protection interests of In Re Marriage Cases would be to have the state offer domestic partnerships to everyone and "marriage" (the nomenclature) to no one. Justice Chin was fascinated by this, and asked several of the attorneys whether that proposal would adequately resolve all of the issues at hand, and whether it was the province of the Court to impose that solution. Everyone (including Starr) agreed with the first part, but there was little enthusiasm for the second part (and a clear "no" from Starr).

I suppose we don't really know what the Justices are thinking, or what they will conclude, but for the most part they seemed surprisingly scrutable. It could be that they are merely masters at devil's advocacy, or it could be that they have pretty lousy poker faces. From what I saw, I concur with the consensus of observers that Prop 8 will be upheld, but the marriages that occurred within the legal window will also be upheld. That latter may even be unanimous. Starr seemed to be meeting skepticism all across the panel on that argument. (Just for the fun of prediction, I'll predict that Prop 8 is upheld 5-2, with Werdigar and Moreno in the minority, and the existing marriages are upheld unanimously.)

In the long run, upholding Prop 8 will be a good thing, as it will force us to win the political fight head on (which we're quite close to doing), rather than enabling the distraction of the "black-robed tyrants" complaint. And as a bonus, maybe this will even spur a revision of our state's out-of-control amendment process.

FILM: Two Lovers

This evening we subjected ourselves to the torturous romantic drama Two Lovers. Joaquin Phoenix and Gwyneth Paltrow both gave great performances as wrecking balls of disfunctionality that ruin each other and those around them. But do I really want to watch that? If this film has a lesson to offer, it is that when someone says "I love you because I feel like I really know you", they don't really know you at all, and you should run the other way. When Leonard (Phoenix) and Michelle (Paltrow) first realize that their windows are opposite each other, it's a cute romantic New York moment. But before long, Leonard's watching her from his window verges into psycho-stalker creepy. Operatic arias haunt the film, mostly from Cavalleria Rusticana (appropriate enough for the broken love triangles, or rather, quadrilaterals), giving an operatic gravitas to these messed-up souls and their psycho-drama, but the writers should have consulted Marta Domingo for an alternate ending in the style of La Rondine. What happened instead was really rather incredible and appalling.

BOOKS: The Expected One

For the last couple weeks, I've been enjoying reading The Expected One by Kathleen McGowan, an intriguing cross between Dan Brown and Elaine Pagels. McGowan's story has obvious similarities to The Da Vinci Code, dealing with the mysteries of a secret society dedicated to protecting the suppressed knowledge that Mary Magdalene was really the wife of Jesus Christ, and that there are blood line descendants even today. Like the Da Vinci Code, there are many secrets hidden in famous European works of art. If you enjoyed the Da Vinci Code, particularly if you enjoyed the exposition of how potentially explosive secrets have been hidden through history, then you should enjoy this book too. But while another Da Vinci Code would be fun, what really distinguishes The Expected One is the book within the book. I don't think I'm giving too much away to say that the "holy grail" in McGowan's story is not just the existence of the blood line, but the discovery of a whole new gospel, written by Mary Magdalene herself. While this new gospel doesn't explicitly contradict anything in the traditional gospels, it shines a whole new light on various aspects of Biblical characters and events, and very creatively fills in much of the untold back story. McGowan's reimagining of the machinations that could well have occurred between the Pharisees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Nazarenes, as well as King Herod and Pontius Pilate, leading up the crucifixion, were fascinating and thought-provoking. While her narrative does not challenge any core Christian beliefs, it will certainly challenge many people's conventional understanding of specific events, such as Pilate's fateful decision, and the role of Judas, as well as suggest a surprising back story involving the Marys, Pilate's wife, and Salome. (She even explains the vexing mystery of why nearly every named woman in Jesus's life is named Mary.) And in places where this new gospel parallels the existing ones, it sheds some intriguing new light. One point gives a great example of how the translation of a particular word can have huge implications. This gospel also adds some great Christian examples of faith and forgiveness worthy of a gospel. The outer modern story was engaging, and expounded some fascinating little-known history about a group called the Cathars in the middle ages, but it's the inner story that really makes this book worth reading.

STAGE: Pippin

I'd never seen Pippin before, although I've always liked some of the famous tunes from the show, so when I heard that the Mark Taper was mounting a production, I was eager to check it out. When I heard that it was a co-production with Deaf West Theatre, I was even more intrigued. I was quite taken with their last collaboration, Big River, a few years ago, and knew how extraordinarily creative that combination could be. On the surface of it, a musical put on by a theatre company dedicated to the deaf, and featuring a mixed cast of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing actors, sounds like a dubious proposition. But a bilingual (English and American Sign Language) staging can add a whole artistic dimension to the show. If you've seen a good signing of lyrics (the Gay Men's Chorus of LA concerts are always great for that), then you'll know how artfully expressive the signing can be. If done right, incorporating signing into a production is a significant addition, not a distraction. And this production really does it right. Several of the characters are played by deaf actors who have off-stage actors providing their voices, and Pippin is played by two on-stage actors, a primary deaf one and a vocal shadow (the notion of a sign-language interpreter turned upside-down), a technique used to great dramatic advantage. Pippin is given his voice by the magician in the beginning through a magic trick, smartly exploiting the magic theme to introduce the concept of two side-by-side actors playing one character. At times, the vocal double fades into the background as we watch the deaf primary actor while hearing the voice. Other times, the vocal double adds expression of his own physically as well as vocally. And on occasion, they talk to each other, embodying conflicting emotions within the character they both play. (In a way, it was reminiscent of the "daemon" concept in the Golden Compass novels I recently read.) The device was no mere device, but was made an integral part of the story, and it worked brilliantly.

The other aspect of this production that was totally inspired was a visual conceit of disembodied body parts running throughout the production. This appears in the very first number just as an eye-popping choreographic visual when two pairs of arms, tightly spot-lit, thrust up through an invisible seam in the stage floor and start signing to the music. These detached arms appear at various points throughout the show. During a bloody battle number, detached arms and legs are dropped onto the stage, and at the end of the battle, Pippin has a unique conversation with a severed head lying on the ground, and its nearby detached arm (which signs as the head speaks). Later, during Pippin's episode of hedonism, there's a racy boudoir scene where Pippin (both of them) is ravished by a fluid series of arms and torsoes popping out of and submerging back into the bed sheets. Even the canopy of the bed is comprised of beaux-arts nymph-like women's bodies. The whole visual was worthy of Jean Cocteau. This extended theme of detached body parts was marvelous on a pure visual level, while on a symbolic level beautifully underscoring Pippin's sense of incompleteness and the unfulfilling dreams he chases.

There were other lovely visuals as well. "Love Song" was made particularly memorable with the two falling-in-lovers uplit so that they threw large shadows as they faced each other and signed, at one point even spelling out L-O-V-E in ephemeral hand shadows. And the saucy cabaret choreography of "No Time At All" was great fun.

This top notch cast, in this inspired production, is working magic at the Mark Taper Forum.

I Admire Michael Phelps Even More

So Michael Phelps tried marijuana. Big deal. Millions of respectable Americans have smoked marijuana, including our President (who is undoubtedly not the first President to have inhaled, but is the first one to have honestly admitted it). Personally, I think it's a sign of intellectual curiosity. Michael Phelps is still a phenomenal athlete, with a well-earned triumphant Olympic performance, and by most accounts a nice guy to boot, so there's no reason we should stop regarding him with admiration. Moreover, he was admirable in the way he handled the situation, with a forthright honest admission (when many other people in the same situation might have tried to deny it) and an apology for his lapse of judgment. In my opinion, trying marijuana in itself was no lapse of judgment, but doing so while under contract as a role model probably was, since his actions included the risk of putting his sponsors in an awkward position. On the other hand, I think even role models should have some zone of privacy, and the ganef who sold that photo deserves to be sued for invasion of privacy. Kudos to Visa, Speedo, Omega, as well as the IOC, for standing by Phelps. Omega said it was "strongly committed" to its relationship with Phelps, calling his Beijing accomplishments "among the defining sporting achievements in the history of sport... The current story in the press involves Michael Phelps' private life and is, as far as Omega is concerned, a nonissue," the company said. That's exactly the right attitude. In shameful contrast, the sanctimonious santions from Kellogg (who dropped his sponsorship) and the USA Swimming team (who suspended him for three months) reflect poorly on them, not on Phelps. And that blowhard South Carolina sheriff who's making noises about pressing charges: what an ass.

FILM: He's Just Not That Into You

I enjoyed the "anti-rom-com" He's Just Not That Into You, a cute funny film illustrating Dan Savage's dictum that "every relationship you ever have will fail, until you find one that doesn't". The tangentially interwoven tales of women seeking romance humorously poke fun at all the stories we like to tell ourselves to survive the ordeal of dating, agonizing over "does he really like me?" and "when is he going to call?". The film purports itself to be an "anti-rom-com", and it does have its fun puncturing romantic notions, but in the end it's a rom-com after all. The film features a great ensemble cast of big stars and up-and-comers. Ginnifer Goodwin is charming as Gigi, the perennially-hopeful-despite-being-repeatedly-dumped girl, and Justin Long is equally charming as Alex, the cynical guy who keeps telling her how to tell when a guy is "just not that into you". We begin with Gigi falling hard for Conor (Kevin Connolly), who's just not that into her, because he really wants Scarlett Johanssen, who's blowing him off because she felt a spark in a grocery line with Bradley Cooper, who's married to Jennifer Connelly, who is office girlfriends with Gigi and Jennifer Anniston, who has everything but a ring with Ben Affleck, meanwhile Drew Barrymore convinces Conor (a realtor) to advertise in the gay weekly and pick up the business Baltimore's gentrifying gays. Needless to say, amusing comedy ensues. Nothing profound here (one can't expect profound films in January), but some good laugh-out loud moments.

BOOKS: Eat, Pray, Love

I recently finished Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. (I know, everybody was reading that last year, and I'm late to the party.) It turned out to be a terrific and enjoyable book, a unique travelog and spiritual journey bound up with a "chick-flick" plot of "oh, how will I ever get over this nasty divorce and subsequent messy break-up". I have to say, I was a bit wary at first, worried that it was going to be some hippie-dippie new-agey thing, and I was not reassured in the introduction when the author promised that her journey wasn't going to be some soft amorphous new-agey quest. (Such reassurances tend to have the opposite effect, like the line "this isn't a sales call", which is only ever spoken by telemarketers.) But I stayed with it, and eventually my hackles came down, and I really enjoyed the story as I got to know and trust the author better. On the audio version, the author reads her own book, and does a great job. When she slides into her more cynical side, she turns up her New York accent, which is somehow reassuring, an audible sign of her not taking herself too seriously. She also has a great ear for dialect, and does a good job of reproducing the speech patterns and accents of the various people she meets in Italy, India, and Indonesia. (The one chapter in which she recalls the patter of an old Italian man carrying on at a soccer game is a hoot, as is another chapter in which she captures her scattered trains of thought in her early attempts to meditate in an ashram.) And just as she found her sojourn in Italy, indulging in the simple pleasures of food and language, to be a necessary preparation for her more spiritual explorations in India, I found her stories of Italy, in which I got to know her and her situation, to be a good preparation for her accounts of the more spiritual part of her journey. Her time in the ashram was surprisingly down to earth at the same time as she was finding heaven. (It reminds me of hearing the Dalai Lama speak, and being impressed at how down to earth and pragmatic he was, constantly disappointing those who were expecting him to say more surreal things.) In all the places that she went, she met and befriended a variety of interesting characters, and captured them well in her prose, which is deliciously written. Her metaphors, whether describing the pain of a break-up, or the delight of the perfect pizza, are creative and vivid. It was truly a delight to read this book, and I was almost sorry when it ended. What a wonderfully creative and fulfilling way to get over a bad break-up!

World Postcard Quiz

I've run this fun world postcard quiz with friends at work and friends on Facebook. If you'd like to try it, you can view the postcards on Flickr. Can you identify these 25 places around the world? Try to do it without consulting any references (no Google, no Wikipedia, no Flickr browsing). For each, identify the subject of the photo and its location (city/country). Extra credit for any factoids you can add about the subject. You can email me privately with your answers, and I'll give you a score, or if you just want to see the answers yourself, click here and they will be revealed below. (I gave 2 points for identifying the subject, 1 point for the city, 1 point for the country, and 1 extra point for any decent factoid.

High scorers from my Facebook friends included:

* Mom and Dad (107, but they've been everywhere)

* Katy (who's been almost everywhere)

* Patrick (80 with lots of architectural extra credit)
* Bernie (74 who also named all the architects)
* Jo (71)

* George (69)
* Jason (67)

Here are the answers!

01 Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbor Bridge in the background. Sydney, Australia.
02 Temples at Abu Simbel in southern Egypt.
03 Golden Pavilion Temple, Kyoto, Japan.
04 Acropolis, Athens, Greece.
05 Trafalgar Square, London, England.
06 Angkor Wat, Angkor, Cambodia.
07 Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
08 Ayers Rock or Uluru, south of Alice Springs, Australia.
09 Forbidden City, Beijing, China.
10 Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain.
11 Library of Celsus, Ephesus, Turkey.
12 Basilique du Sacré-Cœur, Paris, France.
13 Tikal, Guatemala.
14 Winter Palace / Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia.
15 Iguazu Falls, border Brazil and Argentina.
16 Western Wall, Jerusalem, Israel.
17 Petra, Jordan.
18 Sugarloaf Mountain, Rio de Janiero, Brazil.
19 Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, Spain.
20 St. Peter's Basilica in St. Peter's Square, The Vatican (enclave in Rome, Italy).
21 Table Mountain, Capetown, South Africa.
22 Ghats on the river Ganges, Varanasi, India.
23 Gamla Stan, Stockholm, Sweden.
24 Bridge of Sighs, Venice, Italy.
25 Victoria Falls, Zambezi River, border Zambia and Zimbabwe.

BOOKS: His Dark Materials

I read the second and third books of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy back to back, so I don't think I can really comment separately on The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. I realy enjoyed the first book, The Golden Compass, finding it very creative and an exciting adventure. Finishing the trilogy, I realize that I didn't know the half of his creativity. The adventure kept on moving, keeping me gripped to the end, but the ideas he explores are bold and provocative. What happens when we die? Do we have souls? Does God exist, and is He good? I'd heard that these books were considered heretical by some, by I didn't realize the extent of it. From the point of view of organized Christianity, these books are profoundly heretical, far more so than the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons, even more than Satanic Verses is heretical for Muslims. The organized church in his book is a corrupt puritanical and power-hungry organization, with names like the Magisterium, the Consistory Court, and the Oblation Board making it a thinly veiled analogy of the Catholic Church. (The fictional church is based in Geneva, so it has Swiss Guards. Just how thin can the veil be?) His account of God, angels, and creation is revealed in the second and third books, and it is shocking. But what is most heretical is that he describes a world in which good and evil exist and people can be moral without needing a creator or an afterlife. Heaven is where we build it. All of this theology (or is it anti-theology?) is not dry philosophical prose, but is integrally woven into a fascinating fantasy of parallel worlds, intriguing characters, and a great battle between good and evil (though it's not always clear who is on which side until the end). One of the parallel worlds encountered is a very creative imagining of an alternate evolution. This trilogy is written as a fantasy for a youth audience, but like the latter Harry Potter books, deals with some dark themes that require a bit of maturity to appreciate. Unlike Harry Potter, where each of those books ended in a safe place, each of these books before the last one ends with things looking rather bleak. (In Hollywood's version of The Golden Compass, they had to twist the order of events to end on a more upbeat note.) But in the end, they really make you think about goodness and truth and self-sacrifice, and the meaning of life. I thoroughly enjoyed these books, but they are not for the theologically faint of heart.

Strict Textualism, So Help Me God

As has been widely reported, Chief Justice John Roberts messed up the words when adminstering the oath of office to Barack Obama at the presidential inauguration on Tuesday. The Chief Justice prompted Obama to say "execute the office of President to the United States faithfully" instead of "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States". For the sort of the folks who wished at all costs to disbelieve that Obama is in fact the President of the United States, this trivial technicality gave them a slender straw to clutch in denying that he is really the President. The oath is very explicitly specified in the US Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, where it states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Knowing that he would be dogged by this if left uncorrected (after all, look at how the tinfoil brigade refuse to let go the idea that Obama isn't a natural born citizen of the US), Obama and Roberts met on Thursday afternoon for a do-over. This time, the oath was said slowly, carefully, and correctly. The official announcements were careful not to acknowledge any claim that Tuesday's oath was insufficient, instead saying that the second oath was taken for "an abundance of caution". In at least two prior cases, with William H. Taft and with Herbert Hoover, the wording of the oath deviated in similarly insignificant ways from the constitutional text, and it was not deemed necessary to readminister it. However, I can respect the decision of Obama and Roberts do a retake, out of diligent respect for the strict text of the Constitution.

Now it seems that some feathers were ruffled because Obama did not have his left hand on a Bible for the do-over oath. Newsflash for those folks: the do-over was about hewing to the Constitution, which specifies the precise words for the oath, but does not say anything about having one's hand on any particular book. (It should be noted that Teddy Roosevelt did not swear his oath on a Bible, and John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law.) Anyone concerned with strict adherence to the Constitution should not be worried about the absence of a Bible. Instead, they ought to be concerned with the extra-Constitutional "so help me God" at the end of the oath. Now to be clear, I have no objection to the President adding that phrase unprompted after completing the oath. What I do object to is the Chief Justice deposing the President, "so help you God?", as if it were part of the constitutionally mandated oath. In Tuesday's oath, I found Roberts' tone at that point particularly creepy. He posed the question with such stern vehemence that it was clear there was a right and a wrong answer. I'm not sure how Roberts, supposedly a strict textualist, rationalizes his deposition of "so help you God", which is not only beyond his explicit brief in Article II, Section 1, but in apparent conflict with Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Inauguration

I watched this morning teary-eyed as Barack Obama took the oath of office, feeling a surge of pride in my country, that despite seemingly deep political and cultural rifts, we can rally together as a nation to witness a peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. Recent events in other parts of the world underscore just how precious and fragile that is. This is easily the most anticipated and celebrated inauguration of my lifetime.

My idiosyncratic thoughts and highlights:

Rick Warren's invocation.
I listened openly, and I found it gracious and hitting the right notes for the occasion.

"Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.
When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.
And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.
Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.
May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet."

I can say "amen" to all of that.
It felt a bit overly religious for an ecumenical occasion to recite the Lord's Prayer. (And I couldn't help but notice that Warren "trespasses". I was surprised to learn last year at a wedding of friends that some people forgive "debts" rather than "trespasses". The debt crowd get by with a heap fewer syllables, leaving us trespassers behind in a unison recitation.)

Air and Simple Gifts. What a beautiful piece, and how appropriate on so many levels. Composed by American composer John Williams, incorporating the famous Shaker hymn and harkening to another great American composer Aaron Copland. (I read later that a Copland piece was meant to be performed at Eisenhower's inauguration, but was dropped because some thought Copland was too liberal and might be a communist sympathizer. So much the better to correct that mistake and honor him today.) I love that our inauguration features a classical quartet. And what great symbolism in the composition of that quartet: a Jewish Israeli-American, a French-born Chinese-American, a black man from Chicago, and a woman from Venezuela, all coming together to make great music. What a great foreshadowing of a theme of Obama's speech.

The Oath.
"I, Barack Hussein Obama, …" No apologies or hiding his middle name. Hussein loud and clear. As it should be.

The Chief Justice is nervous. He's rushing, getting the words in the wrong order (as Ann Althouse cracked, so much for the CJ being a strict textualist), and they're tripping over each other. It reminded me of Charles and Diana's wedding, where she was nervous and got his middle names muddled. (Funny, I later read Andrew Sullivan had the same thought.)

The Speech.

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the Presidential oath." Hate to cavil, but while Obama is the 44th president, he's only the 43rd person to hold the office, as Grover Cleveland counted twice with Benjamin Harrison in between.


"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." This man promises to rise above the partisan ratrace. That's why I voted for him.

"... in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things" Another quibble, but this seems a gratuitous reference, as his point doesn't really fit with the context of the famous passage from Corinthians.

I'm loving the uplifting appeals to our great history combined with the challenge to live up to our promise.

"We will restore science to its rightful place…" Can I get an "amen"? Amen!

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.
But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."
Brilliant stuff. He's articulating a philosophy that recognizes both the promises and the pitfalls of government and of the market, moving beyond and above stale debates and false dichotomies of "pro-big-government" vs "pro-market".

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Amen!

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." My God, did he include "nonbelievers"? Yes he did! He could easily have left that out. But this man says what is right, without regard to whether it's popular or easy. I love that about him.

"We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." … To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." This strikes just the right notes of letting the world know we know the difference between reasonable Muslims and Islamist nutjobs, and we won't take crap from the latter.

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Robert Mugabe, we're looking at you.

"Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship." It's not "change versus traditional values", it's "change AND traditional values". His call to responsibility and service is inspiring.

His close was brilliant, recalling Washington at Valley Forge, acknowledging hard times ahead, while giving us inspiration to meet the challenge, calling us to our better selves.

I am full of hope for the four years ahead.

FILM: The Reader

I found The Reader an intriguing film, at times ponderous, but ultimately very thought-provoking. Through layered metaphors hung on the story of a young German man and an older woman whose lives are fatalistically intertwined, the film raises questions of how people can commit unthinkable acts, of trying to uncover the truth of long-past crimes, of how the guilt of complicity can cast a pall over a lifetime, of how a generation can reconcile itself to the irreconcilable. Needless to say, this is not an uplifting feel-good movie. But neither is it like any other Holocaust-themed film, because this film doesn't deal with the Holocaust itself, but with the shadow of the Holocaust on later German generations. There are no neat answers offered. Scenes of a war crimes tribunal cast doubt on the complete justice of the proceedings. A Holocaust survivor seems to have profited excessively from her memoir. And a man's life seems ruined by guilt for turning away when he could have countered an injustice. But the path through this moral wreckage is lit by fascinatingly enigmatic human characters. Kate Winslet is brilliant as the brusque and moody Hannah, while David Kross is outstanding as the young innocent Michael, and Ralph Fiennes brings just the right air of insularity and regret to the older Michael. The script and direction shone in some parts and got a bit ponderous in others. The early segment of the story was a wonderfully realized coming-of-age story, perfectly capturing the excitement and confusion of a teen's first love (while showing a delicious dose of beautiful skin). In the middle segment, a couple of courtroom scenes had memorable visuals -- Michael's sudden realization about Hannah, and Hannah's co-defendants smelling weakness and turning on her like a pack of wolves. But other parts seemed a bit flawed. The timeline seemed more jumbled than it needed to be (the viewer really needs to pay attention to keep the datelines straight). And a minor character, a law professor, was a bit surreal, and almost Yoda-like in his apparently wise but mostly impenetrable lines. The film, like the professor, seems full of meaning but it's hard to make out what exactly it's trying to say. Then there are the moral issues that the film doesn't intend to raise but may occur to its viewers, like whether we should have much sympathy for a Nazi prison guard and child molestor. But some movies are disturbing and good, and I think this was one of them.

Korean BBQ Taco Truck Food Rave

Yet another "only in LA" experience... this evening in Silver Lake, we stumbled upon some crazy Korean BBQ taco truck food rave that pops up in various parts of town. We were walking in Silver Lake after dinner at Alegria to get some gelato at Pazzo (mascarpone orange swirl this evening!), when we saw this taco truck with a huge crowd swarming around it. Then I saw the whiteboard specials -- tomatillo sesame French toast with goat cheese, kimchi quesadilla -- and knew this was no ordinary taco truck. It smelled good, but we were too full to eat dinner again. We talked to some folks, and they said this Kogi has a following, and you just catch their location from Twitter. Their "standard menu" features tacos with Korean BBQ contents (short ribs, spicy chicken or pork). The sidewalk was packed full of people chowing down. It's a food rave!

FILM: Valkyrie

Valkyrie is a thrilling portrayal of an attempt by some well-placed decent-minded Germans to assassinate Hitler during World War II. (The script is based reasonably closely on actual historical events and people.) Of course there is no suspense in the plot's ultimate failure, but it is amazing to see how it came about and how close it came to succeeding. Once the film got going, I was on the edge of my seat to the climax, and despite the advantage of historical hindsight, I still found myself silently urging the conspirators on. Tom Cruise does a fine job as the heroic Colonel von Stauffenberg, who ends up leading the plot when more senior men are less decisive. His role is mostly courageous man of action, which Cruise is seasoned at, but he also performs well in moments of restrained emotion, like saying goodbye to his wife, and trying to contact her in the end. The action-and-suspense experience of director Bryan Singer (of X-Men and Superman Returns fame) translates nicely into this historical thriller where the only superpowers are courage and integrity. His eye for the human elements compliments Christopher McQuarrie's script, which brings out the differing modes of engagement of the various conspirators, from Bill Nighy's risk-averse general to Eddie Izzard's reluctant collaborator, and Tom Wilkinson's masterfully playing both sides. This inspirational historical footnote is well worth seeing, a true profile in courage.