eve lande

evieditelle@gmail.com

Here was a weighty subject which, if she could but lay hold of it, would certainly keep her whole hour; and at the end she found herself reading sentences twice over with an intense consciousness of many things, but not of any one thing contained in the text. This was hopeless.

Middlemarch. Now finished and starting a sci-fi book which is thus far in stark contrast, “remilitarized zone” references and new ways of measuring time, etc.

From: http://logger.believermag.com/post/92536440939/the-place-makes-everyone-a-gambler

Is this:

This idea of Los Angeles’ massive communal roll of the dice is essential to Didion’s understanding of the city, that cloud on the land, and especially the entertainment industry. “The place makes everyone a gambler,” she writes in her essay “In Hollywood.” “Its spirit is speedy, obsessive, immaterial.” She describes how “the deal” or “the action,” the way the project is financed and who profits from it, is the true story of any movie, and it’s over before production even begins: “the picture is but the by-product of the action.” She even goes so far as to write off any attempt at film criticism because “a finished picture defies all attempts to analyze what makes it work or not work: the responsibility for its every frame is clouded not only in the accidents and compromises of production but in the clauses of its financing.”

Working in the line of work I do, I similarly feel the financing stage of film production and its politics can permeate the on-set mood and final product.

BIT PARTS. PART 1 / YAKUZA / POLLACK

BIT PARTS. PART 1 / YAKUZA / POLLACK

theparisreview:

Saul Bass’s rejected poster concepts for The Shining, including handwritten notes by director Stanley Kubrick. (via)

I love the blatant comments: “Hand and bike are too irrelevant” ha!

DAD

DAD

Further to below, I didn’t realise pieces on ‘relatable’ was such a thing! Evidently I am not usually quiet enough at work to go into that articles hole and see these fads and indulge … but I am right now, so more here:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/04/24/the-relatable-fallacy/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/04/11/relatable_the_adjective_is_everywhere_in_high_scchool_and_college_discussions.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/magazine/15onlanguage.html?_r=0

There is a part of this debate that interests me for that skimming grabbing key words internet age faux engaged fear I have for myself at times.

"But to demand that a work be “relatable” expresses a different expectation: that the work itself be somehow accommodating to, or reflective of, the experience of the reader or viewer. The reader or viewer remains passive in the face of the book or movie or play: she expects the work to be done for her. If the concept of identification suggested that an individual experiences a work as a mirror in which he might recognize himself, the notion of relatability implies that the work in question serves like a selfie: a flattering confirmation of an individual’s solipsism…..

…But to reject any work because we feel that it does not reflect us in a shape that we can easily recognize—because it does not exempt us from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy—is our own failure. It’s a failure that has been dispiritingly sanctioned by the rise of “relatable.” In creating a new word and embracing its self-involved implications, we have circumscribed our own critical capacities…..”

taken from this article:

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/scourge-relatability

Under The Skin / Glazer

Under The Skin / Glazer