Hello, friends. Just a quick update on my reading: I found a copy of “The Old Man and the Sea” by Ernest Hemingway in the school library last Monday. I mentioned in my last post that I recently finished reading the Barrons Book Notes on the book, but not the novella itself. I wanted to read the original work so I could properly appreciate Hemingway’s strong, strikingly simple language. I looked for a copy of the book in Bookmooch and in National Bookstore but found none, and in retrospect, I wonder why I didn’t think to look in a library first.

At any rate, after stumbling upon the book, I decided to get myself a library card just so I could take it out. Never mind that this is the first time I bothered to get a library card and that I’m graduating in four or five months. I finished it today, and, unsurprisingly, I must say I enjoyed it very much.

After I returned the novella (four days before it was due—huzzah!), I went back to reading “Dreams From My Father”, Barack Obama’s poignant memoir. However, upon coming across J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” while going through the small collection of classic novels our library had, I decided to take it out. Hopefully I’ll be able to finish it before the weekend is over. “Dreams From My Father” will have to wait.

Actually, it might have to for a long time yet. “The Jane Austen Book Club“, which I was able to watch months ago on HBO, piqued my interest in Jane Austen, and the library has all her works (I think), so after “Catcher in the Rye”, I’m planning on going through as many Austens as I can.

You will notice that I’m just beginning to discover the classics, which is quite odd for a high school senior who labels himself a writer. I’m not sure I’ve talked about it so much yet, but I was introduced to leisure reading very abruptly. While many other bookworms of my generation entered the world of novels through Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew and their ilk, for me it was “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown, about three years ago. Since finishing TDVC, I’ve read four of his five novels (I haven’t gotten around to buying “The Lost Symbol” yet—I’m waiting for the paperback version). After that I moved to Steve Berry (a less recognizable name, but he writes the same genre as Brown), and then to Coelho (deep stuff), and then a little Sidney Sheldon. It was only when Sir Jay gave me his copy of The Old Man and the Sea’s Barron Book Notes to read that I realized, “Why haven’t I gone through the really important works yet?”

Better late than never, I guess. Now, considering the breadth of English literature, it will probably take me a long time to go through the more enduring works, so if you want to suggest certain novels or works for me to read, I’d appreciate it.

Oh, and if you would for some reason or other like to see what books I have/am/am planning to read, visit me on Goodreads.

***

My fearless forecast for Manny Pacquiao’s impending bout with Miguel Cotto: Manny will lose. Whether by knockout or by numbers, I can’t say, but my gut feeling (which I myself have learned to trust with caution) tells me he will come home defeated.

This prediction was made solely by observing how both Manny’s and his mother Dionisia’s heads have swelled up recently. Here’s hoping Cotto knocks some sense into them.

Consider it, then, an earnest, well-meaning wish instead of a forecast: I hope Manny loses, for his sake.

#

Book cover of “The Old Man and the Sea” obtained from Wikipedia. Not used for commercial purposes. No copyright infringement intended.

Slate Magazine‘s Dana Stevens doesn’t think much of Angels & Demons (2009, Ron Howard).  In her review, she says that “instead of having Hanks and his love interest stand around in a series of dusty churches,” Director Ron Howard “has them rush really fast through a series of dusty churches.” A.O. Scott, in his critique in the New York Times, thought the movie was “not particularly good” and pointed out that its “utter silliness” could be “either its fatal flaw or its saving grace”.

So the big-name film critics essentially dismissed the film adaptation of Robert Langdon’s first adventure as a so-so work, lacking luster when compared to other blockbusters. With that assessment in consideration, I walked into my local mall’s cinema yesterday, popcorn in one hand and Coke in the other, wary that I would be sorely disappointed.

As soon as the story began to unfold, however, I found myself disagreeing with the meager critiques the movie earned. I was only mildly excited about the plot itself largely because I’d already read the novel (although I was interested in how the book would translate into the big screen—would it be how I imagined it to be, or would I be treated to an entirely different interpretation of the novel?). What got me hooked were the subtle nuances to the enchanting and mysterious Vatican City (particularly  its well-observed rites of conclave), as well as the astute incorporation of the majesty and splendor of Rome—its Bernini sculptures, Raphael chapels and all. Ron Howard did a good job in making sure that the ancient rites of the conclave—the event around which the entire story revolves—were not neglected in the movie, at the same time keeping the overtones subtle to make way for Langdon and Vetra’s wild dash across Rome. With the sealing of the doors, the registering, canvassing and burning of the ballots, and even the new pope’s donning of his vestments, the film easily wins over those who, such as myself, were drawn to the novel for its sneaky incorporation of ancient Vatican tradition.

What can one make of the mad dashes through Rome’s ancient churches? They’re nothing to rave about, really—unless you’re into gory murders. Throughout most of the chase through the four altars of science, Langdon and Vetra are cruelly one step behind the preferiti‘s assassin, getting to the murder scenes just after the bells ring to mark the hour and just after another cardinal is murdered. After discovering a body, they oddly mill about the scene of the crime for a while before realizing, “Holy crap, we need to look for a clue that’ll lead us to the next altar! Now that we’ve killed some time—time we badly need—by making chitchat in this ancient church, we won’t be able to save the next cardinal from certain doom!” How conveniently to the detriment of the protagonists, one would think, but the discontinuous rush is heinously to the detriment of the moviegoer, too.

I must commend Tom Hanks’ performance in the film. Although I’ve had my qualms about him taking on the symbologist’s role, he portrayed the character quite well. The Robert Langdon of the movie was the Robert Langdon of the novel—a man enthralled in history (watch him bite his finger in excitement as they approach the Vatican archives) and whose eerie cleverness with obscure, well-hidden symbols makes you smirk.

Ayelet Zurer could’ve been more seductive, though. All she did throughout the movie was tail Robert in her conservative outfit (in the book, Vittoria wore skimpy shorts). She wasn’t so much a love interest as she was a sidekick sleuth who spit out facts Langdon already knew about.

Ewan McGregor’s performance as camerlengo was excellent, in my opinion. He was perfect for the role. His simple garments and somewhat diminutive stature made him stand out amidst the sea of flowing red robes. There was a certain resoluteness in his face and in his attitude that underscored the importance of his role, before and after his father’s death: as a faithful chamberlain who stood in the sidelines and as a man of power (if only temporary power) upon whom the Holy See was entrusted.

To sum it up: judging from the relative indifference of many a respected movie critic, Angels & Demons as a movie in itself is nothing more than unremarkable. On the other hand, I think many of those who’ve read the book will enjoy its silverscreen counterpart. Ron Howard did a commendable job at masterfully transferring Dan Brown’s gripping narrative to film, respecting the many clever, little devices that made the novel compelling while implementing his own cinematic wizardry to concoct a stomachable if not applaudable motion picture.

Ancient rituals, a mysterious scientific organization, and a mad dash through the Holy See and the Eternal City—Angels & Demons didn’t fail to please this Dan Brown fan. In spite of the fact that I still can’t quite wrap my head around Robert Langdon being played by Tom Hanks (whatever happened to Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed?), and that they sadly omitted the novel’s final scene from the movie, I nonetheless give Angels & Demons a deantastic A.

***

The MTRCB gave Angels & Demons an R-13 rating—the same rating they handed to The Da Vinci Code. While I believe that TDVC should’ve been marked PG-13, I understand why they decided to restrict A&D‘s audience. It certainly isn’t for the faint of heart, what with the gorish brandings and gruesome deaths that are as graphic on film as they are in words. Don’t take your kids to see this one, and if you or your companion are a queasy symbology buff or Tom Hanks fan, you might want to consider bringing a sickness bag.