Dilettante's Diary

Dec 20/04

Who Do I Think I Am?
Index: Movies
Index: Writing
Index: Theatre
Index: Music
Index: Exhibitions
Artists' Blogs
Index: TV, Radio and Misc
MAY 27, 2024
Nov 3, 2023
Aug 2, 2023
July 4, 2023
Apr 21, 2023
Feb 10, 2023
Jan 24, 2023
Jan 11, 2023
Dec 2, 2022
July 26, 2022
July 4, 2022
June 2, 2022
March 25, 2022
March 11, 2022
Feb 14, 2022
Nov 19, 2021
Oct 2021
Sept 16, 2021
July 21, 2021
July 15, 2021
June 11, 2021
Apr 23, 2021
March 12, 2021
Feb 13, 2021
Jan 5, 2021
December 2020
Autumn Mysteries 2020
Aug 12/20
May 25/20
Apr 30/20
March 12/20
Dec 6/19
Jan 29/20
Nov 10/19
Oct 24/19
Sept 30/19
Aug 2/19
June 22/19
May 26/19
Apr 22/19
Feb 23/19
Jan 15/19
Dec 20/18
Dec 3/18
Oct 3/18
Sept 9/18
Aug 9/18
July 19/18
June 2/18
May 14/18
Apr 23/18
Feb 22/18
Dec 13/17
Nov 22/17
Nov 3/17
Oct 5/17
Sept 21/17
Aug 3/17
June 16/17
Mar 21/17
Feb 26/17
Feb 9/17
Jan 30/17
Dec 19/16
Dec 11/16
Nov 20/16
Sept 17/2016
Aug 21/16
July 17/16
June 29/16
June 2/16
Apr 23/16
Feb 28/16
Feb 1/16
Jan 27/16
Winter Reading 2016
Dec 15/15
Nov 19/15
Fall Reading 2015
Oct 29/15
Sept 16/15
Sept 4/15
July 29, 2015
July 1, 2015
June 7/15
Summer Reading 2015
May 19/15
Apr 30/15
Apr 19/15
Spring Reading 2015
March 23/15
March 11/15
Winter Reading 2015
Feb 20/15
Feb 8/15
Jan 29/15
Jan 20/15
Highs 'N Lows of 2014
Dec 19/14
Dec 2/14
Nov 10/14
Oct 29/14
Fall Reading 2014
Sept 17/14
Summer Reading 2014
Aug 22/14
Aug 8/14
July 11/14
June 16/14
May 28/14
Apr 30/14
Apr 16/14
Apr 2/14
March 21, 2014
March 13/14
Feb 11/14
Sept 23/13
Favourite Works: 2004-2013
Two Novels by BARBARA PYM
Sabbath's Theater by PHILIP ROTH
July 18/13
Summer Reading 2013
June 19/13
May 30/13
Spring Reading 2013
May 10/13
Apr 18/13
Mar 29/13
March 14, 2013
The Artist Project 2013
Feb 25/13
Winter Reading 2013
Feb 7/13
Jan 22/13
Jan 12/13
A Toast to 2012
Dec 19/12
Dec 16/12
Dec 4/12
Fall Reading 2012
Nov 17/12
Nov 6/12
Art Toronto 2012
Oct 23/12
Oct 4/12
Sept 28/12
Summer Reading 2012
Aug 26/12
Aug 8/12
Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition 2012
July 14/12
June 28/12
May 27/12
May 20/12
May 4/12
La Traviata: Met's Live HD Version
Apr 21/12
Apr 6/12
Mar 22/12
Mar 9/12
The Artist Project 2012
Academy Awards Show 2012
Feb 26/12
Feb 11/12
Jan 23/12
Jan 15/12
Jan 7/12
Dec 20/11
Dec 12/11
Nov 27/11
Nov 18/11
Nov 7/11
Art Toronto 2011
Oct 22/11
Oct 17/11
Sept 30, 2011
Summer Reading 2011
Aug 11/11
July 28, 2011
July 19/11
TOAE 2011
June 25/11
June 20/11
June 2/11
May 14/11
Apr 29/11
Toronto Art Expo 2011
Apr 11/11
March 24/11
The Artist Project 2011
March 11/11
Feb 23/11
Feb 7/11
Jan 21/11
Jan 17/11
Dec 21/10
Dec 6/10
Nov 11/10
Fall Reading 2010
Oct 22/10
Summer Reading 2010
Aug 9/10
Aug 2/10
TOAE 2010
July 16/10
The Shack
June 27/10
June 3/10
May 5/10
April 17/10
Mar 28/10
Mar 17/10
The Artist Project 2010
Toronto Art Expo 2010
Feb 22/10
Feb 3/10
Notables of '09
Jan 11/10
Dec 31/09
Dec 17/09
How Fiction Works
Nov 24/09
Sex for Saints
Nov 11/09
Oct 22/09
Oct 6/09
Sept 18/09
Aug 23/09
July 31/09
July 17/09
Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition 2009
Toronto Fringe 2009
Zen Wrapped In Karma Dipped In Chocolate
June 28/09
June 6/09
Myriad Mysteries 2009
May 10/09
CBC Radio -- "The New Two"
April 14/09
March 24/09
Toronto Art Expo '09
March 1/09
The Jesus Sayings
Feb 8/09
Jan 26/09
Jan 10/09
Stand-outs of 2008
Dec 24/08
Dec 4/08
Nov 16/08
Oct 27/08
Oct 16/08
Sept 26/08
Sept 5/08
July 21/08
Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition 08
July 5/08
June 23/08
June 4/08
May 18/08
May 4/08
April 16/08
March 26/08
Head to Head
Feb 26/08
Feb 13/08
Jan 30/08
Jan 17/08
Notables of 2007
Dec 30/07
Dec 8/07
Nov 22/07
Oct 25/07
Oct 4/07
Sept 18/07
Aug 29/07
Aug 8/07
Summer Mysteries '07
July 20/07
June 28/07
June 8/07
May 21/07
May 2/07
April 14/07
March 23/07
Toronto Art Expo 2007
March 8/07
Feb 16/07
Feb 2/07
Jan 24/07
Notables of 2006
Dec 27/06
December 11/06
November 28/06
Nov 8/06
October 14/06
Sept 22/06
Ring Psycho (Wagner on CBC Radio)
Sept 6/06
August 12/06
July 18/06
June 27/06
June 9/06
May 23/06
Me In Manhattan
May 2/06
April 12/06
March 17/06
March 9/06
Feb 16/06
Feb 1/06
Jan 11/06
Dec 31/05
Dec 12/05
Nov 25/05
Nov 4/05
Oct 24/05
Sept 7/05
Sept 16/05
Sept 1/05
Aug 10/05
July 21/05
Me and the Jays
July 10/05
June 15/05
May 18/05
April 27/05
April 18/05
April 8/05
March 21/05
Feb 28/05
Feb 21/05
Feb 4/05
Jan 28/05
Jan 19/05
Jan 5/05
About Me
Dec 20/04
Dec 5/04
OTHER STUFF: Art Exhibitions, Concerts, etc.

These are the reviews for the period ending  December 20/04. For the previous batch of reviews, go to the page for December 5/04. For reviews prior to that, check the page for the specific genre.

Reviewed Here:  In The Beginning Was The Worm (book); Sideways and Primer (movies); The Canadian Society of Painters in Watercolour and Yorkville Galleries (art shows).


In The Beginning Was The Worm: Finding the Secrets of Life in a Tiny Hermaphrodite by Andrew Brown, 2003 (Book)

     This title might strike an unwelcome note for people who have some respect for John’s gospel. I didn’t notice the pun until I had the book home from the library for about 24 hours. Maybe I’m not so sensitive to religious slights after all; or maybe I’m just slow.

     So why would I read a book like this? Am I just trying to prove how eclectic my interests are? Well, I did take a biology book out of the library for leisure reading one weekend in high school. I like to find out about living things and what makes them tick. Makes me feel rooted. And I enjoy reading about contemporary scientists and their work; they look at the world so differently from the way that was inculcated in me.

     Besides, the introduction really grabbed me. It cited Tony Blair's salute to the work described in this book as "the first great technological triumph of the twenty-first century". And another quote from some bigwig who should know, "This is the outstanding achievement not only of our lifetime but in terms of human history...this code is the essence of mankind."

     It looked like something a person ought to read. The book describes the work of the team of scientists who cracked the genetic code of C elegans a tiny, hermaphroditic nematode, and how this led to the sequencing of the human genome. (Don't ask me what that last bit means; I'm quoting from the dust jacket.) I enjoyed reading about the worm, I was fine with the old-fashioned biology but once they got into the genetic stuff, I was pretty lost. To tell the truth, I only understood about fifty percent of what I read. And that included lots of sentences like: "He was born in whatsitsname and he did his doctoral degree at such and such." So was it worth reading? Well, I know for sure now that those guys who cracked that code did one helluva lotta work.

     To give myself credit, though, maybe the lack of comprehension wasn't entirely due to my own ignorance. The writing is breezy and informal for the most part but, after a while, I began to wonder about the clarity of it. Now and then, what appeared to be typos made some passages hard to decipher. Then I found a paragraph from page 128 repeated verbatim on page 146. Where did the paragraph logically belong? I began to wonder what other bloopers might have been interfering with my understanding. Maybe I would have scored sixty-five percent if the book had been better written?

Sideways (Movie)
     It was hard to tell for a while what this movie was about. That always counts in a movie's favour with me: means it's not your typical Hollywood fare. Gradually, it develops that two guys are taking a jaunt through California wine country the week before one of them gets married. I wondered what kind of groom would be available for such an escapade the week before his wedding, but never mind.
      Pretty soon, the material began to seem a bit thin. I started being reminded of movies from the 1970s. That was when movies (at least the ones in my awareness) started moving away from the established formulae and giving us folksy, off-beat tales of human interest. Maybe our tastes were a little simpler, less demanding back then. Or maybe the novelty of it all made us more indulgent.  And that split-screen technique: what could be more 70s? And those montages where we get whole episodes condensed into a bunch of overlapping images. When movies resort to those techniques, I always suspect that the scriptwriters couldn't come up with anything interesting, so they had to skip over huge chunks of the story by means of these shortcuts.
     And those titles across the screen announcing each day of the week. It makes me edgy when a movie has to use titles to keep us clued-in chronologically. Is it because the movie doesn't have enough inherent structure, enough momentum to carry us forward, that we need the titles to make us think we're getting somewhere?
     Still, the relationship between the two guys intrigued me up to a point. These two best friends were mostly mad at each other, constantly putting each other down and telling each other to go to hell. I kept wondering: is this what real men are like? Silly me, I always thought you should try to be nice to your friends.
     These two are the classic odd couple: one sensitive, intelligent, neurotic and depressed; the other thick-skinned, stupid, carefree and impulsive. It was interesting to see Paul Giamatti in another role after his unforgettable nerd in American Splendor. His character here is different enough -- just a few degrees closer to normal -- to convince you that Mr. Giamatti is an actor and not just some freak they turned up. When we find out about the emotional baggage his character is bringing on the trip, the movie threatens to get really interesting.
     But the other character, played by Thomas Haden Church, keeps pulling the rug out. I don't want to come over all moralistic about a guy whose main preoccupation the week before his wedding his getting laid by somebody other than his intended wife. I would gladly have shelved any scruples on that score if his screw-ups had been funny enough. Or if he hadn't been so thick-headed. His inability to appreciate anything about his situation made him seem somewhat less than human, with the result that I wasn't caring a whole lot about what happened to him.
     So the movie ends up being an uneasy mixture: not comic enough for a real romp but inane enough to undermine the more interesting possibilities. Not that there aren't some good moments. Mr. Giamatti's character blows a hairy, but then his eye is caught by a lovely bunch of grapes which he reaches out and fondles tenderly. A marvellous transition. Two characters work themselves into an erotic trance while describing their favourite wines with monologues that flow like Shakespeare's most lyrical love poetry. And the ending of the movie is beautiful.
    Sometimes, subject matter running through a movie can make it a good experience for some people but not for others. A football fan might enjoy a movie set in football land (so they tell me) whether or not it's a good movie. In this movie, most of the talk about wine didn't interest me much. Maybe if they had been discussing tea blends or coloratura sopranos, I would have had a better time.
Rating: D (See "Movies" page for an explanation of the ratings.)
Primer (Movie)
   I hardly ever go to a science fiction movie. 2001: A Space Odyssey and the first Star Wars movie were quite enough for me, thank you. But people have been saying there was something really special about this movie, not least of the marvels being the fact that it was made on the proverbial shoestring. Shane Carruth, one of the two stars, wrote and directed it, and apparently did just about everything else, including writing the music. It appears that his mom and dad provided the catering.
     The set-up is that some young men are fooling around with technological stuff in a garage, trying to come up with some marketable gizmo. Two of them stumble onto something that, shall we say, leads to complications. I don't know whether or not a person is supposed to follow all the scientific-sounding mumbojumbo. I certainly couldn't. And the ideas get very hard to follow. Seems they're playing around with notions that are, on the one hand, as exalted as parallel universes and time travel, and, on the other hand, as commonplace as deja vu. Trouble with this parallel universe stuff, I get pretty mixed up. How are we supposed to know which is the real universe: the one we're watching, or the one off-screen?
     Maybe you're not supposed to worry about that. The main thing is the style of the movie. It struck me that I'd never seen a movie that looked or felt quite like this. (And I'm not talking about the scenes that are unintentionally out of focus; the movie earns enough goodwill that you easily overlook such flaws.) It made me think of Gus Van Sant's Elephant (the re-creation of the Columbine High School massacre). Not that the movies are very much alike, but each of them seems a unique creation, a movie unlike any other.
     In this case, I think it's mostly a question of style, as created by lighting, editing and other aspects of the ambiance. The overall look of the movie is a grainy yellow and black, with bits of blue now and then. A garage door rises and lowers with great dramatic effect. Sometimes we see things through the windows in the garage door, like glowing portholes in the night. Mr. Carruth's music heightens the eery, intense effect.
     And it doesn't hurt that the two stars are spot-on. They manage to make the tightly-scripted (if somewhat hokey) dialogue sound convincing. There's none of that pompous sci-fi intonation that I hear coming from the tv room when Star Trek is on. You always feel here that you're watching real people going about their real stuff, not actors performing. Better still, you're eavesdropping on these guys and the fact that it's difficult to figure out what's going on makes it all the more realistic.
     I don't know whether or not the movie ends successfully as I couldn't understand all the final bits. Something about our heroes trying to avert a disaster which, thanks to their time-travel machine, they knew was going to happen. As one of them says at one point, "We're prescient." To put it mildly! Which makes them a lot smarter than me because, if this movie's any example, I can't even figure things out after they've happened, let alone before. But I'll certainly be on the watch for anything that these guys dish up in the future. Or is it the past?
Rating: C (See "Movies" page for an explanation of the ratings.)
Canadian Society of Painters in Watercolour Etobicoke Civic Centre Art Gallery
    As usual with the CSPWC annual show, many of the pictures here show meticulously detailed, almost photographic realism. A notable example is Karen Wilson's painting of a dory as seen from above, the winner of the A. J. Casson medal for the best in show. Among many other outstanding pictures in this style are Phyllis Ljuden-Edlerkin's magnificent still life of African violets in a window and Breen Robison's close-up of glowing green moss on tree branches. One gets the impression that many of these artists are, or could be, top-flight commercial illustrators. If you want perfection of detail, I'd say you couldn't do any better than Sheryl Luxenburg's "Shady Lunch" which shows some of the best figure painting I've ever seen in watercolour.
    In the context of such a show, it's good to see that there's still room for the splashy, impressionistic style of watercolour, as in Brent Laycock's fresh and exciting painting of a western scene with mountains in the background. Yao Hua Yan's picture also appeals to me very much with its quick, fleeting rendering of an Asian hamlet, almost as though it were seen in a blur while passing on a high speed boat.
     A personal favourite of mine is a city street in winter painted by Christopher Gorey. Not the most original theme, perhaps, but I love the loose, quick technique, the expert use of negative space, the excellence sense of draftsmanship and the capturing of the very essence of winter in the city. I also enjoy Stephanie Quainton Steelel's bold, assertive statement: a large picture showing just a vase containing paint brushes against a window, with brilliant red curtains on either side.
     But the show-stopper for me is Yi Liu's painting (an award winner) of two ballerinas. One is sitting on a bench fencing us, the other sitting on the floor, seen in profile. There is very little range of colour: mostly pinkish-greyish-whitish, the only dark value being the women's hair. Apart from the fact that the anatomical drawing is exquisite, what makes the painting for me is the evocative mood created by the variation of soft and hard edges. At one point, you get the crisp, frilled edge of a tutu; elsewhere, the skirt melts into the background. Same with the ballernia's hair. The facial features are blurry and indistinct. One ballet slipper is lying in the foreground and the rendering of the untied satin ribbon of the slipper is stunning. Without a precisely-detailed drawing, you still get the effect of light glinting off a strip of shiny cloth folding back and forth on itself. If anyone ever again raises the question of whether a precise, photographic watercolour or a suggestive, evocative one is more effective, I will simply submit this painting as evidence for my argument for the latter position.
     Another painting that, to my way of thinking, illustrates an important point about art is Marcia Lea's picture (another award winner) showing just a few steel girders as the light catches them against the dark background of a factory ceiling. The composition is breath-taking in its stark simplicity and its unexpectedness. I think this demonstrates one of the most important reasons why we have artists: to show us beauty where we least expect to find it.
     Inevitably, there are two or three pictures in this show that, one feels, might not have been included. One can only assume that they must have looked better in the slides submitted for jurying. In the total of 69 pictures selected (usually about 400 are submitted), there are another ten or so that are good enough but they must leave several fine artists wondering why their own pictures weren't chosen instead.
     Pictures by some friends in the Toronto Watercolour Society are included in this show. Virginia May surprised me. Rather than one of the contemplative still lives for which she's famous, she's showing a pleasantly bucolic scene of cattle and sheep on a hillside. Pam Tong's picture of a barn door, admirable for the simplicity of its composition, demonstrates her trademark magic with clear, transparent colour.
     And I was delighted to see that an award had been given to a picture by Jane Hunter, my first art teacher, the person who introduced me to watercolour back in Sarnia when I was a teenager. (I believe I was her first student!) Her picture in this show demonstrates a style which appears to be brush-less and may be original, for all I know. The very subtle colours blend and melt in a hazy way. Up close, you can hardly make out anything but, as you step back, an autumn woods at dusk gradually emerges.
Yorkville Galleries
     A recent Friday afternoon left me with about an hour between appointments, so I checked out a couple of shows in Yorkville galleries that The Globe and Mail had been touting.
     Doug Kirton's show at the Sable-Castelli gallery gives prominence to his new work based on his experience with digital imaging. His pictures are evocations of downtown scenes, with lots of glass and steel, many reflections, windows of buildings and the glare from the roofs of cars, all super-imposed and jumbled. The colours are muted for the most part: greyish-bluish-greenish (as I recall). For me, they capture something of the ache in the beauty of a city that often eludes in the frantic business of downtown life.
     But one of the digital images on which a certain painting is based hangs just inside the gallery door. As far as I can see, the painting is a precise enlargement of the digital image. Is Mr. Kirton doing nothing other than rendering these images much bigger in oil on canvas? I want an artist to do something more than that.
    Tom Hopkins' paintings at the Mira Godard gallery groan under the weight of gobs of paint. Several pictures show the artist's studio, very cluttered and messy, mostly rendered with dull, dishwater grey mounds of paint. Occasionally an object -- for instance a bunch of bananas in the foreground -- stands out in bright, primary colour. In another, the chest of a nude model is brightly lit by a nearby window. It bothered me that the breasts of the model are definitely female but the stance shrieks male. (The genitals aren't visible.) Maybe that's my problem, not the painting's.
     In a video playing in the gallery, the artist explains what certain objects in the paintings signify. For example, a knife has something to do with a near-death experience of his. To me, symbols that have private meaning for the artist are of no interest in paintings.
     The overall effect of these paint-heavy pictures is of a mucky mess. (Maybe I am responding too much as a watercolourist.) I'm not so naive as to ask that every painting be pretty. But I do not see what purpose is served by the unattractiveness of these works.
    Some paintings in the show are landscapes and I like these better, mainly for the way the light from the background shines against the dark trees and shrubs in the foreground. The paint application is lumpy here too but it seems to suit botanical forms better than interiors.

You can respond to: patrick@dilettantesdiary.com