Rocky Horror Picture Show

Watching an 80s horror film makes me feel bored, laughing (instead of screaming), and most of the times, dissatisfied with the production. However, watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show, a 1975 film adaptation of the Broadway musical Rocky Horror Show, the experience is different. With the excellently written songs, bizarre characters and simple plot but has a unpredictable twists, the Show truly did not let me down. 

"THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW" is an outrageous assemblage of the most stereotyped science fiction movies, Marvel comics, Frankie Avalon / Annette Funicello outings and rock 'n' roll of every vintage. Running through the story is the sexual confusion of two middle American "Ike Age" kids confronted by the complications of the decadent morality of the 70's, represented in the person of the mad "doctor" Frank N Furter, a transvestite from the planet Transexual in the galaxy of Transylvania.

Created by Richard O'Brien, who wrote the book, music and lyrics and calls it "something any ten-year old could enjoy," this homage to the horror film opened in London at the Royal Court's experimental Theatre Upstairs as a six-week workshop project in June, 1973. The show received such acclaim at this 60-seat theatre that it was quickly moved to larger quarters in a converted cinema in Chelsea. Following the movie theatre's demolition, the show found a permanent home at the 500-seat King's Road Theatre, where it is still playing to packed houses nightly. The play was named "Best Musical of 1973" in the London Evening Standard's annual poll of drama critics. 

In my reading of Perks of Being A Wallflower, and watching of the Rocky Horror Glee Show (a season 2 episode of Glee) and Fame (1980), I knew and became curious of this film. There, they watch this film in community theaters and the audience participate by shouting in a chorus manner their answers to the questions of the characters.

According to an article by  Sal Piro in the official fan site of RHPS, this audience participation started when the film had a regular screening in Waverly Theater every midnight in 1976. They would play the soundtrack of the film before the show begins, making a party atmosphere in the theater. The audiences naturally began to respond, booing the villain and cheering the heroes.

"These pioneers of audience participation from the balcony included two young ladies named Amy and Theresa; Bill O'Brien, the first person to dress as Dr. Frank-N-Furter; Lori Davis, who wrote the Ten Commandments of ROCKY HORROR; and Louis Farese, a kindergarten teacher from Staten Island."

"On Labor Day weekend of 1976, Louis felt compelled to speak to the screen. He is credited as the first person to yell lines at the movie. His earliest lines were: "Buy an umbrella, you cheap bitch!" - to Janet walking in the rain, and "How strange was it?" - to the criminologist's initial speech. (Louis called this "counterpoint dialogue.") Then, in late September, as they sought a preview of Halloween, a few people came dressed as characters from the movie. Later, on Halloween, there was a costume party with many people dressing as the characters."

I haven't watched anything like it. But I think for a group of fans to a particular film, it would be a great and regular experience (you'd be watching the same movie thousands of times just like them, managing to memorize the lines and respond to the characters).

Criticizing the film, well, I find them good. Actually their singing was great. However the acting was quite weird. Also, it is not actually  horrifying film, making it enjoyable. But because of the elements of sex, lust, and homosexuality, the movie I think would only gain audiences that are liberal, homos, in the influence  of drugs, and definitely not young and conservative.

Witchcraft

 

 

 

 

Those fingers in my hair
That sly come-hither stare
That strips my conscience bare
It's witchcraft

I love listening to this song, though it was not used in the Bewitched series, I think of the characters there when listening to this song. It is composed in 1957 by Cy Coleman and Carolyn Leigh, and originally recorded and popularized by Sinatra. It had numerous versions (that I haven't heard of) over the years making it a standard song.

The song basically means that a man was lovestruck and he points witchcraft as a reason. He believes that he was magicked by his lover (which is a really old idea and at the same time very Weasley-and-Granger-ish).

 

 

And I've got no defense for it
The heat is too intense for it
What good would common sense for it do?

'cause it's witchcraft, wicked witchcraft
And although I know it's strictly taboo
When you arouse the need in me
My heart says "Yes, indeed" in me
"Proceed with what you're leadin' me to"

A Little Princess

Back when i was a child, I would faithfully watch Princess Sarah cartoons on TV either before or after I go to school. Then, I would also watch Mary and the Secret Garden. But of all three, my real favorite is Cedie ang Munting Prinsipe. Back then, I have no idea that these three animated series I was so fond watching were Frances Hudgson Burnett's three most popular children's novels in the 1900s, the time when Pooh and Oz series popularized also. So when I was in powerbooks in Trinoma, I bought A Little Princess and swore that I will buy the other two (The Secret Garden and Little Lord Fauntleroy).

Reading this book was easy. It's shortness and simplicity of language made it enjoyable and comprehensible to readers, especially those of young age. The characters were also vivid, however, I think watching the series made it easy to visualize their characters. I also loved the way Sara Crewe acted/pretended to the things happening to her because, I feel the same, too. Of course, many of us in our childhood days would say that we are maltreated. Then we would pretend or imagine that we are princes or princesses (Fuck! What did Disney do to us!). And so, I think that Sara and I feel the same way, too, in many different situations.

from the series, Sarah Ang Munting Prinsesa

One thing I liked in the series compared to the book was the cruelness of Lavinia and Ms. Minchin. In the series, they were depicted as very bad people, not only through descriptions but through anecdotes. The way they act, the way they talk, the bad things they've done to Sara and Becky will make you loathe them. However in the book, published originally in 1888 as a serialized novella and was rewritten to a full-length novel in 1905, characters' evilness was toned down. There's not much fights between Lavinia and Sara.

They also differed in the number of characters. If you remember from the series about a boy working in the horses' stables and took care of Sara's horse, well that one doesn't exist in the novel. Members of the kitchen were not described also that much.

“Whatever comes," she said, "cannot alter one thing. If I am a princess in rags and tatters, I can be a princess inside. It would be easy to be a princess if I were dressed in cloth of gold, but it is a great deal more of a triumph to be one all the time when no one knows it.”

“If nature has made you for a giver, your hands are born open, and so is your heart; and though there may be times when your hands are empty, your heart is always full, and you can give things out of that--warm things, kind things, sweet things--help and comfort and laughter--and sometimes gay, kind laughter is the best help of all.”

“When people are insulting you, there is nothing so good for them as not to say a word -- just to look at them and think. When you will not fly into a passion people know you are stronger than they are, because you are strong enough to hold in your rage, and they are not, and they say stupid things they wished they hadn't said afterward. There's nothing so strong as rage, except what makes you hold it in -- that's stronger. It's a good thing not to answer your enemies.”

Sara Crewe helped me understand the importance of forgiveness, the giving of mercy to people who have grudged you or done you things simply bad. 

War of The Worlds

my copy of the book

When I was in elementary, we went to the planetarium in Manila on a field trip. There, I saw a film sitting on a reclined chair about the possible life in Mars. Since then, I remember myself being so curious about the red planet and even asserting the possibility of the theory. 

Some weeks ago, I bought H.G. Well's 1898 scientific romance (later known as science fiction) novel War of the Worlds that is about the experiences of an unnamed scientific journalist, his wife and brother during the invasion of Martian aliens on Earth. I have watched the most recent film adaptation starring Tom Cruise and after reading the novel, I might say that the book was better.

Yes. Though it is a classic, it is way better. First, I think it was more action-packed than the film. There were more killings, explosions, chaos, eating, firing and many others that would make you feel nauseous. And fuck, that was what I was expecting from the film. 

Second, the drama was toned down. It is not about a man struggling to gain his children's love.Rather it is about a man longing for his wife who is safe "in the other side". I find the book very stern and scientific because of the toning down of the drama. And for me, that was better.

This leads me to my third reason... in the book, I understood better than in the film the reason why they invaded, invading, and left.

Despite their advancement, the Martians' technology, they are implied to be ignorant of disease and decomposition. It is theorized that their advanced technology eliminated whatever indigenous diseases were present on Mars thousands of years ago, to the point that they no longer remembered their effects. Ultimately, their lack of knowledge or preparation of any bacteria indigenous to Earth proves to be their downfall 

I would definitely prefer the book than the film. :)