Big Hair

Whenever I think of big hair an image of a Texan housewife from the eighties comes to mind. You know, the ones with neon pants, dangerously high heels designed only for standing and nails like eagle talons which are painted fuchsia or teal. If you think of women from John Waters films, or the neighbours in Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands, then you are almost there. Just add another foot on their hair.

Unlike a lot of other women who have thick, flowing locks, my hair is actually quite fine. Not thin, because I have a fair amount of it, but fine. Not wispy. Not sparse. Just fine. There isn't a lot of meat to it.

Today one of my coworkers did this messy bouffant bun style on me. She needed to practice updos and I needed to feel a little pretty. I think the style turned out really well, considering my hair isn't all that long and it's fine. She was working with thread when she needed spaghetti. Or some other analogy that makes more sense. Alas, I am tired. It's been a long week. A long week of my brain not working properly, another thing I don't like. I mean, since when do I make mistakes? That's right, not bloody often.

Anyhow, after I took the gazillion bobby-pins out and let the tendrils fall, I had big hair. Not Texas big, because I simply don't have the follicle mass for that, but big for my standards. And I like it. It makes me feel powerful. Maybe the height of your hair is directly proportionate to the swagger in one's walk. Regardless, I wish I had saucy hair like this every day!

Big hair. Just don't care. And here are some pictures.

Being tortured in the chair

 The style

 The obligatory bathroom picture, a little later in the day, after a walk in the rain. 

 Just before taking all the pins out. No, I am not wearing a shirt. Shirts are overrated. 

All the bobby-pins

 BIG HAIR 

And everyone is going to dress like me, wait and see, when I'm a supermodel. 

The Only Edward - Day 21

Apparently, last night was also Burton-fest 2013. I partook in two of his most classic films. Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands. Excuse me while I get ranty in a good way.

Title: Edward Scissorhands
Year: 1990
Synopsis: An uncommonly gentle young man, who happens to have scissors for hands, falls in love with a beautiful adolescent girl.

Tagline: His story will touch you, even though he can't.

Teenage girls the world over have spent the last decade (almost) swooning over a sparkly vampire by the name of Edward Cullen. This broody, pale, and (apparently) lethal creature somehow managed to get thirteen-year-olds and their moms all up in a frenzy. Personally, I'm confounded. Yes, I have read the books and watched the movies. They are all the comedy, and then some. But I just don't understand what the appeal is of this stalker-type fellow.

If you want a morose, bone-white dreamboat then there is another Edward who came before Mr. Cullen, and who has evidently been forgotten. And this Edward isn't going to play baseball or magically catch a falling apple, mostly because he has scissors for hands. Don't scoff and roll your eyes at me, young lady. This man does not warrant your flippant disregard or snorts of derision. He is a gem. A diamond in the rough. Far superior to any Volvo driving vampire, that's for sure.

Proof, you say! You want proof. I will give you proof.

Windswept, tousled hair - check. Peril - check. Intense stare - check. Amazing house - check. Swooping in and saving the day - check. That's all the proof you need, but let me go on.

If you want danger, try dating a man with scissors for hands. If you want taboo, try falling for a cyborg-ish man clad in latex, covered in scars who can't touch you. If you want a love story, try being with a man who leaves in order to keep you safe, and he doesn't come back later either, even more so, you don't have to travel all the way to Italy to stop him from stepping into sunlight and making himself appear as though he is participating in a Pride parade. If you want knight in ivory skin, try having the hero defend your honour only to kill the man savagely attacking you. If you want tragic love story, try the only girl he ever loved confessing the same and sharing a kiss, the only one - and there isn't the risk of him eating you, but he might possibly impale you on a scissor.

If this appeals to you, put down the Blu-ray of Twilight and pop the VHS of Edward Scissorhands in.
You know, now that I've spelled it all out like that, there are several parallels between these two story lines. Imagine that, the Twilight plot line isn't all that original. What a shocker. But despite the similarities, there is only one that is actually good amaze-balls, and it's the one with Johnny Depp - who even 23 years later is eight-hundred thousand percent more attractive than Robert Pattinson. And cooler. So much cooler.  Granted, they both seem to have problems in the relationship department.

But this isn't Us Weekly, and I'm not reviewing their love lives. I'm just refereeing the battle of the Edwards.

My love for Edward Scissorhands goes back years before Mrs. Meyer dreamed about two kids laying awkwardly in a grass field. And through these decades it remains untouchable. While none of us really live in the same cookie cutter neighbourhood, we all have experienced displacement and not fitting in. How about wanting love but not being able to have it? We know what it is like to be isolated and alone, different, a novelty for a certain group only to be discarded when our luster wears off, and I think all of us have tasted the bitterness of fear, of worrying about having the good things taken away.

Enter Mr. Scissorhands.

He is innocence. Kindness. Compassion. Loneliness. Regret. Disappointment. A mistake. Gentle. Dangerous.

He is reality.

And he is a reminder that not everything ends happily. Unlike Cullen with Bella, Scissorhands leaves Kim and her family alone, knowing he isn't good for them. That they aren't good for him. He is responsible and, ultimately, the greatest gentleman. Edward Scissorhands is the real story of forbidden love out of these two. It's sorrowful and beautiful and utter perfection.

And I don't want to hear anything about any other Edward, okay? Because they ain't got nothing on this one.

Making Christmas - Day 20

Last night, I watched Frankenweenie and Nightmare Before Christmas. It probably goes without saying that I love Tim Burton. Neither of these movies will disappoint. Both of them carry the same moral of it being good to try new things and not giving up. Victor and Jack Skellington are both extremely determined individuals.

Title: Frankenweenie
Year: 2012
Synopsis: Young Victor conducts a science experiment to bring his beloved dog Sparky back to life, only to face unintended, sometimes monstrous, consequences.

Tagline: The electrifying dog is back from the grave. 

Anyone who has ever loved and lost a pet will appreciate this film. The very core of it is a love story, between a boy and his dog. Perhaps that's why I love it so much. 

In 1984 Tim Burton did a short film of the same name for Disney and, as I recall reading, it was close to his heart. Not only did it pay homage to the monster movies he loved but it was filmed in Burbank California where he grew up. While people initially thought Frankenweenie was too dark, it eventually grew to such popularity that it sparked an idea for the director/writer to go back and make it bigger, and better. 

There are a lot of people who didn't like this extended edition of Frankenweenie, which surprises me, but all I can gather is that they just didn't 'get' it. What's there to get? you might ask. Well, the references for one, which are rife throughout this movie. From Shelley the turtle being revived being a tip of the hat to Mary Shelley who wrote Frankenstein, and Elsa Van Helsing's name being a not-so-subtle nod to Abraham Van Helsing, Bram Stoker's Dracula character and Elsa Lanchester, a character from the original Bride of Frankenstein.

Maybe to truly appreciate this film you need to have horror chops, to actually enjoy the genre, so you see the Vincent Price-ness in teach Mr. Rzykrusk, and understand the influence he must have had over Burton. Even the the whole opening scene with Sparky tramping all over a town as a gigantic monster-dog is such an obvious parallel to Godzilla.  And who else noticed the movie Victor's parents were watching? That's right, it was Horror of Dracula starring Christopher Lee! 

Okay, how about I turn my nerd off? 

I think people are also turned off by black and white. Don't ask me why, but I've heard it said by more than one person that they won't watch movies not in colour. It must come down to narrow-mindedness. Also, people tend to assume this is just a kids' movie because it is stop-motion animation. It isn't. Then there are the sheltering Sallys who cover their kids' eyes at 'scary parts'. They come away angry, thinking it is too morbid of an idea for children. Ladies and gentleman, this may come as a shock but your kids are more resilient than you think. While people will talk about how dark this film is, I see life in it. Besides, can you name a Disney movie that doesn't deal with death? Just because Victor brings Sparky back to life the PC brigade blew a gasket. 

Dear parents, get over it. 

You see way worse on day time television these days. 

When I was a little girl, my best friend was a Great Dane named Patches. He had the biggest head and the floppiest ears. I loved him with my whole heart. And he died. If I could have, I would have brought him back. Maybe that's why I love this movie so much. Not to mention, I kind of see Oliver in Frankenweenie. 

Tears were shed when I watched this. Not necessarily by me. 

 

Stoke The Fire - Day 15

Halfway through Horror Fest and, I must say, it's so much fun. I know there are a lot of people out there thinking I could be doing more constructive things with my time, but this is what I like to do. Watch movies. Horror movies.

Last night's movie was another new release, which was kind of refreshing, since I've been down memory lane so many times in the last two weeks that I've started wearing holey jeans, plaid shirts and listening to Nevermind on repeat.

Title: Stoker
Year: 2013
Synopsis: After India's father dies, her Uncle Charlie, who she never knew existed, comes to live with her and her unstable mother. She comes to suspect this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives and becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

Tagline: Do not disturb the family.

This movie is in essence a simple whirlwind of what the fuckery. And you know how I try to keep my potty-mouth to a minimum around these parts, just in case there are impressionable youths and elderly persons reading. That said, what the fuck indeed. If you like twisted tales of dysfunctional families tied up in a nice package with gorgeous cinematography, then this movie is for you!

What starts off as a weird family dynamic quickly grows into one gigantic mess of 'that shouldn't be happening' and 'this isn't going where I think it is, is it?'. The synopsis of this movie will have you believe it is about India's infatuation with her uncle. This is so utterly false, in my humble opinion. It is actually about oddball Uncle Charlie and his obsessiveness with India. Thrown into the mix is Nicole Kidman's character, who is not only jealous of her daughter but who has this inexplicable need to be ravaged by her husband's brother. See, it's getting messy already.

Well, let's throw in not one homicidal maniac, but two. Don't worry, I won't spoil the plot and reveal who the crazy people are, but I will say, one uses a belt as their device of death and the other a long range rifle.

For a movie that is one hundred and ten percent fucked up, it's also beautiful. Exquisitely shot. Well-written. Executed to perfection. Director Chan-wook Park is brilliant. Yes, I said brilliant. Have any of you seen Oldboy? If yes, then you know what I am talking about. If no, then why the hell are you reading this blog? You should be watching Oldboy, followed by Stoker.

Regardless, Stoker is Park's first step into the tawdry world of Hollywood, and I have to say it is a smash. The best part being, the bigwigs in Hollywood didn't try to squash Park's flare. He managed to keep it dark, very controversial, by touching on such harsh themes as incest, matricide, rape, and murder. What I love the most about Stoker is the father. You don't know much about him, but from what is hinted you can gather he tried to keep India safe only to eventually be the catalyst for her demise, whenever that will come. And it will come.

Finally, the star of this movie is India, who is played by Mia Wasikowska - the phenomenal budding actress from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right, and Lawless. What can I say, I'm a fan. I expect great things from her in the future. India is at once naive and ignorant, sheltered and plain, yet stunning, frightening, and wise. It's wonderful how much can be conveyed by a glance, tick of a clock, and very uncomfortable piano scene.

In the end, Stoker isn't your run of the mill horror, despite it's link in name to "Bram Stoker". Yes, it certainly has a vampiric theme, but in this you won't find any fangs or capes. What you will come across is seduction, temptation of the macabre and the hunter and prey cat and mouse game. It's horror is bold and subtle at the same time. This will not keep you up at night but at the same time it won't be easily forgotten.