|
assipassi
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Astrid
Country: United States
State: Colorado
Metro: Colorado Springs
Birthday: 3/11/1963
Gender: Female
Interests: Richard Marx, Animal Rescue, A.D.O.R.E, knitting, photography, writing, blogging, reading, movies, music, WWE Wrestling (most notably the NC boyz!)
Expertise: anything animal-related, Harry Potter
Occupation: right now - bum/jack of all ho
Industry: none
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  assipassi
MSN: asimferpasi
Member Since:
12/21/2005
 True  Lifetime
|
|
| Last time was July 15th? Holy cow! I shall do better. I'm mostly on facebook now, but I do feel the need to write more than just post blurbs.... so I WILL do better!
Let's start with this! I got a new tattoo! Why? Because it was Friday, 13th. Well ... not just that, but that was part of it. Ever since I got my very first tattoo I'm addicted and I have tons more that I want, so I figured I best get started. This one has been a long time in the making. And now I was finally able to do it. So there we go.
I wanted to share a little bit of why and the motivation behind my getting tattooed in general. Here it goes. First a picture of my new artwork:
Every tattoo has a story, right? I know mine do. They all mark either a special event in my life, something that has meaning to me, or something that I just like - a lot - and want to carry with me always - as art on my body.
The story of my new triquetra tattoo is as follows:
Of course, it has partly to do with the TV Series "Charmed", no reason to deny it. But it's not just that. From the beginning it fascinated me. Probably because of my fascination with all things Celtic. But the idea to commit to it as a tattoo on my body came a lot later, after I did some research on the meaning.
It seems that the triquetra was used as a symbol in many different settings, and as usual nobody can agree on "who had it first". In Christian symbolism it represents the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The unbroken circle represents eternity. The interwoven nature of the symbol denotes the indivisibilit and equality of the Holy Trinity. It could also represent three fishes ("Pisces"). When Christians wer persecuted, the fish was a valuable and secret symbol. The circle represents unending love for and from the creator and unending love for man and woman. (coincidentally my astrological sign is pisces!)
In Pagan/Wiccan/Goddess symbolism the triquetra represents the threefold nature of the Goddess as the maiden (young virigin), the mother (pregnancy and motherhood) and the crone (old age and immense wisdom). It symbolizes life, death and rebirth and the three forces of nature: earth, air and water. The inner three circles represent the female element and fertility. It also speaks to the trinity of the soul: physical, mental and spiritual.
Furthermore many cultures and religions consider the number three to be holy or divine. Some believe that the Triquetra are a Greek originated word meaning 3 legged. It is associated with progress and compensation. Found on the coat of arms of the Isle of Man.
Sooooooo..... after finding all that out, it made sense to me that I would be drawn to it. I liked the shape, the symbol, what it means, I did want something Celtic, so there it goes. As you can see, none of my tattoos have ever been entered into lightly. A lot of thought and planning goes into them. I want to be sure they are something I can live with for the rest of my life. The placement of my triquetra has been tried and tested out many a times by drawing it on myself and looking at it for days at a time. I have wanted this tattoo for a couple of years now (maybe a little longer) but couldn't, because of very strict grooming guidelines at Delta. So why now? Well.... I'm no longer at Delta, I moved to a new place where everybody is very accepting and where there are a lot of free-spirited as well as spiritual people - it was the right time! OH... and let's not forget: It was Friday the 13th today! Another very powerful number! Many say it's unlucky, but for us it's just spiritual and lucky! A little extra meaning added to a tattoo that came out great!
| | |
| I can not do this without spoilers! It's going to be a very detailed review. So if you haven't seen it you might not want to read until after you see it.
******* SPOILER ALERT *********
I love the way the movie starts. It ties together where we left off and leads us into what's coming. It might have to do with having the same director doing both movies. But that was excellent!
We're starting off with Harry being picked up by Dumbledore to see Slughorn. Not sure why he's not picked up at the Dursleys. Why are they missing? It's sort of important for the explanation that Harry is safe there until age 17 - but whatever. It works for the movie and I'm thinking we might can do this explanation in movie 7 (since that will have more time - being that it's two parts).
Right off the bet we see lots of awkard teenager flirting and outrageous humor. I think the humor in this movie are great. They do a lot to offset the dark and depressive mood. Actually, I think Order of the Phoenix was a lot darker than Half Blood Prince - probably due to that fact.
Would have loved to have seen the muggle prime minister, but alas - it's not necessary in the continuity. The filmmakers do take care of showing how Voldemort and the Death Eaters influence and wreak havoc on the muggle world as well as the magical world.
What did bother me is that we jump right into trying to get Slughorn's memory, and the hunt for horcruxes. There is none of the backstory - where does Voldemort come from? The story of the ring, the locket and how Voldemort loved to collect artifacts, which he then uses to make the horcruxes. No mention of the Hufflepuff Cup or that possibly "something of Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's" could be a horcrux. Also - no mention of the snake Nagini! I'm usually not that hung up on things that are in the book and left out in the movie, however, this keeps sticking in my mind. Not sure why I can't let it go. I guess it must have been really important to me.
Another thing that bothered me is that we find out that Draco is looking at the cabinet. With Harry going into the Room of Requirement later and seeing the other one, it doesn't make sense that he can't connect the dots. However, I do see where they are coming from in terms of moving the story along and explaining what the cabinets do in a faster fashion. The same goes for all the little entries in the Half Blood Prince's potions book. But why does Harry have to ask Hermione about the Sectumsempra? The Levicorpus never surfaces - probably because the DA already used it last movie.... LOL! But fine.... those are more little things that I can live with.
The attack on the burrow.... hmmm.... weird! Not sure why they felt the need to add this into the movie when it's not in the book. Why do the Weasley's have to lose their house? But ok......
Other than that I think they did a really good job translating the book to the screen. I can definitely see where with more or less subtle things the director gives us important parts that the book readers will recognize (especially now that we know what happens in book 7), through quick actions rather than a drawn out explanation in the book. I think for the "casual watcher" it is clear and explanation enough - but it also satisfies us "hardcore" readers. I just have the feeling that David Yates has a real good grasp on the story, the books, the fans and how to translate the books to the screen.
Almost missing from the movie are Lupin and Tonks. Their short appearance, however, successfully shows how on edge their characters are, the state of distress, the intensity of their relationship. Wish it could be more.... but alas.... hoping for movie 7.
Very happy at how much Draco is in the movie! Tom Felton - sorry Cynde - I always thought was the best of the young actors. Daniel, I have to say, totally caught up NOW - probably with his experience of on-stage acting. But Tom Felton - wow! I hope Angie has somebody with her to resuscitate her. He does such an excellent job. He almost has the intensity of Alan Rickman. He must have learned a lot from him. And I can't get over how grown up he is.
Speaking of which .... what can I say? Alan Rickman seems to get better and better with every movie. He just IS Snape. How is it that he can say, like 2 words, and convey all this emotion - and with such an intensity at that!???!!!! You guys may remember that I have always been a Snape advocate. But with knowing what we know now of his backstory and about what happens in book 7, Rickman's performance just broke my heart. Because without words he shows his pain of unrequited love, the pain of having to see Lily's eyes on Harry and at the same time he oozes his disdain for Harry, because he sees so much of James in him. Rickman does not need words to tell us this! He conveys it simply with a look, with body language and with the way he speaks to Harry. - I love the fact that they left in the conversation with Dumbledore and Snape where Snape says "he doesn't want to do it anymore". - Breaking my heart!
Wish there was more of Neville. Again - hoping for movie 7, where he comes into his own (just like Draco does in this one.)
Michael Gambon finally got it right. Why did it take him 4 movies to "get it"? "Severus, please!" ... was delivered perfectly! But that wasn't the point where I broke down in tears. Because at that point you're still expecting a battle - we all know (at least I think we do) by now that Snape kills Dumbledore. So it doesn't come as much of a shock. The touching part comes later when we see the Great Hall - completely empty, silent! In the movie theater you could hear a pin drop at that point! That rarely happens! And then, of course, when everybody is gathered around Dumbledore's body and raises their wand in his honor - that's when I lost it! And I was waiting for Fawke's lament - but it never came - at least not at that point in time. I was about to rebel and to raise heck - but Fawkes came after all - a little later, appeasing me.
Little bit disappointed that the big battle never happened. But again we are shown that Snape has a handle on things as Voldemort's right hand man. The fight at the end with Harry - again heartbreaking! I wanted Snape to have the line "no unforgivable curses for you, Potter", just because to me - in the book - that showed that he wanted to protect Harry, even in that moment. But the movie still shows that he protects him when Bellatrix attacks Harry and Snape - once again - uses the excuse "he belongs to the Dark Lord" to get her off of him.
So - the verdict over all? Awesome! Possibly the best one in the series to date. I haven't made up my mind on that one yet. If it's not the best, it's a close second to OOTP (GoF will always be MY personal favorite for obvious reasons). I do have to say, I'm glad that David Yates is doing Deathly Hallows as well. It allows for a continuity that we haven't had before. I can already see how he set up certain things, because he knows the outcome and he knew how he's going to handle them in DH (in my opinion he did some of that in OOTP already, looking forward to HBP). One of the things I think are in this movie must be Rovena Ravenclaw's Diadem. I think Yates put it in the Room of Requirement already. I've been looking for it but have not been able to spot it yet. Won't you help me look for it!?
I thought I broke my own personal record having seen OOTP 6 times at the theater in 10 days. But today is a new personal record! Went to the theater 3 times in one day! Is that endorsement enough?
| | |
| Time for another blog.
When I heard the news last week of Michael Jackson's passing (and Farrah's, of course) I was in disbelief and shock - as everybody. But I didn't know how much it really affected me until I watched the Memorial Service today.
It was surprising, because I really haven't listened to Michael for some years now. I do have, of course, a lot of his music, videos and yes, his book at home. I'm not ashamed. I'm a fan. Whenever the question in one of those "surveys" comes up: "If you could talk to anybody in the world - who would you want to talk to?" I would always say Michael Jackson. Because I think he was an extremely unique person and despite all his eccentricities I think he was an extremely intelligent, extremely passionate, compassionate man and an "old soul". I think that he was crucified in the media, because it is just "fun" to laugh about anybody that's different then you. I don't think that anybody but those closest to him really knew him. So yes - I would have loved to talk to him personally and see what he was all about.
This is not blind "fandom" - if anything I am usually ready to "punish" celebrities even harder than "regular" people, if just to show that there is no preferential treatment. But with Michael I just didn't feel that he did what he was accused of. Did he show bad judgement - yes, absolutely! But no, I'm sure he was innocent. I can't even imagine what it must have been like for him, not being able - ever - to go into public unnoticed. Living essentially his whole life in the public eye.
But I digress. I was lucky enough to see Michael Jackson live in Germany on the "BAD" tour. I knew then that this was probably the only time I would ever have this opportunity. Needless to say, it was fantastic!
Only 5 years older than me, Michael Jackson is basically my generation. I think this is one reason, why this is so hard. People my age are starting to die! That's not supposed to happen. Makes you aware of your own mortality. Another reason was seeing all those people at the Memorial Service.
Michael Jackson really brought people of all walks of life together. He had a strong family connection, supportive friends, and admirers even among his peers. The love and respect in that room was awe-inspiring.
And that's why I gotta break into a little rant. The Reverend Al Sharpton - REALLY? - does he have to stick his nose everywhere? This was not the time and place for his propaganda. While everybody spoke in low voices he needs to break out into a tirade in a "political-speech-voice", almost yelling? While - as he said - Michael opened doors for African American entertainers in every genre - that was not his goal. For Michael it wasn't about being black or white. It was about love - universal love, loving everybody equally, without seeing differences. He didn't set out to "pave the way" for black entertainers. His message to the world was "love your fellow human beings". So yeah, Mr Sharpton (who by the way I have met and who himself thinks he is better than a "lowly" airline agent) - was out of line and totally missed the point.
Rant over!
I was fairly composed until Brooke Shields took the stage and tried to compose herself before even starting her speech. By the time she cited the Charlie Chaplin song and said "today we need to smile, even though our heart is aching" I was sobbing. And, of course, when the whole family came on stage, Marlon, really moving - Janet and LaToya rallied around the kids, and, of course, Paris, talking about Michael as a Dad - OMG - I really lost it.
I spent the rest of the afternoon importing Michael's Music onto my ipod and I know I'll be watching the Thriller video and Moonwalker in the next few days.
Michael is at home now - as one of the mourners said "we needed him here, but God must have needed him even more"!
| | |
|  Rob's really turning 23! But I didn't have a new card! LOL! | | |
|
