2AM Traffic

Yesterday I finally fulfilled my own prophecy and tried a Fudge Brownie Temptation at Dairy Queen - aka that sundae they serve in the waffle bowl. It was damned tasty if a little pricey (five bucks). I also tried on a shirt at Old Navy for the first time in my life. It was too bright. Shopping at that store makes me nervous for some reason, as if I don't think I'm DOING it right. And I look at the posters of the male models and think that the clothes are way too prep for me. I stare at the piles of shirts and think that if I bought one I'd inevitably run into some dude with the same shirt. At least thrifting removes the likelihood of that possibility. I should really have people to buy my clothes for me. One step at a time.

Andrea and I went to see The Counterfeiters at the Bytowne yesterday afternoon, an Austrian WWII concentration camp film about Jews who were forced to recreate millions in pounds and dollars. It was an effective portrayal with gritty cinematography. There was a great scene in which a prisoner weeps when he sees that the Germans have a printing press in the camp, and one of the men says that it reminds him of their humanity.

I searched for reviews of the film online. Not to go off on a tangent here, but I will. Roger Ebert is my favorite film columnist. He's just a great writer who always brings out aspects to movies I hadn't considered. I admire the man's ability to watch a film in a way I can't, and I respect his opinion even when I don't agree with him. Ebert has been ill lately and his online review output has been supplemented by site creator Jim Emerson, who, well, sucks. Here's an example pulled from his review of The Counterfeiters, which he gave, in Ebert-terms, thumbs down: The trouble is that the storytelling and filmmaking are routine (surely faux-documentary handheld camerawork is the most overused cliche in modern movies), even when the human drama is not.

Surely it is. SURELY. When Ebert reviews a movie, he doesn't make these grand, sweeping condemnations about technique - he might state that the technique is overused, but he'll always present an argument for why a technique benefits the story being told, or why it doesn't. Emerson just leaves it at the statement, and that's why he sucks, and that's why I hope Ebert lives forever and keeps his reviews going in place of this idiot. Rant done.

I'm finished work for the week. TGIF and all that. Despite the hours I don't mind the job at all and feel as though I'm picking up new knowledge everyday about both the proofreading process and the government. Some scandalous shit goes down in politics. The Senate has lately been talking about the Bernier/Couillard issue, which is basically this: former Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier resigned his position after it was discovered that he left confidential papers at the home of his girlfriend Julie Couillard - who used to date members of Quebec-chapter Hells Angels. I had no idea Canadian politics could be so juicy.