Orange is the New Black

From the creator and writer of Weeds, Jenji Kohan, comes a new innovative series: Orange is the New Black. The show revolves around the main character Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling), a woman in her early thirties, who is sentenced to one year of federal prison for a crime she committed whilst still in college.  Engaged to be married to, what looks like, a sane and very unusual character for actor Jason Biggs, Piper’s youthful lesbian drug-trafficking crush (Laura Prepon) comes back to haunt her. Despite her minimal involvement (the single transport of a bag of drug-money), Piper is forced to take a plea bargain just two years shy of escaping sentence altogether under the statute of limitations.  
The American comedy-drama series is based on the memoirs of Piper Kerman, who wrote about her year in prison. The show first aired on Netflix, July 11, 2013 and shows great promise for Netflix as a producer. While I have yet to see the rest of the season, the first episode showed originality and moxy. Less Oz and more real world, Orange is the New Black takes away all the glamorous and cliché elements attributed to prison by the film industry. The surprising aspect of its approach is without doubt the reality factor. The sentenced perpetrator isn’t taken away toute suite in handcuffs after the trial, but rather turns herself in after a goodbye dinner with friends. Her surrender at the prison is not met with a smooth and swift Hollywood welcome; no quick stripping of belongings or handcuffed transport to a jailcell, or long walk through a corridor of scary and wildly intimidating prisoners. Rather, a miscommunication that led to the lack of preparation for a new inmate, forces Piper and her fiancé to wait for hours (it is a state institution, after all!) before finally being admitted. It is as if both the front desk personnel and the warden were inconvenienced by the arrival and surrender of Ms. Chapman, whose crime pales in comparison to the other inmates’.

Piper’s first day in prison lacks all Hollywood stereotype and glorification; hardly any intimidation, no knife fights, no rape, no drug trafficking, no prison-bullying, no corrupt prison guards or tyrannical wardens, but instead a very realistic depiction of a woman trying to find her way, socializing with others while being homesick, and unavoidably stepping on some toes in the process.

Some might argue it is rather slow-paced because it is missing the grotesque and intense elements normally associated with and expected in a prison series/film. However, its slow pacing and uncomplicated storyline make it more credible and more relatable. The series’ authenticity and originality is a welcome change for TV fiction. 

Bookmark Dictionary

Yes. I'm a literature nerd. I guess that explains why I studied Literature and Linguistics, and why I wanted a second Master's degree in Literary Studies. But, honestly, there is no real excuse for how far my nerdiness goes... Hopefully, some of you kindred spirits will geek out about this as much as I did!

Reading for me has always been an intense experience, and it only intensified with my studies. Having to write papers on prize winning novels and analysing the genesis of manuscripts has made me adopt an even more scrutinizing and eager-to-learn approach to reading. During the first years of university, I wanted to expand my English vocabulary as best I could, seeing as how it would always be hard as a second-language learner to get my writing up to par with that of native English speakers. So whenever I encountered a word, while reading, that I had not heard of before, I would underline it with pencil or pen and make sure to look it up afterwards. But the more books we were required to read, the harder it was for me to keep up with this somewhat obsessive habit of mine. Not to mention, inefficient: I would usually interrupt my reading to look up a word, or wait until I had finished reading and then go through my notes and try to rediscover the context of the underlined words before looking up their definitions.

Last year I discovered a practical application to help save time and effort. This handy little gadget is an electronic dictionary as well as a bookmark. Its creators have used the Collins English Dictionary and inserted 38000 definitions in this tiny, flat device. It's extremely easy to look up a word, or even use the arrows if you simply want to browse through the rest of the dictionary. Not surprising that it won the prize "Gift of the Year" in 2011. Very surprising however, that it has not reached Belgium in the form of a translation dictionary. But perhaps, this will soon come. Since recently other languages have also become available:
Spanish
English-French
English-Italian
English-German

It's extremely cheap, especially considering the high priced dictionary volumes you'd otherwise be getting, and very compact.
The only downside I find is that the plastic back of the gadget can cause it to slide out from between the pages. But I'm pretty sure that's only a problem for women like me, who carry around their books in bags that are way too big for the amount of stuff they need to carry around - causing the books to move around too much.

You can buy it directly from That Company Called If or try to find one through an ebay seller that ships to your area. It's available in international English as well as US English for only £24,99 (USD 38,41 / EUR 29). But I got mine on ebay for £14 (€16 / $21), so definitely look around the great interwebz for the cheapest way to get yours.

Now You See Me

But not for long. This movie was a big disappointment for me and had I not been amidst a hundred cars at the Drive-In Movies, incapable of physically leaving, I just might have. But because I preferred not to scratch my own car or others', and of course because I wanted to give you a full description of why I disliked the movie, I stayed and gave it chance after chance after chance. Until of course, I ran out of chances to give.

Given the respectable cast (Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Cain, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, ...), one would expect a respectable or at least entertaining movie. I see now that it is best to keep one's expectations low..

None of the actors I greatly admire and whose work I've always enjoyed watching were able to save this cliché, cheap and far-fetched storyline. The movie is about four magicians who form a neat little hip group, making magic cool again, pulling a Robin Hood, and showing off their tricks while trying to make all of them sound incredibly complex and intelligent. Which of course, they are not. The tricks, I mean.. Not the characters. The characters deserve an entirely more elaborate negative critique.

Jesse Eisenberg, who played Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and portrayed the role of the cocky, socially awkward nerd extremely well, now plays the role of the - wait for it - cocky, socially awkward but very talented magician. Considering the small change in character, one would expect this to go off quite well. On the contrary, Eisenberg's character is given considerably less intelligent lines and endearing qualities, leaving absolutely no justification for his arrogance, making his character seem petty and douchy. I personally took offense at how this movie and its characters continually presented themselves as genius masterminds, all the while assuming they would leave their audience guessing and completely mesmerized. I would have accepted this had the characters been anything more than one-dimensional.

Of course, when I hear "Michael Cain" and "magic", I'm reminded of The Prestige. Its flawless cinematography, directing, acting and writing make it impossible to compare it to Now You See Me. Of course the mood of both movies couldn't be more radically different: one is dark, arty and intelligent, the other is simple, commercial and full of bad CGI. Even though it's probably best never to compare a movie to another, Now You See Me can be likened - at best - to Ocean's Eleven. Which, with all its sequels, would still surpass the aforementioned on every level, with ease.

Morgan Freeman, the only actor - I find - who can credibly pull off playing God, played a rather boring and forgettable role in this movie. While he did the best he could with the story and the lines he was given, I just couldn't see the importance of the part he played. His only function was that of a soundboard for other actors to recap what just happened and explain their theories to, so as to point out all the obvious developments for the intellectually challenged viewers.

Woody Harrelson's character, a mentalist, was the only one with a somewhat amusing personality. I wouldn't go as far as to call his part funny, but perhaps fun-ish...

I won't be giving away any spoilers - not that that would ruin the movie for you, it really needs no help in that - but I will say that the plot twist is a predictable one. Not the fun predictable kind, but the "ah man, I really hoped they wouldn't go there"-kind. Not simply because there are about 500 better plot twists readily available, but also because there is absolutely no reason to go there at all unless you'd like to appeal to the Walt Disney target audience. In which case, I recommend adding songs and dances. In fact, singing and dancing are probably the only things that actually could save this movie for me.

The Newsroom

Aaron Sorkin’s latest show about a (fictional) news channel, featuring a smug but endearing news anchor Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) and his overly competent news crew, has returned for a second season. While I loved the first season, almost with the same obsessive idolatry I share for all of Sorkin’s creations, I must admit there were a few chinks in the armor.

The first season’s opening was a combination of black-and-white stills followed by fast-paced contemporary newsroom scenes. To me, both the music and images reeked of nostalgia and longing for the good old West Wing days. Except, this intro was not as fitting to the show as The West Wing’s was. While the quick pacing and the walk-and-talk are typical Sorkin elements that befit the intelligent and witty dialogue, the new shaky-cam filming akin to documentaries and mockumentaries felt out of place.

It was mostly this shaky-cam style that bothered me throughout the first season. While the dialogues as well as the movements are extremely rapid and perhaps at times as hard to follow for the cameraman, as they are for the viewer, I wished they wouldn’t show that.

But much like the ABC Network imposed laugh track for Sorkin’s 1998 show Sports Night (the behind-the-scenes of a struggling sports news show), this was soon resolved as the creator got his bearings. The uncontrollable shaky camera got more steady along the way. Returning to a slightly more stable filming, I was able to fully enjoy what it is that got me so hooked on Sorkin’s work to begin with; the authenticity to all his settings and scenes, the casting expertise which always provides the most suitable actors, the funny but true-to-life dialogue and the witty asides throughout.

Season 2

The first episode of the second season showed a very different introduction. One more suitable to the style of the show, having its own unqiue qualities that need not remind Sorkin’s fans of his previous successes. The West Wing-like music remains, but the images are simple, current and beautifully filmed.

While a few episodes of the first season seemed a bit too sentimental or at times “Americanized”, I have full faith in The Newsroom’s second season. The first episode promised to continue questioning all issues related not only to American journalism, but to journalism in general. Integrity compromises and journalism’s moral crises are brought to the fore – prioritizing of profit, ratings, demographics, and popularity, are not only questioned but also condemned. Despite value judgments, Sorkin shows it’s not always easy or at all possible “to do the right thing”.

As an internet addict, I am always delighted to see references to social media and internet memes made correctly. I cringe at the bad research done by most TV writers when they make their characters refer to “twittering” or “tweeting on someone’s wall” or, God forbid, “checking their MySpace page”.  So of course I was giggling a bit when Jeff Daniels started singing Rebecca Black’s Friday, and I couldn’t have been happier at the mention of SOPA. The research that has gone into the writing of this show is without doubt unprecedented as well as Sorkin’s ability to create an unbelievable authenticity and on-set chemistry.

Criticism

Variety’s TV columnist Brian Lowry discusses the show’s flaws, comparing the outbursts of harsh critique towards media and politics in The Newsroom as a sort of “force-feeding”. Lowry is convinced of hearing Sorkin’s own voice and opinions shine through in his characters’ lines. And while my skepticism towards that statement could have more to do with a loyalty and an all-forgiving love for Sorkin, I do believe it is dangerous to imply the author’s intent and liken him or his attributes to those of his fictional characters. Perhaps the implied author here is really just a large portion of the population. Admittedly, the words and opinions sound better in Sorkinese and are more grammatically and accurately formulated than most of us could manage. But this does not take away the truthfulness of their content, and their accordance with and applicability to daily life.

 I’ve loved Sorkin’s writing since the age of 14 and I discovered during my West Wing addiction that my favorite movie at the time (A Few Good Men) was also his. It took me a while to discover Sports Night and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and I was through the roof when I heard Sorkin was to write the screenplay for The Social Network. I have moved on to Sorkin’s plays and have only been able to get my hands on a copy of The Farnsworth Invention, but the same incomparable intelligence and care has gone into this as in all his other creations. His work is unparalleled and despite the typical season 1 beginner flaws, I am positive that The Newsroom’s second season will once again prove this to be true.

So don’t go anywhere, give the show some room to grow, and cherish the fact that we’ve all been given an extra Sorkin year. Here’s to many more!

ZeBracelet

Instead of spending huge amounts of money on a Pebble smartwatch, I decided to go for the cheaper (but also slightly prettier) version. Granted, a watch with half as many functions as the Pebble (if that).

But still all in all, a handy little gadget! This watch comes in the shape of a bracelet for women (in white, black and gold) and in the shape of a normal watch for men. 

The downside of the male version, the ZeWatch, seems to be that the numbers are displayed sideways, making it a tad more difficult to tell time quickly. I'm not sure if I'd be wanting to turn my head to the side each time I wanted to check my watch..

Pros

The design of the ZeBracelet is more appealing, but clearly more feminine. I chose a black bracelet, as the display screen is more integrated in black-on-black, instead of in black-on-white or black-on-gold. The watch is easily paired to your smartphone, and connects to your phone through bluetooth. The green and red side buttons allow you to pick up or hang up calls. You can also use these buttons to turn up or turn down the volume. The watch has a little speaker and microphone, making it easy to conduct calls with your watch. Very Knight Rider 2.0.

When a call comes through, your watch will display the number first and quickly change to the name associated with it. As for the watch function; the display is only visible when you click one of the buttons and is shown for about 10 seconds before disappearing again. For girls, this will more easily give the illusion that you're wearing a black bracelet instead of a watch.

Cons

The downsides are few, but definitely present. The first one being an obvious one, namely that if you answer calls through your watch, your environment will be able to listen in on your conversations. The second downside being that the volume cannot go extremely high, which can force you to hold your watch close to your ear in a noisy space. The microphone also picks up your voice more easily if your watch is a bit closer to your mouth. This is of course very practical when driving, where you (preferably) keep your hands on the steering wheel, holding them in the perfect position for a clear conversation. There is a slight delay, but I guess even Knight Rider experienced some lagging issues.

The other downside, I find, is that there is no stereo jack. This would have been very practical, allowing you to listen to your calls and your music privately. It would have been a handy feature while jogging. 

While you also have to recharge your watch regularly, it is easily done. The watch comes with a USB cable and an extra option to plug it into a socket for recharging as well.

The last but biggest con, to me, is that your watch always needs to be within a 10 meter range of your phone. For all you non-metric system peoples, that's about 32 feet. Not the biggest range, I admit, and what they promote as a handy "lost-phone alert", making the watch vibrate when your phone is out of range, is oftentimes more annoying than helpful. I tend to move about a lot during the day, and I don't always have my phone on me. I do, however, keep my watch on. Resulting in a vibrating alert about 10 times a day. But I'm sure it can function as a useful anti-theft-notification. 

While it's not the best in its genre, it definitely offers an esthetically pleasing design and a cheap alternative to the higher-priced smartwatches. It does the job for only €69 (or 90 USD).

Tech Specs

• Bluetooth ® Version: V2.1
• Voltage: 3.6V - 4.2V
• Current: 45mA
• Frequency: 2.4GHZ
• Talk time : 2-3 hours
• Standby time: 72 hours
• Battery Type: Li-ion 150mAh
• Size: 38.5 * 80 * 12.5 mm
• Weight: 45 grams
• Screen: 128 * 32 OLED
• Operating temperature: -20°C to +60°C
• Warranty: 24 months

World War Z

I suppose I am one of the few people who has not read the classic 2006 novel by Max Brooks. Instead, I went straight to the cinemas. Paramount had quickly secured the movie rights upon publication of the novel, but a lot of (pre)production troubles and rewritings caused a tremendous delay, culminating in the final, long-overdue release of the movie in June, 2013.

While a lot of fans are raging online about the many liberties the writers have taken with the original storyline, and lists of the differences with the novel are appearing here and there, I believe that the movie can still be seen as a great stand-alone product.

Not being a fan of zombie-movies (mostly because of the abundant use of fake blood and the superficial storylines and character developments), and hearing a bunch of negative reviews from both bloggers and journalists, I went in being more than a tad skeptical.
I was soon surprised to see that the movie opened with a very calm and realistic introduction, introducing both to the characters as well as to the viewers, the slow-arising - but quickly escalating - shock and panic that is symptomatic to such a large-scale "virus"-outbreak.

The lack of gore, typical of zombie-movies, is made up for by the excruciatingly intense scenes that wonderfully depict the panic of the individual and the masses. I loved the personal and psychological aspects that were stressed in this movie and I appreciated a main character who, despite actually surviving several life-threatening situations, did so without any Jack-Bauer-esque superpowers or deus-ex-machina reliances. While many object to the altered speed at which these zombies move about, I find a raging and rapidly approaching undead far scarier than a slow, daft one.

The story was good, the visuals were gorgeous (especially the Jerusalem setting), and the action pace as well as the acting itself was perhaps far better than in any preceding zombie-movie.
With movies like this, I might become a fan of the zombie genre after all.