it seems that a lot of institutions are fans of cycles. it is week nine of the fall quarter at my uni and next week is finals. it is the fourth week nine i have had to live through since starting here last fall. i have a research paper due friday and eight performances to worry about. and i watched TV for two hours when i got home. tsk, tsk, i know.

thanksgiving weekend was one reluctant endeavor after another. i got up the day of, showered and dressed and met my parents downstairs to find that i had overdressed for morning mass. i was wearing my black slacks and a coral colored top while my parents were wearing jeans and shirts. after mass we came home, ate breakfast, and promptly fell asleep on the couch for four hours before waking up to go have dinner at my great-aunt's (whom i call my aunt). a stranger had been invited to the dinner that i felt awkward around and he took it upon himself to converse with me and another the entire evening.

i worked on friday.

i worked on saturday. when i got home, my parents fed me then barrelled me off to the mall in pursuit of holiday bargains. i was in no mood to shop after working eight hours at the store, but i had no choice.

more shopping on sunday.

the highlight of my holiday was watching a movie at the theatre on friday night--Pride and Prejudice. some parts i liked, many parts i didn't. to put it simply, its an indie film through and through. there was no accounting for historical context or thematic facts from the book. the characters stretched jane austen's frames to the limit. it wasn't accurate, but there was some dialogue created by the screenwriter that might have been worthy of jane austen had the lines not been delivered so...smugly. the bennets' house is a good example. first of all, the bennet's were not as poor and vulgar as the movie portrayed them to be. their house looked absolutely bohemian which i'm sure is the result of indie set-directors with their own concept of art. i understand that film-making is an art but so is writing a novel and art in film and art in literature cannot occur at the same time. if you're going to present a piece of literature through film, stick to the art in the literature, please, and don't insert your own concepts of setting.

elizabeth bennet giggled too much. mrs. hurst, poor thing, was cut completely out of the story. miss bingley dressed rather fast for a single lady of good breeding at that time. mr. darcy, when confronted by elizabeth during his proposal backed down--which he never did in the book. the whole concept of pride and prejudice was undermined throughout the film because some things weren't emphasized as they should have been. mr. bingley was outrageous--in appearance and character. the poor man played a red-headed idiot. i won't say anything about judi dench as lady catherine because she's above anything i have to say. the character i liked best was jane bennet. she was cast well, and she portrayed the part well.

i have yet to see a film-version of pride and prejudice that portrays mr. bingley in an agreeable way. in this version and the one done before it (the tv mini-series) he's always...i dunno...he's always weak. in the A&E version, his sister interrupts him while he's speaking and he takes it. in this version, he can barely speak correctly and admits during his proposal to jane that he had been an "incomprehensible ass" throughout their time together. he's not as weak or insignificant in the book. his weakness is expressed in his willingness to believe what his sisters and friend tell him about jane, and in his willingness to leave for London at the command of these same people, but this weakness is always taken to an extreme degree. he can speak perfectly well in the book and doesn't say stupid things. he has enough confidence to joke with darcy in front of elizabeth. he's intelligent. he's just too easygoing and lets himself be led astray by his family and friends--which isn't hard if you trust your family and friends.