And then there’s the internet. Much has been said of the EDGE network. No, it’s not very fast, but in my experience, it’s absolutely usable, and I can understand the size/battery tradeoffs involved. I would much rather have a super-thin phone that walked through the internet than a brick that sprints. For my priorities, Apple made the right decision. The browser itself is, of course, fantastic. I really love that I can quickly look up something on Google or IMDB when I’m out and about, or even just on my couch. Also, the widgets are nice to have; I like to keep an eye on Apple’s stock price (wishing I had some), and also on the weather.

The decision to use glass for the screen was pure brilliance. As soon as I take it out of my pocket to show people, they always ask, “Don’t you have a case for it?” I love to take my keys and rub them across the surface to the shock of my friends and co-workers. It just doesn’t scratch. At all. No case necessary.

My biggest complaint against MySpace is the complete lack of attention to the user interface, and I mean that on all levels. First there is the overall graphic design of the site, or lack thereof. Even the parts of the site not customizable by users are just horribly ugly. But it’s so much deeper than that. It’s not just a matter of negligent typography and a bad color scheme. The whole layout is remarkably unintuitive. Indeed, the entire user experience is just awful.

You go to a profile page and click on the link to see more pictures. You have to sign in. You just signed in half an hour ago? Who cares? Do it again. I understand security concerns, but on a computer that isn’t ever shared, shouldn’t I at least be able to stay signed in perpetually? It’s not like MySpace is a bank; nothing that bad can possibly happen. Just let me stay signed in and ask for my password only if I want to change some important account settings. That’s the sensible thing. Or, at the very least, don’t put adult ads on the sign-in page. That’s just good manners. (The real Web 2.0 way to do it would be an AJAX sign-in box that shows up in the page when needed, completely eliminating a separate sign-in page.) Also, frequently when I sign in after clicking a link to view profile pictures, I’m just taken straight to my profile page, and have to hit the back button to get where I want. Sloppy code.

Even though the official MySpace design elements are bad, the individual profile pages are indescribably worse. I remember, with embarrassment, back when I had a tacky Angelfire page. Unfortunately MySpace takes that level of tacky to entirely new levels. Gigantic (and busy) background images? Go for it. Just make sure you put your text in boxes with clear backgrounds, so you can easily see the page background. You want to read the text? Why bother? Bizarrely sized fonts rule the day, along with pale and/or neon colors. I mean, you’ve got a color screen, right? Black on white is so printing press. Also making a return from the Hellish nascent days of the web are animated GIFs, frequently with sparkly text and other garish delights.

But the worst offense, and one for which MySpace is directly responsible is auto-playing music. News flash: I’ve got iTunes running … all the time. I’m already listening to music, and I don’t want some other music to suddenly start playing and interrupting the selections from my carefully culled library. If I want to hear something I’ll hit “play.” Instead, I’m forced to search for “stop,” and I want to place emphasis on “search.” Due to the customizability of a user’s profile, elements can appear in seemingly random locations.

My last objection is one that has grown considerably in the past couple of months. Now, every time I visit MySpace, usually to delete spurious friend requests, I am deluged with even more requests. I get add requests from 18 or 19 year old “bisexual” females in the Dallas/Forth Worth Metroplex on a regular basis. I’ll visit MySpace, sign in, deny the requests, and promptly leave. Shortly later, I’ll have a half-dozen requests. I especially love when I see multiple profiles with the same picture, and very different stats.

Though I hesitate to use the term, the previous books have been somewhat formulaic: they begin towards the end of Summer, Harry goes to school, he fights the bad guy in the Spring, Dumbledore reveals some more mysteries, then he goes back home to the Dursley’s. This one, however, begins early in the Summer. The school year still proceeds along the same basic plot-line, but the ending is certainly different. Dumbledore does not reveal more mysteries, and the entire end-of-school circumstances are thrown into chaos and horror. Harry is then ready to embark on his quest almost immediately. He’s not waiting for anyone else to protect him; it’s his time to act.

Despite the emotional turmoil at the end of the book, the rest of it is fairly upbeat. In Order of the Phoenix, Harry spends most of his time frustrated. It’s hundreds of pages of teen angst. This one gets over that and finally gives us some long-awaited romance. The romance isn’t fully satisfying, due to Voldemort’s interruption of their lives, but I get the feeling that it will all work out in the end (think Spider-Man 2).

The only problem that remains, and will always remain, is Obi-Wan’s bizarre promotion of subjectivism. Are the Sith really the only ones who speak in absolutes? One of the great things about Star Wars is its moral clarity and–yes–absolutism. Obi-Wan is absolutely good; Emperor Palpatine is absolutely evil. Indeed, Anakin is the only character with any sort of moral abiguity, and yet he is the one condenmed for speaking in absolutes. Obi-Wan’s line is completely out of character and radically at odds with the story. As soon as he reluctantly concludes that Anakin is going fully over to the Dark side (that is to say, “against him”), he fights to kill. Anakin is no longer with him, and so Obi-Wan must defeat him.
Aside from that one incongruous exhange, the movie is free of any
other really bad lines.

In vaguely related news, I bought another movie today: Peter Pan. I saw in in theaters and was entranced. It really is an excellent movie. I particularly love the guiltless arrogance of Peter. How can one help liking something so sublimely joyful? The story is just so overhwelmingly happy, but not at all sappy. I also love a movie with really good bad guys. Pirates somehow seem the best baddies. My all time favorite is Dennis Hopper in Waterworld. It may be a Kevin Costner (aka bomb factory) movie but Hopper’s character is just so deliciously evil!

My parents bought The Last Samurai today. I’ve not yet seen it but I hear good things. I shall promtly report my findings, since I know I have thousands of devout fans whose every purchase is based solely on my awesome word.

I have my final exam tomorrow in World Literature Though the Renaissance. This exam will cover The Song of Roland and Macbeth. It will also have a small portion on the movie Scotland, Pa., which we watched because it is a modern adaptation of Macbeth. The movie was actually really good and I am considering buying it. It moves the setting from medieval Scotland to a hamburger stand in 1970s Pennsylvania. The transition works surprisingly well. I wrote a possibly excellent paper on the similarities and differences between the film and the play. I should probably actually finish reading the play before I take my exam tomorrow. In fact, I will now offer my essay. Maybe some student can plagerize it and get kicked out of school. It wouldn’t be the first time my words have ended up in someone else’s paper. I’m proud of that!

Differences and Similarities Between Macbeth and Scotland, Pa.

Scotland Pa. is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The filmmakers could have filmed the play virtually unchanged, or they could have merely updated the language, or they could have kept the language and updated the time and setting. They chose instead to update the setting and language, but to keep the story and characters.

Scotland Pa.’s most obvious difference from the text is the setting. Macbeth is set is medieval Scotland; Scotland Pa. is set in a 1970s American hamburger stand. This change is beneficial in several ways. The typical audience member is unlikely to be familiar with the social structure Shakespeare wrote about. Moreover, our relative familiarity with more modern English monarchal structure actually works to mislead the audience. Our understanding is that the crown should pass from father to son, but King Duncan is perfectly free to name a successor other than his eldest son. This makes his choice of Malcolm over Macbeth in the original version seem far less objectionable. In the context of a business, however, Macbeth clearly should have been promoted over the slacker son. We expect nepotism in royal matters. Also, the murder of Duncan in the movie differs substantially from the play. Shakespeare has Duncan stabbed while sleeping at the Macbeths. The filmmakers instead bring the Macbeths into the hamburger stand where Duncan has just had a fight with his son. The Macbeths tie Duncan up and stand him in front of a fryer where they discuss how to get the safe combination from him, and killing him. This discussion is also a part of the deeper character development carried out by the filmmakers. Macbeth is prepared to murder Duncan but does not want to hear Duncan speak. Talking is a distinctly human ability and perhaps by not letting Duncan say anything, Macbeth can de-personify his intended victim in his head. The appearance of the three witches in the stand, itself further psychological character development since only Macbeth can see the witches, leads to the convenient accidental murder of Duncan. The movie’s version of the murder leaves the Macbeths somewhat less guilty than does the callous murder of the play. The increased development of characters can also be seen in Duncan and his sons. Malcolm is a minor character in the play and Donalbain is little more than a name. The movie, however, spends significant time on these two characters. Malcolm in shown as a lazy and rebellious teenager who would much rather smoke pot and listen to music than join in his dad’s interests. Donald, slightly renamed, goes along with his dad by playing football and does not openly protest, though he too has no desire to do the things Duncan would like. In the play, the brothers flee Scotland, but in the movie, they stay in the town and inherit Duncan’s doughnut fortune. They freely give over ownership of the hamburger stand to the Macbeths. Malcolm is free to rock on and Donald can have his invariably male company over. The introduction of the father-son conflict updates the story. Modern audiences can relate well to the idea of a middle-class small-business owner who, having achieved success on his own accord, now pushes his progeny to excel, but who themselves rebel against his overbearing nature and too-high standards. Such a scenario resonates better than Scottish nobility of nearly a millennium ago speaking in words written 400 years ago. The end of the Macbeths and the story itself is significantly altered in the movie. The book involves an army of men, international intervention, and an elaborate prophecy about the situations under which Macbeth can be killed. The movie simply has a fight between Macbeth and Macduff on the roof of the hamburger stand in which Macbeth is eventually knocked off and falls to his death. Lady Macbeth bleeds to death after cutting off her hand and Macduff becomes the new owner of the stand.

Although the filmmakers chose to make many significant changes, they left the names and essential plot and theme the same. The story, in both forms, teaches that advancement is something to be earned. Eliminating those who would stand in the way by such heinous crimes as murder may procure an ephemeral gain, but actions will always eventually catch up with criminals. The movie also maintains an important manifestation of guilt. Lady Macbeth is plagued in Shakespeare’s version by a bloody spot on her hand that she just can’t seem to get clean. The spot, of course, is in her head. In the play, she is injured by a splash of oil from the fryer. Though the burn quickly heals, she imagines it infected. She thinks that everyone is looking at it and goes to ridiculous efforts to conceal and heal it.

The makers of Scotland Pa. took a very old play and carefully adapted it into a modern film. They preserved the fundamental story and some of the more memorable details. To make it more relevant to contemporary audiences, they effectively shifted the story of murder and betrayal forward four centuries and down considerably in social class.