Drew and I watched Stardust last night. It was a refreshingly different movie from the norm. The story was relatively unique, it was lighthearted, didn't take itself too seriously and had some funny moments. The special effects and sets were spectacular, though it seems as though The Lord of the Rings set a bit of a precedence for the fantasy genre, ie if you want to produce a fantasy movie, it should be shot in New Zealand. Not to blame them, the countryside is beautiful, but it seemed a bit of a copy-cat move.

That brings me to a thought I had today whilst standing around. I find it interesting that. . . someone, I don't know if it was the Screen Actors Guild, or whom, decided it would be better to remove gender from the title of a performer. Everyone now is an actor whether male or female--used to be males were actors and females actresses. Seems a bit of a quiet change that took place sometime in the past 10 years. I'm sure it was made for "sexist" reasons--equal treatment and all of that nonsense. Interestingly enough though, for all of the awards shows, they still make the distinction. Egotistical actors can't pass up the opportunity to receive even more awards. It seems if they were concerned with equal treatment, they would be doing away with the gender distinctions in the Academy as well.

I'm reading a bit of Nabokov right now. What an interesting writer. It always seems to me that he has more going on beneath the surface than what he initially gives away, though he insists, in an essay I read by him, that he doesn't believe literature should be didactic in its purpose, it should exist for the beauty of it. I don't have the patience or the desire right now to pursue those phantoms beneath the surface that he toyingly reveals at points. He is definitely a talented writer and it amazes me that English is an adopted language for him (he constantly laments that English doesn't have the "plastic" flow that Russian does).