Daytime Amusement

I only go to the bank to pay bills and I can only do that during my lunch break because it closes at three in the afternoon on weekdays and is closed all weekend. Every time I go there, they have the tv on for waiting customers, and it is always on to this show that seems to be about a somewhat typical Japanese family and their everyday lives. The only thing notable about it is that the father (I think, I don't ever listen to it) is kind of fat and has a hippy look about him. Other than that, it looks absolutely terrible, and from what little I have bothered to pay attention to, is, but the main character is a twenty-something girl who was no doubt selected for her cuteness and she seems like the kind of character you'd grow attached to even if you hate the rest of the show.

Anyway, here's a neat link I found on Digg today about how magenta isn't a color.

祭り

Je suis allé au festival hier. Il y a des vidéos du feu d'artiface.

überschätzt

I watched The Dark Knight, and I thought I'd let you know that you should be wary of all the hype because it is a mediocre movie.

The main source of hype for this movie seems to be Heath Ledger dying. While that's too bad, it doesn't really make his performance special or anything. He does a good job in the role, but it isn't mindblowing or spectacular or anything. He is probably the best actor in the movie, but he's sort of limited by the script. People often get super excited about actors, but they really don't realize that acting is only about the third most important thing in a movie.

It's like this. If you give a good actor a bad script, you will get a bad movie. If you give a bad actor a bad script, you will still get a bad movie. If you give a good actor a good script, you will get a good movie. Direction is more important than acting, but I digress here.

So, anyway, Ledger does a good job with what he's given, and the script really isn't too bad. They do a good job of making the Joker into a crazy criminal mastermind, and his plans, especially the one that opens the movie, are pretty brilliant. They are the most fun parts of the movie to watch. The only problem with the way they handle it is that they basically remove all the humor from the character. Not to get too fanboyish, but...

The Joker is generally thought to be one of the best villains in comic bookery because he acts as a wonderful foil to Batman. Batman is the dark hero, and the Joker is the evil clown. You are supposed to laugh at his antics and hate him at the same time. He's pretty much the worst person ever, but when he breaks in with something like "Never rub another man's rhubarb!" you can't help sort of cheering for the guy. Unfortunately, The Dark Knight's Joker has essentially no funny lines. He's just crazy and a criminal genius. Ledger also way overuses this weird breathing/tongue smacking thing which gets really annoying.

That being said, he is still the best part of the movie. His acting does not make it, but some of the other actors' performances almost break it.

Christian Bale is terrible in this movie. He's not given as much to do, since the focus this time is on the villains, but he manages to mess up just about every scene he's in. He only appears as Bruce Wayne a couple times and does nothing really remarkable. There is absolutely zero chemistry between him and Maggie Gyllenhaal (?), or him and Aaron Eckhart. When he appears as Batman, he is laughably bad. As in, every time he was on screen, I burst out laughing at his terrible performance. He's not helped by a suit that makes him look like bloated old Elvis, but he continues to do the completely inappropriate and childish deep-talking voice. I was seriously hoping that somehow they would bring back George Clooney or Val Kilmer or even Adam West because even those guys were better at this.

Michael Caine makes Christian Bale look like a pro, however. He is so bad that any time he came on screen I almost stopped watching. He does a completely inappropriate cockney-like accent the whole time and really just comes off as obnoxious. If I saw him today, I would punch him right in the face for being as awful as he is.

Gary Oldman does a good job of playing Gordon in the sense that when he is onscreen, you think, "oh, hey Gordon," not "oh, hey, some moron with a mustache doing a terrible accent/goofy voice." If actors are doing their job, you won't think of them by their names. Think about it.

Aaron Eckhart does a serviceable job as Harvey Dent. I had to look up his name, but that probably has more to do with the fact that I don't really care about actors and just didn't know it than with his amazing transformative ability. When Dent becomes Two-Face, though, he stands out like a sore thumb. He seems completely wrong for the part. Fortunately he doesn't do some goofy voice change, but he could have done something. He isn't helped by makeup that makes him look like Harvey Dent with some fake plastic thing covering one half of his face. It's also pretty much a throwaway role, as he doesn't get transformed until the last third of the movie, then basically just flips a coin and shoots people without any style or anything until he gets killed.

I should say that the last third of the film is a disaster. It is incredibly boring despite being the part with the most action and I found myself doing something else to keep entertained during this part, so I don't even remember how Two-Face gets it. Also, for some reason, the Joker's plan in this part is much less clever than his previous plans and is really just annoyingly obvious. We also get to see a bunch of unclear action scenes where a bloated Batman stumbles around in the dark fighting a bunch of no-name guys. Woohoo. A good way to watch this movie would be just to watch up until Dent becomes Two-Face and then leave. You'd be ultimately more satisfied, and I can't help wondering if this part was tacked on for marketing purposes or something.

Some good things, though. They certainly cut down on the techno crap from the first movie. When will people learn that Batman is not James Bond and giving him James Bond-like "Q" scenes is akin to adding five minutes of blank screen with Revolution #9 being played over it? The new Batmobile is still an abomination, eclipsed only by the awfulness that is the new Batcycle. Fortunately, we get to see the demise of the car, and the cycle (machine guns?) appears only briefly, though even that appearance is far too long. Since there is less focus on Batman himself, we also get less focus on the stupid gadgets aspect, which is wonderful. The reason that the gadget thing works so well for James Bond, for instance, is that he is a ridiculous hero living in a ridiculous world, so dart gun cigarettes, inflatable protective coats, and zip line watches just come off as awesome. You always see the gadgets introduced and think, what stupid way is he going to use this? With these new Batman movies, it's like, "I need some kind of [meaningless techno babble] to [achieve objective]" and Fox makes it, and Batman uses it just like he said he would. And we are supposed to be amazed by this? It's a movie, do something fun, people.

All in all, though, not awful. Not amazing. Mediocre. überschätzt

Bug

　　　　虫
虫虫虫虫虫虫虫
虫　　虫　　　虫
虫　　虫　　　虫
虫　　虫　　　虫
虫虫虫虫虫虫虫
　　　虫
　　　虫
　　　虫　虫
　　虫虫虫　虫
　

オリンピク

I'm guessing that the olympics are kind of a big deal in America. They always seemed to be when I was there, and I guess that is because we rock at them. They are kind of a big deal here, too, which makes me think that they are probably a big deal almost everywhere, but if someone who isn't American happens to stumble upon this blog, let me know what you think of them.

Frankly I could not care less about the Olympics. It's great and all that they are supposed to be promoting peace and human rights and all that crap through sports, but it is obviously a facade and if it weren't you wouldn't have them in China while demanding only that the terrible Chinese government make hollow promises about human rights even as they do whatever they want to Tibetan protesters and pretty much actively give their own citzens cancer by dumping whatever they want into the rivers all in the name of making more terrible plastic crap. But, whatever, it's not like the U.S. is all that awesome on the world's stage, and we seem to get the Olympics all the time.

The real problem with the Olympics is that they are incredibly boring. Basically half the events are just people running in a straight line or in a circle, neither of which is particularly fascinating. It's great sport and all, and they are certainly in really good shape, but if they weren't, if it were just a bunch of out of shape guys running, it would basically be the same thing because they'd all still be really close. Running is just boring. That's why American TV never shows it.

Someone else pointed out that swimming is pretty stupid, too, because there are tons of medals for it when there should really only be a couple. There are all these medals for different strokes, and then a freestyle one, and during the freestyle race, everyone just uses the fast stroke. so, basically, you have one good way of swimming and a ton of crappy ones. You wouldn't give out medals for running backwards in track, so why would you give out medals for any stupid way you can plow through the water. Swimming also fails to be interesting in a big way.

There are also non-sports that still get included in the games, like gymnastics and sychronized swimming. These fail to be actual contests of skill so much as contests of whatever the judge happens to like (which it turns out is usually the home country because judges just go with whoever gets cheered for the most) on top of failing to be non-sleep inducing.

Soccer is a legitimate sport that seems like it would be good, but just isn't. The basic strategy of soccer goes something like this:

Scoring is essentially impossible because the field is too big and even people who's only job it is to kick a ball into a gigantic net consistently miss in the unlikely event that they even come within half a mile of the net in the first place.

Thus, the object is to hold onto the ball by passing it back and forth until by some freak accident, like well placed lightning or possibly an earthquake or godzilla, the ball ends up in the net. Continue holding the ball because you can't possibly risk your 1-0 lead. This will go on FOR EVER. There is a reason Americans don't like soccer. It is basically a crappy version of every other get-the-ball-past-the-other-guys-and-into-a-net/goal/basket/zone type sport ever.

Then there is baseball. Baseball is cool.

Combining uninteresting sports also results in uninteresting sports. Swimming? Boring. Biking? Boring. Running? Boring. Swimming-biking-running? Three times the boredom. I honestly have no idea how people can watch all this stuff.

By far the most interesting part of the Olympics is trying to devise a better system than medal count for determining which country wins.

Weekend Fun

I spent some of Saturday in Izumo, not doing anything particularly interesting, but there was a model home there with something interesting on it.



Spiderman! Spiderman! Out of nowhere a spiderman thing attached to a house! Since I learned that I could upload movies, here's a superfluous one.



So, there's that. On Sunday, I slept half the day because I was up most of the night before, but in the afternoon, my buddy Nate called me up to go to a waterfall with him and a couple of German couch surfers staying with him. So here are some pictures.



The waterfall is called yaedaki, 八重滝, with taki meaning waterfall. Here are Nate and the Germans (which would be a terrible band name).



The waterfall had chains beside it that you could use to help climb up the cliff to get to a couple of pools higher up, so Nate and I climbed up, but neither of the Germans would do it. Leeza (?) swam around in the bottom pool with us, at least, but Verina (again ?) just watched from the side. They seemed to have fun. Later we ate German food and Nate tried to figure out how to play simple songs on a guitar. Excitement!

Blah Blah

Enough of the interesting posts. I think I'll talk about Japanese linguistic crap that nobody cares about but me.

So, if I haven't already mentioned this about a million times, Japanese is written using three separate character sets, hiragana, 平仮名; katakana, 片仮名, and kanji, 漢字. Hiragana and katakana were both developed specifically for Japanese, and thus enjoy a wonderful one-to-one correspondence with the sounds that exist in the language (or close to it, I'll get to some flaws later). Kanji literally means Chinese (Han) characters, and are, unsurprisingly borrowed from Chinese.

What happened was a long time ago, actually a few times during the past, specifically during the times of the Southern and Northern (Baekje) dynasties, the Tang Dynasty, the Song Dynasty, and the Ming Dynasty, the Japanese sent people over to China to learn Chinese. You see, for a very long time, Japan was basically just a couple of backwater islands of rice farmers without even a properly organized feudal system, while China was sort of the end-all-be-all of huge empires, at least as far as the far east goes. So, some of the high class Japanese learned how to read, write, and speak classical (actually properly Middle) Chinese. They brought this back to Japan, where it remained the language of the literate and scholarly. Eventually, people started writing Japanese using Chinese characters, because, hey, it's not like they had their own script or anything.

Now, the problem with doing that was that Chinese basically sounds nothing like Japanese because they are from different language families, and indeed, Japanese is a very weird language in the scheme of things. So, basically, the system didn't work very well. What then happened was that people started simplifying Chinese characters by writing them cursively and leaving out strokes to create the system called hiragana. Here are a couple examples:

由, which is read something like "yu" in Middle Chinese, got shortend to ゆ, the Japanese character "yu." The Chinese character carries a meaning, specifically, reason or cause, while the Japanese character is purely phonetic. Another example:

以 similarly became い, both of which are read "i." Again, the Japanese character carries no inherent meaning, while the Chinese one means roughly "or" as in 以上, ijou = or more, or 以下, ika = or less.

So, how does this all work out in modern Japanese? Kanji are used for their meanings, and carry multiple readings. A reading is just a way of reading something, unsurprisingly. When the Japanese borrowed all these characters, they also borrowed a lot of Chinese words along with them. Chinese was a much more highly developed language, as China was way more advanced than Japan, so using these words allowed for more technical language, and also carried some social value, much as using words from Latin does in English. So, when in a Chinese loanword, the characters have their "Chinese" reading, or on-yomi, 音読み, literally, sound-reading. The thing is because Japanese and Chinese are wildly different, Japanese people couldn't generally pronounce the Chinese words "properly," so the sounds changed quite a bit in translation. Think Americans trying to say "croissant," "beaucoup," or "laissez faire," for comparison.

But, Japanese didn't just forget their own language. They still mostly used Japanese words, even though many concepts could only be expressed using Chinese ones. So, when there was a Japanese word with an equivalent or similar meaning to a character that was borrowed, that character would be assigned that reading, which is called a kunyomi, 訓読み, literally instruct-reading. I'm oversimplifying here a bit, as there are actually multiple Chinese readings for a lot of characters, since they were borrowed at multiple points throughout history from different areas of China, but, onward and ever upward.

So, how do you read stuff in Japanese? It's not all guesswork, though sometimes you do actually just have to guess. Generally, since the Chinese characters were designed for Chinese, and Chinese doesn't really inflect the same way that western or Japanese languages do, a character representing a concept, the one character will suffice. For example, in Chinese 昨日我見他了, (which may need to be corrected, I have only learned a bit of Chinese from the internets), would be translated character for character as "last-day-I-see-him/her-completed," or more nicely as "yesterday, I saw him/her." So, each character in Chinese represents a sound and a concept and it all works out nicely because of the lack of inflection.

Putting the same sentence into Japanese, we get 昨日、私が彼を見ました。(kinoo, watashi ga kare wo [pronounced o] mimashita.) You can see some similarities. The first two characters form a compound in both Chinese and Japanese, last-day, meaning yesterday. Actually, that is an interesting compound as it can be read multiple ways in Japanese, but I digress even further. Also, the character for see is present in both sentences. All those really simple characters (が、を、ました) are hiragana, and are added for the purpose of making it a Japanese sentence. Specifically, が, ga, marks the subject of the sentence, を, wo, marks the object, and ました, mashita, conjugates the verb to past-polite form. These things aren't necessary in Chinese because the verb doesn't inflect, and word order controls function in a sentence, not particles, as in Japanese.

One other thing you might have noticed is that there are Chinese characters in both sentences not used in the other one, specifically, 我、私、他、彼、了. These are generally just slight differences in usage. Both 我 and 私 translate to I, and both are used, but the first one is typical in Chinese, while the second one is typical in Japanese. In fact, the first one is very formal in Japanese and would sound ridiculous if used in every day conversation. I'm not sure, but I think the second one is mostly used in compounds in Chinese, for things referring to the self. The characters for him, 彼 and 他, are also both used in both languages, but have slightly different uses. The first one is the typical pronoun for he/him in Japanese, but it isn't used that much because Japanese culture dictates you use someone's name if you know it, and sometimes it carries the connotation of a boyfriend. The second one just means "other" in Japanese, so isn't really used in the same way. I can't really speak to the usage in Chinese other than what I've seen in subtitles and from talking to one Taiwanese guy, who said they almost always use this gender non-specific pronoun, so that is why Chinese speakers of English often confuse he and she. The last charcter there is used in Chinese to mark completed actions, I have read, as well as to add emphasis. In Japanese, it is used in compounds (this character has no kun-yomi) such as 終了, shuuryou, meaning complete. It doesn't have a special grammatical purpose.

Alright, so on to the actual reading thing. That last compound I listed is a good example of how you figure out how to read a character in Japanese. The first character, 終, has the on-yomi shuu, but also the kun-yomi o(waru)(eru). This should give a hint as to how to read it. If it is followed by another Chinese character, as above, then it is probably using the on-yomi (Chinese, remember?), but if it is followed by hiragana, specifically the hiragana for waru or eru, it is the Japanese reading. That would look like this: 終わる　or this:　終える. Again, the hiragana serve grammatical purpose, and if they are changed, it would be for following Japanese grammatical rules.

There are some exceptions to this rule of thumb, and that is sort of annoying. For example, 出口, deguchi, meaning exit, is made of two Chinese characters read with their kun-yomi. The reason for this is that the first one is de(ru) meaning go out, and the second one is kuchi [in this case guchi], meaning mouth, so there are no extra hiragana to leave in when they are combined. It's frustrating because it looks like it should be shukkou, but is not. More frustrating is the combination of 入る, iru, to enter, and 口. It is usually written as 入口, although 入り口 is also fine. Either way, it is read iriguchi and means entrance. However, the second compound gives you a nice little clue that it is the kun-yomi by leaving in the hiragana for ri. The first one is just easier to write, but makes it look like a Chinese compound word, which it isn't.

Furthermore, there are some relatively rare words that use both readings, such as 唐楓, toukaede, meaning trident maple. The first one, tou, meaning Tang, is the on-yomi, while the second, kaede, is the Japanese reading for maple. That is a relatively obscure exaple, but I couldn't think of any of the more common ones. Regardless, it is frustrating. Congrats on getting through this one.

Fireworks

So, fireworks from Matsue city's Suigosai, which is some sort of festival, basically just for watching awesome fireworks. This is from the first night, if the upload worked properly. It was a two night event, with the second night being way bigger and the actual fireworks portion lasting an hour.



Good times were had by all.

Gutter Scum

I looked in one of the rain gutters that are built all along the roads here and saw some scum sitting on top of the water in one spot. The water was flowing before it and after it, but it wasn't moving at all. How's that work?

Election

Election is the best movie about high school I have ever seen. It took me two time watching it and 5+ white Russians to come to this conclusion, but it is true. Everything about it is wonderful. Even the lighting makes it look like hight school in the best and worst ways.

If you watch a movie about high school, it will most likely be what is dubbed a "teen movie," which is no doubt a piece of crap. It will probably try to reflect stereotypical cliques of students and then show some nerdy girl/guy who it turns out is wonderful. Elecetion is great because it shows you characters who do what they should do given their circumstances, who then end up filling certain almost stereotypical roles, instead of assigning stereotypical roles to characters and then giving you nothing else. It's a fantastic movie.

Each character has a nice story behind it, the repressed lesbian who doesn't know she's a lesbian, the overachiever who's really just trying to impress her repressed single mother, the genuinely good guy who is forced into the role of popular guy because he is genuinely likable. That is the thing that most high school movies forget. High schoolers aren't inherently stupid, they are just big kids trying to fit the roles that they see presented for them. Sure, they look dumb, but so would you (and did you) when you didn't know anything about the world. Just watch this movie, and listen to HOW the characters talk. It is beautiful and ugly and perfect.