Latest Posts
Why Twilight is Bad for Cinema
I’m a little ashamed to admit this in public, but I saw New Moon on opening day. In my defense, it was Ms. PD’s idea. In all sincerity, though, I feel it my duty to encourage you—no, beg, you—not to spend your money on this movie.
Speak
By way of introduction, let’s go back in time to one of Kristen Stewart’s earlier films: Speak. Originally based on a novel, the film tells the story of Melinda Sordino (played by Stewart) as she comes to terms with being raped.
Stewart is very good in this movie, which features very little of her actually speaking to people. She is portraying a character who has retreated almost entirely into her own mind, and her stilted, lifeless delivery portrays Melinda’s pain and confusion brilliantly. Watching Speak, one easily accepts that Kristen Stewart really has experienced the events her character did; that Stewart is truly acting, and making conscious decisions about her portrayal of Melinda.
Thus my willingness, if not excitement, to try Twilight. Here was an actress I was familiar with, and whose work I admired as nuanced and absorbing. I could not have been more mistaken.
The Twilight Saga
The problem with Kristen Stewart’s acting in the Twilight Saga is that she, apparently, isn’t acting. I can’t speak to her personality in the real world, but on the screen, she appears to have just the one delivery: stilted, lifeless, one dimensional and, frequently, grating.
In Speak, her failure to engage the other actors was appropriate for her character. In the Twilight Saga, it only serves to remind the viewer that this is two hours they’re never getting back.
It’s my birthday….
Can I ask for something…?
Kiss me….
A typical exchange, from the trailer.
When Bella cuts her finger on a birthday present, Stewart seems genuinely shocked—not that she managed to cut herself on a box—but that she’s bleeding. It’s as if her character has never experienced, or indeed heard of, a paper cut before. Except that she immediately identifies it as a paper cut, and then proceeds to stare at her finger like she’s never seen it before, while perplexedly delivering, in the same tone as her plea for Edward’s kiss, the following line: Ow…. Paper cut….
One would think that Bella, surrounded by a family of vampires—one of whom is known for his desire to feast on Bella’s blood—would have reacted differently. One would think, actually, that Bella would attempt to put distance between her and the vampire. At the very least, one would think Bella might show some emotion after getting a paper cut (they hurt!). But no, it’s just two short, emotionless, sentence fragments.
Bella as Vessel
Over at The Oatmeal, Bella is described as “an empty shell … that way, any female can slip into it and easily fantasize about being this person.” This probably works well enough in the novel, where the act of reading can itself be a form of creation and where the reader can quite easily imagine being the main character. In my experience, such a thing is at best quite difficult in a film. We do not, in general, go to the movies to become the characters, but rather to witness their existence. The fourth wall of film is that of audience-as-viewer, not audience-as-creator.
It may be that Kristen Stewart’s performance is designed to hide her actual existence—to encourage audience members to pretend that they are Bella. If so, she has failed. What emerges, instead, is a character whose conflicted allegiances are expressed as general stupidity and an inability to process the world she’s become a part of.
Ultimately I don’t think that’s the intention, however. I don’t think the author quite intended for Bella to be so overwhelmed by mythology that she loses her common sense. Indeed, in the first film, Bella is able to research tribal folklore and discover Edward’s true identity. In the hands of a more capable actress, one imagines this intelligence and nuance becoming an enjoyable part of the film’s plot.
The Blind Side
What I really want to talk about though is how movies full of bad acting, bad writing, and bad directing can make so much money, while movies like The Bind Side take in a quarter as much revenue. The Blind Side, which is based on a novel and a true story, does not have to rely on that fact to draw in viewers. It stands on its own as a quality film, written and directed well, with outstanding performances by its actors.
To be certain, it features far fewer teenaged boys walking around shirtless, but if that’s the only reason left to go see the Twilight Saga, one wonders why the bother? There are plenty of shirtless boys on YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook—and they’re free!
Why Twilight is Bad for Cinema
At the end of the day, we must admit that there is a great incentive for Hollywood to produce whatever it is that the American public wants to see. If nobody goes to see a movie, it doesn’t make money, and if it doesn’t make money, then neither do the studios. This means that every theater viewing experience is a vote—not just for that particular movie, but for future movies like it.
By spending almost $500,000,000 to see New Moon in the first three weeks of release, we are telling studios to produce more bad movies like it. For the love of all that is good, please stop rewarding Hollywood for producing bad movies by going in droves to see them.
Finding Volumes of Cubic Unit Cells
In chemistry, the unit cell of a crystalline solid is the basic building block of that crystal. A crystal lattice is formed by stacking these unit cells three-dimensionally. Perhaps the most basic unit cell is the cubic unit cell—so named because it is, in fact, shaped like a cube. The cubic unit cell comes in three flavors: simple, body-centered, and face-centered.
Finding the volume of a cubic unit cell is easy if you are given 
, the edge length: 
. It is also relatively easy if given the density and mass of the element: 
.
What if, however, you are only given the element’s atomic radius? We will use geometry to derive a formula for the volume of a cubic unit cell in each of the three varieties.
Simple Cubic Unit Cells
A simple (sometimes called primitive) cubic unit cell has atoms at each of the eight corners. The locations of the atoms are called lattice points.
Let’s focus on just one of the faces of a polonium unit cell:
You should note that only part of each atom is drawn in a solid line—this is to indicate that only part of each atom is contained in a given unit cell. For corner lattice points, this portion is 1/8th.
From the picture, we can see that the length of each edge is determined by the radii of two Polonium atoms. Thus 
and 
.
For polonium, whose atomic radius is 168 pm, 
.
Body-centered Cubic Unit Cells
A body-centered cubic unit cell has a lattice point in the middle of the cell, as well as at each corner:
Of note in the above picture is that the atom identified in purple is situated directly in the middle of the cell, at the intersection of the cube’s body diagonals.
The technique used to solve the problem in the case of a simple cubic unit cell won’t work here, because the edge length is not an easily recognizable multiple of the radius of each atom. That is, if we look at one of the cell’s faces, we see there is a gap of unknown size between the two corner atoms (molybdenum in this case).
What we would like to do is determine the length of the edge; we do this by relating the body diagonal, the face diagonal, and the edge length via the Pythagorean theorem.
Let 
be the length of the body diagonal. Since there are two corner atoms each with width 
and one atom in the center with width 
, we can see that 
.
Let 
be the length of the face diagonal. By the Pythagorean theorem, 
.
Applying the Pythagorean theorem to the triangle formed by the body diagonal, the face diagonal, and one of the edges gives 
. Hence 
and 
.
For molybdenum, whose atomic radius is 139 pm, 
.
Face-centered Cubic Unit Cells
A face-centered cubic cell has lattice points in the center of each face as well as at each corner. It does not have a lattice point in the center of the cell:
In the picture, the blue circles are corner lattice points, while the purple circles are face lattice points. The dashed purple circles are those lattice points obscured by other faces.
Looking at one of the faces, we can see that, unlike in a body-centered unit cell, the three nickel atoms touch along the face diagonal:
Thus the calculation in this case is actually fairly straightforward: 
. Hence, 
and 
.
For nickel, whose atomic radius is 124 pm, 
.
At risk? At promise?
Apparently, some educators are renaming at-risk students: henceforth, they are at-promise.
First: As a rhetorical device, it fails aesthetically. How about promising? Or equally capable?
Second: As a rhetorical device, it’s just that. Calling a kid at-risk or at-promise doesn’t address the fact that they face special challenges in their education.
It seems to me that at-risk does a pretty good job at describing the situation: give the student more help, or they are at risk of failing. On the other hand, giving a student more “promise” (whatever that means) doesn’t help much at all.
At some point, good intentions and optimism needs to take a back-seat to actually educating students—no matter what we’re calling them these days.
Potatoes au Gratin au Chicken — oh my
Prep time: 30 minutes. Cook time: 1 hour.
- 3 red potatoes
- 1 chicken breast
- 1 clove garlic
- 2 cups milk
- 2 cups cheese (we use Colby Jack use a sharp Cheddar)
- 3 tablespoons butter
- 3 tablespoons flour
- Some olive oil (probably no more than a teaspoon or two)
- Salt and pepper
- Peel the potatoes and slice them as thinly as you can manage. More importantly, slice them evenly, lest you overcook some and undercook the rest. Distribute the slices evenly in a buttered 2-quart baking dish. Salt and pepper to taste.
- In a pot, melt the butter. Add the garlic and simmer for about a minute. Add the flour, mixing well, and let your chunky roux bubble for a minute or two.
- Slowly stir in the milk, being careful not to form floating roux chunks in a sea of milk. Impatience here leads to frantic stirring as you attempt to incorporate the flour. Stir constantly until the mixture thickens. Add the cheese; thoroughly mix and melt. Salt and pepper to taste.
- Pour the cheese sauce over the potatoes. Cook at 400°F.
- About 30 minutes later, heat the olive oil in a pan. Meanwhile, salt and pepper both sides of the chicken (don’t be afraid of using too much; you’re much more likely to use too little). Brown both sides of the chicken, about 3 minutes per side. Pull the potatoes out of the oven and plop the chicken in the middle; allow the potatoes and chicken to get friendly in the oven for another 30 or so minutes.
We ate this with corn on the cob—delicious!
Made by Symmetric Web
Distributed by Smashing Magazine