Sunday, September 08, 2013

Your Sunday Poem

This charmer was sent to me by a friend.  She noted, "I was going through some papers, found this poem which was read at my Mom's funeral.  She loved her cats."  It's by A.S. J. Tessimond, who I will have to Google, and is really wonderful.  Set out the saucer of milk and enjoy.


Cats, no less liquid than their shadows,
Offer no angles to the wind.
They slip, diminished, neat, through loopholes
Less than themselves; will not be pinned
To rules or routed for journeys; counter
Attack with non-resistance; twist
Enticing through the curving fingers
And leave an angered empty fist.
They wait, obsequious as darkness,
Quick to retire, quick to return;
Admit no aim or ethics; flatter
With reservations; will not learn
To answer their names;
Are seldom truly owned.
Cats, no less liquid than their shadows,
Offer no angles to the wind.


Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I did enjoy, thank you!

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez (from a previous posting on movies (Blue Jasmine, etc.)that's now "closed" to comment," regarding movie discussion -- which we'll have to re-open here:)
"We almost saw that [kings of Summer]instead last night and now I wish we had! Please let us know on Kings of Summer - hope it is as great as Stand by Me!"

Kings was rather a puzzler; more a rather quirky comedy mixed in with coming of age story. Wasn't nearly as serious as "Stand by Me" or "Mud." Or, more apt, was a weird mash-up of S.B.M. Mud AND Moonrise Kingdom. So, it's an odd duck of a movie, but quite nice. Kids did a good job but for me the whole credibility of the movie fell flat when I saw the "house" they built in the woods. C'mon. It would have taken them YEARS just to drag all the stuff out there. The sheer haulage would require several boxcars. Plus, there was no water. Instead of a "real" house that could have been built by the kids, we have one of those fake, imaginary Hollywood Swiss Family Robinson fantasy houses. That really clashed with any attempt at making this little summer Robinson Caruso guy-bonding tale even vaguely believable. (If you're going for whimsey, quirk and fable, then go all the way to "Moonrise Kingdom". As it is, it's stuck in the middle.)

Am gonna go see "saints & whatever. Curious to see if he pulls off a Days of Heaven.

BTW, until Greg can figure out why this blogsite is still "frozen." comment remains open for 3 days only so if you have anything to say, say it quick.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Yikes! Bummer about the blog problem!

Thanks for the report on Kings. I too am not happy when a movie forces you to suspend belief in an unexpected way, I mean it isn't supposed to be a fantasy movie.

Do see Saints and please review! I'm curious if you saw what we saw, that is not as much as we wanted by a long shot.

Billy Dunne said...

I read your poem to my cat Ann. She feigned indifference. God I love my cat.

A quick note about Days of Heaven (and I'll make it quick, these damned internets and their broken tubes and all). We actually streamed the movie last weekend, (which was weird that you mentioned it a few days later.) Anyway, I wanted so much to love it. I read that the cinematography was absolutely captivating, which it was. But the movie left me cold. Actually, I hated it. And I disappointed myself, because it is so widely heralded as a masterpiece, and I love cinema as art. I think I just struggle with Malick's aversion to building plot, drama, and character development. I got left with small snippets of wonderfully acted 2 minute scenes that seem pointless and meandering. I felt uninvolved.

But it was shot beautifully, no doubt.

I watched "Dead Man" a couple of weeks ago. It is structurally a similar film to "Days of Heaven," the way it is edited and paced. But I loved it. (Though I have confessed to my Johnny Depp man-crush, so that might explain that (: )

Who's to know? I guess that's why I love cinema.

Churadogs said...

Billy, I think the key to Days is to understand that what Mallick is doing is making a (nearly) silent movie using (almost entirely) only . . moving . . . . pictures. It's sort of a wordless image poem that allows the wordless images to carry the story and create further meaning out of juxtaposition with the viewer left to fill in a lot of the expository material on their own vs. having things 'splained. (Maybe Mallig had just finished reading Eisenstein's "The Film Sense" before he started? But the film IS slow moving, and on the large screen with gorgeous music, it's sort of a visual bath. As for being unmoved, I wonder if that's because it IS distancing -- so many of the scenes are long shots, the vastness of the prairie, the smallness of the figures, a sense of their little lives being lost in this eternal vastness, etc. so there is a great deal of distancing. Plus, we learn very little of these characters' inner lives -- its all external, we watch them, often from afar, and get only glimpses of their inner emotions.

I also loved Dead Man, another pic letting the enigmatic images move the story.

And yes, this danged blogspot mess is annoying. Greg's gonna work on it and see why it's busted.