Energize

My opinions of the new “Star Trek” movie. Spoiler: I loved it.

startrekbridge.jpg
I loved the hell out of the new Star Trek movie, and I’m hoping to see it again in the theater. Actually, I wish it were a new series instead of a movie franchise (I’m assuming a franchise is imminent if not already in the works). Much of it felt like episodic television with a summer blockbuster budget.

That’s not entirely an insult, either. While the story is too slight and nonsensical to support a two-hour blockbuster, everything else would be perfect as a series pilot. The scope is pretty small and focused on characterization: major, universe-changing events aren’t given as much weight or tension as a small fight sequence.

That video from The Onion that made the rounds last week was eerily and annoyingly accurate (except for the guy complaining that the “story made sense.”) From what I’ve seen, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, but you can look at any discussion of the movie online and find disgruntled types writing long comments bemoaning the fact that their beloved universe has been “dumbed down” and turned into a money-making Hollywood franchise.

Which is, of course, completely predictable based on the outbreaks of nerdrage over every other movie, TV, book, comic book, or videogame series in existence. Especially so with Star Trek, which is the great grandfather of all self-entitled nerdrage, parody, self-parody, and failed attempts at re-invention for going on fifty years now. But that idea of “fan ownership” and entitlement of pop culture is the most interesting thing about the various series and the new movie.

I’ve said it before, but it still surprises me: I’ve never been a particularly big fan of “Star Trek,” and I never really made a concerted effort to watch the series or the movies. Still, I’ve probably seen every episode of all the series up until “Voyager,” and I’ll get 99% of the references. I used to blame it on my being a computer science major — I just picked it up through diffusion — but now I realize it goes much, much wider. There are millions of us relatively high-functioning nerds out there, waiting for our programming to be activated as part of Hollywood’s Master Plan.

And what the self-described fans don’t seem to realize is that the new movie isn’t made for people like them, and it isn’t made for this mythical “dumb middle American who only wants to watch explosions,” either. (The new Transformers movie is made for those people). Instead, it’s made for people like us: those of us who get the basics of time travel and alternate realities and dilithium crystals, and who recognize the phrase “Kobyashi Maru” even if we’d never use it in casual conversation and aren’t quite sure why we recognize it. “Star Trek” in its various forms is such a big part of pop culture that it’s grown way way beyond the ability of a few thousand or even hundred thousand obsessive fans to be able to support it.

The new movie is very much a J.J. Abramization of “Star Trek.” Which means it’s focused on younger, more attractive actors dating and falling in love; sometimes inappropriate pop music choices; a casual but innate understanding of the pop-culture sci-fi detritus of the last 50 years; fight sequences and lots of explosions; and a self-aware sense of humor throughout. None of this is actually all that new to the Star Trek franchise; they’ve been trying variations on it for decades.

Whether it’s Spock giving the Vulcan nerve pinch to a kid with a boom box on a city bus, or Scotty trying to talk into a computer mouse, or an attempt at a reboot involving time-travel and the original cast, or wacky hijinx on the holodeck, the franchise has made frequent attempts at re-invention and self-referential humor. And they’ve all had one thing in common: four corners. The entire property has been owned by squares, man, as rigid and un-hip as a Borg cube. We needed somebody to come take it back and make it cool again. The series should belong to us: we all get this stuff; it’s not that obscure. Everybody in the audience already knows what happens when you send someone dressed in red on an away mission.

I’d had my doubts before seeing the movie, but everybody was perfectly cast. Even the new Kirk, who I was sure I was going to hate. He wisely did a caricature of James Kirk instead of William Shatner, since Shatner’s been a caricature of himself for decades. The movie focuses on the swaggering, lady-killing strategic genius — focuses a little too much, actually — to bring the guy back into his own character. But he comes through right at the end, with a little bit of Shatner’s version of Kirk right as he takes command of the bridge.

My favorite of the cast is Karl Urban doing an absolutely dead-on perfect version of a young Dr. McCoy, another character that could’ve been just an impression and a few catch phrases. The movie is overloaded with references, but it manages to strike a perfect balance between reverence and parody. They truly are respectful re-inventions of the characters.

If you care about “Star Trek” but for some reason haven’t seen the movie yet, I highly recommend you read the “prequel” comic book tie-in first. It’s called Countdown (it’s available on the iPhone if you’re so inclined), and it’s written by the screenwriters of the movie. It’s a pretty good comic mini-series, but more importantly, it’s the only thing that makes the movie’s storyline have any weight at all. As I was watching the movie, I kept wondering if it could make any sense to someone who hadn’t read the comic, or if they’d even care, since the movie does a pretty lousy job of explaining the over-arching plot or assigning any weight to it. The movie isn’t really driven by its plot, but by one idea: “THIS IS A REBOOT OF STAR TREK.”

And somewhat-mild spoilers follow:

Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments

Vatican't

The overwhelming nature of the Vatican Museums and my fundamental inability to understand Catholicism.

Hall of MapsI’ve got to admit I just don’t “get” Catholicism. I was raised going to southern Pentacostal churches — where “Halloween” had to be renamed the “Harvest Festival” and grown men and women would suddenly stand up in the middle of services and begin speaking in tongues — and I still think that all the Signs of the Cross and rosaries and Latin and standing up and sitting down and those swingy smoky ball things are a little weird.

But as I understand it: the Pope is supposed to be something of a manifestation of the Holy Spirit here on Earth, and the Vatican is a visible representation of the power of the Catholic Church (and by extension, Christianity). I’m sure that’s an insulting or possibly sacrilegious over-simplification. But now that I’ve been there, and the Holy See is now the Holy Seen, all I know is that Vatican City is a physical manifestation of the Law of Diminishing Returns.

I avoided going anywhere on the Vatican side of the river on Easter Sunday, to avoid what I was sure was going to be an obscenely enormous mass of humanity. (A couple at the hotel assured me afterwards that it was every bit as crowded as I’d expected. They’d been to New Year’s Eve in Times Square and still hadn’t seen as many people gathered in one place). Still, even on an “off” day, the place had more humans than it could support. I quickly gave up on the idea of getting inside St. Peter’s Basilica, since the lines circled over halfway around the entire plaza. The Pieta will only exist in pictures for me.

Besides, I was really there to see the Vatican Museums. Even with two separate tour books in hand, I still had to ask someone for directions. As it turns out, you have to leave St. Peter’s plaza and walk around the outside of the walls to find the entrance to the building that used to be just a few hundred feet away. It felt like miles, but Google Maps tells me it was just about a kilometer and I should stop whining already. I kept thinking back to what the narration on the tour bus had said — that Vatican Hill was the site where hundreds of Christians were burned to light a Roman banquet — and I felt undeservedly martyred and somehow vindicated. Two thousand years later, and Rome is still torturing Christians: first by burning them, and now by making the chubby and sedentary ones walk marginally inconvenient distances.


View Larger Map

The museum itself seems like a structure designed not so much to display works of art as to drive people from the street into the Sistine Chapel. You’re given one choice at the beginning, letting you take a brief diversion to see some medieval-era religious art, but once you get back on the “main” route, you’re in a line behind tour groups fifty-or-sixty strong all plodding towards The Only Ceiling They’ve Made Movies About.

My first impression was that it was a disappointingly low-rent display, with a hallway of statuary open to the air, each one of them presumably a priceless work of antiquity, but jumbled together as if they simply didn’t have room to keep it all. As it turned out, this was just the warm-up. You soon end up in increasingly ornate and overpowering halls, with each alcove containing something priceless. I’m told that the palaces, chapels, museums and churches of Europe were built on the assumption that displays of wealth == displays of power, and the hallways of the Vatican Museums all seemed to designed to deliver the message Don’t Mess With the Roman Catholic Church.

After a stretch of this, you’re given the option to stray from the path and check out the ancient Egyptian and Etruscan museums. I skipped the Egyptian section — impressive, no doubt, but I had a Greek and Roman theme going, and I didn’t want to have to adjust to something else that I didn’t have enough historical context to appreciate. I got back on the route to the Sistine Chapel, and it’s around there that the whole thing reaches a tipping point. What had been an overwhelming but majestic display crossed the line and became frankly ridiculous.

It becomes a stretch of one impossibly large hallway after the other, the entire space crammed with details fighting for attention. It’s not just the case that there’s no time to stop and think; it’s actually dangerous to. You can look at the ceiling and realize that any one of these paintings was probably a person’s master-work, the thing that his entire life was building up to. And that there are hundreds of these in this hall alone, and no indication of how many hallways are left to go.

And at the end of each hall, a sign drawing you forward towards the Sistine Chapel. There’s no real pretense that you’re here to see anything else; from the moment you walk through the ticket area, there are arrows pointing you towards the Main Attraction. At first, I’d been disappointed, because I naively believed that the “Sistine Chapel ahead” sign meant that it was just in the next room — but that was before an hour and a half of Halls of Maps and Halls of Tapestries and Halls of Mentholyptus (probably not real; I quickly lost track). It didn’t take long for me to hit the point of saying “okay I get it just get me to the Cappella Sistina already,” but there was still a long way to go.

And the museums don’t seem to get the idea of a “climax,” either, since they keep throwing more ornately-decorated rooms of impossibly priceless art at you after you’ve seen the Sistine Chapel. I’ve no doubt I walked briskly through masterworks of incalculable value, ignoring everything except for the one sign that said “uscita.”

One of the only sections of the museum that had been pointed out to me before-hand was the “Raphael Rooms”. In any other environment, they’d probably be a highlight, but here they just seem like a last obstacle towards the final destination. At least when I was there, they were kept dark and cave-like, and there wasn’t enough space for all the tourists to get through comfortably. So we just plodded on, following the arrow.

And just when you think you’re close, the Vatican Museums throw one last curve-ball at you: a long series of stark white rooms off the main path, each a gallery for 20th century religious art. These got the biggest disservice of all, ripped of any context they might’ve had and positioned as one last hurdle before the finish line. Especially after seeing hundreds if not thousands of master-works of representational and realistic art, attempts to present the Crucifixion or the Resurrection or the Assumption of the Virgin in a modern style just come across as sketchy, amateurish, or downright ugly.

Then finally, the Main Event. There are countless signs and notes and pictures and other reminders that photography isn’t allowed in the Sistine Chapel. I haven’t seen a rule so blatantly and casually ignored since “SPEED LIMIT 6 IN GARAGE.” Walking into the chapel is like walking through a mass of paparazzi where someone forgot to lay down a red carpet. Blinding flashes going off all around you, hands holding digital cameras and video cameras and phone cameras all stretched towards the ceiling. You’re also reminded to keep the noise down, but there was a roar of voices louder than at Grand Central Station. Every language known to humanity was being spoken; I’d swear I overheard people talking in Klingon and FORTRAN. I didn’t talk or take pictures; even if they were going to ignore the rules, I was going to stick to them if only on principle.

There was plenty of security making its way through the crowd, doing nothing to enforce the “no pictures” or “keep it quiet” rules. It’s not that they were bored, since their eyes were darting everywhere. I’m guessing that, like me, they were just simply overwhelmed. I’d seen such an excess of art by that point that you couldn’t get my attention with anything less than an entire ceiling painted by Michaelangelo. Even then, I didn’t really care, because I was too exhausted to do much more than say “I was here” and then head back to where I could get an internet connection and really see the painting. I think that the guards had stopped looking for the small-time offenders and were just concentrating on finding people with cans of spray paint or bombs. There’s not much more that they could’ve done, since there were simply too many people.

And to that I say: Maybe you should’ve thought of that before you guys made birth control a sin.

4 Comments

Do the Dumb Things I Gotta Do, Touch the Puppet Head

My opinions of “Lost” episode “Follow the Leader”.

lostoutofbody.jpg
This is chock full of spoilers for this week’s episode of “Lost” (“Follow the Leader”), so be forewarned.

Probably my biggest problem watching “Lost” is that I have no way of gauging how smart I am compared to the source material. I’m embarrassingly dense about most of the naming and the historical and literal allusions, as well as some of the details from previous seasons. For instance, I keep waiting for angry bearded Dharma guy to get his comeuppance with a gruesome death, but the internet tells me he’s already gotten it. Apparently, he’s the guy who was stuck in the hatch before Desmond showed up, until he went crazy and killed himself.

On the other hand, I’ve read enough comic books and seen enough science fiction concepts translated and re-translated through years of pop culture, that all the time traveling and alternate reality stuff seems more obvious than the show (or its fans) are letting on. I keep reading complaints that the series “got all weird” this season, and I’m just left wondering: what series have you guys been watching? Because the one I’ve seen had polar bears, numbers stations, smoke monsters, psychic premonitions, and miraculous healing all within the first couple of episodes. When the characters are spending entire episodes going over how time travel works, I’m left wondering: is this supposed to be complicated? Am I missing something complicated, or are they trying to pander to the millions of ABC watchers who are trying to keep up?

So I make this observation: if an “incident” on the island in 1977 caused a massive amount of energy to be unleashed, resulting in a hatch to contain the energy and the warning that you weren’t allowed to go outside without a hazmat suit, the solution to that isn’t to go back in time and detonate a nuclear warhead. In fact, it seems extremely likely that going back in time and detonating a nuclear warhead is exactly the “incident” in question. But I can’t tell if that’s supposed to be obvious, or if they’ve already addressed it, or if it’s nonsensical based on the hand-waving “electromagnetic energy” the show is basing everything around.

Which wouldn’t be a big deal — I’m perfectly content to just shut up, stop speculating, and wait to see what they come up with next — except that we’ve been building up to the big season finale and I have yet to be able to tell where the big tension is.

So far, everybody has reacted to the whole time travel business by doing exactly what they were supposed to do. I was disappointed that Farraday’s fate seemed to be pretty much “go back in time because I know you’re supposed to go back in time,” and I’ve been concerned that the same thing was going to happen with Locke. And then this episode pretty much made that explicit: Locke is important only because he went back and made himself important. There was a scene earlier in the season where he meets Richard Alpert during his time travel, and that was intriguing: who is Alpert, and how does he know the things that are going to happen? Then we see it played out from another angle: he knew it was going to happen only because Locke told him so. The whole gestalt of “Lost” is that the questions are always going to be more intriguing than the answers, but I didn’t expect that the answers would be this mundane.

So ignore the plotting for a second, and get back to the “meaning” or the overall themes of the series. Locke & Jack have basically switched roles: Locke is now a leader, and Jack is the one who’s blindly doing what he believes he’s “supposed” to do without thinking of the consequences. Locke has found his purpose, while Jack is just wanting to escape from the ruin he’s made of his life while off the island. Locke knows why he’s here, Jack is still asking why they came back, what it is they’re supposed to do, and grabbing at anything to give himself purpose. (For Locke, it was pushing the button; for Jack, it’s apparently Farraday’s journal and his plan).

That’s a very neat shift in characterization, one that’s been pretty well handled. It’s just that there’s a giant snowball of plot points bearing down on this philosophical character study, waiting to be answered. For one, apparently Sayid has been waiting behind a bush this whole time, just waiting for somebody to walk by and threaten to shoot Kate. And I’m still wondering how Sexy Bounty Hunter and the rest of the castaways on the other island are going to come back into play. (Incidentally: I’m assuming that when “The Island” vanishes, that includes the side island with the polar bear cages, right? And that’s where Frank and the gang are hanging out now?)

Our momentum leading us into the 2-hour finale is based on two things: Locke says that he’s going to kill Jacob; and Alpert says that he watched Kate, Jack, and the others all die. I suppose the third question is what’s going to happen when/if they detonate the warhead; will they be able to change history, or is that the “incident” that started the whole mess in the first place? It says something when the least interesting aspect of an episode of television is a group of castaways and seemingly immortal people swimming to an underground temple to detonate a nuclear bomb. I’m not sure what it says, exactly, but it’s something.

And is it time to start with the “who or what is Jacob?” conjecture again? For the longest time, I was sure it was going to turn out to be Locke: he went back in time and somehow inserted himself into the timeline as the main prophet of the island. Now I’m wondering if it could be the Jughead bomb that the Others are worshipping, Beneath the Planet of the Apes-style.

1 Comment

Not as Spectacular as I'd Been Led to Believe

Double-header post-vacation “Lost” recap: “Some Like it Hoth” and “The Variable.”

lostseance.jpg
When I was able to get internet access on vacation, I’d get e-mails from Apple telling me that I had brand new episodes of “Lost” ready to download. I was looking forward to spending my last couple of vacation days sitting like a lump doing nothing but getting caught up with glorious television.

And then they gave me a clip show. Bad form, Bad Robot.

Come to think of it, why do we even have clip shows in the age of DVD box sets and downloadable season passes and time-shifting? I’m sure they justify it by saying it’s needed to get new viewers up to speed, or to satisfy the people who gave up on the show in season 2 and are now wondering how they went from “survivors of a plane crash” to “commune in 1977″. But that’s what the hour before the show is for! The rest of us are just left feeling cheated.

The two real episodes were about the characters (along with the writers, apparently) figuring out the rules of time travel. The first one, “Some Like it Hoth,” was focused on ghostbuster Miles and his issues with his dad, who as it turns out in a convenient twist is Marvin Candle from the Dharma orientation films. (“Lost” gets away with implausible coincidences like this by having characters comment on it. That seems to be Hurley’s sole purpose on the series now).

It’s getting harder to believe the illusion that everything on the show has been carefully and expertly orchestrated, but you have to give them credit for being able to take all the plot twists and developments and force them into a consistent Philosophy of The Entire Series. Namely: the nature of free will vs. destiny. It could get a little ham-fisted at times, back when Jack and Locke were left to try and provide some deeper meaning while everyone else was just interested in the polar bears and the Apple II that could somehow save the world. Locke had faith that entering the code and pressing the button actually did something significant; if not, then why was he here, and what was his purpose?

It’s not exactly subtle now — considering this season’s subtitle is “Destiny Calls” — but it is pretty clever that they’ve extended that to the other characters. If they’re unable to change anything in the past, then why are they there? This episode gave one possibility to one character: Miles could develop a relationship with his father that he never had. (Resolving the problem set forth in his flashbacks, meaning he can die soon).

lostfarradaycrying.jpg
The most recent episode, “The Variable,” was apparently a “game-changer,” based on what I’ve been reading online. Either I missed something, or internet fans of the show are over-reacting. To me, the whole episode seemed like it was asking the question “what if they could change the past?” and acting as if just raising the question was intriguing enough; they didn’t have to actually accomplish anything.

It could just be the inevitable disappointment of a series that’s in its winding-down phase. I’ve accepted for a while that the answers to the questions are never going to be as intriguing as the questions themselves, but it’s still kind of a drag to see that played out. Ever since Faraday’s character was introduced, I’ve been wondering about the implications of that scene: why did the footage of the plane wreckage make him start crying? Who was the woman with him in the room? What was significant about that moment?

And now, the pay-off: he doesn’t know, an unidentified and mostly irrelevant caretaker, and Widmore (secretly his father) was about to show up. I’d started to expect more from Faraday’s storyline, and he basically ended up with the same fate I was scared Locke would have: he was important only because he went back in time and made himself important. His supposedly brilliant mind went mostly unused — he came up with an idea of how to prevent “The Incident,” but it’s not an idea that any of the other characters couldn’t have come up with independently.

I think the other problem I had with the episode is that, as reluctant as I’ve been to admit it, the actress playing Faraday’s mother isn’t all that great in a large part. It takes a while to realize: she’s a woman of somewhat advanced years from somewhere in the British Isles, accent and all: to Americans, that just exudes class. But there’s a ton of moments in the episode that hinge on her being able to convey “a mother’s anguish” that just come across as “gas.”

So the big question is whether Jack, Kate & the Gang will be able to (with the Others’ help, possibly?) pull off Faraday’s plan, or whether they’ll even try to. At the moment, though, I’m not feeling as intrigued as I am wondering about all the loose ends. There’s nothing too glaring; it’s mostly a bunch of minor stuff that seemed to have greater significance when it was introduced.

  • Why does “Marvin Candle” assume all the fake aliases? He seemed to know everyone at the Dharma Initiative. Some of the orientation movies were made before 1977, and he was already using fake names back then.
  • Why would Faraday’s mom have pushed him towards his time travel research and encouraged him to go to the island? If his “destiny” was just to be on the island, then it seems like she could’ve let him enjoy the piano and his girlfriend for a few decades, and then push him onto the Island at the last minute. If she were pushing him to develop some way to change history, then it seems like she wouldn’t have encouraged him to take Widmore’s job once it’d become clear that he hadn’t.
  • Why was it supposedly such a big deal for all of the Oceanic 6 to go back to the Island? And what’s with Locke’s body taking the place of Jack’s dad, including the shoes? Was that all BS?
  • Speaking of Locke: when are we going to get back to “the present”? Could they please do something interesting with Sexy Bounty Hunter, instead of just killing her off?
  • Are we going to learn why Sun got left in the present?
  • How about the old prophecy that if Claire’s baby were raised by anyone else, it’d be a disaster?
  • How come Richard Alpert didn’t remember the guy who’d told him to bury a nuclear warhead on the island? That seems like it’d be much more memorable than the brief encounter he had with John Locke. Faraday’s mom should’ve remembered him as well.

4 Comments

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

Another travelogue from Italy. This stop: the Colosseum, Forum, and Capitoline Museum.

Arch of TitusI was shoved by mobs of French, German, and Japanese tourists; directed to stand in four different lines half a mile apart from each other; accosted by pushy tour guides offering tours of the Colosseum in two different languages; and nearly run over by a police car chasing a pickpocket.

Okay, maybe it wasn’t funny. Guess you had to be there.

I’d said that I was surrounded by hordes of tourists everywhere I went in Italy, but the Colosseum is where they all seemed to converge. Now, I’d decided up front that I was going to be in full-on tourist mode for this trip: not only was I going mainly to check off the sights I’d been wanting to see ever since I was a kid, but when you’re in a foreign country, sticking to the tourist areas is usually the least hassle.

Every tour guide or travel book scoffs at tourist traps, gives tips on how to avoid touristy areas and how (supposedly) to “live like a local.” That used to be my thing when I was younger, but I just don’t get that attitude anymore. If I want to live like a local, I’m not going to get that in a few days or even a couple of weeks. Besides, I’m on vacation; I can live like a local back home. When I go to Rome, I want to gawk at the Colosseum or the Forum and take pictures of crumbling buildings and statues without really understanding their significance and I want to eat a lot of overpriced ice cream.

It’s overwhelmingly evident that I’m not the first person to discover this enormous building of antiquity, so why would I want to pretend that I were? If I were delusional enough to believe that I was the first guy to stumble onto the Pantheon, then I wouldn’t need to go on vacation at all. I could just sit in my living room and pretend I was in Pompeii or, for that matter, Yavin 4. (Come on, admit it: you’ve wanted to go there ever since that first shot of the temple). So hooray for tourists!

Except for the crowds. Buying a ticket to wander around a ruined building doesn’t break the illusion of travel adventure all that badly; waiting in line to buy a ticket definitely does. And in the case of the Colosseum, it just shatters any sense of history or even of place. It’s now the architectural and archeological equivalent of the Mona Lisa: it’s no longer appealing on its own merits; it’s become nothing more than a thing you go to see.

The museum at the top does a remarkable job of trying to put everything into context: it focuses on Vespasian’s life and his rule, shows a bit of the history of Rome up to the Colosseum’s construction and its use, offers reconstructions of how the building looked while it was in use, and presents archeological findings (like the remains of animals killed during exhibitions). It’s a noble attempt, but in the end, it’s all overwhelmed by its status as a tourist attraction.

The Forum and Palatine Hill have kind of the opposite problem: it’s a wealth of stuff without any real context. Especially if you visit it second (and you’re tired of walking), you’re left to just trudge through with a vague understanding that you’re somewhere Very Ancient and Important, but without enough information to get your bearings. In my case, this was the point where my feet had finally decided they’d had enough and kept threatening to just stop working altogether. So I was left to just stumble over cobblestones and ruins and snap pictures of every column, arch, and statue I saw with the hopes that I could piece together their significance afterwards. The end result is like looking at pictures in a textbook or travel guide: neat, but does it mean anything?

On the other hand, The Capitoline Museum, on the Campidoglio above the Roman Forum, is something I hadn’t even known existed before this trip. For me, it was one of the highlights of Rome. It’s a large but not overwhelming museum (only one side was open; the other was closed for renovation), and it was my first exposure to the kind of ostentatiousness you get when you combine Europe, time, and lots and lots of money. Most of the rooms were less like walking through a museum than wandering through a palace: enormous paintings on the walls, chandeliers and ceilings with elaborate detail work, and the ability to see priceless sculptures up close, just standing in the center of the room as if they were incidental decoration.

There’s a more modern section of the museum as well, the highlight being a beautifully-designed space added to house the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius that used to stand outside in the plaza.

At the time I was there, there was a temporary exhibition of medieval religious art, including some amazing illuminated texts and hymnals. Photographs weren’t allowed, but imagine a bunch of pictures of Mary and lots of gold leaf, and you get the idea.

Unrelated, but while I’m thinking of it: another highlight of Rome was an exhibition of woodcuts by Hiroshige at the Museo del Corso. It was an exhaustive collection that was really well done; I got the impression it’s a traveling exhibition, so if it comes your way (or if you’re in Rome) I’d highly recommend it.

More pictures are up on my Flickr site: The Capitoline Museum, and The Colosseum and Forum. To get the full effect, use your preferred method of making yourself salty and moist all over, stick your feet into hives of angry hornets, and have foreigners shove you at random intervals.

Comment on this Post