Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Interview with Dawn Shamp

I had the pleasure to meet the wonderful Dawn Shamp purely by accident. She is the most cheerful and nicest person I have ever met. I asked if I may interview her and she agreed instantly.


1) Who was your favorite childhood author? 
A. A. Milne. I still have my collection of books my mother bought for me when I was a little girl, and my stuffed Winnie-the-Pooh — although he’s minus ears thanks to the family dog.
2) What genre of books do you like to read? Do you limit yourself to only the genre that you write yourself?
I don’t discriminate. I like variety in both fiction and nonfiction, so no, I don’t limit myself to only historical fiction. What I don’t read enough of these days, sadly, is poetry.
3) How long have you been writing?
About 15 years.
4) What made you fall in love with writing?
The freedom of it. That I can play around with language and break rules that I couldn’t get away with in high school English.
5) Were you always good at writing?
I don’t think I’ve ever thought ‘hey, I’m really good at this,’ only that, for the most part, I get pleasure from the process and am constantly working at making my writing better. In spite of having a novel published, I still have to convince myself that what I have to say is worthy.
6) What’s your inspiration or who is?
That’s a list that continues to grow. The writers I feel most drawn to include Steinbeck, Hemingway, Erich Maria Remarque, and Herman Wouk. Of course, I don’t write like any of them, but sure wish I did.
7) Did you ever think you’d become an author?
No way, no how. I thought to be an author you had to have a large vocabulary and a lot of initials after your name.
8) What is your favorite theme or element in writing? 
Dialogue is probably the element that comes most naturally for me.  Usually a phrase or a word will pop into my head, and that’s what tends to help get me into a scene.
9) What do you think makes good writing? 
Clarity.
10) What do you think people search for in a book? 
Well, it depends on the individual and the book. In general, I’d say readers are looking to make sense of the world around them, to better understand the human condition, or something that may give them a wholly different outlook on a situation they’re dealing with. For me, I’m often looking for some sort of hopefulness. I like to come away from a story that, even if it ends tragically, contains a hint or question of a promise. But, I guess that’s me wearing rose-colored glasses.
11) What advice would you give people who “run out of creativity” when writing?
I don’t believe creativity ever really “runs out.” I know a lot of writers go through bouts of being excruciatingly unsure of what they’re doing or trying to say, myself included. Those are the times we should allow ourselves to just sit and look and listen and take notes. Even engage in another form of creativity, like gourmet cooking, taking an art class, studying music, going to a museum—or any type of activity you wouldn’t normally do. I can’t tell you the number of times that I thought I’d never write another word except for making up a grocery list. And I don’t understand how the creative process works, but when I’ve felt the most desperate to return to a project, something eventually “shakes loose” and I start to feel that fire in my fingers again. As wrenching as a dry spell can be, I’m learning to appreciate that aspect of creating. I’m especially grateful to the makers of Sculpey clay.
12) What’s your favorite character archetype of literature?
Ah, my heart belongs to The Fool! Any time I get invited to look at my own silliness is a reward.
13) What is your favorite novel?
Unequivocally, The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk. I have multiple copies. I even married my own Willie Keith.
14) Any recent works you admire?
I’ve been focusing mostly on research for a new book and haven’t read much contemporary work lately. There’s one novel, though, that has stayed with me for a long time that I highly recommend — Jose Saramago’s Baltasar & Blimunda. It’s exquisite.

ABOUT HER NOVEL  'On Account of Conspicuous Women'

1) How long did it take to write? 
Around 7 years.
2) Who are your target readers? 
Me. Early on, I didn’t have any type of reader in mind at all. It really was a story I was writing for myself, kind of an exercise, partly to see if I could even accomplish. I wanted to write the type of literature that I was hungry to read. And I’d never had a book published before, so the idea of ever being published was, well, let’s just say I was pessimistic that anybody else but me would want to read it.
3) How did you conceive your plot ideas?
I’m flattered if you think there’s a plot. That’s something I’m still trying to master. I tend to be drawn to stories that are more character-driven, so as a writer I struggle a great deal with plot. I did have certain plans for the characters in the beginning — what their destination might likely be— but as the story evolved some of those ideas that I had started with, or had imagined would happen, changed.
4) Where did you get most of your ideas?
Hmm, that’s a hard thing to pinpoint. Partly I’ve been influenced by old family photographs and stories I’ve heard over the years, and a desire to make up my own version. I’m a huge fan of old movies, so I spent a lot of time studying silent films to try to get a feel for the era. But I also relied on old newspapers and periodicals. I just wanted to bring 1920s Roxboro to life.
5) Do you use your own experiences?
Sometimes, but usually by the time it makes it onto paper, the experience has taken on a whole other light and doesn’t resemble the original.
6) How did you decide on the names for your characters?
Most of the family names, like Clayton, are common to that area of Person County, and I wanted the story to be as authentic as possible. As for the nicknames, just about everyone I know who grew up in Roxboro has one that will follow them to the grave. I have a cousin named Cottoneye and if you asked me his birth name it would take me a minute.
7) Who are your favorite characters?
I’m rather smitten with Colon, if you must know.
8) Any characters you would just hate if you met them in real life?
I would likely cross to the other side of the street if I encountered Brud Daye.
9) How did you come up with your characters Doodle, Colon, Bertie, and Miss McGhee (who is a very minor character but amusing none the less)?
Bertie, the suffragette, is loosely based on my paternal grandmother who died when I was a baby. My father used to tell wonderful stories about her spiritedness when I was growing up. Others who knew her reinforced and added more. The other characters are purely made up, although some of my kinfolk might tell you otherwise.
10) Any scene in your novel that has made you chuckle the most?
The scene with Colon and Doodle after they leave Guerine’s Halloween party. He’s driving the motorcycle and Doodle is in the sidecar. They can’t talk because the wind is rushing past, so there’s no dialogue. But what tickles me most is how they keep looking over at one another and nodding, as if they each understand what the other is thinking.
11) Were there moments when you thought you’d never finish your novel?
Good grief yes. Too many times it felt like more than I was capable of. I’m just glad I stuck with it.
12) Are you planning on writing a sequel?
No. I like thinking about the characters, though, and imagining what they might’ve gone on to do.
13) How did you develop the story? How did you get inspired for it?
The inspiration for the novel is an old photograph of my paternal grandmother with three of her female friends, circa 1920. Since I never had the pleasure of getting to know my grandmother, that photo has fascinated me since I was little. I wanted to know who those women were and to learn more about the 1920s. Eventually, it’s what prompted me to explore a story told from multiple points of view in sort of day-in-the-life vignettes.
14) How long did it take you to publish your first novel, after you started trying? 
It actually happened pretty fast. I’m very fortunate to have writer friends who recommended the book to their agents. I got a few rejections for various reasons—they didn’t think they could sell it or it didn’t fit in with the type of literature they represent—but it finally landed with an agent and an editor who loved historical fiction.


Here are the websites to purchase her beautifully written novel:
http://www.amazon.com/Account-Conspicuous-Women-Dawn-Shamp-ebook/dp/B006LPQQII/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458675546&sr=8-1&keywords=Dawn+Shamp

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/on-account-of-conspicuous-women-dawn-shamp/1012288784



Monday, March 21, 2016

Somewhere in Time (1980) Review


“Please, don't leave. You have no idea how far I've come to be with you.” 
     People ask me what my most watched film is, well it will have to be Somewhere in Time. From my childhood into adulthood, I watched it almost every day, so naturally I had to replace my VHS and dvd copies quite a few times.  There are only some films that have a certain artistic excellence that it makes you amazed how they could ever capture it on film. Casablanca, Citizen Cane, Ben Hur, The Godfather, 2001 Space Odyssey, Doctor Zhivago, and Amadeus. Somewhere in Time is not a box-office blockbuster, but it is the finest romance film to ever be made. I have never seen a film so passionately and yet so innocently depict the power of absolute, all-encompassing, unconditional love like this film has shown.  Somewhere in Time mainly focuses primarily on love unlike most romantic films.
     The story is so simple, yet therein sets the beauty. An example being Titanic, there’s a good love story there, but focusing mainly on the anticipation of the ship sinking steals the show. Another reason that helps make this film very romantic is its innocence. Nothing major in the background going on like a war or sinking ship, just a man loving a woman.  It’s the kind of love that awakens the soul and makes one reach for more that creates a fire within our hearts and brings us to peace.  The film starts off with a young playwright by the name of Richard Collier being approached by an elderly woman. She places an antique pocket watch in his hand and pleads him to “come back” to her. 8 years later he goes to the grand hotel to clear his mind of all writer’s block. He discovers a portrait of a beautiful young woman and he is simply transfixed by her. He finds out that the portrait is of Elise McKenna, the same woman who gave him the pocket watch who afterwards died that very evening. He then travels back in time to the year 1912 using self-hypnosis. He finds her and thus begins the romance.
   Christopher Reeve does a spectacular portrayal of Richard. His acting is phenomenal in this film; he acts with such passion and with great earnestness. People only remember Reeve as superman and nothing more, but he was so much more than just superman. He could play anything. This film is the proof that. He could play a leading man, a supporting character, an aviator, a journalist, a priest, or a hopeless romantic. His acting is breathtaking and his chemistry with the beautiful Jane Seymour is amazing.
    John Barry's score is the most captivating ever in movie history. I have never heard a score that so astonishingly summoned up feelings of everlasting love. The music can even be called another character in the film; it’s almost crucial to the story. Although director Jeannot Szwarc may not be a well known or an otherwise accomplished director he does succeed in evoking a romantic and dreamlike atmosphere. Everyone must see this film at least twice in his or her life.
5 out of 5

Paris, Texas (1984) review

“He was surprised at himself because he didn't feel anything anymore. All he wanted to do was sleep. And for the first time, he wished he were far away. Lost in a deep, vast country where nobody knew him. Somewhere without language, or streets. He dreamed about this place without knowing its name. And when he woke up, he was on fire. There were blue flames burning the sheets of his bed. He ran through the flames toward the only two people he loved, but they were gone. His arms were burning, and he threw himself outside and rolled on the wet ground. Then he ran. He never looked back at the fire. He just ran. He ran until the sun came up and he couldn't run any further. And when the sun went down, he ran again. For five days he ran like this until every sign of man had disappeared.”
    Every time I watch this film a part of my soul dies. This film shows realistically pain and loss. It’s essentially a film about a man who is realizing that he needs forgive himself by ultimately facing the people who he once turned his back on. The scene when Travis (Stanton) and his ex-wife (Kinski) are having a conversation is one of the most touching yet heart-wrenching scenes I have ever seen in any film. I will never forget that scene because it’s so powerful. And in the end Travis is like John Wayne in “The Searchers” when he realizes what he must do.
      Harry Dean Stanton gives a superb performance playing Travis who is an aging man that is wrinkled up from life’s many blows. Yet he is a kindhearted and calm man regardless of his many inner demons. ‘Paris, Texas’ is just way too beautiful for words; it’s like a transcendent poem of loss, love, seclusion, and redemption. I highly recommend viewing this film.
5 out of 5

Amadeus (1984) Review

“All I wanted was to sing to God. He gave me that longing... and then made me mute. Why? Tell me that. If He didn't want me to praise him with music, why implant the desire? Like a lust in my body! And then deny me the talent?”
    In 1984, Milos Forman brought a true masterpiece to the cinema. A truly remarkable film filled with great acting, beautiful costumes, the atmosphere, choreography, directing, and each scene is like art. Amadeus is an exceptionally deep thought provoking film. I can’t praise this film enough. Amadeus tells the story of the first rock star through the eyes of his enemy, Antonio Salieri, who becomes mad with obsession for Amadeus Mozart. The film starts out with an old Salieri trying to commit suicide, but ultimately fails and is taken to the mental hospital. The priest visits him and so Salieri tells him the story of his jealousy and hatred for Mozart. Salieri wished to be famous since he was a young child and he worked hard to become the court composer of the Emperor of Austria. He craves and desires appreciation and fame as a composer until one day Mozart enters into his life. At first Salieri is overjoyed to finally meet Mozart until he meets him. He views Mozart as stupid, ignorant, crude, vulgar, and a undefined young man. Thus, starts his jealousy. He becomes insanely jealous of how beautiful his music is and how such an oblivious young man could write it such flawlessness. Salieri’s jealousness soon turns to hate and he sets out to destroy Mozart, but it becomes difficult to describe Salieri as a villain. He becomes so much more and at times we surprisingly do feel sorry for him. Even at his darkest moments the viewer can sympathize with him.
    People always ask why the film is titled Amadeus since the film essentially is about Salieri or even name it at the very least “Mozart” or “Wolfgang”, instead of Mozart’s middle name. Amadeus in Latin means “Love of God” so simply put the object of God’s adoration.  So the title fits in so perfectly.  Salieri doesn’t just show dislike towards Mozart, but at God also: “Oh what sublimity, what depth, what passion in the music! Salieri has been touched by God at last. And God is forced to listen! Powerless, powerless to stop it!” So Amadeus doesn’t really stand for Mozart, but the recurring theme constantly shown throughout the film.
    Tom Hulce’s performance as Mozart is simply unforgettable and his laugh is the funniest thing I have ever seen on film. His feminine laugh always happens at the most inappropriate times, which makes it even funnier. That laugh of Mozart’s makes me laugh so hard that my ribs hurt. F. Murray Abraham is perfect for the role of Salieri, the way he holds back his hatred when he’s around Mozart in public is simply perfect. From his facial expressions to his many emotions, one wouldn’t even think this is acting. The viewer can get lost in these scenes thinking that they are truly happening right now in the moment. The film has drama, comedy, suspense, music, rivalry, and murder! This film is pure perfection. When those credits begin to roll the viewer will realize they have watched a true masterpiece and you don’t want to leave till the tranquil music finally ends. Once in a while there’s a rare film that blows you away. This is that film.
5 out of 5

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Hulk (2003) Review



  “You know what scares me the most ? When it happens, when it comes over me... and I totally lose control, I like it.”
    Many people remembered Ang Lee for `Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon’, which countless people believe it to be the finest martial arts film ever created. It left such big shoes to fill, even for Lee. He was even dubbed `America’s best director’. Ang Lee always loved presenting humanity and human imperfection in his stories as he has done many times before. Almost every film he has done was poetic in every way shape or form. Three years after `Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon’ and two years before `Brokeback Mountain’ he made a film people would very soon forget, it was none other than the Hulk.
   I was excited when I heard that there was going to be a Hulk film, seeing how I was a hardcore fan of the Billy Bixby/Lou Ferrigno television show `The Incredible Hulk’. I was even more pumped when I heard Ang Lee was going to direct it because he is a phenomenal director. When I saw the film I was highly disappointed. This could have been an incredible film. Ang Lee really let me down.
  The film starts out extremely slow! The opening sequence was the beginning of the back-story, which continued for half of the film. The back-story should not go further than the opening credits. Lee directs to devote too much time in the back-story, which isn’t even needed. I was sitting in my seat questioning when the film was actually going to start. The first actual Bruce Banner to Hulk transformation was about fifty-five minutes into the film. By the time the Hulk finally appears, the audience was bored. This is a two hour and twenty minute film and only about twenty minutes of the whole film was action. For a film simply titled ‘Hulk’ there is just a little bit of the hulk in the film. Ang Lee might be a gifted visionary of film, but surely not with this film. `Hulk’ is just so dreadful. The acting, the music, the directing, the cinematography, the plot, and just everything were so awful in this film. Hulk has too much talking and not enough of smashing. The film can possibly cure insomnia If you want to see a great Ang Lee film, watch `Lust, Caution’ or Life of Pi.
1 out of 5




Monday, May 7, 2012

Ghost Rider DOUBLE REVIEW


 “ The thing about legends is... sometimes, they're true.”

   Ghost Rider is hilarious! The most I’ve laughed in ages, horrendously and uncontrollably funny, which is tremendously appalling seeing how it’s unplanned humor.  Ghost Rider has laughable yet appalling performances, horrifying plot, god-awful action sequences, terrible dialogue, and even more appalling performances.  If you enjoy films that are so appalling that they make you laugh, Ghost Rider shall surely deliver.
    Nicolas Cage has really never truly been a talented actor, there has only been one great film he was in and that was “Raising Arizona”. He was not fit for the Ghost Rider at all. He was so stiff it’s no surprise his head burst into flames. He acted as if he was a miserable guy on drugs throughout the film. I do believe Cage was and still is tormented by the curse of the Oscar through appearing only in terrible films continuously. Now to the co-stars! Eva Mendes cannot act and neither can her breasts. She wasn’t even pleasing on the eyes for the reason that she looked as if she required a bath all the way through the film. You can’t feel the love connection between her and Cage. The villains were feeble and both badly cast. Peter Fonda was not frightening; he does not present a real fight or even a dilemma.  Fonda’s “nice bike” line fell flat with the audience for Ghost Rider seeing how almost certainly none of them have ever seen his cult classic “Easy Rider”. Wes Bentley has the looks of Satan’s son, but not the ability to act. He was a very weak actor for the role.
  Then there is the story… there isn’t one. We get some useless excuse of a story. Trust me even “Batman and Robin” had a much better story and screenplay.  This film does nothing for the audience.
   The ending makes you flinch and want to lash out at the screen. In the end, the Ghost Rider killed Satan’s son by giving him many souls and then stares at him deep in the eyes, BOOM HE’S DEAD and that was the end to the Ghost Rider films; oh no wait there is a sequel!!
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
   This sequel makes the first Ghost Rider film look like “Titanic”. Completely everything about this film was dreadful. Awful from all perspectives; story was unintelligible, the characters were terrible, the action was blurred and confusing, the special effects caused many viewers to get headaches, the costumes and props were below par, the cinematography was rubbish, and everything else I didn’t mention was disappointingly made.
  They changed the personality of the Ghost Rider. Instead of the chill and strong-minded character, they made him more mentally ill than the Joker! He was psychotic, aggressively brutal, and looked like he was pumped up on drugs throughout this terrible sequel. Peter Fonda didn’t come back; as an alternative we get some plump older guy representing the devil. Why not just get rid of Cage all together and let Christopher Nolan reboot Ghost Rider like he did for Batman?
    Halfway through the film I got up and asked for my money back, which hardly ever happens. Then I decided to see “The Secret World of Arrietty” again.
    Watching many hours of Cage’s facial tics does not make a movie franchise. The Ghost Rider films make it right up there with other terrible Marvel superhero films such as the Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, The Punisher, and the Hulk. This film won’t change your life at all, but you’ll walk out the cinema smiling knowing that you were cheated out of your money.
Ghost Rider- 0 out of 5
Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance- 0 out of 5







Sunday, May 6, 2012

The Punisher (2004) Review

“Upset? Is that the word? I used to get upset. When I got a flat tire, when a plane was delayed. I used to get upset when the Yankees won the series. So if that's what upset means, what am I feeling now? If you know the word, tell me because I don't.”
   Frank Castle AKA the Punisher is one of the better Marvel comic book heroes. He is anti-heroic, dark, violent, and a vigilante. Most Marvel heroes, like Spiderman, Iron Man, Ghost Rider, and Captain America, all have special powers or gifts to fight crime. The Punisher’s fighting method is straightforward… guns and knives! Nothing extraordinary or incredible, he is just a gun-toting vigilante.  With every comic book character there is soon to be a movie update. And what do we get with the film “The Punisher”? Well we get a pathetic worthless film that is an insult to the Punisher. How could they mess this film up? Just a straight up action film and somehow Hollywood messed it up. I remember my friend saying that the punisher makes Batman and Robin look like Titanic.
    “The Punisher” had millions of flaws, but let’s begin with the dialog. The dialog was weak and extremely unimaginative. The back-story was changed. The comic back-story was perfectly believable. So since the back-story was changed, they had to change the reason why his family gets killed. The villains in the film appear at Castle’s family reunion and they slaughter everybody BUT the guy they came to execute in the first place.  Also “The Punisher” is based in New York, not Florida. New York is tremendous since its dark, rough, and full of crime. Florida is hot and sunny, but it is full of crazy people. Florida was a ludicrous option since the last time I checked Tampa was not the source of criminal activity.  Yeah the delivery was quite pathetic.
    So the dialog was badly written and badly delivered. The acting should be better, right? Wrong! The characters were all so wooden.  The villains were somewhat amusing though, seeing how they all look over the age of sixty. The Russian, he’s humongous, muscular, and he looks like a cartoon character in his bright red and white lined shirt… so basically Popeye the sailor man. Next there’s the singing hitman from Memphis. Come on, he can’t even sing! Lastly there’s Travolta’s character, which cannot be taken seriously as the villain because he’s so over the top.
    The Punisher is one of the worst adaptations based on a comic book, after Daredevil and fantastic four of course.  It was all-wrong.  For those people who liked this film, they don’t know the character well. It’s like Captain America without his shield.  The Punisher should be serious, not funny or depressed over family drama. He doesn’t influence the bad guys into killing themselves. He’s a killer. He’s never into head games merely in pulling the trigger to his gun.
   There are very few films I completely hated in my life. Daredevil, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Twilight, Timeline, 8MM, Batman and Robin, to name a few, and this film is right along with them. The Dolph Lundgren film was even more superior to this garbage. If I sought after to see a film about a tormented soul looking for something and tender agonizing moments, I’d have gone to see a psychologist.  I was trying to watch a film about the Punisher. This should have been the easiest Marvel film to create; yet it ended up being one of the worst ones. How is that possible?!  Please, do yourself a kindness and don’t even bother.
0 out of 5