Viewing Thread:
"Christian Bale - Actor and Nut Case"

First off, a test, does the B tag work in the title? Unlikely methinks. Anyway, on with the topic:

I've enjoyed every performance I've seen from Christian Bale, he's played some excellent roles. I just watched The Machinist last night and this was no different - I'm actually surprised they didn't put Bale up for an Oscar in that one though. I won't go into the details of the movie because its one of those that is so easily spoiled by any hints you give, particularly if you've seen certain other similar movies. My question though: is Christian Bale insane? He lost a tremendous amount of weight to play Trevor and then put on extra bulk to play Batman and I'm really not convinced that he'll have got through that without leaving lasting damage.

For anyone who has seen a picture of the movie or, even better, the movie itself, you'll know what I mean - he was scarily thin, its hard to believe he could even stand up. From what I'm told, he ate a tin of tuna and an apple every day, nothing else (except water), in the lead up to the movie. I'm not convinced I could cope with that, particularly if the option was open to just not bother.

Any thoughts?

Stryke wrote:

> Did you get superior looks thrown in your direction for a moment
> before everyone returns to the Life of Pi?

I hated that book. Almost every book I've read that's won awards has been utterly crap.

Everything is Illuminated was another one. Started off okay, mildly amusing but Jesus, change the record. The Elected Member by Bernice Reubens was pretty good though, and that won the Booker Prize back in 1970.

I like Chuck Palahniuk though. Didn't realise it was actually fashionable to do so, picked up Survivor on the back of reccomendations here, and thought it was great. Lullaby and Diary had their moments, but I felt there was sometihng missing. I bought Haunted, but my wife's currently reading through it.

Just finished Lord of the Flies. Now that was a good read.

Haven't read any Stephen King in a while, and i think he's a fantastic storyteller, so just started Black House, the one he did with Peter Straub.

I suppose I was being quite 'trendy' readign Fear and Loathing' recently, given that Hunter had just died, but it was part of an offer. That I enjoyed too.

I've never read Palanichuck or American Psycho, and don't particularly intend to. I've been informed about certain moments from the latter by a friend, it just seems like pointless violence. I enjoy a bit of violence, but it's the pointlessness that makes me think I'd laugh/feel sick/both/neither and then dismiss any literary worth I had credited to it.

Oldboy was a fantastic film; it was supremely violent but there was a reason there, it was all motivated by something. It wasn't "Then he does something horrible because the other guy has a better business card," under the pretence that "HE'S A PSYCHO!!!! IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE!!1 HAHAH I'M A GENIUS!!"

Light wrote:
> Oddly enough, I've never yet read Bukowski.
------

Start with Ham on Rye. A fictional account of his youth and teen years, Post Office basically takes off from where that one finishes.
And "Women"...good lord but it's like that grubby drunkard knew a future-me and wrote a "How to" personally just for me.
Maybe that's why Ellis & Phwoarkukkyliuk sell, because there are people that identify with the characters?

Stryke wrote:
> Did you get superior looks thrown in your direction for a moment
> before everyone returns to the Life of Pi?
----
Yep.
I felt like saying "Ass-bees!" and sticking two fingers up.

Light wrote:
>
>
> Even funnier is an excerpt from another of his books (I forget which;
> I believe it's been adapted with Dawson off of Dawsons Creek in it...)

--

That'd be Rules of Attraction. The Dawson is good in it. If you haven't seen it, you should.

Goatboy wrote:
>.
> The description of a man crapping rusty water at incredible pressure
> had me literally laughing out loud on the tube.

--

Did you get superior looks thrown in your direction for a moment before everyone returns to the Life of Pi?

Goatboy wrote:
> I really didn't think that much of American Psycho to be honest.
> Probably because I'd read the book and found it to be nothing more
> than an exercise in purile "let's see how far I can go"
> set-pieces.


Thank God; I'm not the only one...

Even funnier is an excerpt from another of his books (I forget which; I believe it's been adapted with Dawson off of Dawsons Creek in it...) where he talks about having just seen "the Aphex Twins in a club".

God, I hate him even more just thinking about what a pretentious, over-rated...(expletives deleted).


Chomsky...well, I always feel utterly intellectually intimidated by his writing. Once I get past that, it's good stuff.

Kafka is hit and miss, in that The Trial is superb and The Castle is a meandering pile of old gran's pants. My main problem with his work is that it all centre's quite squarely on his own sense of self-loathing.

Personally, I find you can't go wrong with Pratchett, Banks (early stuff and sci fi), Brookmyre, and anything written by Charlie Brooker.

But then, that's what having differing tastes is about I guess...

Oddly enough, I've never yet read Bukowski.

Kilgore Trout wrote:
> Never read a Chuck P novel, but think he was trying to outgross
> whatever had come before with the short story 'Guts' that was in The
> Guardian.
------

Completely missed that and glad I did, gross for gross' sake is like being forced to read some of the stuff in creative writings with zombies and murder and blood etc.

But for funny gross, read Ethan Coen's "Gates of Eden" collection of short stories. I can't remember the title of this particular story, but a weights & measures guy is sabotaged by somebody and wakes up with an ass full of bees and liquid fire coursing through his system.
The description of a man crapping rusty water at incredible pressure had me literally laughing out loud on the tube.

Thing about Chomsky is, and I've admitted it frequently, I have to be in a certain mindframe to read. Otherwise I'll stop after 10 pages and think "Nope, didn't understand a word of that" and put it down till later.
But I'll agree he seems to be one of those authors that people hold up to eye-level to read whilst casting furtive glances around to see if anybody sees them.
Bookponces.

My favourite author is Bukowski, but if I ever re-read his stuff and I'm on the tube then I make a point of being as non-showy as I can because I don't like to give the impression I'm one of those people. I just love his style and prose, "Post Office" beats Ham on Rye but that's just because I can identify to an extent.
George McDonald Fraser's "The Pyrates" is currently my read and I'm thoroughly enjoying it, does for pirates what Princess Bride did for fairytales.

But yeah, an awful lot of praised books have left me cold, maybe it's just an inherent resistance to being told what is awesome.

Never read a Chuck P novel, but think he was trying to outgross whatever had come before with the short story 'Guts' that was in The Guardian.