.
.
Dinner, or breakfast, or midrats... was served. The odor disappears when the dish cools. Actually, even when reheated, the scent is nothing like that first bake. But the scent is still alive in the tasting, somehow.
Why stinky cheese? Many reasons. In tradition, it had more to do with storing milk in such a manner as to avoid starvation. Without refrigeration, canning, and other techniques, plus poor hygiene... well... No singular cheese satisfied, not all cheeses could be stored short or long, and there was no universality... each area, perhaps each season, and by needs as well as wants, lead to various methods. More? With the molds initially most likely being wild, even getting the same thing from the same process was unlikely.
How many died eating a cheese that was bad, before it was understood? How many cheeses for various lengths of use could still be found as unique? Why eat cheeses that are seemingly foul? I don't think I can answer the first two. As for the final question, I can only answer for myself. The reason to each stinky cheese is, because, if your palate is mature enough, seasoned enough, to get beyond the odor, the texture and taste is unique, complex, and refined. More, it means you can enjoy foods that others cannot, giving you one more opportunity to survive in a world of desperate want. None in this nation has known true hunger. Our poor are fat. This is so much of an anomaly to human history that... To see it wasted on people who complain about everything. And worse, to be one of those at times...
Being able to eat umami, in it's most complex forms, was a gift to the poor which kings learned to hold to themselves. It meant life, even more than just survival, at times. Only middle-weight wealthy eschew such. In time, however, if the middle continues to demand only fresh, new, and best, they will end up falling, for the most part, and becoming the new poor. Only a few rise to oppressive wealth in such situations. Educate themselves beyond the will to breed, and face the consequences? Aye. Much has gone wrong. The price is coming due. I will eat my cheese, and learn umami, so as to ride out what of it I may. Oh... I played my part.
I did see one of the most wonderful horror movies I have seen in a very long time. Not much gore, if any really. Not a single jump-scare, not to my way of reacting. An H.P. Lovecraft modernization. I have tried to like his stuff. It usually escapes me. It seems, too often, to be a blend of documentary of pseudo-history (the story) mixed with a first person sort of diary. I just, while trying to read, I... *zzz* However, in at least this movie, it fit perfectly. And the acting was rather tight. I really enjoyed it. Ah, the name, The Thing at the Doorstep (free if you have amazon prime). Pure... say... Poe like horror... only with a lot less blood, actually. Wonderful. I don't mind blood, in some, if it fits. I don't need to see extremes, though if somewhat needed, then do those correctly. Poor horror is trash.
If I am up to it, I may hit some dishes, then laundry, then a shower. Cleaning the kitchen while dealing with dishes. I have been staying up on the kitchen, mostly, so that won't be a huge issue. Then, maybe, boxes. Trash and recycling are in the bins, if those need to be taken to the curb. Yeah. We'll see. Good early morning.
Filming H.P. Lovecraft is often like trying to herd cats. Lovecraft's fiction style never lent itself well to cinema, and I've often felt that a filmmaker pretty much had to have a contract with Nyarlathotep in order to produce something halfway workable. Daniel Haller's 1970 adaptation of "The Dunwich Horror" certainly had flaws, but I appreciate it because it presented the sense of a genuine background mythology, and it was through that I began reading Lovecraft. Andrew Leman's 2005 film "The Call of Cthulhu" works through the inspired effort of filming it as a short silent piece in the style of the 1920's. Another short film . . . David Prior's 2008 "AM1200" . . . is not an adaptation of a Lovecraft story, but comes extremely close to capturing the genuine mood of one.
ReplyDeleteI haven't yet seen "The Thing on the Doorstep", but will give it a look as opportunity presents. I keep hoping someone will get it right.
I am a little cautious with silent films. *zzz* They either have to hit it perfect or I simply can't do it. The latter is probably 90%. My problem, theirs, the format, doesn't matter, I can't usually do it. Still... Now I am hopeful for more that might be entertaining. I have seen and read, I think, The Dunwwich Horror, but only within the last year? I have hit and missed with Lovecraft often, never quite getting into it. Given that you seem to be a fan, I sure hope to hear what you think of the show I just reviewed. I love a correctly done horror. I almost have to bet you have seen In the Mouth of Madness? That is quite similar to, or literally, Lovecraft? Can't remember.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reminding me of "In the Mouth of Madness". Not an adaptation of a Lovecraft story but, as with Prior's "AM1200", definitely has the genuine feel (that and another favorite of mine from Carpenter: "Prince of Darkness").
ReplyDeleteLovecraft is hit or miss with me as well. He had a tendency to rely too much on vagueness (I don't mind making the reader work, but I feel that an author should toss an occasional bone or two). Many people point to his "At the Montains of Madness" as his premier work. I find it passable myself. For me, Lovecraft hit his peak with "The Shadow Over Innsmouth": a thoroughly chilly story that slowly engulfs the reader with its mood.
I don't have Amazon Prime so it will be awhile before I can see "The Thing on the Doorstep". But I'm making a note to let you know of my opinion.
I have been dithering on whether to watch Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. Sometimes I just go with it, other times... Then again it isn't free, so it isn't just time wasted. It is so difficult to get a solid lead on horror. Either it is over-the-top or a snooze-fest. I don't mind some of this, or that, just not a whole show of mindless idiots being slaughtered by an aggressive mindless idiot. I'll have to keep those books in mind. Curious, now. Not sure I will ever get to them, still...
ReplyDeleteHorror is indeed a slippery animal (which probably explains why I can't write it). Too many people have made the tiresome mistake of thinking (as you pointed out) that horror is simply a matter of someone butchering a lot of other someones. It's possible to turn that into effective horror, but some honest effort has to be made.
ReplyDeleteMy son and I were recently bouncing the subject of filmed horror back and forth between us. He and I agree that The Twilight Zone episode "The Fever" (written by Rod Serling, directed by Robert Florey) is one of the best examples ever. I'll also include Ridley Scott's "Alien", Herk Harvey's "Carnival of Souls", the Carpenter films I mentioned, and then add Jacques Tourneur's "Night of the Demon" (released here as "Curse of the Demon", but I'd try to find the original British version). Perhaps it's lost its power over the decades, but it used to scare the absolute purple whim-whams out of me when I was just a tad.
Oh, and before I leave you (or anyone) with the idea that just the Americans and the British produce good horror cinema, Hideo Nakata's "Ringu" is, to my way of thinking, one of the finest horror productions to come along in contemporary times. The American version (Gore Verbinski's "The Ring") isn't bad, but seems tame by comparison to its Eastern predecessor.
ReplyDelete