Extremely Loud (the film) & Archery
I've had a really busy week, for a change, something which doesn't normally occur in my life. I usually don't do very much, spend a lot of time at home and try to go cycling every few days. This week I've been cycling, I've been swimming, I've been doing archery and I've been to the cinema, which is quite a lot of stuff!
On Thursday I went swimming, which was brilliant, as per. I managed to swim 1500 metres which is double the length I swam the week before. I also swam 750 metres of that in one go without stopping, something I didn't manage to do the week before also. I did it though, it went really well. Basically it's 30 lengths of the pool as they're 25 metres each. That was doing breast stroke. I can't really do front crawl as I can't put my head under the water, for some reason water always goes up my nose - even just doing breast stroke I get a few random bursts of water up the nose. I did a little back crawl though, which really ached but 5 lengths of that was pretty good. It's using similar muscles that I need for archery so I thought it'd be a good idea to start working those out a little more.
Archery on Friday was fantastic for the most part. I love being back out there shooting arrows with a standard (training) bow. I shot at 20 and 30 metres and managed to get 5 out of 6 arrows on the target after a while. It was a little annoying at the same time due to certain ways that archery groups have.
There's basically two types of archers - those who use old-school bows (long bow) and those who use modern bows (recurve). There seems to be a lot of judgement between the two, really and quite frankly I'm on the long bow side. I was having lessons off someone who uses recurve and whilst I like using the bow, there are all of these extra objects you can attach to your bow to make your aim better. That might sound fantastic, but I'm not so sure. I honestly feel like it's cheating.
When I was in the USA I was getting every arrow on the target, I was getting at least half in the golds and reds and for me that was exciting because I didn't know if I would succeed in that round or not. Sights are basically an object you use to help get your aim right, so that instead of aiming 3 metres to the left of the target to get the arrows on gold, you aim at gold every time because you're adjusting your 'sight' not the place you're looking at.
He was basically pissing on old-school archers, claiming that Dave (the long bow guy I met) can't hit a target. That may be so, but I don't want to hit a target every time if I'm using fancy extras to make it happen.
I was using a heavier bow, so I know that part of the reason I wasn't getting all of my arrows on the target was because of that. It was also because I was being watched heavily by the teacher. When he went off to get a couple of extra arrows I did a lot better than when he was watching me.
His bow has a sight, it also has a stabiliser (I don't even know what they do yet), it has a clicker (which tells you exactly when to let go of the string), a kisser (which helps him to know the string is in the right place), a metal plate (so that when that is in a certain spot under his chin he knows when to let go). He basically said to me that if it's accepted in competitions, use it.
Problem is...I don't want to. I know I can do okay without the extras and I'd rather learn without them. But how do you tell a teacher that when he's so serious about his fancy bow with fancy extras? Dave was right, long bow archers are so much less serious.
I'm a lot more excited to go down tomorrow because the teacher, Bill, won't be there. But Dave will. He showed me a couple of bows I can have a go with and one of them is a recurve but it didn't have a sight, etc. on it. I really wish I could prove that I can do it without. Bill already said that I have a good technique, I know I do, I pretty much taught myself.
It really pisses me off that I can teach myself to use a 22 bow and get golds without additional extras, when I can't use a 26 for 2 hours and not get all 6 arrows on the target using one. Bill was talking about adding a stabiliser next week. I'm going to have to try my best to say that I just want to use a sight and nothing else. If I make that compromise, then maybe it'll be okay? Part of me just wants to buy my own bow now so that I don't have to put a sight on it.
Does anyone have any tips on how to get a serious teacher to lighten up and let me do things my way?
I actually wonder how good an archer Bill would be if you gave him a brand new bow without additional extras...give me a few weeks of shooting with the same bow, give him a bow without a sight, etc. and let's see who the more skilled archer really is. I'm not saying I'm going to be better, but I wouldn't be relying on contraptions to get it right.
After Archery I went home for an hour then went back out to the cinema to watch the film adaptation of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.
As you might have seen I recently finished the book, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
I didn't mind the film, it was nice to watch and I don't think I wasted any money in going to see it. But like most adaptations of books (with the exception of Sarah's Key by Tatiana de Rosnay) it fell below par.
The thing with Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is there's this unique way of writing that uses knowledge and facts and information, there's this unique way of exploring emotions and quite frankly the film didn't seem to show any understanding of that side of the book.
If you've read my book musings you will have seen that I specifically commented on the themes of life and death throughout the book and to be honest, there really isn't all that much of a representation in the film. Yes, Oskar's dad died as he was always going to do...but we didn't get to see the relationship between Oskar and his grandmother. We didn't get all of the amazing thoughts and opinions on life and death that we see in the book.
The film missed a while section of the story. The story isn't just about Oskar and his parents, it's about his grandparents and that side story, in my opinion, was very important in understanding the book and the pain of living and life. That's what's missing.
The child that played Oskar was a little older than he was in the book, I understand why in that he is the focus of the film so a child younger would perhaps have been less able to carry that through. But that didn't help me. By the end of the film I had warmed to the film Oskar and I quite liked him. I just feel like there was something missing from him. There was a level of emotion that we didn't get to see earlier in the film, a different kind of emotion and childishness.
I may watch it again and enjoy it again, I just won't be able to recommend it as something to watch before you read the book.
On Thursday I went swimming, which was brilliant, as per. I managed to swim 1500 metres which is double the length I swam the week before. I also swam 750 metres of that in one go without stopping, something I didn't manage to do the week before also. I did it though, it went really well. Basically it's 30 lengths of the pool as they're 25 metres each. That was doing breast stroke. I can't really do front crawl as I can't put my head under the water, for some reason water always goes up my nose - even just doing breast stroke I get a few random bursts of water up the nose. I did a little back crawl though, which really ached but 5 lengths of that was pretty good. It's using similar muscles that I need for archery so I thought it'd be a good idea to start working those out a little more.
Archery on Friday was fantastic for the most part. I love being back out there shooting arrows with a standard (training) bow. I shot at 20 and 30 metres and managed to get 5 out of 6 arrows on the target after a while. It was a little annoying at the same time due to certain ways that archery groups have.
There's basically two types of archers - those who use old-school bows (long bow) and those who use modern bows (recurve). There seems to be a lot of judgement between the two, really and quite frankly I'm on the long bow side. I was having lessons off someone who uses recurve and whilst I like using the bow, there are all of these extra objects you can attach to your bow to make your aim better. That might sound fantastic, but I'm not so sure. I honestly feel like it's cheating.
When I was in the USA I was getting every arrow on the target, I was getting at least half in the golds and reds and for me that was exciting because I didn't know if I would succeed in that round or not. Sights are basically an object you use to help get your aim right, so that instead of aiming 3 metres to the left of the target to get the arrows on gold, you aim at gold every time because you're adjusting your 'sight' not the place you're looking at.
He was basically pissing on old-school archers, claiming that Dave (the long bow guy I met) can't hit a target. That may be so, but I don't want to hit a target every time if I'm using fancy extras to make it happen.
I was using a heavier bow, so I know that part of the reason I wasn't getting all of my arrows on the target was because of that. It was also because I was being watched heavily by the teacher. When he went off to get a couple of extra arrows I did a lot better than when he was watching me.
His bow has a sight, it also has a stabiliser (I don't even know what they do yet), it has a clicker (which tells you exactly when to let go of the string), a kisser (which helps him to know the string is in the right place), a metal plate (so that when that is in a certain spot under his chin he knows when to let go). He basically said to me that if it's accepted in competitions, use it.
Problem is...I don't want to. I know I can do okay without the extras and I'd rather learn without them. But how do you tell a teacher that when he's so serious about his fancy bow with fancy extras? Dave was right, long bow archers are so much less serious.
I'm a lot more excited to go down tomorrow because the teacher, Bill, won't be there. But Dave will. He showed me a couple of bows I can have a go with and one of them is a recurve but it didn't have a sight, etc. on it. I really wish I could prove that I can do it without. Bill already said that I have a good technique, I know I do, I pretty much taught myself.
It really pisses me off that I can teach myself to use a 22 bow and get golds without additional extras, when I can't use a 26 for 2 hours and not get all 6 arrows on the target using one. Bill was talking about adding a stabiliser next week. I'm going to have to try my best to say that I just want to use a sight and nothing else. If I make that compromise, then maybe it'll be okay? Part of me just wants to buy my own bow now so that I don't have to put a sight on it.
Does anyone have any tips on how to get a serious teacher to lighten up and let me do things my way?
I actually wonder how good an archer Bill would be if you gave him a brand new bow without additional extras...give me a few weeks of shooting with the same bow, give him a bow without a sight, etc. and let's see who the more skilled archer really is. I'm not saying I'm going to be better, but I wouldn't be relying on contraptions to get it right.
After Archery I went home for an hour then went back out to the cinema to watch the film adaptation of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.
As you might have seen I recently finished the book, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
I didn't mind the film, it was nice to watch and I don't think I wasted any money in going to see it. But like most adaptations of books (with the exception of Sarah's Key by Tatiana de Rosnay) it fell below par.
The thing with Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is there's this unique way of writing that uses knowledge and facts and information, there's this unique way of exploring emotions and quite frankly the film didn't seem to show any understanding of that side of the book.
If you've read my book musings you will have seen that I specifically commented on the themes of life and death throughout the book and to be honest, there really isn't all that much of a representation in the film. Yes, Oskar's dad died as he was always going to do...but we didn't get to see the relationship between Oskar and his grandmother. We didn't get all of the amazing thoughts and opinions on life and death that we see in the book.
The film missed a while section of the story. The story isn't just about Oskar and his parents, it's about his grandparents and that side story, in my opinion, was very important in understanding the book and the pain of living and life. That's what's missing.
The child that played Oskar was a little older than he was in the book, I understand why in that he is the focus of the film so a child younger would perhaps have been less able to carry that through. But that didn't help me. By the end of the film I had warmed to the film Oskar and I quite liked him. I just feel like there was something missing from him. There was a level of emotion that we didn't get to see earlier in the film, a different kind of emotion and childishness.
I may watch it again and enjoy it again, I just won't be able to recommend it as something to watch before you read the book.