kitty-carroll.org

truly a site unseen

A girl named Sue

Given the Marvel precedent, I suppose she’d have to be. Here’s the IMDb outline:

Following an accident in her scientist mother’s laboratory with the new wonder fluid NT26D, which is designed to fight illnesses genetically, 12-year-old Sue (Ruby M. Lichtenberg) now has the unique ability to make herself invisible. So when Sue’s mother is kidnapped right before her very eyes, she is just the girl for the job. Together with Kaya (Anna Shirin Habedank), a rather nerdy girl of the same age who could teach James Bond’s Q a few things, and Tobi, who not only looks good and has the hots for her but can also do amazing things on his bicycle, Sue and her friends combine their strengths and talents to free her mother, unmask the conspiracy behind her disappearance and bring the truth to light.

I’ve seen maybe 1.5 seconds of this film, in which Sue’s right hand fades away, and it looks like the sleeve of her sweatshirt is going with it. Right now it’s on the European festival circuit; I have no idea when, if ever, it’s going to cross the pond.

No comments

Evocative artwork

This is generally outside our turf here — author Jennifer Rothschild is a minister, motivational speaker, and head of a women-in-ministry group — but this cover design is utterly brilliant and deserves some recognition:

"Invisible" by Jennifer Rothschild

There is also a version of this book written specifically for younger women.

The author’s Web site (and blog!) is at jenniferrothschild.com.

No comments

Not to be used for nefarious purposes

Like this will actually discourage ne’er-do-wells out there:

Still, I suppose it’s worth a try.

Comments off

Make something of yourself

Serbian artist Mirjana Kika Milosevic has, over the past couple of years, made many things of herself with lots of makeup and body paint, to include Chucky, the Borg Queen, and, perhaps most disturbingly, a Human Ashtray.

Here, she makes, um, nothing of herself:

I’ve had dreams like this.

Comments off

There’s one in every crowd

Doesn’t mean you’re going to recognize her, though.

(Via @GhostCatLady.)

Comments off

The ballad of Kitty Carroll

Five years ago, MeTV host Svengoolie presided over an airing of the 1940 Invisible Woman film, whence cometh Kitty C. herself, and one segment of the show was given over to a song about her. A Beatles song about her, no less. And it’s pretty sharp, I gotta say:

Sir Paul, I suspect, would find this amusing in spite of himself.

Comments off

Intentional farce

If you think about it, there’s no reason Kitty Carroll couldn’t have been just as frightening a character as H. G. Wells’ original Griffin, or the version of Griffin played by Claude Rains in the first film of Universal’s Invisible series. But that wasn’t the movie Universal wanted to make in 1940, and it’s arguable whether they could have if they had wanted to:

If in earlier incarnations invisible means inconsequential, impermanent, inassimilable or uncanny, the invisible woman can never really be described as embodying any of the qualities. Part of the fear of Wells’ invisible man rests in the anxiety that he could be watching you and you would not know; he could sneak up out of the shadows and you would be taken by surprise — the fear, in other words, that you are being surveilled. At the most basic level, the transfer to film changes this relationship, for in looking at the screen, the viewer surveilling the Invisible Man, rather than the other way around. Indeed, in each of the films in the series, through a variety of visual and auditory cues, the viewer is in fact allowed to literally see where the invisible figure is at nearly any given moment. The Invisible Woman, in constantly reminding viewers of Kitty’s appearance, heightens this collapse of the visible and the invisible.

Kitty’s invisibility perpetually exists not only in relation to but for a viewer, and insofar as we are constantly encouraged to project an image of [Virginia] Bruce onto the special effects that suggest an invisible presence, the invisible woman is very deliberately constructed as subject of the spectator’s gaze.

The scenes at Richard’s hunting lodge, during which Kitty is mostly unclothed, make this perfectly obvious; due to Production Code rules, neither Richard nor the Professor could not tell you that she was naked at the time, but they went to an awful lot of trouble to make sure you knew it. I have to wonder how they would have made this film in 1933, the year James Whale directed The Invisible Man, the first use of John Fulton’s special effects, a year in which the Code was officially in effect but only sporadically enforced.

Comments off

A trick of the lighting?

Playwright Barbara Lhota has come up with one of the less likely ideas for a stage play: a live-action version of Russell Stamm’s classic comic Invisible Scarlet O’Neil.

How in the world is this even possible? It takes some doing:

Chloe Baldwin serves as the backbone of the show in the title role, a plucky young woman determined to help people as a newspaper reporter. The exact nature of Scarlet’s power and how she ends up using it are a mix of clever action by Libby Beyreis, assisted by Chloe Baldwin; lighting by Meghan Erxleben; set design by Milo Bue; and direction by Leigh Barrett. Ironically, one would be best to see her “invisibility” to fully appreciate it!

Babes With Blades Theatre Company, which presented this production, has lots of reviews and a brief video for your perusal.

(Hat tip: Paul Cwick.)

Comments off

An evocative cover

This was suggested to me at Amazon.com yesterday:

If Only It Were True is a pretty spiffy novel by Marc Levy which I bought several years ago. It was subsequently made into a Hollywood movie (Just Like Heaven, with Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo), and a Bollywood movie (I See You, with Vipasha Agarwal and Arjun Rampal).

I’ve mentioned I See You before, and I’ve put out a full-fledged review elsewhere. But this cover does capture one basic fact: no one can see the spirit of the young lady who’s been left for dead.

Comments off

Something worth remembering

Rodd Thunderheart, author of the novel See Through Love, has prepared a meme which we might want to take to, um, heart:

It's no reflection on you

Then again, that’s an awfully tiny waist.

Comments off

We’ll see about that

Coach Daddy asked: “If you could be invisible for a week, what would you do?” Difficulty: you have to describe it in six words.

Fifty-one answers were singled out for the article, and I think this was my favorite:

32. Enjoy not being asked for anything.

Passive rather than active, but attractive just the same.

1 comment

Ignore the name for a moment

This has potential as a story:

What happens when you don’t even show up in your selfies?

“IPF” is the Independent Production Fund, which forks out the cash for a few Canadian web series; this was evidently submitted to IPF in the hopes of getting a grant. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I hope they get it.

Update, 30 December: Apparently they got it, because it’s going into production.

Comments off

SPF infinite?

This seems like an awful lot to ask of a sunscreen:

But hey, if it works…

Comments off

And who knew?

Claire Danes shows up at the Met Gala, kinda sorta:

Claire Danes' glow-in-the-dark dress at the 2016 Met Gala

  

Love the dress, but you probably figured that.

Comments off

How depressing

Hopes are not yet dashed, but they clearly have taken a body blow:

A pair of researchers from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and the University of Otago have carried out theoretical modelling in an attempt to understand how an invisibility cloak might actually work in real life. There are different ways to make invisibility cloaks, all of which have to contend with the fact that diverting light around something introduces time delay problems — because the light can’t pass straight through the object that’s being cloaked.

The most realistic way to do it using an “amplitude cloak.” This approach discards information about the phase of light, instead recreating its color and attempting to introduce a time delay to make up for the differences in path length along which the light travels. The good news is that the cloaks create a compelling representation of reality. In fact, labs have already been able to show off amplitude cloaks that kind of work.

But the new research brings some bad news, too. Sadly, it seems this kind of cloak would only work when the hidden object and its observer are stationary. The reason is to do with something known as Fresnel-Fizeau drag. When light propagates through a moving medium — like, say, a raindrop — it is dragged along with the medium. So a moving invisibility cloak — or a moving observer — would drag light with it.

Potions, anyone?

Comments off

Extended play

If you liked Disney’s Invisible Sister but wanted more of the early scenes with Paris Berelc as an empty space, Disney Channel UK has something for you:

Who knows what other scenes might still be in the Mouse’s vault?

Comments off

Next Page »