BOOKS
PURGATORIO (The Divine Comedy vol11), by Dante Alighieri. Having descended into the pit of Hell, our intrepid pilgrim now climbs Mount Purgatory, still accompanied by his guide and mentor Virgil. Here, to his considerable relief, he discovers that God's justice may be tempered with mercy and compassion. In Hell he found sinners of various colours, condemned to the eternal torments of that dread place. And he found that the fraudsters, the traitors, the atheists, have no recourse to any "letters of mitigation" that might reduce their sentence. God's judgement appears to be absolute and unwavering. But now, in a climb which takes several days (in Hell he was in and out within 24 hours), he finds that redemption is possible as long as there is true repentance, and only after a sometimes lengthy process of purgation.
Once again we can fly in our time machine back to the dawn of the 14th century and hear the words of one of the greatest poets who ever lived, though we will require detailed explanations via footnotes to have much idea of what he was on about. In this case, actually too much detail is supplied by my edition (Oxford University press), which threatens to interfere with the magical flow of the rhyme and metre of the poem, to say nothing of the electrifying story it tells. In my edition, the footnotes are five times longer than the text, and that, I have to say, is TMI. Even so, I can hardly wait for the climax of the tale: Paradiso. Watch this space.
OMEROS, by Derek Walcott. On the Caribbean island of St Lucia, former slaves live out their lives under the gaze of wealthy tourists and a handful of ex-pats. One of these ex-pats is a retired British soldier who, to fill his time researches his ancestors who fought over the island two hundred years earlier.
Fast forward 680 years from Dante to find another master-poet, creating an epic tale for the ages. Yet despite the huge interim, the parallels are extraordinary. Dante's great hero was Virgil, whose Aeneid is essentially a re-telling of Homer's Iliad. Derek Walcott has drunk deep from the same well. Omeros is the Greek name for Homer, and his Odyssey is here the inspiration for an amazing story of lust, betrayal and redemption set in the Greater Antilles. Walcott, already established as a major literary talent before Omeros appeared, sealed his reputation with this poem: shortly afterwards, in 1991, he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Permit me to quote just a few tercets (yes, Walcott used the same verse structure as Dante for much of it) from this wonderful poem: Here he describes a hurricane hitting the island:
The cyclone, howling because one the lances
of a flinging palm has narrowly grazed its one eye,
wades knee-deep in troughs. As he blindly advances,
Lightning, his stilt-walking messenger, jiggers the sky
with his forked stride, as he crackles over the troughs
like a split electric wishbone. His wife, Ma Rain,
hurls buckets from the balcony of her upstairs house.
She shakes the sodden mops of the palms and once again
changes her furniture, the cloud-sofas' rumbling casters
not waking the Sun. The Sun had been working all day
and would sleep through it all. After their disasters
it was he who cleaned up after their goddamned party.
The word genius is overused today. The Divine Comedy is unquestionably a work of genius. And so is this.
FILMS
OUT OF SIGHT (1998) D- Steven Soderbergh. An improbably good-looking bank robber (George Clooney) threatens to ensnare an even better looking FBI agent (Jennifer Lopez) tasked with bringing him down. Will she fall hard, or will she do the professional job she is trained for? Moderately enjoyable, extremely slick production which pushes the boundaries of credibility. Do we really care what happens? Perhaps not, but we kind of have fun while we're deciding.
THE JOKER IS WILD (1957) D- Charles Vidor. A young singer stands up to the mob but nearly loses his life in the process. His voiced damaged in a knife attack, he turns to stand up comedy and carves a new career for himself. But self destructive elements in his personality threaten to do an even better hatchet-job on himself than the mob ever did... Starring Frank Sinatra, the film is based on the life of real-life entertainer Joe E. Louis. Louis, who collaborated in the film is reported as saying Frank had a lot more fun portraying his life than he had living it. The result is a great success, and shows conclusively, were any additional proof needed, that Sinatra was truly one of the great talents of the 20th century. Powerful.
THE GREAT GATSBY (2012) D- Baz Luhrman. In 1920s New York, a young man is seduced by the charisma and vast wealth of his friend, Jay Gatsby. But how did Gatsby acquire his money, and will he finally snag the one woman who seems impervious to his charms? All will be revealed, if you can be bothered. Fitzgerald's "masterpiece" has been filmed many times, perhaps most notably in the 70s with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and although that film wasn't any great shakes, it comfortably outdoes this effort, which is redolent of glitz and glamour, but very little else. Look out. Baz will probably turn to Henry James next, with a result even more garish and trite than this.
IL DIVO (2008) D- Paulo Sorrentino. Being the life and times of Guilio Andriotti, one of the key figures of Italian politics in the post war era. He served in high office in most of the dozens of governments that country has had in the last sixty years, several of them as prime minister. And although accused of wrongdoing of various kinds over the decades, was never convicted of anything. Like a sort of combination of all the best (and worst) features of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Ghengis Khan and Peter Mandelson, you just couldn't keep him down. Absorbing.
BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR (aka The Story of Adele chapters 1 and 2) (2013) D- Abdellatif Kuchiche. An adolescent French schoolgirl struggles to find her identity until she finds another girl who finally gives her life meaning. But the path of true love never runs smooth. Adele has a casual screw with a man, and when her girlfriend finds out, throws her out on her ear. Can she survive this reverse? A sort of sprawling epic portrayal of young love which, despite its three hour running time, captures the attention throughout. Loosely based on the writings of the 17th century French metaphysician Maliveaux, this film is as French as they come, which can sometimes be difficult for us, but they loved it, awarding it the Palme d'or at Cannes last year.
I WANT TO LIVE! (1958) D- Robert Wise. A beautiful young woman (Susan Hayward) has a difficult live on the fringes of society and makes what social workers like to call "poor life decisions", including getting in with a gang which undertakes a poorly planned burglary, pistol-whipping a woman to death in the process. The gang are soon apprehended, and they all blame Barbara Graham (there was a real-life Barbara Graham, on whom the film is based) for the beating. Found guilty, she is condemned to death...
Hayward won the best actress Oscar for her portrayal of the tragic "heroine", and deservedly so. The film really comes into its own in the death row sequences towards the end, where her feisty, uncompromising personality wins everyone over, right down to the warden, who finally realises they are going to kill a very special person. Wickedly good cinema.
ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW (1959) D- Robert Wise. An ageing crim (superbly portrayed by Ed Begley) persuades a couple of younger hoods, namely a hard-bitten Robert Ryan and a rather strangely cast Harry Belafonte (though perhaps not; his company co-produced it) to rob a bank in a "foolproof" heist. Foolproof? Ha! What follows owes something to an early Kubrick effort Killer's Kiss and even more to Rififi. It initially promises to be something special, but in the event fails to live up to the drama and impact of Wise's previous movie I Want to Live! But that was a hard act to follow...
THE LONE RANGER (2013) D- Gore Veduski. Tonto (Spanish for stupid) is a Native American Indian of indeterminate tribe who, through a series of events even he does not fully understand, becomes teamed up with a masked seeker of justice in the Old West. Think a sort of Batman precursor, though Robin Tonto is most definitely not. Oh, the larks they have!
Re-telling fond myths is a dangerous pursuit, as the makers of this film soon learned. Perhaps because of this it seems that the film has gone down better outside America than within its own borders, and has actually lost money there. Personally I sort of enjoyed its irreverence, and especially Depp's typically idiosyncratic performance, though I suspect it will not linger long in the memory.
HAROLD AND MAUD (1981) D- Hal Ashby. A strange young man from a wealthy family becomes obsessed with death, perhaps as a way of attracting attention from his vacuous mother. His elaborately staged suicide attempts may actually work one day and end his life, but then he meets an even odder person than him: Maud, an elderly lady of anarchic spirit who loves life as much as Harold appears to hate it. Together they make a "perfect" if rather dangerous couple...
Hal Ashby had made some brilliant films by the time he came to Harold and Maud: The Last Detail, Shampoo, and here he makes one of his most personal and intimate offerings to a public which in 1981 may not have been ready for it. I was warned the film may have dated badly in the 30-plus years since it was made, but in fact it retains its bite pretty well. The film was never a big commercial success but instead became a "cult" favourite, which is one way of ensuring its immortality. Intriguing even today.
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
Saturday, 26 April 2014
"Pause" (verb): to give up on, abandon, admit defeat
So. President Obama has ordered a "pause" in the Israeli/Palestinian peace talks. According to him, the reason is that Fatah, the organisation which controls the West Bank, has allied itself with Hamas, which controls Gaza. "We won't negotiate with a terrorist organisation" say the Israelis, so that's that. Never mind the fact that Hamas, for all its failings, won a thumping majority in elections and can therefore claim a substantial mandate for its policies. Nor is it enough that Fatah now accepts the existence of the state of Israel (a stumbling block for years) The Israeli government has simply moved the goalposts yet again, as they have done so often in the past, certainly if the Snowden leaks are to be believed, and now insist on the recognition of a "Jewish state". This is a bit hard to swallow for a people who have hundreds of thousands already living in Israel- what of them in a "Jewish" state?
Accepting the inevitable, Obama has, like Pontius Pilate, simply washed his hands of the whole business, telling John Kerry to give it a rest. Poor bastard. Apparently when he enters any given negotiating room, people start giggling behind their hands and whispering "See him? Yeah, he's the guy who lost the election that time".
Unfortunately this means leaving the Israelis to run things exactly as they wish. And if there is a "pause" in the negotiations, you can be sure there will be no pause in the development of the illegal settlements, no pause in their manipulation of the lives of the Palestinian people: denying their right of free movement, withholding tax revenues whenever they feel like it (which is right now as it happens) and frustrating their ability to create any kind of manufacturing base- in other words keeping them poor and powerless.
Who cares? America doesn't. The EU doesn't. Tony Blair certainly doesn't. Do you?
Accepting the inevitable, Obama has, like Pontius Pilate, simply washed his hands of the whole business, telling John Kerry to give it a rest. Poor bastard. Apparently when he enters any given negotiating room, people start giggling behind their hands and whispering "See him? Yeah, he's the guy who lost the election that time".
Unfortunately this means leaving the Israelis to run things exactly as they wish. And if there is a "pause" in the negotiations, you can be sure there will be no pause in the development of the illegal settlements, no pause in their manipulation of the lives of the Palestinian people: denying their right of free movement, withholding tax revenues whenever they feel like it (which is right now as it happens) and frustrating their ability to create any kind of manufacturing base- in other words keeping them poor and powerless.
Who cares? America doesn't. The EU doesn't. Tony Blair certainly doesn't. Do you?
Monday, 21 April 2014
Starving in Syria
There is a huge refugee camp just outside Damascus, and for some weeks now the Syrian authorities have been denying access to UN food packages. Yesterday it was announced that the food had run out in the camp, and now thousands of people face the grim prospect of death by starvation, widely acknowledged to be one of the most horrible ways to die.
Starvation as a weapon of war: there's nothing new about it. Cruel leaders have engineered starvation in their opponents for millennia. In the 20th century Stalin did it to Ukraine (it was "the" Ukraine then) in the 1930s, putting future premier Nikita Kruschev in charge of the process designed to bring about mass murder. He did his job well: over a million people died as a direct result of his policies.
Now Assad uses the same method to bring the dissident factions under control in "his" country. I suppose when they're all dead he'll have won. And Russia still supports him. This is terribly, terribly wrong and the nations of the West should rise up in their opposition to these disgraceful plans so readily endorsed by Putin and his pals in the Kremlin.
Here in the West we don't fully understand exactly what is going on in Ukraine- it seems the ultra-right is now in control of the country, or at least those bits Russia isn't encouraging to split off and re-unite with the Motherland. Just who holds the moral high ground isn't easy to say. But in Syria it's much easier. Assad is using techniques that should bring down the wrath of the entire world on him. But when is it going to happen? You see, deprived of food, people die. Quite quickly.
Starvation as a weapon of war: there's nothing new about it. Cruel leaders have engineered starvation in their opponents for millennia. In the 20th century Stalin did it to Ukraine (it was "the" Ukraine then) in the 1930s, putting future premier Nikita Kruschev in charge of the process designed to bring about mass murder. He did his job well: over a million people died as a direct result of his policies.
Now Assad uses the same method to bring the dissident factions under control in "his" country. I suppose when they're all dead he'll have won. And Russia still supports him. This is terribly, terribly wrong and the nations of the West should rise up in their opposition to these disgraceful plans so readily endorsed by Putin and his pals in the Kremlin.
Here in the West we don't fully understand exactly what is going on in Ukraine- it seems the ultra-right is now in control of the country, or at least those bits Russia isn't encouraging to split off and re-unite with the Motherland. Just who holds the moral high ground isn't easy to say. But in Syria it's much easier. Assad is using techniques that should bring down the wrath of the entire world on him. But when is it going to happen? You see, deprived of food, people die. Quite quickly.
Monday, 14 April 2014
Were you there?
I was watching a PBS America programme the other day which examined the fundamentalist Christian movement in the US. The speaker was addressing his faithful followers and advising them how to deal with the heretics who argued that the Universe was very old, and began with the Big Bang.
"Next time you this lie trotted out, ask them: Were you there?"
Hmm. Pretty convincing I guess. It certainly hit the spot for the audience who went away feeling they had been armed with a killer argument. My first thought, however, would be to ask them, when they stated their belief that the Universe began in 4004 BCE: OK, were you there?
We don't need to be there to know what is right and what is wrong. I remember, back in the early 1980s, talking to an Apartheid supporting South African who rubbished my arguments by saying: "You don't live there, how can you know what's going on. Until you have lived there, shut up and keep your views to yourself."
My response was that I haven't got cancer, but I know how to cut it out. Likewise, I wasn't there, 13.8 billion years ago when the Universe came into existence, but I didn't have to be, because the scientific observations and the mathematics tells me that is what happened.
As we know, light travels very fast, but not infinitely fast. Hence it takes 1.25 seconds to get here from the Moon, 8 minutes from the sun and 2 hours from Saturn. Light from the closest star takes 4.3 years, and from the centre of the galaxy about 20,000 years. Now here's a little problem for the fundamentalists: We can see the stars close to centre of the galaxy; we can see, albeit faintly, light coming from our neighbouring Andromeda galaxy, which set out on its journey over 2 million years ago. But hang on, if the Universe began only 6000 years ago, how could we possibly see objects that are more than 6000 light years away? I'm sorry, fundamentalists, but that really is a killer argument.
In the 1960s, before the Big Bang theory had gained widespread acceptance, a different theory, put forward by the eminent cosmologist Fred Hoyle was enjoying a lot of popularity. Simply stated, he argued that the Universe has always been there, that it has always been expanding and always will be. Many years later he revealed that he didn't really believe his own theory but that he had produced the Steady State theory because he was terrified that the Big Bang would be hijacked by theologians to support the idea that God had done it. I don't know if God did it or not, but the argument that it did happen now enjoys overwhelming support. And most tellingly, Stephen Hawking has observed that it didn't need God for it to happen. With or without His efforts, it would have happened anyway.
Finally, I was watching Al Jazeira the other day when they were discussing the settlements in the West Bank. The interviewer asked the Israeli spokesman about the repeated condemnation of them under international law. How could he justify them in view of this? And guess what? He produced the same argument as my Apartheid supporter nearly 30 years ago. "These people, sitting in the Hague, what do they know? Let them come and live in Israel, as I do, only then will they truly understand what's going on there and why the settlements are in fact a good thing."
There you go. Were you there? Have you been there? Answer: I don't have to go there to know what is right and wrong. My conscience, my powers of reasoning and my life experience can tell me what I need to know.
"Next time you this lie trotted out, ask them: Were you there?"
Hmm. Pretty convincing I guess. It certainly hit the spot for the audience who went away feeling they had been armed with a killer argument. My first thought, however, would be to ask them, when they stated their belief that the Universe began in 4004 BCE: OK, were you there?
We don't need to be there to know what is right and what is wrong. I remember, back in the early 1980s, talking to an Apartheid supporting South African who rubbished my arguments by saying: "You don't live there, how can you know what's going on. Until you have lived there, shut up and keep your views to yourself."
My response was that I haven't got cancer, but I know how to cut it out. Likewise, I wasn't there, 13.8 billion years ago when the Universe came into existence, but I didn't have to be, because the scientific observations and the mathematics tells me that is what happened.
As we know, light travels very fast, but not infinitely fast. Hence it takes 1.25 seconds to get here from the Moon, 8 minutes from the sun and 2 hours from Saturn. Light from the closest star takes 4.3 years, and from the centre of the galaxy about 20,000 years. Now here's a little problem for the fundamentalists: We can see the stars close to centre of the galaxy; we can see, albeit faintly, light coming from our neighbouring Andromeda galaxy, which set out on its journey over 2 million years ago. But hang on, if the Universe began only 6000 years ago, how could we possibly see objects that are more than 6000 light years away? I'm sorry, fundamentalists, but that really is a killer argument.
In the 1960s, before the Big Bang theory had gained widespread acceptance, a different theory, put forward by the eminent cosmologist Fred Hoyle was enjoying a lot of popularity. Simply stated, he argued that the Universe has always been there, that it has always been expanding and always will be. Many years later he revealed that he didn't really believe his own theory but that he had produced the Steady State theory because he was terrified that the Big Bang would be hijacked by theologians to support the idea that God had done it. I don't know if God did it or not, but the argument that it did happen now enjoys overwhelming support. And most tellingly, Stephen Hawking has observed that it didn't need God for it to happen. With or without His efforts, it would have happened anyway.
Finally, I was watching Al Jazeira the other day when they were discussing the settlements in the West Bank. The interviewer asked the Israeli spokesman about the repeated condemnation of them under international law. How could he justify them in view of this? And guess what? He produced the same argument as my Apartheid supporter nearly 30 years ago. "These people, sitting in the Hague, what do they know? Let them come and live in Israel, as I do, only then will they truly understand what's going on there and why the settlements are in fact a good thing."
There you go. Were you there? Have you been there? Answer: I don't have to go there to know what is right and wrong. My conscience, my powers of reasoning and my life experience can tell me what I need to know.
Thursday, 10 April 2014
Tamiflu: we woz done
Let me take you back to the swine flu "epidemic" of 2010. One of the first blogs I wrote in January 2010 was entitled "The little epidemic that wasn't". I was referring to the fact that despite the fact that the drug companies had lobbied WHO so effectively that it labelled it a global "pandemic", the virus responsible for swine flu was in fact relatively innocuous and caused a disease that, in most cases, was little worse than a heavy cold. Sure it killed some, the very young and frail, the elderly and those with pre-existing severe disease, but colds can do that too, and every winter deaths result from minor infections.
The labour government of the day, terrified of being labelled slow off the mark, launched tamiflu on a fearful public and asked us, the GPs, to prescribe it by the million. Very quickly we became aware that there was a high incidence of quite significant side effects resulting from its use, including vomiting and diarrhoea; in other words it often caused symptoms worse than the flu itself. Equally quickly it became apparent that its positive effects were little more than the far safer alternative, paracetamol. In our practice we were on the case relatively quickly and I personally only prescribed it three times, usually on the obdurate insistence of the patients themselves. Since then we haven't seen a major flu outbreak, thank God, and with the publication of the latest research, which confirms what we believed four years ago, we can only hope that the medical profession, and the general public eschew this useless drug which was foisted on us by drug companies (Roche holds the patent on Tamiflu) anxious to boost their profits into the billions.
Let's make no mistake about this. The government of the day was conned by the drug manufacturers, and the con was passed on to us, the people. Let's not make the same mistake again!
The labour government of the day, terrified of being labelled slow off the mark, launched tamiflu on a fearful public and asked us, the GPs, to prescribe it by the million. Very quickly we became aware that there was a high incidence of quite significant side effects resulting from its use, including vomiting and diarrhoea; in other words it often caused symptoms worse than the flu itself. Equally quickly it became apparent that its positive effects were little more than the far safer alternative, paracetamol. In our practice we were on the case relatively quickly and I personally only prescribed it three times, usually on the obdurate insistence of the patients themselves. Since then we haven't seen a major flu outbreak, thank God, and with the publication of the latest research, which confirms what we believed four years ago, we can only hope that the medical profession, and the general public eschew this useless drug which was foisted on us by drug companies (Roche holds the patent on Tamiflu) anxious to boost their profits into the billions.
Let's make no mistake about this. The government of the day was conned by the drug manufacturers, and the con was passed on to us, the people. Let's not make the same mistake again!
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Did he do it?
Oscar Pistorius I mean. Perhaps I should say, did he mean to do it, because we know by his own admission he definitely did do it. The question milady must answer is, was this a case of deliberate murder or simple reckless endangerment, or some sort of manslaughter?
I don't know if you've been following the trial at all, but the coverage is extremely annoying. Although the camera has been allowed into the courtroom, we have been consistently denied the opportunity to see what we actually want, or even need, to see: the witnesses. And the one witness we were allowed to see, namely the pathologist, then helpfully suggested that the forensic details of his testimony were too upsetting for members of the public- us- to hear. This exceedingly patronising approach, apparently, is unprecedented in South African legal history. But I suppose this is an example of what we might call the "OJ effect": that the trial is so high profile new rules need to be dreamed up to accommodate it. I say it's wrong though.
Watching, well actually no, not watching but listening to Pistorius give evidence today (once again I ask: why can't we see him?) with his voice in a perma-tremor was for me actually quite nauseating. We have seen him show his upset already, vomiting at some of the pathologist's testimony, and I can't help thinking how carefully he must have been coached by his defence team to come over as real upset-like and genuinely remorseful- a role which he will need to play with consummate skill if he is to have any chance of getting off without a lengthy prison sentence. Today, at least before they had to adjourn prematurely because the poor lamb was so distraught, Oscar began to tell us how he basically panicked when he thought there was an intruder in his room. Thing is, I believe him. I do believe this was a case of shooting first and asking questions later. We've seen how he is a man easily moved to anger (remember when he lost the 400metres at the Paralympics and as good as accused the winner of cheating?) and trigger-happy to boot, well, what do you expect?
So there we have it. I say, guilty of a serious form of manslaughter, but not murder. In this I am in disagreement with a close female friend who is convinced he offed her coldly and deliberately. But then she has always been convinced the McCanns murdered little Maddie themselves, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I look forward to seeing how it plays out, as long as I don't have to listen to too much of his hideous wailing/weeping testimony.
SUPPLEMENT: 9.4.14: ZOMBIE KILLER
People who have access to Sky News have already seen the footage of Oscar firing a powerful handgun at a watermelon, which exploded spectacularly. "Softer than brains", he explains, "but definitely a zombie killer". As happens so often with us all, his words have come back to haunt him today, as he was quizzed on his remarks in court. The prosecution reminded Mr P that this was actually what happened to poor Reeva when he fired at her through the famous bathroom door. But I would say this: if Oscar Pistorius actually did blow a zombie's brains out, the first thing he would do is vomit like a drunk after too much cider, then shriek like a girl and finally sob like a baby. All of which goes to show that if you can't stand the sight of blood, you probably shouldn't use a gun.
I don't know if you've been following the trial at all, but the coverage is extremely annoying. Although the camera has been allowed into the courtroom, we have been consistently denied the opportunity to see what we actually want, or even need, to see: the witnesses. And the one witness we were allowed to see, namely the pathologist, then helpfully suggested that the forensic details of his testimony were too upsetting for members of the public- us- to hear. This exceedingly patronising approach, apparently, is unprecedented in South African legal history. But I suppose this is an example of what we might call the "OJ effect": that the trial is so high profile new rules need to be dreamed up to accommodate it. I say it's wrong though.
Watching, well actually no, not watching but listening to Pistorius give evidence today (once again I ask: why can't we see him?) with his voice in a perma-tremor was for me actually quite nauseating. We have seen him show his upset already, vomiting at some of the pathologist's testimony, and I can't help thinking how carefully he must have been coached by his defence team to come over as real upset-like and genuinely remorseful- a role which he will need to play with consummate skill if he is to have any chance of getting off without a lengthy prison sentence. Today, at least before they had to adjourn prematurely because the poor lamb was so distraught, Oscar began to tell us how he basically panicked when he thought there was an intruder in his room. Thing is, I believe him. I do believe this was a case of shooting first and asking questions later. We've seen how he is a man easily moved to anger (remember when he lost the 400metres at the Paralympics and as good as accused the winner of cheating?) and trigger-happy to boot, well, what do you expect?
So there we have it. I say, guilty of a serious form of manslaughter, but not murder. In this I am in disagreement with a close female friend who is convinced he offed her coldly and deliberately. But then she has always been convinced the McCanns murdered little Maddie themselves, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I look forward to seeing how it plays out, as long as I don't have to listen to too much of his hideous wailing/weeping testimony.
SUPPLEMENT: 9.4.14: ZOMBIE KILLER
People who have access to Sky News have already seen the footage of Oscar firing a powerful handgun at a watermelon, which exploded spectacularly. "Softer than brains", he explains, "but definitely a zombie killer". As happens so often with us all, his words have come back to haunt him today, as he was quizzed on his remarks in court. The prosecution reminded Mr P that this was actually what happened to poor Reeva when he fired at her through the famous bathroom door. But I would say this: if Oscar Pistorius actually did blow a zombie's brains out, the first thing he would do is vomit like a drunk after too much cider, then shriek like a girl and finally sob like a baby. All of which goes to show that if you can't stand the sight of blood, you probably shouldn't use a gun.
Saturday, 5 April 2014
Gassing badgers: the "humane" way
So Princess Anne, one of Britain's leading farmers, has observed the recent attempts at culling with farmers and other paid sharpshooters blasting away at the poor buggers, and noted that it didn't work. So she cites gassing them instead, even though this has also been tried before and likewise been shown to be ineffective. She says it is a "humane" method, though we have to wonder whether her meaning of the word is the same as ours.
I remember a professional race horse trainer commenting on the killing of a horse which had broken its leg falling after a jump. Seeking no doubt to reassure us punters, he pointed out that breaking a bone doesn't actually hurt a horse- almost immediately afterwards they feed- you wouldn't do that if you were in severe pain, would you? Well, I wouldn't, but maybe they would. I believe the trainer was referring to a standard stress response seen in many animals. But horses are possessed of a very similar nervous system as regarding pain response to humans- that is to say a broken bone is agonising to us- and them. There is simply no reason to assume otherwise.
So when the great Princess tells us gassing badgers is humane, and they just "go to sleep" I wonder if that's really true. I do know that there are better ways of reducing TB in cattle than by exterminating badgers, however humanely it is carried out, but that it is expensive (I'm talking about immunisation) and would eat into the all-important profits of the farmers. And there's your problem. This is about money, and making as much of it as possible. And if Princess Anne and her fellow farmers have to kill every one of them to maintain their profits, if we let them, they will.
I remember a professional race horse trainer commenting on the killing of a horse which had broken its leg falling after a jump. Seeking no doubt to reassure us punters, he pointed out that breaking a bone doesn't actually hurt a horse- almost immediately afterwards they feed- you wouldn't do that if you were in severe pain, would you? Well, I wouldn't, but maybe they would. I believe the trainer was referring to a standard stress response seen in many animals. But horses are possessed of a very similar nervous system as regarding pain response to humans- that is to say a broken bone is agonising to us- and them. There is simply no reason to assume otherwise.
So when the great Princess tells us gassing badgers is humane, and they just "go to sleep" I wonder if that's really true. I do know that there are better ways of reducing TB in cattle than by exterminating badgers, however humanely it is carried out, but that it is expensive (I'm talking about immunisation) and would eat into the all-important profits of the farmers. And there's your problem. This is about money, and making as much of it as possible. And if Princess Anne and her fellow farmers have to kill every one of them to maintain their profits, if we let them, they will.
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
March 2014 book and film review
BOOKS
TRAVELLER OF THE CENTURY, by Andres Neuman. A traveller arrives in a town in southern Germany intending to stay only one night. Curiously, despite his experience, he finds it hard to leave, or even to find his way around a town whose topography seems to change from day to day. He soon finds other reasons to hang around, including a young woman who lives near the inn he has made his temporary home. She is beautiful, very smart and finds him equally interesting. Only problem: she's betrothed to the richest guy in town. Along the way he strikes up other acquaintances: a factory worker, a farm labourer and a decrepit barrel-organ player and his faithful old pooch, Franz.
But nothing is as it seems in this extraordinary novel. Are these characters allegories of European states, either now, or when the novel is apparently set, that is in the 1820s? Is it a comment on contemporary moral and sexual mores, or those of post Napoleonic Europe? It is hard to know. All we have is some of the most beautiful translated prose seen for many years and a story that arrests the attention from first page to last. Writers like Dan Brown and Tom Clancy ensured their success by the clever tactic of flattering the intelligence of the reader- we are given obvious clues, which we work out, making us feel clever. Reading this book, however, one doesn't feel clever enough. One needs to be conversant with the great thinkers of the 18th and early 19th century, Schlegel, Kant et al as well as the prominent writers and poets in order to keep up, and if one is not suitably equipped, as is the case with me, it is easy to feel out of one's depth. But the narrative is always enough to keep one enthralled.
For me the most delightful passages occur during the covert wowing of Sophie by an ardent, but of necessity restrained, Hans. The two would-be lovers must confine their flirting to exchanges at the literary salon Sophie holds at her house every Friday. Here is a little quote:
...I don't see why higher emotions cannot spring from reason, why they need to be separated, said Sophie. For example? asked Herr Levin. For example, in chess, Hans agreed, his eyes fixed on Sophie's moist lips. I mean, don't you consider that thinking to the limits of our possibility ennobles our spirit? I don't know, said Sophie, staring at Hans's chin, if I'm able to play chess.
Sophie opened her lips to cool them. Hans's mind was no longer on Kant, although it was occupied with empirical knowledge...
Empirical knowledge indeed. Hans is thinking about how he'd like to plough her till next July, and precisely how he'd do it. Empirically.
A fantastic book.
DOTTER OF HER FATHER'S EYES, by Mary M Talbot and Bryan Talbot. Lucia was the daughter of James Joyce, whose needs were subjugated to the demands of her father's genius. Mary is the daughter of eminent Joycean scholar J.S. Atherton, who likewise struggles to find her identity in an atmosphere where everything comes second to her dad's writing. This graphic novel charts their strangely parallel lives, the big difference being that Lucia is driven insane, whereas Mary is lucky enough to escape, if not unscathed by her childhood, then at least retaining her sanity. And there's the problem with the book. After going into great detail about just how poor Lucia is driven off her rocker by her self-obsessed parents, the narrative then simply states: "And she spent the rest of her life in an asylum". Really? Is that it? No more detail, or do people's lives effectively come to an end after they're committed? Any answer to this question won't be found in these pages.
I like a good graphic novel, and this, I suppose, is a good one. The images are well drawn, and the story told effectively enough. The whole thing reminded me a little of Raymond Briggs's marvellous When the Wind Blows, though Talbot and Talbot are no Briggs, nor ever will be. Can be read in about one quite enjoyable hour.
THE SHOCK OF THE FALL, by Nathan Filer. A little boy is playing on the beach with his slightly older brother when the latter falls to his death from a cliff. The shock of this fall causes catastrophic ripples to reverberate through the lives of his loved ones. There. I've spoiled it. Not really. Nathan chooses to tell us all this in his opening chapter; the rest is a deeply absorbing and sometimes heart-wrenching account of Matt, the younger brother, as he descends into psychosis, fitting a pattern established by his mother who was also diagnosed with schizophrenia.
This book is like some kind of crazy wish-fulfilment for any aspiring writer: one's first novel being hailed as a masterpiece- with a subsequent bidding war involving 11 (count them, 11) publishers ensuring a 6 figure advance and the promise of millions more to come. This is the dream of every writer: critical acclaim plus financial success and here, Nathan Filer has done it. And you can't help admitting he deserves it. This is a good book, carefully written with a deceptively simple style. Not as good as The Curious Case of the Dog in the Night Time, with which it has been compared, but still pretty good
MURDER AT THE SAVOY, by Maj Stowell and Per Waloo. Number 6 in the celebrated Martin Beck series of detective thrillers from Sweden, finds a plutocrat shot in the head while he holds court in an exclusive restaurant in Malmo. The guy had numerous shady interests in the Third World (as it used to be called), so could it be a political hit, or does the answer lie closer to home?
Another immaculate offering in the series which takes a cool look at the uncertain freedoms found in post-war Sweden as well as at the (dys)functioning of its police service. Once again we get under the skins of the cops, their preoccupations, their failings and their strengths in a way that brings them to life as strongly as anything Henning Mankel or Stig Larson ever produced. I think you'll find both of those acknowledged the role of Stowell and Waloo in helping them create their own style. And rightly so.
FILMS
DALLAS BUYERS CLUB (((2013) D- Jean-Marc Vallee. A fun-loving Texan is brought up short when he is diagnosed with AIDS and given a month to live. He is offered the best treatment available at the time (AZT) but finds he can't tolerate the side effects and casts around for alternatives. Naturally he incurs the disapproval of his doctors and later, when he begins to import stuff from abroad, the authorities. Meanwhile his friends abandon him a) because he admits he has AIDS and b) because they equate that with being gay. Partly as a result of this, our hero evolves a more humane approach to gays himself, especially as many of them want to buy the products he brings in.
This is an excellent little film, to me exemplifying Hollywood at its best, and features a surprisingly strong performance from Matthew McConaughey, whom we have come to see more as supplying eye candy for the ladies than as a serious actor. That era is now officially over
THE MASTER (2012) D- P.T. Anderson. A vulnerable young man becomes involved with a cult led by an intensely charismatic man. The young man (brilliantly portrayed by Joakin Phoenix) doesn't understand the technicalities, but becomes entranced by the "master", played by Philip Seymour in a style which had already established him firmly as the world's leading character actor. Anderson said that he was originally going to make the film about Hoffmann's character, but was persuaded that telling the film from the disciple's perspective would make an even better film. It was a wise move. The film is powerful and disturbing, and there is an added sense of ennui knowing we have now lost the talent of one of America's best actors.
McCABE AND MRS MILLER (1971) D- Robert Altman. A young chancer (Warreb Beatty) decides he can make a good living running a bar and brothel in a gold mining town, assisted by a (false as it turns out) reputation for having killed a man. Business is slow until he meets an experienced harlot (Julie Christie) who offers to show him how to run his enterprise properly. But others covet his success and would take it away from him...
Some have said this is Altman's greatest film, and while I would say that accolade should go to Nashville. this remains a very fine offering: atmospheric, languid, almost dreamlike in parts. Definitely watchable.
BULLHEAD (2011, Belgium) W-D- Michael R Roskam. In rural Belgium, a group of steroid using farmers keep just one jump ahead of the authorities. One of them, who likes to use steroids on himself as well as his livestock, maintains a macho-man persona, but hides a dreadful past: in his childhood he was mutilated horribly by a bully who escaped punishment for his brutality. Our man would seek revenge, but there are complex reasons why he can't- yet...
A dark, forbidding atmosphere pervades this film from Belgium, which despite the bleak, featureless landscape in which it is set, is really rather gripping.
THE BLING RING (2013) D Sophia Coppola. A bunch of celebrity-obsessed teens in LA envy the lifestyle of their heroes so much they decide to burgle their homes and take some of their bling for themselves. It really happened. Many celebs were targeted, notably Paris Hilton, who was actually burgled five times before finally going to the cops, partly because she (and this turned out to be the case with others, including Orlando Bloom) had no security in her house and, believe or not, left her latch key where it could be found easily. I'll give her this though: Hilton actually agreed to take part in the film and to have some of it shot in her home, and being willing to be portrayed as an idiot with too much money, surprisingly, shows that she actually does have a touch of class about her.
The film has been criticised because there is no analysis of the characters of the ring, but to me that is the whole point: they didn't really have characters: this was all about materialism and greed, pure and simple. Coppola portrays the hedonistic lifestyle of the perps in fine, coldly journalistic style. And Emma Watson, who plays one of the ring, can now definitely be seen to have escaped her Hermione label. Superior.
THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993) P-D- Merchant/Ivory. In the time of appeasement in pre-war Britain, the butler of an ultra right wing aristo serves his master with unthinking loyalty, while nursing a covert love for the housekeeper. Will he declare his secret love, or let her slip through his fingers? Will his master prevail or be swept away when the Nazis are defeated?
A film of great subtlety and beauty, based on the book by Ishiguro (small point: how could a Japanese writer get to know so much about the inner workings of Britain's class structure?) it features Anthony Hopkins in one of his greatest roles, admirably supported by Emma Thompson as the housekeeper. I was deeply emotionally affected by this film, which is as good as anything the Merchant/Ivory team have produced in over 30 years.
GRAVITY (2013) D- Alfonso Cuaron. An inexperienced astronaut becomes stranded in space after the space shuttle is hit by debris from an exploding satellite. By sheer guts, determination (and the most astonishing good fortune) she makes it back to Earth without being burnt up on re-entry. Followers of this blog will know that I have already reviewed this film, while admitting I hadn't actually seen it, and explaining why I wouldn't. Now, like all good anarchists I have broken my own rule and seen it anyway, and in 3D, though this last only because there was no option. Now, however, I wish I had stuck with my original gut feelings and not bothered. True, the film represents a technological breakthrough, in much the same way as Jurassic Park did 20 years ago. This is the cutting edge of digital graphic film making: the only things that aren't created inside a computer in this film are the actor's faces- everything else on the screen is. And yeah, that's frightfully clever, but it still isn't enough.
It isn't enough, for instance, to make up for how annoying and frankly unbelievable Sandra Bullock's character is- how anyone like her could have got through the vetting process for astronauts is beyond me, but hey, perhaps I'm being uncharitable. I seem to be, along with my wife, just about the only person in the Western World who didn't think it was bloody marvellous, so maybe I'm missing something. Oh, and by the way, the 3D adds nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except a headache.
PARADISE NOW (2005) D- Hany Abu Assad. Deep in the West Bank, two brothers sign up to be suicide bombers. Their target: a nearby military checkpoint, which symbolises the brutality of the Israeli occupation of their ancestral lands. But will they go through with their grimmest of tasks?
In a brilliant film, the director offers us, not political analysis, but a deeply human dissection of the players, their doubts and fears, their hopes and dreams. What does death mean? Is that what they really want? At their first attempt something goes wrong and the bombing is called off, giving them more time to think. Then it is re-scheduled... A moving and powerful document.
EAGLE (2011) D- Kevin McDonald In Roman Britain, Channing Tatum plays a soldier in search of a banner allegedly lost by his now disgraced father. His quest takes him across Hadrian's Wall into the savage land of the Picts. Director McDonald brings to the screen a workmanlike re-creation of Britain in the 2nd century, and Channing Tatum turns in perhaps one his best performances to date. But it's too long and the pace falters at several points in the movie. Creditable, if not outstanding.
MY BROTHER THE DEVIL (2012) D- Sally Al Hosaini. On the mean streets of Hackney, two sons of an Egyptian immigrant struggle to assert their identities in a world they never made. The older brother is "cool" and has established himself in a drug gang, but doesn't want his kid bro to travel the same road. But can he prevent it?
A highly professional piece of film making, its portrayal of culture clashes in modern Britain won praise all over the world, including America where it won one of the most prestigious awards at the Sundance Festival. Deservedly.
DIVINE INTERVENTION (2002) W-D-S- Elia Suleiman. It is the occupied West Bank. A neighbour tosses his garbage into a neighbour's back yard. Later that day the neighbour returns the favour with his own trash. Further down the street, at sunset, a collaborator with the hated Israelis has his house firebombed. Nearby, in a car park, two lovers park up and make passionate love- by holding hands. The following day, the same things happen. And the day after that...
In a strange sort of time-loop, events re-create themselves again and again in a kind of surreal tableau that utterly transfixes the viewer. We are totally drawn into this strange world, where Mossad agents practice shooting up a cardboard mock-up of a female suicide bomber- which then transforms into a real-life ninja-type assassin, terrifying the agents who run in disarray.\surely we are in the world of fantasy and wish fulfillment. Or are we?
A hypnotic, unique film from Palestine which addresses all the relevant issues, but it in an entirely new and surprising way. This one you'll want to see, I promise you.
TRAVELLER OF THE CENTURY, by Andres Neuman. A traveller arrives in a town in southern Germany intending to stay only one night. Curiously, despite his experience, he finds it hard to leave, or even to find his way around a town whose topography seems to change from day to day. He soon finds other reasons to hang around, including a young woman who lives near the inn he has made his temporary home. She is beautiful, very smart and finds him equally interesting. Only problem: she's betrothed to the richest guy in town. Along the way he strikes up other acquaintances: a factory worker, a farm labourer and a decrepit barrel-organ player and his faithful old pooch, Franz.
But nothing is as it seems in this extraordinary novel. Are these characters allegories of European states, either now, or when the novel is apparently set, that is in the 1820s? Is it a comment on contemporary moral and sexual mores, or those of post Napoleonic Europe? It is hard to know. All we have is some of the most beautiful translated prose seen for many years and a story that arrests the attention from first page to last. Writers like Dan Brown and Tom Clancy ensured their success by the clever tactic of flattering the intelligence of the reader- we are given obvious clues, which we work out, making us feel clever. Reading this book, however, one doesn't feel clever enough. One needs to be conversant with the great thinkers of the 18th and early 19th century, Schlegel, Kant et al as well as the prominent writers and poets in order to keep up, and if one is not suitably equipped, as is the case with me, it is easy to feel out of one's depth. But the narrative is always enough to keep one enthralled.
For me the most delightful passages occur during the covert wowing of Sophie by an ardent, but of necessity restrained, Hans. The two would-be lovers must confine their flirting to exchanges at the literary salon Sophie holds at her house every Friday. Here is a little quote:
...I don't see why higher emotions cannot spring from reason, why they need to be separated, said Sophie. For example? asked Herr Levin. For example, in chess, Hans agreed, his eyes fixed on Sophie's moist lips. I mean, don't you consider that thinking to the limits of our possibility ennobles our spirit? I don't know, said Sophie, staring at Hans's chin, if I'm able to play chess.
Sophie opened her lips to cool them. Hans's mind was no longer on Kant, although it was occupied with empirical knowledge...
Empirical knowledge indeed. Hans is thinking about how he'd like to plough her till next July, and precisely how he'd do it. Empirically.
A fantastic book.
DOTTER OF HER FATHER'S EYES, by Mary M Talbot and Bryan Talbot. Lucia was the daughter of James Joyce, whose needs were subjugated to the demands of her father's genius. Mary is the daughter of eminent Joycean scholar J.S. Atherton, who likewise struggles to find her identity in an atmosphere where everything comes second to her dad's writing. This graphic novel charts their strangely parallel lives, the big difference being that Lucia is driven insane, whereas Mary is lucky enough to escape, if not unscathed by her childhood, then at least retaining her sanity. And there's the problem with the book. After going into great detail about just how poor Lucia is driven off her rocker by her self-obsessed parents, the narrative then simply states: "And she spent the rest of her life in an asylum". Really? Is that it? No more detail, or do people's lives effectively come to an end after they're committed? Any answer to this question won't be found in these pages.
I like a good graphic novel, and this, I suppose, is a good one. The images are well drawn, and the story told effectively enough. The whole thing reminded me a little of Raymond Briggs's marvellous When the Wind Blows, though Talbot and Talbot are no Briggs, nor ever will be. Can be read in about one quite enjoyable hour.
THE SHOCK OF THE FALL, by Nathan Filer. A little boy is playing on the beach with his slightly older brother when the latter falls to his death from a cliff. The shock of this fall causes catastrophic ripples to reverberate through the lives of his loved ones. There. I've spoiled it. Not really. Nathan chooses to tell us all this in his opening chapter; the rest is a deeply absorbing and sometimes heart-wrenching account of Matt, the younger brother, as he descends into psychosis, fitting a pattern established by his mother who was also diagnosed with schizophrenia.
This book is like some kind of crazy wish-fulfilment for any aspiring writer: one's first novel being hailed as a masterpiece- with a subsequent bidding war involving 11 (count them, 11) publishers ensuring a 6 figure advance and the promise of millions more to come. This is the dream of every writer: critical acclaim plus financial success and here, Nathan Filer has done it. And you can't help admitting he deserves it. This is a good book, carefully written with a deceptively simple style. Not as good as The Curious Case of the Dog in the Night Time, with which it has been compared, but still pretty good
MURDER AT THE SAVOY, by Maj Stowell and Per Waloo. Number 6 in the celebrated Martin Beck series of detective thrillers from Sweden, finds a plutocrat shot in the head while he holds court in an exclusive restaurant in Malmo. The guy had numerous shady interests in the Third World (as it used to be called), so could it be a political hit, or does the answer lie closer to home?
Another immaculate offering in the series which takes a cool look at the uncertain freedoms found in post-war Sweden as well as at the (dys)functioning of its police service. Once again we get under the skins of the cops, their preoccupations, their failings and their strengths in a way that brings them to life as strongly as anything Henning Mankel or Stig Larson ever produced. I think you'll find both of those acknowledged the role of Stowell and Waloo in helping them create their own style. And rightly so.
FILMS
DALLAS BUYERS CLUB (((2013) D- Jean-Marc Vallee. A fun-loving Texan is brought up short when he is diagnosed with AIDS and given a month to live. He is offered the best treatment available at the time (AZT) but finds he can't tolerate the side effects and casts around for alternatives. Naturally he incurs the disapproval of his doctors and later, when he begins to import stuff from abroad, the authorities. Meanwhile his friends abandon him a) because he admits he has AIDS and b) because they equate that with being gay. Partly as a result of this, our hero evolves a more humane approach to gays himself, especially as many of them want to buy the products he brings in.
This is an excellent little film, to me exemplifying Hollywood at its best, and features a surprisingly strong performance from Matthew McConaughey, whom we have come to see more as supplying eye candy for the ladies than as a serious actor. That era is now officially over
THE MASTER (2012) D- P.T. Anderson. A vulnerable young man becomes involved with a cult led by an intensely charismatic man. The young man (brilliantly portrayed by Joakin Phoenix) doesn't understand the technicalities, but becomes entranced by the "master", played by Philip Seymour in a style which had already established him firmly as the world's leading character actor. Anderson said that he was originally going to make the film about Hoffmann's character, but was persuaded that telling the film from the disciple's perspective would make an even better film. It was a wise move. The film is powerful and disturbing, and there is an added sense of ennui knowing we have now lost the talent of one of America's best actors.
McCABE AND MRS MILLER (1971) D- Robert Altman. A young chancer (Warreb Beatty) decides he can make a good living running a bar and brothel in a gold mining town, assisted by a (false as it turns out) reputation for having killed a man. Business is slow until he meets an experienced harlot (Julie Christie) who offers to show him how to run his enterprise properly. But others covet his success and would take it away from him...
Some have said this is Altman's greatest film, and while I would say that accolade should go to Nashville. this remains a very fine offering: atmospheric, languid, almost dreamlike in parts. Definitely watchable.
BULLHEAD (2011, Belgium) W-D- Michael R Roskam. In rural Belgium, a group of steroid using farmers keep just one jump ahead of the authorities. One of them, who likes to use steroids on himself as well as his livestock, maintains a macho-man persona, but hides a dreadful past: in his childhood he was mutilated horribly by a bully who escaped punishment for his brutality. Our man would seek revenge, but there are complex reasons why he can't- yet...
A dark, forbidding atmosphere pervades this film from Belgium, which despite the bleak, featureless landscape in which it is set, is really rather gripping.
THE BLING RING (2013) D Sophia Coppola. A bunch of celebrity-obsessed teens in LA envy the lifestyle of their heroes so much they decide to burgle their homes and take some of their bling for themselves. It really happened. Many celebs were targeted, notably Paris Hilton, who was actually burgled five times before finally going to the cops, partly because she (and this turned out to be the case with others, including Orlando Bloom) had no security in her house and, believe or not, left her latch key where it could be found easily. I'll give her this though: Hilton actually agreed to take part in the film and to have some of it shot in her home, and being willing to be portrayed as an idiot with too much money, surprisingly, shows that she actually does have a touch of class about her.
The film has been criticised because there is no analysis of the characters of the ring, but to me that is the whole point: they didn't really have characters: this was all about materialism and greed, pure and simple. Coppola portrays the hedonistic lifestyle of the perps in fine, coldly journalistic style. And Emma Watson, who plays one of the ring, can now definitely be seen to have escaped her Hermione label. Superior.
THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993) P-D- Merchant/Ivory. In the time of appeasement in pre-war Britain, the butler of an ultra right wing aristo serves his master with unthinking loyalty, while nursing a covert love for the housekeeper. Will he declare his secret love, or let her slip through his fingers? Will his master prevail or be swept away when the Nazis are defeated?
A film of great subtlety and beauty, based on the book by Ishiguro (small point: how could a Japanese writer get to know so much about the inner workings of Britain's class structure?) it features Anthony Hopkins in one of his greatest roles, admirably supported by Emma Thompson as the housekeeper. I was deeply emotionally affected by this film, which is as good as anything the Merchant/Ivory team have produced in over 30 years.
GRAVITY (2013) D- Alfonso Cuaron. An inexperienced astronaut becomes stranded in space after the space shuttle is hit by debris from an exploding satellite. By sheer guts, determination (and the most astonishing good fortune) she makes it back to Earth without being burnt up on re-entry. Followers of this blog will know that I have already reviewed this film, while admitting I hadn't actually seen it, and explaining why I wouldn't. Now, like all good anarchists I have broken my own rule and seen it anyway, and in 3D, though this last only because there was no option. Now, however, I wish I had stuck with my original gut feelings and not bothered. True, the film represents a technological breakthrough, in much the same way as Jurassic Park did 20 years ago. This is the cutting edge of digital graphic film making: the only things that aren't created inside a computer in this film are the actor's faces- everything else on the screen is. And yeah, that's frightfully clever, but it still isn't enough.
It isn't enough, for instance, to make up for how annoying and frankly unbelievable Sandra Bullock's character is- how anyone like her could have got through the vetting process for astronauts is beyond me, but hey, perhaps I'm being uncharitable. I seem to be, along with my wife, just about the only person in the Western World who didn't think it was bloody marvellous, so maybe I'm missing something. Oh, and by the way, the 3D adds nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except a headache.
PARADISE NOW (2005) D- Hany Abu Assad. Deep in the West Bank, two brothers sign up to be suicide bombers. Their target: a nearby military checkpoint, which symbolises the brutality of the Israeli occupation of their ancestral lands. But will they go through with their grimmest of tasks?
In a brilliant film, the director offers us, not political analysis, but a deeply human dissection of the players, their doubts and fears, their hopes and dreams. What does death mean? Is that what they really want? At their first attempt something goes wrong and the bombing is called off, giving them more time to think. Then it is re-scheduled... A moving and powerful document.
EAGLE (2011) D- Kevin McDonald In Roman Britain, Channing Tatum plays a soldier in search of a banner allegedly lost by his now disgraced father. His quest takes him across Hadrian's Wall into the savage land of the Picts. Director McDonald brings to the screen a workmanlike re-creation of Britain in the 2nd century, and Channing Tatum turns in perhaps one his best performances to date. But it's too long and the pace falters at several points in the movie. Creditable, if not outstanding.
MY BROTHER THE DEVIL (2012) D- Sally Al Hosaini. On the mean streets of Hackney, two sons of an Egyptian immigrant struggle to assert their identities in a world they never made. The older brother is "cool" and has established himself in a drug gang, but doesn't want his kid bro to travel the same road. But can he prevent it?
A highly professional piece of film making, its portrayal of culture clashes in modern Britain won praise all over the world, including America where it won one of the most prestigious awards at the Sundance Festival. Deservedly.
DIVINE INTERVENTION (2002) W-D-S- Elia Suleiman. It is the occupied West Bank. A neighbour tosses his garbage into a neighbour's back yard. Later that day the neighbour returns the favour with his own trash. Further down the street, at sunset, a collaborator with the hated Israelis has his house firebombed. Nearby, in a car park, two lovers park up and make passionate love- by holding hands. The following day, the same things happen. And the day after that...
In a strange sort of time-loop, events re-create themselves again and again in a kind of surreal tableau that utterly transfixes the viewer. We are totally drawn into this strange world, where Mossad agents practice shooting up a cardboard mock-up of a female suicide bomber- which then transforms into a real-life ninja-type assassin, terrifying the agents who run in disarray.\surely we are in the world of fantasy and wish fulfillment. Or are we?
A hypnotic, unique film from Palestine which addresses all the relevant issues, but it in an entirely new and surprising way. This one you'll want to see, I promise you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)