And one for tomorrow, since I'll forget.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Lolita
I watched the film version of Lolita last night, and it struck me that one thing the film does very well is convey the banality, and at most instances the relative improbability plot of the film.
Ok, I do realise that it's not really the point of either of them to really concentrate on the plot, which is secondary to the context in the novel and subtext in the film (is that too wanky to say?), but it's one thing that does get glossed over.
Similarly, both the film and book seem to portray the weaknesses of each of their creators - I find Nabokov to only really be interested in drawing one strong character through which he tells his story, leaving the characterisations of his supporting players appear relatively arbitrary. I suppose this is due to the three books of Nabokov's that I have now read - Pnin, Lolita and Pale Fire, all of which deal, to some extent with the monomania of a sensitive and brilliant man (though I suppose in Pale Fire this is yet more complicated). This is not some kind of serious critique of Nabokov, but I do find that he tries to confound the reader with excess information so as not to concentrate on the basic buildings blocks of the story, which, when you're dealing with multiple interesting characters, I appreciate, gets extremely complicated.
Kubrick, meanwhile, I find has a real interest in the gradual monomania of brilliant men (or self-annointed brilliant men, and/or thought-enabled machines), but he does have a knack of making their character progressions rather matter-of-fact and linear, which to me make them seem predestined in their telling, and thus sometimes they more seem abstractions than real. In some films, he gets away with it through a fantasy element, however. I haven't really thought about the failings of Kubrick, so that thought is pretty much unfinished and probably not entirely correct either.
I do love both the film and book, though. The book more.
Ok, I do realise that it's not really the point of either of them to really concentrate on the plot, which is secondary to the context in the novel and subtext in the film (is that too wanky to say?), but it's one thing that does get glossed over.
Similarly, both the film and book seem to portray the weaknesses of each of their creators - I find Nabokov to only really be interested in drawing one strong character through which he tells his story, leaving the characterisations of his supporting players appear relatively arbitrary. I suppose this is due to the three books of Nabokov's that I have now read - Pnin, Lolita and Pale Fire, all of which deal, to some extent with the monomania of a sensitive and brilliant man (though I suppose in Pale Fire this is yet more complicated). This is not some kind of serious critique of Nabokov, but I do find that he tries to confound the reader with excess information so as not to concentrate on the basic buildings blocks of the story, which, when you're dealing with multiple interesting characters, I appreciate, gets extremely complicated.
Kubrick, meanwhile, I find has a real interest in the gradual monomania of brilliant men (or self-annointed brilliant men, and/or thought-enabled machines), but he does have a knack of making their character progressions rather matter-of-fact and linear, which to me make them seem predestined in their telling, and thus sometimes they more seem abstractions than real. In some films, he gets away with it through a fantasy element, however. I haven't really thought about the failings of Kubrick, so that thought is pretty much unfinished and probably not entirely correct either.
I do love both the film and book, though. The book more.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
In defense of the man
Having read Michael Lewis' great article on Iceland, I have to just intercede on the part of what is justly termed 'male capitalism'. Sure, men have really screwed up on a number of occasions, being too over-exuberant, living lives way beyond their means and aggressively going after what it is they want to achieve in life. This always needs to be tempered by reality, and maybe our cataclysmic boom and bust cycles wouldn't be so violent and unfair on the little man if women ruled the world. Slowly and surely would be the way and in a motherly way, women would allow the innovation that could be seen to have a positive effect.
Maybe it's the right way. Aggression needs to be checked, and as in politics, aggression is only useful if the aggressor knows what wants to do with his seeming superior strength. In the way that multilateralism is the only way to achieve your goals in any walk of life (unilateralism concentrates not only your power, but the will of others to diminish it), then maybe it is wrong to be aggressive for the sake of gaining power for its own sake. That seems what by extension is the problem of the banks (and Iceland) at the moment, in that they have so far aggressively leveraged themselves, that their sense of a realistic value is so completely skewed their view of the interconnected reality that they face.
Still, despite the fiasco of the past few years and the great wealth this has wiped out, we must be mindful that this aggression has led us here to the point where we are in our timeline. It is normal of men to want to advance themselves so far that they only want to look back at the end of their lives. Hence, as we grow ever higher in our ascendancy to the gods, we have still not figured out what guiding principals we should do this under. The great progress in technology and the great virtual world we have created in our financial systems, we have not thought hard enough about what it all means for us, which is what, by extension, the calls for a 'female' capitalism mean. Or maybe that is an extension too far, but I would stand by it.
Problem with facing your own past, is that it is difficult, and it is why you need to be depressed to really find out what it is you want out of it all (and then you go ahead and not heed your own advise once the times are good again). This destructive form of intellectual endeavour is maybe wrong, but it is far better than to claim that it is intrinsically wrong. Therefore, if 'women' do want to rule the world, they have to set the boundaries in which the aggressive 'men' of these analyses can live. And that does mean not basing them around theories that were long since proven to be unworkable, and spinning out clichés and trumpeting them up as general truths (yes, claiming yourself to be above all creatures is a hypocrisy, but then so is claiming that you can live below them all in humility).
Hence, for the time being, we have to be pragmatic because these 'men' will move us forward. The day of reckoning will come when the rest of us 'women' actually get together and figure out something which is coherently true, not only of the past, but of the future of our behaviour on this planet.
Maybe it's the right way. Aggression needs to be checked, and as in politics, aggression is only useful if the aggressor knows what wants to do with his seeming superior strength. In the way that multilateralism is the only way to achieve your goals in any walk of life (unilateralism concentrates not only your power, but the will of others to diminish it), then maybe it is wrong to be aggressive for the sake of gaining power for its own sake. That seems what by extension is the problem of the banks (and Iceland) at the moment, in that they have so far aggressively leveraged themselves, that their sense of a realistic value is so completely skewed their view of the interconnected reality that they face.
Still, despite the fiasco of the past few years and the great wealth this has wiped out, we must be mindful that this aggression has led us here to the point where we are in our timeline. It is normal of men to want to advance themselves so far that they only want to look back at the end of their lives. Hence, as we grow ever higher in our ascendancy to the gods, we have still not figured out what guiding principals we should do this under. The great progress in technology and the great virtual world we have created in our financial systems, we have not thought hard enough about what it all means for us, which is what, by extension, the calls for a 'female' capitalism mean. Or maybe that is an extension too far, but I would stand by it.
Problem with facing your own past, is that it is difficult, and it is why you need to be depressed to really find out what it is you want out of it all (and then you go ahead and not heed your own advise once the times are good again). This destructive form of intellectual endeavour is maybe wrong, but it is far better than to claim that it is intrinsically wrong. Therefore, if 'women' do want to rule the world, they have to set the boundaries in which the aggressive 'men' of these analyses can live. And that does mean not basing them around theories that were long since proven to be unworkable, and spinning out clichés and trumpeting them up as general truths (yes, claiming yourself to be above all creatures is a hypocrisy, but then so is claiming that you can live below them all in humility).
Hence, for the time being, we have to be pragmatic because these 'men' will move us forward. The day of reckoning will come when the rest of us 'women' actually get together and figure out something which is coherently true, not only of the past, but of the future of our behaviour on this planet.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Notes on the Crisis
So, the economic crisis throws up a couple of issues, but the main one that I'm interested in is which way we'll go in imposing regulatory pressures. Will we impose the banks' abilities to offer products? Maybe fix the interest rates the can offer? How about 3% over LIBOR (or equivalent)? That way the banks will continue to make some money, but not too much. Or should we turn the regulation against ourselves? Ban those with reckless spending patterns from taking out loans? That way, bolster confidence in the security of our savings? Or perhaps make everyone have an acceptable level of savings on their monthly income?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Shame about Obama
So, after more than a year of not even bothering to think about anything, and writing even less, I am back. This time to write about another thought that's been bouncing around my head for a little while: the annoying direction Obama's heading to as this campaign progresses.
Having played the game perfectly well, Obama had created an almost-insurmountable lead, with his fresh approach to political discourse. He doesn't play by party rules, refusing to give strict Democrat or Republican answers and appealing to the inherent 'truth' of these issues. He was able to look at a problem like racism from not the angle of party rhetorics, but he used a more academic tone to explain the situation as an ambiguous political mess, which is the most unequivocal 'truth' of it (though it is an obvious point to make in some sense). The difference here is that he is a fantastic orator, and so rather than some dour academic, he is more like a populiser of academic thought to a mass audience. However, rather than just analyse the status quo - he brings about the damning verdict: the status quo is wrong, and we must strive to change it.
The problem though is not that he is wrong on any of these issues, because they are very hard to disprove (yes, racism is wrong and the way to eradicate it from the popular consciousness is to make it more about class), but it is the policies that he proposes do not match his high-minded tone. His is still a very centre left (or at least what is deemed centre-left in the US) programme, and please don't tell me that any number of bi-partisan committees on all matter of topics will lead to anything but a Democratic presidency. With his inclusive tone, Obama may unite Washington, but his policies are still Democratic ones (and probably less thought out than Hillary's - but who wants an unscrupulously pragmatic intellectual powerhouse for a leader these days?) and still stuck in the same political mire. You can poach a few rogue Republicans that agree with your world-view on an issue as divisive as Iraq is, but you that doesn't make you a unifier. It makes you someone who's willing to make a PR campaign of picking up people who show no real loyalty to their mother party. Now, I'm not saying that it's a good or bad thing, but it probably is the 'truth' of the matter.
Ok, so I should probably back-track here, and just say that I still do like Obama. I like his raw idealism and a lot of things that he says are refreshing to hear from a politician and I generally agree with them. But then, as above, he is hard to disagree with. What I've come to dislike is the cult of personality that's growing up alongside his campaign.
I suppose it has to do with his superiority with which he now classifies the working class as 'Cling-ons'. I suppose it's the fact that he's put the whole 'me against the Washington hegemony' shtick into overdrive. It's a lot of things, but mainly it's the fact that the idealism of what he's standing for, has morphed into a personal message: rather than being the choice of the independent, he has become the truly independent candidate. No longer the man to represent the views of those that don't feel adequately represented by either party and willing to listen to all, he has become the man who represents that independence himself. His tactics have become sharper, more divisive, and rather than uplifting the campaign and never resorting to anything more than a good defense, he's now the candidate who likes to point to everyone as inadequate as when compared to him. And hence, what started out as a great coalition, has now become a great personal crusade. Whereas I was pretty excited about the former, I am very sceptical of the latter. I suppose I am sceptical of anyone who says that they have those answers on their own, especially when the solution that the candidate proposes is a weak rehashing of old policies.
So, at the moment, I'm for McCain. At least he seems to know his limits, and besides, I tend to agree with his Iraq policy. So unless Obama inspires me with anything besides high-flung rhetorics, I'll probably be staying that way until November. But then I'm not even an American citizen, so I suppose it doesn't really matter. That would be the truth of it anyway.
Having played the game perfectly well, Obama had created an almost-insurmountable lead, with his fresh approach to political discourse. He doesn't play by party rules, refusing to give strict Democrat or Republican answers and appealing to the inherent 'truth' of these issues. He was able to look at a problem like racism from not the angle of party rhetorics, but he used a more academic tone to explain the situation as an ambiguous political mess, which is the most unequivocal 'truth' of it (though it is an obvious point to make in some sense). The difference here is that he is a fantastic orator, and so rather than some dour academic, he is more like a populiser of academic thought to a mass audience. However, rather than just analyse the status quo - he brings about the damning verdict: the status quo is wrong, and we must strive to change it.
The problem though is not that he is wrong on any of these issues, because they are very hard to disprove (yes, racism is wrong and the way to eradicate it from the popular consciousness is to make it more about class), but it is the policies that he proposes do not match his high-minded tone. His is still a very centre left (or at least what is deemed centre-left in the US) programme, and please don't tell me that any number of bi-partisan committees on all matter of topics will lead to anything but a Democratic presidency. With his inclusive tone, Obama may unite Washington, but his policies are still Democratic ones (and probably less thought out than Hillary's - but who wants an unscrupulously pragmatic intellectual powerhouse for a leader these days?) and still stuck in the same political mire. You can poach a few rogue Republicans that agree with your world-view on an issue as divisive as Iraq is, but you that doesn't make you a unifier. It makes you someone who's willing to make a PR campaign of picking up people who show no real loyalty to their mother party. Now, I'm not saying that it's a good or bad thing, but it probably is the 'truth' of the matter.
Ok, so I should probably back-track here, and just say that I still do like Obama. I like his raw idealism and a lot of things that he says are refreshing to hear from a politician and I generally agree with them. But then, as above, he is hard to disagree with. What I've come to dislike is the cult of personality that's growing up alongside his campaign.
I suppose it has to do with his superiority with which he now classifies the working class as 'Cling-ons'. I suppose it's the fact that he's put the whole 'me against the Washington hegemony' shtick into overdrive. It's a lot of things, but mainly it's the fact that the idealism of what he's standing for, has morphed into a personal message: rather than being the choice of the independent, he has become the truly independent candidate. No longer the man to represent the views of those that don't feel adequately represented by either party and willing to listen to all, he has become the man who represents that independence himself. His tactics have become sharper, more divisive, and rather than uplifting the campaign and never resorting to anything more than a good defense, he's now the candidate who likes to point to everyone as inadequate as when compared to him. And hence, what started out as a great coalition, has now become a great personal crusade. Whereas I was pretty excited about the former, I am very sceptical of the latter. I suppose I am sceptical of anyone who says that they have those answers on their own, especially when the solution that the candidate proposes is a weak rehashing of old policies.
So, at the moment, I'm for McCain. At least he seems to know his limits, and besides, I tend to agree with his Iraq policy. So unless Obama inspires me with anything besides high-flung rhetorics, I'll probably be staying that way until November. But then I'm not even an American citizen, so I suppose it doesn't really matter. That would be the truth of it anyway.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Big Bother
Well, since minds more cultured and aware have commented on this, so I think I might chuck my 2 cents into the puddle of filth that surrounds the Jade v Shilpa controversy. The above article is not the best I've read about this whole furore (that dubious accolade goes to the FT, but the article is on a subscription page and I doubt that many people have those...), but it at least illustrates it a little bit.
I won't bother introducing the topic, as I'm sure everyone knows what it's about. Some Z-listers have decided to get a chance at the 'big' time (has anyone become 'big' after BB?) and are doing their best to hog the evening highlights. I'm sure the idiots have hired publicists to tell them what to do if they want to (a) disgrace themselves - probably to become regular Nuts entries - or (b) to win it and get some good coverage from Heat magazine. Well, whatever those guys were paid for, they didn't do a good job with 'Dani', 'Jo' and 'Jade' (is this just me, or is this the cast-list of a good hardcore-porn film?). They will be forever known as the 'racists off telly' despite people claiming that it's not racism, it's just ignorance or downright stupidity. The problem with the latter argument is that I fail to see how racism can be anything but stupid, as even the most complex forms of racism need serious distortions of reality and a disability to contextualise the world in order to work. Still, I suspect it's the same people who will say that Mel Gibson isn't a racist, but just a drunkard. Come on, let's be honest - call a spade a spade and all those inopportune puns.
As for Shilpa, we shouldn't forget that she's in there to do the same as the others - get more exposure and win it (either the jackpot of celebrity, or the jackpot of fame). Inside the house she's just trying to find ways of getting more power on her side and it's probably a shame for her that the others aren't pacified by the knowledge of the furore that is raging outside. Still, I was reading some interesting opinions from the Indian media on her (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6274043.stm) and the ones I thought were very interesting were those which dissected her motives. What especially struck me was the DNA article, which is where I think the whole debate gets very interesting.
What is interesting are two things: first, nobody in the States would make this kind of assumption about the Jackson sister trying to beg on bended knee to make it in England to gain approval from the 'mother country', so why is it an issue for Indians? Second, it begets the thought of whether the bullying a product of racism, or whether the racism is the product of the bullying and general jostling for power.
Now, for reasons of brevity, though an interesting subject, I think the first question is ultimately answered by the perceived notion of India as the former colonial territory and as such, until it is powerful enough, it will be shackled by the humiliating inferiority of that experience. To be governed by another country, or worse, an entire culture, is a humiliating process that takes more than a few years to patch up for those that wish to take pride in the individual heritage of once country. In this way, though unfortunate, Indian nationalists will be hamstrung whenever talking of parity with Britain for a while longer (or perhaps only till India is allowed to take part in the G8 summit).
The second question is where I find the real issue: I find the whole saga is tainted by racism because it's very easy to establish an ascendancy on those grounds - make it a case of us vs. 'them', or 'her' in this case. I won't get into what it is that the girls don't like about her, but if you ask them it'll be the usual insecure babble of "she thinks she's so much better than us. Well, we'll show her!" And show her they did. Unfortunately, we all saw.
As someone much wiser than I once said, 'prejudice is the common sense of the majority,' I'd like to slightly modify that and say that prejudice is the prerogative of those that have the power of persuasion to confirm it as truth. By this I mean that whoever has the most consent, will be the one who will get the most power. Shilpa thus did two things wrong - she tried to be aloof and ethereal (which she can because she is a beautiful woman and has a brain cell or two) at the same time getting involved in the dirty business of the house politics (which she obviously can't because she's not manipulative/politically aware). She's made herself vulnerable to getting ganged-up on by trying to forge allegiances too maladroitly, and she can't go back to the business of being queen bee because she's made her enemies with those that would probably otherwise be her main adherents (i.e. political people like Jo, who will naturally ally themselves with the pretty girls so they can act as their mouthpiece and 'brains' so to speak).
Am I putting the blame on Shilpa then and ignoring the fact that the people in the house are obviously bullies (if we want to say that calling them racists is too contentious)? No, the latter is obviously true, but amongst this rabble there are no bullies and victims. This is an egocentric rainforest of abominable stupidity, and befits the playground for 10 year olds rather than prime-time television. Though, I suppose by commenting on it, I have already elevated all those involved to the status of actors in a worthy farce. But then, that's just me being a bully on intellectual grounds...
I won't bother introducing the topic, as I'm sure everyone knows what it's about. Some Z-listers have decided to get a chance at the 'big' time (has anyone become 'big' after BB?) and are doing their best to hog the evening highlights. I'm sure the idiots have hired publicists to tell them what to do if they want to (a) disgrace themselves - probably to become regular Nuts entries - or (b) to win it and get some good coverage from Heat magazine. Well, whatever those guys were paid for, they didn't do a good job with 'Dani', 'Jo' and 'Jade' (is this just me, or is this the cast-list of a good hardcore-porn film?). They will be forever known as the 'racists off telly' despite people claiming that it's not racism, it's just ignorance or downright stupidity. The problem with the latter argument is that I fail to see how racism can be anything but stupid, as even the most complex forms of racism need serious distortions of reality and a disability to contextualise the world in order to work. Still, I suspect it's the same people who will say that Mel Gibson isn't a racist, but just a drunkard. Come on, let's be honest - call a spade a spade and all those inopportune puns.
As for Shilpa, we shouldn't forget that she's in there to do the same as the others - get more exposure and win it (either the jackpot of celebrity, or the jackpot of fame). Inside the house she's just trying to find ways of getting more power on her side and it's probably a shame for her that the others aren't pacified by the knowledge of the furore that is raging outside. Still, I was reading some interesting opinions from the Indian media on her (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6274043.stm) and the ones I thought were very interesting were those which dissected her motives. What especially struck me was the DNA article, which is where I think the whole debate gets very interesting.
What is interesting are two things: first, nobody in the States would make this kind of assumption about the Jackson sister trying to beg on bended knee to make it in England to gain approval from the 'mother country', so why is it an issue for Indians? Second, it begets the thought of whether the bullying a product of racism, or whether the racism is the product of the bullying and general jostling for power.
Now, for reasons of brevity, though an interesting subject, I think the first question is ultimately answered by the perceived notion of India as the former colonial territory and as such, until it is powerful enough, it will be shackled by the humiliating inferiority of that experience. To be governed by another country, or worse, an entire culture, is a humiliating process that takes more than a few years to patch up for those that wish to take pride in the individual heritage of once country. In this way, though unfortunate, Indian nationalists will be hamstrung whenever talking of parity with Britain for a while longer (or perhaps only till India is allowed to take part in the G8 summit).
The second question is where I find the real issue: I find the whole saga is tainted by racism because it's very easy to establish an ascendancy on those grounds - make it a case of us vs. 'them', or 'her' in this case. I won't get into what it is that the girls don't like about her, but if you ask them it'll be the usual insecure babble of "she thinks she's so much better than us. Well, we'll show her!" And show her they did. Unfortunately, we all saw.
As someone much wiser than I once said, 'prejudice is the common sense of the majority,' I'd like to slightly modify that and say that prejudice is the prerogative of those that have the power of persuasion to confirm it as truth. By this I mean that whoever has the most consent, will be the one who will get the most power. Shilpa thus did two things wrong - she tried to be aloof and ethereal (which she can because she is a beautiful woman and has a brain cell or two) at the same time getting involved in the dirty business of the house politics (which she obviously can't because she's not manipulative/politically aware). She's made herself vulnerable to getting ganged-up on by trying to forge allegiances too maladroitly, and she can't go back to the business of being queen bee because she's made her enemies with those that would probably otherwise be her main adherents (i.e. political people like Jo, who will naturally ally themselves with the pretty girls so they can act as their mouthpiece and 'brains' so to speak).
Am I putting the blame on Shilpa then and ignoring the fact that the people in the house are obviously bullies (if we want to say that calling them racists is too contentious)? No, the latter is obviously true, but amongst this rabble there are no bullies and victims. This is an egocentric rainforest of abominable stupidity, and befits the playground for 10 year olds rather than prime-time television. Though, I suppose by commenting on it, I have already elevated all those involved to the status of actors in a worthy farce. But then, that's just me being a bully on intellectual grounds...
Monday, January 15, 2007
It hurts to stay in shape...
So, I return from the weekend and I'm already bored at work. It's a godsend that my boss isn't here, because I really can't be bothered to switch my attention from general interest to work. Not today.
As well as that, I'm hurting from the game of football last night. What's weird is that I've been for a run about 4 times the past week, and I still found myself hopelessly unfit. I suppose it's because it really is a more demanding sport than a jog around a park will ever be. At least I scored a pretty good goal, and had a good attempt on goal with a scissor kick that I was particularly pleased with.
But, that's not really what I want to write about: it's more about the article. As a brief summary (if you guys can't be bothered to read it), it more or less says that when you get injured, sometimes the best thing for it is to power through it and actually exercise through the pain. Now, is it just me, or is this not a given? I mean, every time I get some studs in my shin, or any other part of me, the best option is always to 'walk it off', and not sit there like an idiot gently carressing my foot and hoping it stops hurting. I would almost say that this kind of attitude comes naturally to anyone who has ever played a contact sport, but probably not to the people who view exercise as another dietary supplement. I could really go on with this, and how much I don't think building up muscle just for the sake of it is really counter-productive to any kind of long-term positive impact on the body and highly narcissistic, but I won't. Mainly because it's Monday and I am too tired to have a rant.
Still, I love how sometimes things crop in the news which are arguing about things which may be painfully obvious to you for quite some time...
As well as that, I'm hurting from the game of football last night. What's weird is that I've been for a run about 4 times the past week, and I still found myself hopelessly unfit. I suppose it's because it really is a more demanding sport than a jog around a park will ever be. At least I scored a pretty good goal, and had a good attempt on goal with a scissor kick that I was particularly pleased with.
But, that's not really what I want to write about: it's more about the article. As a brief summary (if you guys can't be bothered to read it), it more or less says that when you get injured, sometimes the best thing for it is to power through it and actually exercise through the pain. Now, is it just me, or is this not a given? I mean, every time I get some studs in my shin, or any other part of me, the best option is always to 'walk it off', and not sit there like an idiot gently carressing my foot and hoping it stops hurting. I would almost say that this kind of attitude comes naturally to anyone who has ever played a contact sport, but probably not to the people who view exercise as another dietary supplement. I could really go on with this, and how much I don't think building up muscle just for the sake of it is really counter-productive to any kind of long-term positive impact on the body and highly narcissistic, but I won't. Mainly because it's Monday and I am too tired to have a rant.
Still, I love how sometimes things crop in the news which are arguing about things which may be painfully obvious to you for quite some time...
Friday, January 12, 2007
My little theory
Right, so, to carry on the momentum, I'll add a second entry. This time, it's politics.
To start off with, here is the article that I'm using as introduction to the thoughs that follow:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ef4edfbe-a19f-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html
From President Bush's latest address, I'm willing to wager that he's decided that he's just going to carry on until his tenure as President ends. He can then pass on the baton to the next guy and come out saying that 'at least my heart was in the right place.' The problem with such good intentions is the fact that if you don't really consider the impact of such decisions and even just ideology for its own sake is not enough. It's debatable whether that's the case in one's life, but in politics, you always need to know what you're going to do after you've made such a decision. Especially as the ruler of the world's strongest and most important power, you need to mould the impact to suit your own ends, and not just expect people to feed off your child-like enthusiasm. I think I'm cured of the malaise that affects most students in England to think that GW is a cynical idiot, as I think that he's just a very poor strategist, as is his team. I mean, yes, hindsight is a bitch, but even a layman like me would not disband the army, and that's just because I'd be afraid that they be used like the Freikorps after the First World War. Coupled with that, they aren't under a similar banner of nationality, politics or even belief, so that makes it even harder.
Well, I'm sure the problems with Iraq are an overtalked issue, so as not to steal the thunder of those commentators that have greater insight into the war than I can ever hope to, I'll continue with a different thought: if the end is inevitable, why is a more powerful Iran more dangerous? I mean, it's probably an idealist notion of this, but if Iran wants to play with the big boys and is insistent on destabilising the American position in the region, then why not let them take it and let them deal with it? I would almost say that this would be a much better alternative, and it gets back to doing what the US was always pretty good at (even though it always bit it in the ass, as they have a patchy memory): supporting rebel groups. Instead of focusing on keeping the mess that is Iraq together, why don't they do what they managed so spectacularly in Iraq - expose the amalgamation that is Iran.
As far as I see it, both of those states are just about as unnatural as each other, so why not destabilise the region further, under the guise of handing control of the region fully to Iran and then come in as saviours? The problem with this is whether Iran could do it (no way at this stage), but if it did, then we'd probably have a nuclear conflict on our hands between them and the Israelis. Well, that would be an interesting one. Still, I would say that both countries have such a history of erudition and culture that it would be a surprise to say the least. On the other hand, I agree, that all this would probably hand it more to the Russians or the Chinese, as nobody in their right mind would want the US back after this debacle. However, if the next administration got its act together did a good job in a fairly manageable country (not sure that would be Somalia, but it would surely be simpler), then the stock of the US might rise. Also, it's best remembered that the US still has a lot of friends in the area and people who would rather see a more grown-up US than any other power affecting the area.
However, again, the problem here would be the politics that accompanies it all, as I'm not sure that a Democrat president would be tempted to remain the head of an interventionist power. Maybe, America will leave the world affairs to the UN (why should it ever do that though?), and just look after it's own affairs? It pretty much worked in its favour before, as it's arguable that the World Wars brought it more good than anything else, and probably completed the cycle to super-powerdom quicker than it would have otherwise. So, yeah, perhaps for the US, despite its idealism, isolationism works.
So, yeah, these are my unfinished thoughts on the issue, but though it's fresh and not worth publishing, I thought I'd put it down in any case to keep up the rhythm of writing on this at a regular interval of sorts.
To start off with, here is the article that I'm using as introduction to the thoughs that follow:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ef4edfbe-a19f-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html
From President Bush's latest address, I'm willing to wager that he's decided that he's just going to carry on until his tenure as President ends. He can then pass on the baton to the next guy and come out saying that 'at least my heart was in the right place.' The problem with such good intentions is the fact that if you don't really consider the impact of such decisions and even just ideology for its own sake is not enough. It's debatable whether that's the case in one's life, but in politics, you always need to know what you're going to do after you've made such a decision. Especially as the ruler of the world's strongest and most important power, you need to mould the impact to suit your own ends, and not just expect people to feed off your child-like enthusiasm. I think I'm cured of the malaise that affects most students in England to think that GW is a cynical idiot, as I think that he's just a very poor strategist, as is his team. I mean, yes, hindsight is a bitch, but even a layman like me would not disband the army, and that's just because I'd be afraid that they be used like the Freikorps after the First World War. Coupled with that, they aren't under a similar banner of nationality, politics or even belief, so that makes it even harder.
Well, I'm sure the problems with Iraq are an overtalked issue, so as not to steal the thunder of those commentators that have greater insight into the war than I can ever hope to, I'll continue with a different thought: if the end is inevitable, why is a more powerful Iran more dangerous? I mean, it's probably an idealist notion of this, but if Iran wants to play with the big boys and is insistent on destabilising the American position in the region, then why not let them take it and let them deal with it? I would almost say that this would be a much better alternative, and it gets back to doing what the US was always pretty good at (even though it always bit it in the ass, as they have a patchy memory): supporting rebel groups. Instead of focusing on keeping the mess that is Iraq together, why don't they do what they managed so spectacularly in Iraq - expose the amalgamation that is Iran.
As far as I see it, both of those states are just about as unnatural as each other, so why not destabilise the region further, under the guise of handing control of the region fully to Iran and then come in as saviours? The problem with this is whether Iran could do it (no way at this stage), but if it did, then we'd probably have a nuclear conflict on our hands between them and the Israelis. Well, that would be an interesting one. Still, I would say that both countries have such a history of erudition and culture that it would be a surprise to say the least. On the other hand, I agree, that all this would probably hand it more to the Russians or the Chinese, as nobody in their right mind would want the US back after this debacle. However, if the next administration got its act together did a good job in a fairly manageable country (not sure that would be Somalia, but it would surely be simpler), then the stock of the US might rise. Also, it's best remembered that the US still has a lot of friends in the area and people who would rather see a more grown-up US than any other power affecting the area.
However, again, the problem here would be the politics that accompanies it all, as I'm not sure that a Democrat president would be tempted to remain the head of an interventionist power. Maybe, America will leave the world affairs to the UN (why should it ever do that though?), and just look after it's own affairs? It pretty much worked in its favour before, as it's arguable that the World Wars brought it more good than anything else, and probably completed the cycle to super-powerdom quicker than it would have otherwise. So, yeah, perhaps for the US, despite its idealism, isolationism works.
So, yeah, these are my unfinished thoughts on the issue, but though it's fresh and not worth publishing, I thought I'd put it down in any case to keep up the rhythm of writing on this at a regular interval of sorts.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
And, I'm back
Right, boys and girls, avid readers, all disgruntled.
I'm thinking that all of you are extremely disappointed in not having read any of my wonderful entries in what is almost a full half year. Let me tell you, it was not without trepidation that I opened this site, half expecting the site to have passed onto someone who would do it more justice. Alas, no! It waited patiently for me and I think is looking forward to some new feed.
So, what shall I talk about in this year? Well, I shall begin by explaining that I am currently in the middle of an arduous process at the end of which I shall have written a full script. Now, I'm not saying it'll be any good, but it will be done nevertheless. That is the plan. And no, I won't tell you what it's about. Go and see it in the cinema. Or at least ask me to give you a copy when I've finished it.
What's been pissing me off lately then? Hmm, there's really too much to put down here, and too many opinions to try and set down on this electronic paper of sorts. But, well, within the last half an hour, I have been particularly unimpressed with this article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1986697,00.html. It's about 'Apocalypto', the new Mel Gibson film, which I saw last night (at the Coronet, Notting Hill). I saw the film, and very silently I shall whisper that I was something of a closet Mel Gibson fan after I saw the 'Passion of the Christ' which I actually thought was a very effective film, but have to say that I was disappointed by it. I won't go into a full review here, but, in short, it starts off well, and then goes downhill (if you need a point, it's when they get captured and taken to the town) and then culminates in being laughable. Not a film I'd ask for my money back after, but not one that I expect to be top of any league table.
Back to my original subject - this article. As a predicate to any other points I would like to say that it's a given that Mel Gibson is a well-known idiot, and anyone who has a tirade (about the Jews) like that deserves no more attention than Sean Penn, probably at the opposite end of that idiot-spectrum. Still, the guy makes successful films (Sean Penn seemingly less so these days), and you have to give him some kudos for that, even if you think that the people who come to them in droves are right-wing neocon hard-line Christian anti-abortionists, and anyone else who is deserving of a hyphen or word-amalgamation (that's including verboamalgamationists). His subject matter is always a little bit narrow, but then so is Clint Eastwood's these days and nobody seems to care (the Hemmingwayan 'lose with valour' kinda guy). He injects a bit of generic music, graphic raw visuals and good ol' testosterone into his heroes and so it makes for some red-blooded-sans-intellect fun. This was the case with Braveheart, now Apocalypto and for me, the Passion also.
With that out of the way, I then pause to think about this - why is everyone still so convinced that Mel Gibson's films go more than skin-deep? This guy who writes the said article is really stretched if he thinks that it's all an anti-semitic tirade (part II, no less), or even if he thinks that there is anything especially symbolic about the ending. What is interesting, is really to what depths Mel Gibson has to plunder to get a story out of his epic. Ok, I think there's something documenting the fact that there was an eclipse prior to Cortes' arrival in Mexico that compounded the natives' belief that the men were deities (not too sure about this one, though), but then this about the Mayans, not Aztecs, and so it would have been the conquest of the Yucatan which occurred earlier and has no such connotations (I'm still wondering whether the bearded man is actually anyone imparticular). Also, as far as I know, the Mayans were more or less an obscure civilisation by that point (especially when compared to the Aztecs). Not only that, but I think that the practise of human sacrifice was introduced by the Olmecs after they conquered and imposed themselves onto Mayan civilisation (in old Mayan culture, the king would actually slit his scrotum to fertilise the soil - the Olmecs preferred the less painful alternative to that one). However, about these points, I may be talking out of my arse and I'm having to refer to knowledge that I had about 4-5 years ago when I actually travelled around Mexico and Guatemala and I think if all else was fine with the film, I'd accept the Hollywood anachronisms.
I apologise for the lack of a clear argument on my part here thus far, and I will be more organised henceforth: my only real problems with film are that it's gratuitously gory and gratuitously religious. The former because some of the violence, brutality, and above all, the blood level and head count are just unnecessary. Not only does it stray into the 'Kill Bill' school (just so I make it clear, I think Kill Bill, part one, is one of my least favourite films of all time) of featuring violence for only its own sake and making it nothing more than a stupid caricature of actual bodily harm, it just removes any reality to the brutality (for god's sake, the guy's lung is probably punctured in the last 5 minutes of the film!). I know better than to ask for realism in a Hollywood action film, but I thought we'd moved on from the 80's...
As for the latter, I have a problem with the natives offering such 'Christian' prayers, as for example, when the woman in the river asks for the children's protection. It's as if he's said to himself: "ok, now, try to make the story relative to all the Christians in the audience as the middle-American mothers could empathise, because they'd probably ask Jesus/St Mary for the same thing in her shoes." It annoys me because I thought the point was to try and make a film about a different reality and set of values (which is why I thought the first part is so effective).
As for things I did like in the film, ok, I won't go into it too much, but I thought it's critique of organised religion and civilisation was well-done if not particularly clever or innovative. It also was a good homage to some good films of the past (Last of the Mohicans, Predator, probably Kill Bill, Aguirre, and others that I'm not too sure about), though there is always a fine line between borrowing and ripping-off, isn't there? Well, I'd put it down to homage, because I'm nice like that.
Right, after that little circumnavigation of the initial topic, in reply to the Vicar who wrote that (a) god-awful attempt at criticism, (b) self-serving bangwaggon-jumping, or (c) useless self-promotion and scaremongering (I just can't decide which it is), I'd say that he perhaps picks up on Gibson's ignorance and lack of empathy with other cultures, but to elevate the guy to such ranks of ability as a evil symbolist theologian is really an elasticated argument to say the least. Write a better article on something that deserves serious academic attention, not such a poor example of a plunder of a whole history of a region to suit a film. However, I would agree that it is as anti-Semitic as the Passion - I think both films are weak examples of anti-Semitism, but strong examles of a prejudice for the ascendancy of Christianity (which particular strand I cannot say) over every other religion. In line with this, I expect the next film to tell the story of Buddha, when he comes to earth as an angel eager to kill all those that have transgressed his master, who works in mysterious ways.
Hmm, as you'd expect, looking over this ramble, I need to get back into the swing of things as regards this blog-writing thing, but well, my rant is over. For now...
I'm thinking that all of you are extremely disappointed in not having read any of my wonderful entries in what is almost a full half year. Let me tell you, it was not without trepidation that I opened this site, half expecting the site to have passed onto someone who would do it more justice. Alas, no! It waited patiently for me and I think is looking forward to some new feed.
So, what shall I talk about in this year? Well, I shall begin by explaining that I am currently in the middle of an arduous process at the end of which I shall have written a full script. Now, I'm not saying it'll be any good, but it will be done nevertheless. That is the plan. And no, I won't tell you what it's about. Go and see it in the cinema. Or at least ask me to give you a copy when I've finished it.
What's been pissing me off lately then? Hmm, there's really too much to put down here, and too many opinions to try and set down on this electronic paper of sorts. But, well, within the last half an hour, I have been particularly unimpressed with this article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1986697,00.html. It's about 'Apocalypto', the new Mel Gibson film, which I saw last night (at the Coronet, Notting Hill). I saw the film, and very silently I shall whisper that I was something of a closet Mel Gibson fan after I saw the 'Passion of the Christ' which I actually thought was a very effective film, but have to say that I was disappointed by it. I won't go into a full review here, but, in short, it starts off well, and then goes downhill (if you need a point, it's when they get captured and taken to the town) and then culminates in being laughable. Not a film I'd ask for my money back after, but not one that I expect to be top of any league table.
Back to my original subject - this article. As a predicate to any other points I would like to say that it's a given that Mel Gibson is a well-known idiot, and anyone who has a tirade (about the Jews) like that deserves no more attention than Sean Penn, probably at the opposite end of that idiot-spectrum. Still, the guy makes successful films (Sean Penn seemingly less so these days), and you have to give him some kudos for that, even if you think that the people who come to them in droves are right-wing neocon hard-line Christian anti-abortionists, and anyone else who is deserving of a hyphen or word-amalgamation (that's including verboamalgamationists). His subject matter is always a little bit narrow, but then so is Clint Eastwood's these days and nobody seems to care (the Hemmingwayan 'lose with valour' kinda guy). He injects a bit of generic music, graphic raw visuals and good ol' testosterone into his heroes and so it makes for some red-blooded-sans-intellect fun. This was the case with Braveheart, now Apocalypto and for me, the Passion also.
With that out of the way, I then pause to think about this - why is everyone still so convinced that Mel Gibson's films go more than skin-deep? This guy who writes the said article is really stretched if he thinks that it's all an anti-semitic tirade (part II, no less), or even if he thinks that there is anything especially symbolic about the ending. What is interesting, is really to what depths Mel Gibson has to plunder to get a story out of his epic. Ok, I think there's something documenting the fact that there was an eclipse prior to Cortes' arrival in Mexico that compounded the natives' belief that the men were deities (not too sure about this one, though), but then this about the Mayans, not Aztecs, and so it would have been the conquest of the Yucatan which occurred earlier and has no such connotations (I'm still wondering whether the bearded man is actually anyone imparticular). Also, as far as I know, the Mayans were more or less an obscure civilisation by that point (especially when compared to the Aztecs). Not only that, but I think that the practise of human sacrifice was introduced by the Olmecs after they conquered and imposed themselves onto Mayan civilisation (in old Mayan culture, the king would actually slit his scrotum to fertilise the soil - the Olmecs preferred the less painful alternative to that one). However, about these points, I may be talking out of my arse and I'm having to refer to knowledge that I had about 4-5 years ago when I actually travelled around Mexico and Guatemala and I think if all else was fine with the film, I'd accept the Hollywood anachronisms.
I apologise for the lack of a clear argument on my part here thus far, and I will be more organised henceforth: my only real problems with film are that it's gratuitously gory and gratuitously religious. The former because some of the violence, brutality, and above all, the blood level and head count are just unnecessary. Not only does it stray into the 'Kill Bill' school (just so I make it clear, I think Kill Bill, part one, is one of my least favourite films of all time) of featuring violence for only its own sake and making it nothing more than a stupid caricature of actual bodily harm, it just removes any reality to the brutality (for god's sake, the guy's lung is probably punctured in the last 5 minutes of the film!). I know better than to ask for realism in a Hollywood action film, but I thought we'd moved on from the 80's...
As for the latter, I have a problem with the natives offering such 'Christian' prayers, as for example, when the woman in the river asks for the children's protection. It's as if he's said to himself: "ok, now, try to make the story relative to all the Christians in the audience as the middle-American mothers could empathise, because they'd probably ask Jesus/St Mary for the same thing in her shoes." It annoys me because I thought the point was to try and make a film about a different reality and set of values (which is why I thought the first part is so effective).
As for things I did like in the film, ok, I won't go into it too much, but I thought it's critique of organised religion and civilisation was well-done if not particularly clever or innovative. It also was a good homage to some good films of the past (Last of the Mohicans, Predator, probably Kill Bill, Aguirre, and others that I'm not too sure about), though there is always a fine line between borrowing and ripping-off, isn't there? Well, I'd put it down to homage, because I'm nice like that.
Right, after that little circumnavigation of the initial topic, in reply to the Vicar who wrote that (a) god-awful attempt at criticism, (b) self-serving bangwaggon-jumping, or (c) useless self-promotion and scaremongering (I just can't decide which it is), I'd say that he perhaps picks up on Gibson's ignorance and lack of empathy with other cultures, but to elevate the guy to such ranks of ability as a evil symbolist theologian is really an elasticated argument to say the least. Write a better article on something that deserves serious academic attention, not such a poor example of a plunder of a whole history of a region to suit a film. However, I would agree that it is as anti-Semitic as the Passion - I think both films are weak examples of anti-Semitism, but strong examles of a prejudice for the ascendancy of Christianity (which particular strand I cannot say) over every other religion. In line with this, I expect the next film to tell the story of Buddha, when he comes to earth as an angel eager to kill all those that have transgressed his master, who works in mysterious ways.
Hmm, as you'd expect, looking over this ramble, I need to get back into the swing of things as regards this blog-writing thing, but well, my rant is over. For now...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)