Great video.
Yeasayer - Ambling Alp from Spy Films on Vimeo.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)