Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Have I really been away this long?
So much for my great blogging idea. Actually, all is not lost since the whole point of starting this blog was to get me past my writer's block. Well, it worked since I am now finally working on that novel that I have wanted to start. It is a painful process but at least I am doing it. I have even signed up for a writer's conference this summer for which I have to submit an excerpt. So I now have a goal to work towards ( and I am SOOOO bad at setting goals...I am more a vision person myself and hate to have to follow through on the mundane details). Now, this has started me thinking that I need to quit my job and move to London for a few months to do research on the parts of my novel that take place there...hmmmm....
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
More Movies, Movies, Movies
So, the movie theater experience this time around (see previous post) was not great. But my DVD selections made up for it. Thanks to a recommendation I received here from Brissiemum2, I finally rented The Incredible Story of Mary Bryant, another Aussie film. Weirdly enough, I had moved it up in my queue without really paying attention to its order and the next film to follow was Amazing Grace. Weird because both movies are about British colonial imperialism and both feature the actress, Romola Garai, who portrayed the adult Briony in Atonement.
I am definitely a huge Anglophile but these movies confirm that the Brits clearly had a lot to answer for when it came to their imperialist past. Mary Bryant is based on the true story of a woman who was transported to Australia as a convict for stealing food. The scenes depicting the voyage to Austrialia and events that befall the convicts when they reach Australia are graphically disturbing. I particularly had a hard time watching a scene of mass rape. But the difference here was that the depiction of violence was necessary to understand the horrific conditions that drove Mary to escape her imprisonment. Garai is brilliant in portraying Mary's determination to survive and to save her children. Jack Davenport is dashing but despicable as the British officer whose relationship with Mary mirrors the Britain's imperialistic treatment of the Australian colonialists. Alex O'Loughlin is wonderful as Mary's husband, Will, who starts out as a charming, roguish character but is later tested by the trials and sacrifices demanded by his and Mary's bid for freedom. I just love O'Loughlin's ability to communicate, through his eyes and facial expressions, the feelings and emotions of his character in a way that words alone cannot convey. I understand he was nominated for acting awards for this role and he definitely deserved it. (OK, enough! *shakes fist in air* AO'L, you are an incredibly lovely actor but I refuse to give in and turn this blog into another fansite for you! Moonlight ad? What Moonlight ad?? Go away!)
Needless to say, the end of the movie reduced me to tears but also left me inspired.
Inspired was also how I felt about Amazing Grace. I will admit I was a bit skeptical about this film, thinking it might be a bit saccharine and maybe too sanctimonious. It's not that I have anything against films portraying faith and belief in a positive way. Unfortunately, more often than not, I find it's not generally done in a nuanced and realistic fashion (or in a manner that does not make it a easy target for ridicule). Like Mary Bryant, the movie is based on the true story, that of William Wilberforce, a member of Parliament, who was a reformer and took on the fight to abolish slavery. Wilberforce was influenced by his mentor, John Newton, the former slave trader who ultimately renounced the slave trade, and became a minister and the writer of the hymn, "Amazing Grace" (played by Albert Finney, no less). Ionn Gruffud masterfully portrays the quirky Wilberforce, who at the beginning of the film, is struggling with whether he should give his life over to religious contemplation instead of political activism. (There is a really great scene between Wilberforce and his manservant in the garden of his estate where Wilberforce explains his conflicted feelings.) His friend, William Pitt the Younger, leads him to see that taking on abolition is a way to reconcile his faith with his activism.
Although not as graphic as Mary Bryant in depicting the horrible effects of Britain's imperialism, Amazing Grace does effectively portray the monstrous nature of the slave trade and the political machinations that equated abolition efforts with sedition, on the premise that a threat to Britain's economic interests would weaken its ability to protect itself against France and the American colonies.
I am definitely a huge Anglophile but these movies confirm that the Brits clearly had a lot to answer for when it came to their imperialist past. Mary Bryant is based on the true story of a woman who was transported to Australia as a convict for stealing food. The scenes depicting the voyage to Austrialia and events that befall the convicts when they reach Australia are graphically disturbing. I particularly had a hard time watching a scene of mass rape. But the difference here was that the depiction of violence was necessary to understand the horrific conditions that drove Mary to escape her imprisonment. Garai is brilliant in portraying Mary's determination to survive and to save her children. Jack Davenport is dashing but despicable as the British officer whose relationship with Mary mirrors the Britain's imperialistic treatment of the Australian colonialists. Alex O'Loughlin is wonderful as Mary's husband, Will, who starts out as a charming, roguish character but is later tested by the trials and sacrifices demanded by his and Mary's bid for freedom. I just love O'Loughlin's ability to communicate, through his eyes and facial expressions, the feelings and emotions of his character in a way that words alone cannot convey. I understand he was nominated for acting awards for this role and he definitely deserved it. (OK, enough! *shakes fist in air* AO'L, you are an incredibly lovely actor but I refuse to give in and turn this blog into another fansite for you! Moonlight ad? What Moonlight ad?? Go away!)
Needless to say, the end of the movie reduced me to tears but also left me inspired.
Inspired was also how I felt about Amazing Grace. I will admit I was a bit skeptical about this film, thinking it might be a bit saccharine and maybe too sanctimonious. It's not that I have anything against films portraying faith and belief in a positive way. Unfortunately, more often than not, I find it's not generally done in a nuanced and realistic fashion (or in a manner that does not make it a easy target for ridicule). Like Mary Bryant, the movie is based on the true story, that of William Wilberforce, a member of Parliament, who was a reformer and took on the fight to abolish slavery. Wilberforce was influenced by his mentor, John Newton, the former slave trader who ultimately renounced the slave trade, and became a minister and the writer of the hymn, "Amazing Grace" (played by Albert Finney, no less). Ionn Gruffud masterfully portrays the quirky Wilberforce, who at the beginning of the film, is struggling with whether he should give his life over to religious contemplation instead of political activism. (There is a really great scene between Wilberforce and his manservant in the garden of his estate where Wilberforce explains his conflicted feelings.) His friend, William Pitt the Younger, leads him to see that taking on abolition is a way to reconcile his faith with his activism.
Although not as graphic as Mary Bryant in depicting the horrible effects of Britain's imperialism, Amazing Grace does effectively portray the monstrous nature of the slave trade and the political machinations that equated abolition efforts with sedition, on the premise that a threat to Britain's economic interests would weaken its ability to protect itself against France and the American colonies.
The movie flashes between the past and present as Wilberforce describes to Barbara Spooner, a woman who has followed Wilberforce's career and later becomes his wife, the series of difficulties and setbacks he faced in fighting to bring slavery to an end. I almost did not recognize Garai in this movie, her elegant and fashionable Barbara so sharply contrasting with the rough and almost feral Mary Bryant.
Just as the end of Mary Bryant brought me to tears, so did the end of Amazing Grace when Wilberforce, at great personal cost, finally achieves his life-long dream of ending Britain's slave trade.
I guess I have to accept the fact that I may not be as "with it" as I thought when it comes to the current film scene. I still look for those movies with the mythological character arc, where the hero (or anti-hero) undergoes the trial and comes out transformed on the other side. It's probably why I loved these 2 DVD movies and was not so crazy about There Will Be Blood and In Bruges. We all know life can be banal and brutal but our stories and dreams don't need to be.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Movies, Movies, Movies
Although I am a die-hard cinema lover, it seems like I have a feast-or-famine approach to seeing movies. A month or so can go by and my feet don't ever cross the threshhold of a movie house and my DVD achieves a fine coating of dust, with Netflix making sheer profit on the DVDs that remain unopened on my coffee table. Then suddenly, my entire social calendar is taken up by dinners and a movie, or I remain huddled on my "fainting" couch (yes, I have one--don't laugh), watching DVD after DVD, wondering if I should up my plan to 6 movies per month.
Well, I'm in the feast phase right now and it has been partially satisfying (at least on the DVD side). At the theaters, I saw In Bruges and There Will Be Blood. I went to In Bruges because I like Colin Farrell and love Martin McDonagh's dark stage plays so wanted to give his first movie a try. Sadly, I was disappointed. I mean, I did kind of appreciate the dark satirical jab at the American way of life that I think I saw in the movie. But in the end, Farrell's character was *echh*, and I guess I am just so tired of graphic, senseless violence being used to portray "serious" cinema, that McDonagh's first movie effort pretty much left me flat. (Regrets to Brendan Gleeson because I thought his acting was really superb and to Bruges, a really lovely town that deserved better than this movie.)
There Will Be Blood definitely didn't score points with me either when it came to the senseless violence bit. I can't believe I am saying that I didn't like this film, particularly since the actor I admire most, Daniel Day Lewis, is in it. The problem with the movie was not with DDL's acting, which was intense and compelling as always. In fact, the movie really had me entranced for probably the first three-quarters of its running time and I was particularly fascinated by the development of the relationship between Plainview and his son. It was the final scene between the preacher and Plainview that just totally lost me. Maybe it's my own sick sense of humor, but I really found it laughable and so out of keeping with the rest of the atmospheric tone of the movie. Maybe that was the director's intention? One of these postmodern rug-yankings to remind you that you are watching a movie? Who knows? Whatever. It didn't work for me. (Note: For effective treatment of postmodern themes in film, please see Atonement, which by the way, is now my choice for Best Picture)
Enough for now. More on my more satisfying DVD movie experiences in the next post...
Well, I'm in the feast phase right now and it has been partially satisfying (at least on the DVD side). At the theaters, I saw In Bruges and There Will Be Blood. I went to In Bruges because I like Colin Farrell and love Martin McDonagh's dark stage plays so wanted to give his first movie a try. Sadly, I was disappointed. I mean, I did kind of appreciate the dark satirical jab at the American way of life that I think I saw in the movie. But in the end, Farrell's character was *echh*, and I guess I am just so tired of graphic, senseless violence being used to portray "serious" cinema, that McDonagh's first movie effort pretty much left me flat. (Regrets to Brendan Gleeson because I thought his acting was really superb and to Bruges, a really lovely town that deserved better than this movie.)
There Will Be Blood definitely didn't score points with me either when it came to the senseless violence bit. I can't believe I am saying that I didn't like this film, particularly since the actor I admire most, Daniel Day Lewis, is in it. The problem with the movie was not with DDL's acting, which was intense and compelling as always. In fact, the movie really had me entranced for probably the first three-quarters of its running time and I was particularly fascinated by the development of the relationship between Plainview and his son. It was the final scene between the preacher and Plainview that just totally lost me. Maybe it's my own sick sense of humor, but I really found it laughable and so out of keeping with the rest of the atmospheric tone of the movie. Maybe that was the director's intention? One of these postmodern rug-yankings to remind you that you are watching a movie? Who knows? Whatever. It didn't work for me. (Note: For effective treatment of postmodern themes in film, please see Atonement, which by the way, is now my choice for Best Picture)
Enough for now. More on my more satisfying DVD movie experiences in the next post...
Saturday, February 2, 2008
A Modest Proposal
So, we all have heard about this financial stimulus incentive package that was put together by our illustrious government. You know the one where all citizens get a rebate that they are supposed to: (1) not save, (2) not use to pay off debt, (3) not put toward their kid's education, but (4) immediately spend on anything their hearts desire. Even if they really don't need it. Even if it just contributes to all the material clutter that we surround ourselves with, and then muck up our environment with, when we get tired of it.
I guess I am more than irked about this stupid financial program because I just attended a lecture on global poverty and the progress (or lack thereof) by the US in supporting the Millennium Development Goals set by nations meeting at the 2000 Millennium Summit. Needless to say, we're not really doing well in this endeavor. I assume that now that it looks like our economy is moving towards recession, we'll have even less of a desire to address the issue. No, we will be too busy pushing ridiculous financial incentive programs that are short-term and short-sighted. (Another indication of the corporatization of society--where else but in corporate America does short term thinking rule, with no thought given to long-term strategy?)
Where does my proposal come in? Actually, I can't totally take credit for this idea because it's really a friend of mine who came up with it. I was talking to him about Kiva, this great program where individuals can get involved in microfinance. He said it sounded like a great idea and then he suggested that what he might do is take his so-called incentive rebate and become a microfinance lender.
Well, after tonight's lecture, I think it's a brilliant idea. Instead of using the money to buy something you don't need to create some artificial short burst of financial activity, how about supporting individuals in regional economies that really could use some help? I am guessing that the contribution to support an entrepreneurial business will have a more long-term effect than a one-shot commercial purchase.
Call it my "Three Musketeers" economic theory. A stronger global economy based on fair allocation of financial resources has to be better for the US economy than the self-centered, isolationist approach we've relied on for too long.
I guess I am more than irked about this stupid financial program because I just attended a lecture on global poverty and the progress (or lack thereof) by the US in supporting the Millennium Development Goals set by nations meeting at the 2000 Millennium Summit. Needless to say, we're not really doing well in this endeavor. I assume that now that it looks like our economy is moving towards recession, we'll have even less of a desire to address the issue. No, we will be too busy pushing ridiculous financial incentive programs that are short-term and short-sighted. (Another indication of the corporatization of society--where else but in corporate America does short term thinking rule, with no thought given to long-term strategy?)
Where does my proposal come in? Actually, I can't totally take credit for this idea because it's really a friend of mine who came up with it. I was talking to him about Kiva, this great program where individuals can get involved in microfinance. He said it sounded like a great idea and then he suggested that what he might do is take his so-called incentive rebate and become a microfinance lender.
Well, after tonight's lecture, I think it's a brilliant idea. Instead of using the money to buy something you don't need to create some artificial short burst of financial activity, how about supporting individuals in regional economies that really could use some help? I am guessing that the contribution to support an entrepreneurial business will have a more long-term effect than a one-shot commercial purchase.
Call it my "Three Musketeers" economic theory. A stronger global economy based on fair allocation of financial resources has to be better for the US economy than the self-centered, isolationist approach we've relied on for too long.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Torture and Economics
I've been away from here for a while, mostly for reasons I can't even put down because they are so pathetic. I did have one good reason. I have feverishly been trying to finish Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine. Since moving into this house, I have been seriously struggling with lack of bookshelf space so have forced myself to use the library. Problem is, it means you have to finish the book within a set time period, no allowance given especially when 500 other people are waiting to read it.
It was tough, mainly because I had to keep putting it down to keep from becoming totally depressed, frustrated, or hey, just to have a good cry over the state of the world. I am not sure I can do justice to the premise of this book so maybe this will help. It's a clip by the director of that amazing film The Children of Men. He apparently had this short film made at Klein's request:
I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories, like the one that claims the Bush administration actually caused 9/11 to happen. After reading this book, however, I have to wonder if people like Rumsfeld and Cheney did not take advantage of the "shock" of 9/11 to push through agendas they had been stewing over for some time. Klein also had me thinking a great deal about the aftermath of the Solidarity movement in Poland and why the form of democratic socialism they were proposing never had a chance in the face of IMF and World Bank policies. (Having a deep personal interest in that history, I have always been disappointed in its outcome). I think we Americans have been schooled to believe that any form of socialized anything equates to pinko Commie doctrine and that democracy and capitalism must always go hand in hand. Klein's book makes me think that, if anything, democracy and this sort of "disaster" capitalism are antithetical to each other since time and time again, when the shock therapy was completed, you end up with the same result: a select few groups and corporations getting even more wealthy, and the rest of society become poorer and more disenfranchised. Is that what we mean by "democracy"?
I suppose what troubled me even more about the book was that the manipulation of historical events by this disaster capitalism strategy is going on right under our noses and we aren't even aware of it. It is being couched most recently in terms of the need for safety, security and protection from terrorism. Before, it was presented as the fight against communism or the need to rebuild democratic societies. Klein is pretty even-handed in showing how the media can be easily duped as well, be it The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or The Washington Post, to buy off on "disaster" economic policy.
How do we become more activist in questioning our political leaders about their motivations when they intervene in global affairs? I don't know. From my perspective, the political process in this country is really sick and desperately needs a cure. After reading the book and returning it to the library, I ordered it from Amazon. The lack of bookshelf space won't be a problem. I intend to lend it out to everyone I know. Maybe that's the way you change things? One book at a time.
It was tough, mainly because I had to keep putting it down to keep from becoming totally depressed, frustrated, or hey, just to have a good cry over the state of the world. I am not sure I can do justice to the premise of this book so maybe this will help. It's a clip by the director of that amazing film The Children of Men. He apparently had this short film made at Klein's request:
I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories, like the one that claims the Bush administration actually caused 9/11 to happen. After reading this book, however, I have to wonder if people like Rumsfeld and Cheney did not take advantage of the "shock" of 9/11 to push through agendas they had been stewing over for some time. Klein also had me thinking a great deal about the aftermath of the Solidarity movement in Poland and why the form of democratic socialism they were proposing never had a chance in the face of IMF and World Bank policies. (Having a deep personal interest in that history, I have always been disappointed in its outcome). I think we Americans have been schooled to believe that any form of socialized anything equates to pinko Commie doctrine and that democracy and capitalism must always go hand in hand. Klein's book makes me think that, if anything, democracy and this sort of "disaster" capitalism are antithetical to each other since time and time again, when the shock therapy was completed, you end up with the same result: a select few groups and corporations getting even more wealthy, and the rest of society become poorer and more disenfranchised. Is that what we mean by "democracy"?
I suppose what troubled me even more about the book was that the manipulation of historical events by this disaster capitalism strategy is going on right under our noses and we aren't even aware of it. It is being couched most recently in terms of the need for safety, security and protection from terrorism. Before, it was presented as the fight against communism or the need to rebuild democratic societies. Klein is pretty even-handed in showing how the media can be easily duped as well, be it The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or The Washington Post, to buy off on "disaster" economic policy.
How do we become more activist in questioning our political leaders about their motivations when they intervene in global affairs? I don't know. From my perspective, the political process in this country is really sick and desperately needs a cure. After reading the book and returning it to the library, I ordered it from Amazon. The lack of bookshelf space won't be a problem. I intend to lend it out to everyone I know. Maybe that's the way you change things? One book at a time.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
You, Me and the Violent Universe
I just read an article on the recent Astronomical Society conference where astronomers met to discuss the "bizarre and violent" nature of the universe. They describe all sorts of really weird and fascinating phenomena like "rogue" black holes that roam the universe and devour planets, and fast-moving gas clouds 47 quadrillion miles away that will hit the Milky Way in a firework flash of new stars. Galaxy-on-galaxy attacks are described in pretty nasty terms: 'slow strangulation,' 'stripping,' 'harassment.' So it sounds like the universe is not a nice place, folks.
What really drew my attention to the article, though, was the other aspects of the universe that were described. Here on planet Earth, we apparently live in what one astronomer characterized as a 'pretty quiet neighborhood,' shielded from most of these violent goings on. (It would be nice to think that someone or something is watching out for us. Too bad we don't have the same shielding within our own terrestrial boundaries.) In addition to nasty black holes and vicious galaxies, there are "hugging stars," "baby stars" that are born out of nothing, spiral galaxies that look like flamingo lawn ornaments with pinwheels (giggle), and "post-menopausal" stars surprisingly giving birth to new planets. Strangely comforting, isn't it?
Astronomy, like physics, is one of those sciences that I studied in school and didn't see as having any relevance to my life. Yeah, great, so I learned about all these planets and stars and galaxies, and, unless I was going to work for NASA, who really cared?
Yeah, well, education is definitely wasted on the young. Just like I've grown to appreciate that physics is just as much about philosophy as it is about science, astronomy's discoveries about the universe can expand our vision of what life here on earth might be all about. At the very least, when my petty problems are weighing my world down, it helps to put it all in perspective to remember that they don't amount to much when compared to the mysteries of eternity.
What really drew my attention to the article, though, was the other aspects of the universe that were described. Here on planet Earth, we apparently live in what one astronomer characterized as a 'pretty quiet neighborhood,' shielded from most of these violent goings on. (It would be nice to think that someone or something is watching out for us. Too bad we don't have the same shielding within our own terrestrial boundaries.) In addition to nasty black holes and vicious galaxies, there are "hugging stars," "baby stars" that are born out of nothing, spiral galaxies that look like flamingo lawn ornaments with pinwheels (giggle), and "post-menopausal" stars surprisingly giving birth to new planets. Strangely comforting, isn't it?
Astronomy, like physics, is one of those sciences that I studied in school and didn't see as having any relevance to my life. Yeah, great, so I learned about all these planets and stars and galaxies, and, unless I was going to work for NASA, who really cared?
Yeah, well, education is definitely wasted on the young. Just like I've grown to appreciate that physics is just as much about philosophy as it is about science, astronomy's discoveries about the universe can expand our vision of what life here on earth might be all about. At the very least, when my petty problems are weighing my world down, it helps to put it all in perspective to remember that they don't amount to much when compared to the mysteries of eternity.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Oyster Farmers
Having some downtime, I should be catching up on all the errands and stuff around the house that need to get done (e.g., painting the bathroom with the paint from the paint can that has been standing outside the bathroom door since September 2006). Instead, I am catching up on my Netflix DVDs that I have been holding onto for way too long.
I know I'm risking turning this blog into a fansite for the guy but I just finished watching a great little film with Alex O'Loughlin called The Oyster Farmer. I am a fan of small independent films and of films from Australia so this movie fit the bill. Plus, I was curious to see what O'Loughlin was like as an actor when he wasn't playing a vampire detective on TV. (OK, and yes, he is not too hard on the eyes, to boot!)
This was a real gem of a film. At first, I didn't really know what to expect and that is part of what works in this movie. Its charm just creeps up on you slowly. It's the story of this young guy who comes to live in this river community to be close to his sister, who is recuperating in a local hospital after being injured in an accident. He gets work with an oyster farmer in the area but his main objective is to commit a robbery so he can get money to pay for his sister's care. He commits the robbery (using fruit leather, of all things) but then a series of mishaps prevent him from getting the money.
The characters in this movie are all wonderfully idiosyncratic and they create situations that are comic and at the same time, full of deep felt emotion. The story is about making connections, being human, and finding family. And it is all so beautifully and subtly portrayed through the acting and the director's vision.
I also am now firmly in the camp of admirers of O'Loughlin's abilities as an actor. His character, Jack Flange, comes across at times as bit of a rough, unfeeling bloke but O'Loughlin slowly reveals the vulnerability that Jack strives to keep hidden especially when it comes to his concern for his sister. He is also great at playing comedy (loved the scenes with the dog and the poisonous remote control). And as to his ability to emanate sexual intensity, I can only say that I found his scene with Kerry Armstrong to be incredibly erotic (in fact, much more erotic than the scene where he pretty much strips naked--just threw that in for those who don't appreciate the "less is more" approach to sensuality). I'd say what I appreciate overall about his acting in this film is that it is very subtle, almost as if it all came so naturally and was not the result of any sort of learned technique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)