There is a lengthy article in the recent Sunday NYTimes about Iran:
"President Ahmadinejad may not be all that popular. And the tension between theocracy and democracy may be reaching a crisis."
Try the link below or go to their main page and look for the magazine. I believe articles are accessible online for at least one week for non-subscribers, but you may have to register. If you have problems or get there too late and still want to read it, let me know and I can probably email it to you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28iran.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Monday, January 29, 2007
Expatriate Iranians Denounce...
From the NYTimes 1/24/7:
More than 100 Iranian artists and intellectuals signed a statement condemning a Holocaust conference, largely given over to Holocaust deniers, that was sponsored by the Iranian government in Tehran in December. The statement, which appears in the forthcoming issue of The New York Review of Books and on its Web site (nybooks.com), begins by acknowledging “our diverse views on the Israeli-Palestinian question.” It condemns the conference’s “attempt to falsify history” and pays “homage to the memory of the millions of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust,’’ as well as “other victims of crimes against humanity across the world.” Azar Nafisi, the author of “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” who helped to create the statement with Roya and Ladan Boroumand, the founders of a human-rights group in Iran, said in a telephone interview that many people could not voice their objections to the conference inside Iran for fear of reprisals, but that “we felt that as Iranians, we should make a statement” that the conference “should not come out in our names.”
Read the full text of the statement and view signatories at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19831
More than 100 Iranian artists and intellectuals signed a statement condemning a Holocaust conference, largely given over to Holocaust deniers, that was sponsored by the Iranian government in Tehran in December. The statement, which appears in the forthcoming issue of The New York Review of Books and on its Web site (nybooks.com), begins by acknowledging “our diverse views on the Israeli-Palestinian question.” It condemns the conference’s “attempt to falsify history” and pays “homage to the memory of the millions of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust,’’ as well as “other victims of crimes against humanity across the world.” Azar Nafisi, the author of “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” who helped to create the statement with Roya and Ladan Boroumand, the founders of a human-rights group in Iran, said in a telephone interview that many people could not voice their objections to the conference inside Iran for fear of reprisals, but that “we felt that as Iranians, we should make a statement” that the conference “should not come out in our names.”
Read the full text of the statement and view signatories at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19831
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Film: Perfume (1/18)
What a very strange very odd film indeed.
I was too tired to do much else, and I was sick of being snowed in all week, and it was the last night it was playing (I'm guessing the reason this only played for two weeks is that not a lot of people who saw it ran off to tell everyone they knew that they just HAD to see this film, or even that they might want to consider it--the full title is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer), and I liked Tom Tykwer's other films well enough for their visual inventiveness and hopeless romanticism (you would know them if you saw Run, Lola, Run, and liked it well enough to then see Winter Sleepers or The Princess and the Warrior or Heaven, as I did), and I couldn't remember the last time I saw Alan Rickman in anything (I just checked imdb--looks like he's been busy working on the Harry Potter films, which I haven't seen because I want to read the books first--Perfume, the novel by Patrick Suskind, was supposed to be quite good, though alas I did not have the pleasure of reading it before seeing the film), and I was wondering what Dustin Hoffman was doing in the middle of the largely Anglo/Euro cast (I still am--I'm wondering if they thought his wavering between all manner of accents was OK because he was playing an Italian living in Paris, as opposed to the French characters, who all had British accents appropriate to their class--and it would be too silly to think they did it just because he was playing a Nose and he has such a distinctive one: "To qualify as a Nose, the prospective candidate must be able to recant all of the elements that comprises the essential elements within a fragrance before the sprayed droplets reach the floor." http://www.theperfumehouse.com/heritage.htm), so I went.
I spent the first two hours wondering what the point of it was. The film begins with the murderer locked up about to be sentenced, and proceeds with lavish epic period (18th century) detail (imdb says it's the most expensive German film ever made--surely they could have afforded a speech coach for Dustin; they had ten people alone listed in the credits as "Dirt Services Crew," presumably to ensure that Paris was adequately authentically filthy) to narrate (thank you John Hurt) the story of his birth and how he comes to be a sociopath and proceeds to murder a number of young women (not bloody or grisly, mind you, just a clean blow to the head, for the most part not depicted, although the naked abandoned corpses as they are discovered are shown) in order that he may fulfill his mission in life to preserve their scent forever and make the world's most intoxicatingly paradisial perfume. And you're just sitting there thinking this is so creepy, and I don't like seeing bodies of dead naked young woman, and so what, what is the story, what is the point, and then suddenly the film just takes off into the land of pure parable--the penultimate scene was so unforgettably delirious (spoiler: picture epic 18th c mob scene on instant ecstasy) it was worth the price of admission alone, and followed by a suitably Faustian ending.
Wikipedia shares with us the following (and also lists appearances of the Faust story in the following media: drama, opera, classical music, popular music, poetry, prose, film, musicals, anime/manga, videogames, comicbooks, nonfiction, and television--not sure it's very surprising how many there are, so much as how many of them one knows--at least in the high culture categories--but doesn't necessarily think of all at once as being related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust):
"Faust or Faustus is the protagonist of a popular German tale of a pact with the Devil, assumed to be based on the figure of the German magician and alchemist Dr. Johann Georg Faust (approximately 1480–1540).
The story concerns the fate of a learned scholar named Faust, who in his quest for the true essence of life ("was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhaelt"), summons the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles), who offers to serve him as long as Faust lives. Mephistopheles may receive Faust's soul, but only when Faust has attained the zenith of human happiness. In the second Part of the Faust tragedy (Faust 2), Faust really does have the pleasure to experience the latter, however, Mephisto, trying to grab Faust's soul when the protagonist dies, is burnt down by the empowering force of love. Faust deserves to go to heaven, because of his unquenchable thirst for knowledge and understanding ("man must strive and err") that exceeds the limits set for human beings.
The name of "Faust" has since become attached to any number of legendary tales about a charlatan alchemist (some claim "astrologer and necromancer"), whose pride, vanity, and vile hucksterism would inevitably lead to his doom. "
So our Faust here is literally seeking the essence of life through alchemical means, too blinded by his quest (blame it on his troubled childhood) to see that without the life, the essence is for naught, and sadly there is no empowering force of love to save the day (though it would seem more fitting to Tykwer's sensibilities), and Suskind (I assume) chooses instead to end it on a more nihilistic, while at the same time, moral note. The story actually cuts out the deal with the devil part by just having him born with no soul--the trailer voiceover pronounces: "the soul of a being is their scent," something the murderer/perfumer eventually comes to realize he curiously does not have.
I would say that despite my doubts as to where it was all going, I was surprised to look at my watch and see that two hours had passed so quickly (with another twenty minutes to go) without feeling restless, though it starts with the expected stylistic inventiveness before settling into more straightforward narrative--I suppose it helps if you really like perfume (and I do so, as you might imagine with all the Taurus in me), as there is quite a bit of time spent discussing the philosophy and techniques of its creation. Only afterwards did I realize how much this was also a credit to Ben Whishaw's extraordinary breakthrough performance in the lead role--the character is just so odd and unsympathetic and intense that it's really something that he pulls it off so flawlessly when it could have so easily seemed ridiculous. I was curious to see if there's anything else interesting he may have done, but the imdb just lists a number of minor roles including a credit for playing Keith Richards in a film from 2005 that I somehow missed called Stoned--I can totally see it! Something tells me we will be seeing a bit more of him in future, if we're lucky.
Everyone says the book had long been considered unfilmable, because the one of the five senses it engages most with can not be filmed, but this seems silly because a book smells no more than a film, and clearly the imagination fills in the rest. Though I can imagine Tykwer was intrigued by the challenge and he has a lot of fun with it, and I dare say it's doubtful you'll come across anything else with so much cutting on the scent. I can never think of the notion of smells without recalling this passage from Tony Kushner's Angels in America (the ellipses are the text's not mine):
"Louis: Smell is...an incredibly complex and underappreciated physical phenomenon. Inextricably bound up with sex. It is. The nose is really a sexual organ. Smelling. Is desiring. We have five senses, but only two that go beyond the boundaries...of ourselves. When you look at someone, it's just bouncing light, or when you hear them, it's just sound waves, vibrating air, or touch is just nerve endings tingling. Know what a smell is? It's made of the molecules of what you're smelling. Some part of you, where you meet the air, is airborne. (He goes up to Joe, close) Little molecules of Joe...(He inhales deeply) Up my nose. Mmmm...Nice. Try it."
(Just something to think about next time you're riding the bus. Sorry.)
One final note about the film--I was checking out the official website (I know by now you all know that you can get links to official websites, trailers, etc at www.imdb.com) and we're all familiar with merchandising tie-ins, but I have to say I have never seen anything quite so odd. It appears that for $700 you can purchase a limited edition coffret with scents exclusively designed by Thierry Mugler to capture the mood of various moments in the story. Now if you were to visit me and enter the room otherwise known as the Temple of Venus (where I go for hair and makeup), you would see one corner of the counter exclusively devoted to Thierry Mugler perfumes, while the other corner has everyone else's, so Lord knows I only think the highest of Thierry, but really, I'm just not sure what to think of this, although if anyone is at a loss what to get me for my next birthday, I'd be happy to try it out and report back. ("This treasure trove of 15 scents in a beautiful red velvet presentation case reveals the fragrant nature of the book and brings to life key moments and atmospheres from the book and film including: Baby, Paris 1738, Atelier Grimal, Virgin No. 1, Boutique Baldini, Amor & Psyché, Nuit Napolitaine, Ermite, Salon Rouge, Human Existence, Absolu Jasmin, Sea, Noblesse, Orgie and Aura." https://thierrymuglerusa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=TMUSA&Category_Code=TMP)
One final note digressing from the film--all I ever knew about alchemy was that it was about turning lead into gold, but a while ago I picked up a few books from a lovely series called Wooden Books, including one named The Alchemist's Kitchen, Extraordinary Potions & Curious Notions, which includes a number of little instructional appendices including one on incenses and perfumes. The whole book has lots of illustrations reminiscent of the film. I just randomly opened it to this passage: "The individual essence of a plant--its soul--is found in its essential oil." There's also a section titled As Above So Below:
"However pigments and potions are mixed, they will not be truly alchemical unless they are made at the right moments. timing is crucial to maximize planetary resonances, and this requires an understanding of the heavenly movements....Internally the seven [sun, moon, and five visible to the eye] planets represent seven specific modes of the soul that the alchemist must develop to progress in the Great Work, while the Zodiac corresponds to twelve processes that the soul must cyclically endure on the path of return to the Absolute....Tied to this, the vegetable realm, as the most immediately solar-dependent kingdom, flourishes and recedes with the solar year, while the monthly waxing and waning of the Moon controls its juices, drawing the sap to the upper parts and back down to the roots. The herbal alchemist is therefore compelled to heed the injunctions of Parcelsus that he: '...should know the innate nature of the Stars, their complexion and property, as well as a physician understands the nature of a patient, and also the concordance of the Stars, how they stand in relation to...all things that grow and spring from the matrices of the Elements....Medicine is without value if it is not from Heaven.'"
And a little diagram lists the alchemical zodiacal correspondences:
Aries * Calcination * action of fire on minerals in air
Taurus * Congelation * thickening by cooling
Gemini * Fixation * trapping a volatile as a solid or liquid
Cancer * Solution * dissolutions or reactions of substances
Leo * Digestion * prolonged continuous gentle warming
Virgo * Distillation * ascent and descent of a liquid
Libra * Sublimation * ascent and descent of a solid
Scorpio * Separation * isolation of insoluble from soluble
Saggittarius * Ceration * softening hard material
Capricorn * Fermentation * biological animation of a substance
Aquarius * Multiplication * increasing the potency of the Stone
Pisces * Projection * the mysterious action of the Stone
About the books:
"Small Books, Big Ideas
Historically, in all known cultures on Earth, wise men and women studied the four great unchanging liberal arts —numbers, music, geometry and cosmology—and used them to inform the practical and decorative arts like medicine, pottery, agriculture and building. At one time, the metaphysical fields of the liberal arts were considered utterly universal, even placed above physics and religion."
You can check out the series including their lovely cover illustrations at the link below. They're really beautifully designed, recycled paper, and $10 a pop--not sure you could ask for more.
http://www.walkerbooks.com/books/series/index.php?name=woodenbooks
OK, break's over, get back to work!
I was too tired to do much else, and I was sick of being snowed in all week, and it was the last night it was playing (I'm guessing the reason this only played for two weeks is that not a lot of people who saw it ran off to tell everyone they knew that they just HAD to see this film, or even that they might want to consider it--the full title is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer), and I liked Tom Tykwer's other films well enough for their visual inventiveness and hopeless romanticism (you would know them if you saw Run, Lola, Run, and liked it well enough to then see Winter Sleepers or The Princess and the Warrior or Heaven, as I did), and I couldn't remember the last time I saw Alan Rickman in anything (I just checked imdb--looks like he's been busy working on the Harry Potter films, which I haven't seen because I want to read the books first--Perfume, the novel by Patrick Suskind, was supposed to be quite good, though alas I did not have the pleasure of reading it before seeing the film), and I was wondering what Dustin Hoffman was doing in the middle of the largely Anglo/Euro cast (I still am--I'm wondering if they thought his wavering between all manner of accents was OK because he was playing an Italian living in Paris, as opposed to the French characters, who all had British accents appropriate to their class--and it would be too silly to think they did it just because he was playing a Nose and he has such a distinctive one: "To qualify as a Nose, the prospective candidate must be able to recant all of the elements that comprises the essential elements within a fragrance before the sprayed droplets reach the floor." http://www.theperfumehouse.com/heritage.htm), so I went.
I spent the first two hours wondering what the point of it was. The film begins with the murderer locked up about to be sentenced, and proceeds with lavish epic period (18th century) detail (imdb says it's the most expensive German film ever made--surely they could have afforded a speech coach for Dustin; they had ten people alone listed in the credits as "Dirt Services Crew," presumably to ensure that Paris was adequately authentically filthy) to narrate (thank you John Hurt) the story of his birth and how he comes to be a sociopath and proceeds to murder a number of young women (not bloody or grisly, mind you, just a clean blow to the head, for the most part not depicted, although the naked abandoned corpses as they are discovered are shown) in order that he may fulfill his mission in life to preserve their scent forever and make the world's most intoxicatingly paradisial perfume. And you're just sitting there thinking this is so creepy, and I don't like seeing bodies of dead naked young woman, and so what, what is the story, what is the point, and then suddenly the film just takes off into the land of pure parable--the penultimate scene was so unforgettably delirious (spoiler: picture epic 18th c mob scene on instant ecstasy) it was worth the price of admission alone, and followed by a suitably Faustian ending.
Wikipedia shares with us the following (and also lists appearances of the Faust story in the following media: drama, opera, classical music, popular music, poetry, prose, film, musicals, anime/manga, videogames, comicbooks, nonfiction, and television--not sure it's very surprising how many there are, so much as how many of them one knows--at least in the high culture categories--but doesn't necessarily think of all at once as being related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust):
"Faust or Faustus is the protagonist of a popular German tale of a pact with the Devil, assumed to be based on the figure of the German magician and alchemist Dr. Johann Georg Faust (approximately 1480–1540).
The story concerns the fate of a learned scholar named Faust, who in his quest for the true essence of life ("was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhaelt"), summons the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles), who offers to serve him as long as Faust lives. Mephistopheles may receive Faust's soul, but only when Faust has attained the zenith of human happiness. In the second Part of the Faust tragedy (Faust 2), Faust really does have the pleasure to experience the latter, however, Mephisto, trying to grab Faust's soul when the protagonist dies, is burnt down by the empowering force of love. Faust deserves to go to heaven, because of his unquenchable thirst for knowledge and understanding ("man must strive and err") that exceeds the limits set for human beings.
The name of "Faust" has since become attached to any number of legendary tales about a charlatan alchemist (some claim "astrologer and necromancer"), whose pride, vanity, and vile hucksterism would inevitably lead to his doom. "
So our Faust here is literally seeking the essence of life through alchemical means, too blinded by his quest (blame it on his troubled childhood) to see that without the life, the essence is for naught, and sadly there is no empowering force of love to save the day (though it would seem more fitting to Tykwer's sensibilities), and Suskind (I assume) chooses instead to end it on a more nihilistic, while at the same time, moral note. The story actually cuts out the deal with the devil part by just having him born with no soul--the trailer voiceover pronounces: "the soul of a being is their scent," something the murderer/perfumer eventually comes to realize he curiously does not have.
I would say that despite my doubts as to where it was all going, I was surprised to look at my watch and see that two hours had passed so quickly (with another twenty minutes to go) without feeling restless, though it starts with the expected stylistic inventiveness before settling into more straightforward narrative--I suppose it helps if you really like perfume (and I do so, as you might imagine with all the Taurus in me), as there is quite a bit of time spent discussing the philosophy and techniques of its creation. Only afterwards did I realize how much this was also a credit to Ben Whishaw's extraordinary breakthrough performance in the lead role--the character is just so odd and unsympathetic and intense that it's really something that he pulls it off so flawlessly when it could have so easily seemed ridiculous. I was curious to see if there's anything else interesting he may have done, but the imdb just lists a number of minor roles including a credit for playing Keith Richards in a film from 2005 that I somehow missed called Stoned--I can totally see it! Something tells me we will be seeing a bit more of him in future, if we're lucky.
Everyone says the book had long been considered unfilmable, because the one of the five senses it engages most with can not be filmed, but this seems silly because a book smells no more than a film, and clearly the imagination fills in the rest. Though I can imagine Tykwer was intrigued by the challenge and he has a lot of fun with it, and I dare say it's doubtful you'll come across anything else with so much cutting on the scent. I can never think of the notion of smells without recalling this passage from Tony Kushner's Angels in America (the ellipses are the text's not mine):
"Louis: Smell is...an incredibly complex and underappreciated physical phenomenon. Inextricably bound up with sex. It is. The nose is really a sexual organ. Smelling. Is desiring. We have five senses, but only two that go beyond the boundaries...of ourselves. When you look at someone, it's just bouncing light, or when you hear them, it's just sound waves, vibrating air, or touch is just nerve endings tingling. Know what a smell is? It's made of the molecules of what you're smelling. Some part of you, where you meet the air, is airborne. (He goes up to Joe, close) Little molecules of Joe...(He inhales deeply) Up my nose. Mmmm...Nice. Try it."
(Just something to think about next time you're riding the bus. Sorry.)
One final note about the film--I was checking out the official website (I know by now you all know that you can get links to official websites, trailers, etc at www.imdb.com) and we're all familiar with merchandising tie-ins, but I have to say I have never seen anything quite so odd. It appears that for $700 you can purchase a limited edition coffret with scents exclusively designed by Thierry Mugler to capture the mood of various moments in the story. Now if you were to visit me and enter the room otherwise known as the Temple of Venus (where I go for hair and makeup), you would see one corner of the counter exclusively devoted to Thierry Mugler perfumes, while the other corner has everyone else's, so Lord knows I only think the highest of Thierry, but really, I'm just not sure what to think of this, although if anyone is at a loss what to get me for my next birthday, I'd be happy to try it out and report back. ("This treasure trove of 15 scents in a beautiful red velvet presentation case reveals the fragrant nature of the book and brings to life key moments and atmospheres from the book and film including: Baby, Paris 1738, Atelier Grimal, Virgin No. 1, Boutique Baldini, Amor & Psyché, Nuit Napolitaine, Ermite, Salon Rouge, Human Existence, Absolu Jasmin, Sea, Noblesse, Orgie and Aura." https://thierrymuglerusa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=TMUSA&Category_Code=TMP)
One final note digressing from the film--all I ever knew about alchemy was that it was about turning lead into gold, but a while ago I picked up a few books from a lovely series called Wooden Books, including one named The Alchemist's Kitchen, Extraordinary Potions & Curious Notions, which includes a number of little instructional appendices including one on incenses and perfumes. The whole book has lots of illustrations reminiscent of the film. I just randomly opened it to this passage: "The individual essence of a plant--its soul--is found in its essential oil." There's also a section titled As Above So Below:
"However pigments and potions are mixed, they will not be truly alchemical unless they are made at the right moments. timing is crucial to maximize planetary resonances, and this requires an understanding of the heavenly movements....Internally the seven [sun, moon, and five visible to the eye] planets represent seven specific modes of the soul that the alchemist must develop to progress in the Great Work, while the Zodiac corresponds to twelve processes that the soul must cyclically endure on the path of return to the Absolute....Tied to this, the vegetable realm, as the most immediately solar-dependent kingdom, flourishes and recedes with the solar year, while the monthly waxing and waning of the Moon controls its juices, drawing the sap to the upper parts and back down to the roots. The herbal alchemist is therefore compelled to heed the injunctions of Parcelsus that he: '...should know the innate nature of the Stars, their complexion and property, as well as a physician understands the nature of a patient, and also the concordance of the Stars, how they stand in relation to...all things that grow and spring from the matrices of the Elements....Medicine is without value if it is not from Heaven.'"
And a little diagram lists the alchemical zodiacal correspondences:
Aries * Calcination * action of fire on minerals in air
Taurus * Congelation * thickening by cooling
Gemini * Fixation * trapping a volatile as a solid or liquid
Cancer * Solution * dissolutions or reactions of substances
Leo * Digestion * prolonged continuous gentle warming
Virgo * Distillation * ascent and descent of a liquid
Libra * Sublimation * ascent and descent of a solid
Scorpio * Separation * isolation of insoluble from soluble
Saggittarius * Ceration * softening hard material
Capricorn * Fermentation * biological animation of a substance
Aquarius * Multiplication * increasing the potency of the Stone
Pisces * Projection * the mysterious action of the Stone
About the books:
"Small Books, Big Ideas
Historically, in all known cultures on Earth, wise men and women studied the four great unchanging liberal arts —numbers, music, geometry and cosmology—and used them to inform the practical and decorative arts like medicine, pottery, agriculture and building. At one time, the metaphysical fields of the liberal arts were considered utterly universal, even placed above physics and religion."
You can check out the series including their lovely cover illustrations at the link below. They're really beautifully designed, recycled paper, and $10 a pop--not sure you could ask for more.
http://www.walkerbooks.com/books/series/index.php?name=woodenbooks
OK, break's over, get back to work!
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Dream Lives On
"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
April 3, 1968
Martin Luther King, Jr.
(Jan 15 1929 - Apr 4 1968)
http://www.mlkonline.net/promised.html
April 3, 1968
Martin Luther King, Jr.
(Jan 15 1929 - Apr 4 1968)
http://www.mlkonline.net/promised.html
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
NEWSFLASH
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070111-0648-iraq.html
U.S.-led forces detain Iranians in Iraq
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
ASSOCIATED PRESS
6:48 a.m. January 11, 2007
BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S.-led multinational forces detained six Iranians Thursday at Tehran's diplomatic mission in the northern city of Irbil, Iraqi officials said, as President Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding militants and promised to “interrupt” the flow of support as part of his new war strategy.
The U.S. military said it had taken six people into custody in the Irbil region but made no mention of a raid on the Iranian consulate....
In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors and “demanded an explanation” about the incident. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran, where there is no U.S. Embassy.
U.S.-led forces detain Iranians in Iraq
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
ASSOCIATED PRESS
6:48 a.m. January 11, 2007
BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S.-led multinational forces detained six Iranians Thursday at Tehran's diplomatic mission in the northern city of Irbil, Iraqi officials said, as President Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding militants and promised to “interrupt” the flow of support as part of his new war strategy.
The U.S. military said it had taken six people into custody in the Irbil region but made no mention of a raid on the Iranian consulate....
In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors and “demanded an explanation” about the incident. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran, where there is no U.S. Embassy.
I left my heart in SF
1,000 People Spell Out "IMPEACH!" In Pelosi's District
http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/878050.shtml
Poem: To Whom It May Concern
'To Whom It May Concern'
I was run over by the truth one day.
Ever since the accident I've walked this way
So stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
Heard the alarm clock screaming with pain,
Couldn't find myself so I went back to sleep again
So fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
Every time I shut my eyes all I see is flames.
Made a marble phone book and I carved out all the names
So coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
So stuff my nose with garlic
Coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
Where were you at the time of the crime?
Down by the Cenotaph drinking slime
So chain my tongue with whisky
Stuff my nose with garlic
Coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
You put your bombers in, you put your conscience out,
You take the human being and you twist it all about
So scrub my skin with women
Chain my tongue with whisky
Stuff my nose with garlic
Coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
-- Adrian Mitchell
I was run over by the truth one day.
Ever since the accident I've walked this way
So stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
Heard the alarm clock screaming with pain,
Couldn't find myself so I went back to sleep again
So fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
Every time I shut my eyes all I see is flames.
Made a marble phone book and I carved out all the names
So coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
So stuff my nose with garlic
Coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
Where were you at the time of the crime?
Down by the Cenotaph drinking slime
So chain my tongue with whisky
Stuff my nose with garlic
Coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
You put your bombers in, you put your conscience out,
You take the human being and you twist it all about
So scrub my skin with women
Chain my tongue with whisky
Stuff my nose with garlic
Coat my eyes with butter
Fill my ears with silver
Stick my legs in plaster
Tell me lies about Vietnam.
-- Adrian Mitchell
NYT: "The Real Disaster"
from the New York Times editorial 1/11/7:
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush's war, and he has already failed. Last night was his last chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it....In any case, Mr. Bush's excuses were tragically inadequate....What it certainly did not need were more of Mr. Bush's open-ended threats to Iran and Syria....Without a real plan to bring it to a close...There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/opinion/11thu1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush's war, and he has already failed. Last night was his last chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it....In any case, Mr. Bush's excuses were tragically inadequate....What it certainly did not need were more of Mr. Bush's open-ended threats to Iran and Syria....Without a real plan to bring it to a close...There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/opinion/11thu1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Girl Blogger from Baghdad
Have you ever read riverbend? If you're going to read a blog, read hers, not mine. It is both riveting and chilling to read her accounts of life in Iraq and a political opinion from someone living through this hell.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
Guantanamo FIVE YEARS
Sad Anniversary.
Go to http://www.amnestyusa.org/ to send a letter to the Resident.
I did and got a charming reply telling me that "the President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values." I could tell you what I would like to tell him he can do with his commitments, but like I said, this is a family publication.
Go to http://www.amnestyusa.org/ to send a letter to the Resident.
I did and got a charming reply telling me that "the President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values." I could tell you what I would like to tell him he can do with his commitments, but like I said, this is a family publication.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Monday, January 08, 2007
2006 Word of the Year: Plutoed
The American Dialect Society has announced that "plutoed" is the Word of the Year for 2006.
"To pluto is to demote or devalue someone or something, as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet."
Something tells me Pluto is having the last laugh.
Click for press release, which includes winners and runners up in a number of categories as well as prior year winners (if you really have nothing better to do) :
http://www.americandialect.org/Word-of-the-Year_2006.pdf
I had no idea there even was an American Dialect Society and that they were so busy making such thoughtful judgments in these matters, and I have never actually heard anyone use this word to date, but who am I to argue with the good people at the ADS. Find out more about them than you knew you wanted to know here: http://www.americandialect.org/.
"To pluto is to demote or devalue someone or something, as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet."
Something tells me Pluto is having the last laugh.
Click for press release, which includes winners and runners up in a number of categories as well as prior year winners (if you really have nothing better to do) :
http://www.americandialect.org/Word-of-the-Year_2006.pdf
I had no idea there even was an American Dialect Society and that they were so busy making such thoughtful judgments in these matters, and I have never actually heard anyone use this word to date, but who am I to argue with the good people at the ADS. Find out more about them than you knew you wanted to know here: http://www.americandialect.org/.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Film: The Fountain (1/4)
I had heard this film was an exquisite mess, but I loved Pi and was disappointed by Requiem for a Dream, so I had to see what was next.
I LOVED THIS FILM!
That neither means that I would say it was a great film, nor that I would recommend it. (It is generally being referred to as a “you’ll love it or hate it with no in between".)
I love Darren Aronofsky for the courage of his convictions, and I really love what this man does with an extreme closeup.
I love Rachel Weisz for reasons that are probably not worth trying to put into words; you just have to see her to understand—and bollocks to the reviewers who said, oh yes, she does a good job of standing around looking lovely; excuse me, but I think she does a little more than that.
And how about that Hugh Jackman? Not that I ever had any doubts about him. And how glad are we that Brad Pitt did not do this with Cate Blanchett as originally planned? Sorry, I just can not see it, and I had enough of them in Babel.
Ohmigod, I just came across this article from Wired that explains, among other things, that no CGI was used in this film. Damn. And how they did it is pretty cool, check it out.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/outsider_pr.html
I love seeing a film that shows me images I have never seen before and could never have imagined, where I do not know what is going on or where it is going, the sheer luxury of being treated to a unique vision. A lot of the time I sat there with my mouth open, either in awe of the visuals or just baffled by his chutzpah and wondering what was going on (oh my god, dude, you’re insane!). There are some images in this film that are among the most stunningly breathtakingly beautiful I have ever seen. No doubt a lot of people will find this all to be overheated ridiculously pretentious dreck, so that is why I would hesitate to recommend it. There was also a lot to take in, so I would really need to see it again and try to figure it all out, before making any definitive conclusions about its ultimate merit as a work.
I liked this from an online interview:
“A Love Poem to Death”: One of my personal favorite descriptions of The Fountain is something Aronofsky says his producer came up with. “I think that’s a pretty good description," agreed Aronofsky. "I also like the ‘psychedelic love story’ or even better, actually, I think ‘a psychedelic fairy tale’ because I think it very much is a fairy tale. It’s an adult fairy tale and I think that’s what the word psychedelic does, it makes it more adult. But, yeah, I do like a love poem to death.”
http://movies.about.com/od/thefountain/a/fountain101906.htm
I was also particularly amused by the title of the review in Time online:
I Admit It: I Liked The Fountain
Richard Corliss risks expulsion from the movie critics' guild with this review of a woozy romantic epic
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1562575,00.htm
Speaking of Cate, she was on Charlie Rose the other night, discussing her departure from film work, as she and her playwright husband have been named co-artistic directors for the next three years of the Sydney Theatre Company*, where they have both directed plays, and she had many award-winning performances before getting into film. So Charlie asks her if she also sees herself directing films in the future, as many major film actors do these days. She replies that if she had a brilliant cinematographer and a compelling project, she might possibly consider it, but that in general she is not inclined that way, because as a stage actress she feels she has a strong understanding of the space on a stage and how to use it effectively, but she does not feel that she has the same mastery of the cinematic medium. I could not help thinking of this repeatedly when I watched The Fountain—that regardless of what you think of his endeavor, inspired or foolish, you can not but acknowledge that you are in the hands of someone who has such a mastery of the medium and is interested in exploring it in an intelligent and creative manner, and I found this deeply satisfying.
*How cool is this?:
Apart from promises of passion and commitment, the only concrete plan articulated by the pair was to make the STC "green". "We intend to initiate discussions with companies with the aim of making the building self-sufficient, to green the building. We are talking solar panels, rainwater, the works," Upton said. "This would ideally generate enough power to do a whole season off the grid. This would be the first theatre company in the world to do that."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/blanchett-theatre-job-no-dalliance/2006/11/10/1162661876275.html
(Note to non-residents) we take these things seriously in Portland:
For 2006, Sustainlane.com ranked Portland as number one in the nation for overall sustainability, and cities around the world have long looked our way for benchmarks of community planning and sustainable development. Read about our sustainable theater here: http://www.pcs.org/armorySustainability.html
Cate Blanchett (and Richard Eyre) on Charlie Rose (streaming):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915718704972830448&q=owner%3ACharlie_Rose
I LOVED THIS FILM!
That neither means that I would say it was a great film, nor that I would recommend it. (It is generally being referred to as a “you’ll love it or hate it with no in between".)
I love Darren Aronofsky for the courage of his convictions, and I really love what this man does with an extreme closeup.
I love Rachel Weisz for reasons that are probably not worth trying to put into words; you just have to see her to understand—and bollocks to the reviewers who said, oh yes, she does a good job of standing around looking lovely; excuse me, but I think she does a little more than that.
And how about that Hugh Jackman? Not that I ever had any doubts about him. And how glad are we that Brad Pitt did not do this with Cate Blanchett as originally planned? Sorry, I just can not see it, and I had enough of them in Babel.
Ohmigod, I just came across this article from Wired that explains, among other things, that no CGI was used in this film. Damn. And how they did it is pretty cool, check it out.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/outsider_pr.html
I love seeing a film that shows me images I have never seen before and could never have imagined, where I do not know what is going on or where it is going, the sheer luxury of being treated to a unique vision. A lot of the time I sat there with my mouth open, either in awe of the visuals or just baffled by his chutzpah and wondering what was going on (oh my god, dude, you’re insane!). There are some images in this film that are among the most stunningly breathtakingly beautiful I have ever seen. No doubt a lot of people will find this all to be overheated ridiculously pretentious dreck, so that is why I would hesitate to recommend it. There was also a lot to take in, so I would really need to see it again and try to figure it all out, before making any definitive conclusions about its ultimate merit as a work.
I liked this from an online interview:
“A Love Poem to Death”: One of my personal favorite descriptions of The Fountain is something Aronofsky says his producer came up with. “I think that’s a pretty good description," agreed Aronofsky. "I also like the ‘psychedelic love story’ or even better, actually, I think ‘a psychedelic fairy tale’ because I think it very much is a fairy tale. It’s an adult fairy tale and I think that’s what the word psychedelic does, it makes it more adult. But, yeah, I do like a love poem to death.”
http://movies.about.com/od/thefountain/a/fountain101906.htm
I was also particularly amused by the title of the review in Time online:
I Admit It: I Liked The Fountain
Richard Corliss risks expulsion from the movie critics' guild with this review of a woozy romantic epic
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1562575,00.htm
Speaking of Cate, she was on Charlie Rose the other night, discussing her departure from film work, as she and her playwright husband have been named co-artistic directors for the next three years of the Sydney Theatre Company*, where they have both directed plays, and she had many award-winning performances before getting into film. So Charlie asks her if she also sees herself directing films in the future, as many major film actors do these days. She replies that if she had a brilliant cinematographer and a compelling project, she might possibly consider it, but that in general she is not inclined that way, because as a stage actress she feels she has a strong understanding of the space on a stage and how to use it effectively, but she does not feel that she has the same mastery of the cinematic medium. I could not help thinking of this repeatedly when I watched The Fountain—that regardless of what you think of his endeavor, inspired or foolish, you can not but acknowledge that you are in the hands of someone who has such a mastery of the medium and is interested in exploring it in an intelligent and creative manner, and I found this deeply satisfying.
*How cool is this?:
Apart from promises of passion and commitment, the only concrete plan articulated by the pair was to make the STC "green". "We intend to initiate discussions with companies with the aim of making the building self-sufficient, to green the building. We are talking solar panels, rainwater, the works," Upton said. "This would ideally generate enough power to do a whole season off the grid. This would be the first theatre company in the world to do that."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/blanchett-theatre-job-no-dalliance/2006/11/10/1162661876275.html
(Note to non-residents) we take these things seriously in Portland:
For 2006, Sustainlane.com ranked Portland as number one in the nation for overall sustainability, and cities around the world have long looked our way for benchmarks of community planning and sustainable development. Read about our sustainable theater here: http://www.pcs.org/armorySustainability.html
Cate Blanchett (and Richard Eyre) on Charlie Rose (streaming):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915718704972830448&q=owner%3ACharlie_Rose
Film: The History Boys (1/3)
This is a film made of an Alan Bennett play that Nicholas Hytner, the artistic director of the Royal National Theatre since 2003 (succeeding Sirs Trevor Nunn, Richard Eyre, Peter Hall and Olivier), originally directed for that stage (as was The Madness of King George), which went on to be much lauded on Broadway, so I was curious to see what all the fuss was about. Films of plays are often problematic, and I suppose the main motivation for making them usually is just to give a larger audience access to the work. Chris Doyle (cinematographer extraordinaire for Wong Kar-Wai and many other, mostly Asian, directors you can review at imdb, see link below) was visiting the Film Center last year and argued that whatever makes a good film, it is not the script, and defended this notion by rhetorically asking if there has ever been a good film made of a Shakespeare play (a subject I will leave for further consideration).
One of the problems is that we accept the theater as an artificial stylized construct where people are going to speak in a more formal literary manner, and that always seems so odd and flat in a naturalistic film context, though clearly not so much in older black and white studio films that lean more towards the stylized character of theater. I can imagine that this play would have been more effective in the theater because the cinematic flatness diminishes the emotional impact. Even though on the one hand you have the realism of cinema contrasting with the artifice of theater—i.e., film can suggest that it is portraying a reality that just happened to be documented on celluloid, while theater takes place in the blatantly artificial context of the stage—in a way, theater can have such a more real sense in terms of emotional impact, because the character appears before you in flesh and blood, even as much as you know you are watching an actor, it is an actual human being standing there having the experience. Also a quick scan of the blurbs on metacritic revealed, courtesy of Rolling Stone, that nearly an hour was cut in the transition from stage to screen, which further explains why it felt a little thin and a little shy of all the fuss.
That said, it is very intelligently written, with interesting issues raised about education, history, poetry, etc. (ooh, Hector would scold me for throwing in that "etc."—inside joke you will get if you see the film) and beautifully performed by the original London/Broadway cast. Needless to say, it is the type of production I would no doubt take much nostalgic pleasure in from my London theatergoing days and I was delightfully entertained, though now I am curious to read the play, because I still want to know what all the fuss was about. In short: I laughed; I cried (I know, I am such a big baby). I can not really wholeheartedly praise the film as a cinematic endeavor, and it was a letdown as a document of a play since a third of it was cut, but I have a soft spot for it nonetheless. If literary English theater is your cup of tea, and you are the type of person who, like I, would find witticisms regarding the subjunctive tense exceedingly droll, by all means rent the DVD when it comes out for a couple hours passing amusement and reflection.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0236313/ (Ooh look, Chris Doyle is a Taurus--YESSSSSSSS!)
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/historyboys (what the professionals had to say)
One of the problems is that we accept the theater as an artificial stylized construct where people are going to speak in a more formal literary manner, and that always seems so odd and flat in a naturalistic film context, though clearly not so much in older black and white studio films that lean more towards the stylized character of theater. I can imagine that this play would have been more effective in the theater because the cinematic flatness diminishes the emotional impact. Even though on the one hand you have the realism of cinema contrasting with the artifice of theater—i.e., film can suggest that it is portraying a reality that just happened to be documented on celluloid, while theater takes place in the blatantly artificial context of the stage—in a way, theater can have such a more real sense in terms of emotional impact, because the character appears before you in flesh and blood, even as much as you know you are watching an actor, it is an actual human being standing there having the experience. Also a quick scan of the blurbs on metacritic revealed, courtesy of Rolling Stone, that nearly an hour was cut in the transition from stage to screen, which further explains why it felt a little thin and a little shy of all the fuss.
That said, it is very intelligently written, with interesting issues raised about education, history, poetry, etc. (ooh, Hector would scold me for throwing in that "etc."—inside joke you will get if you see the film) and beautifully performed by the original London/Broadway cast. Needless to say, it is the type of production I would no doubt take much nostalgic pleasure in from my London theatergoing days and I was delightfully entertained, though now I am curious to read the play, because I still want to know what all the fuss was about. In short: I laughed; I cried (I know, I am such a big baby). I can not really wholeheartedly praise the film as a cinematic endeavor, and it was a letdown as a document of a play since a third of it was cut, but I have a soft spot for it nonetheless. If literary English theater is your cup of tea, and you are the type of person who, like I, would find witticisms regarding the subjunctive tense exceedingly droll, by all means rent the DVD when it comes out for a couple hours passing amusement and reflection.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0236313/ (Ooh look, Chris Doyle is a Taurus--YESSSSSSSS!)
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/historyboys (what the professionals had to say)
Photo Caption Contest
Does this entry really need a comment from me? Just curious what Maria's facial expression is conveying to you, because I have a few thoughts floating around my head, but I am not sure it would appropriate to print them in a family publication. It is hard to imagine that someone did not deliberately pick this of all the photos available, but hey, maybe she had that expression in all the photos, maybe that is how she looks when she is filled with pride and love. This was more of a rhetorical question, but if you do want to post a comment, keep it clean, and remember, I have the power to delete anything I want to.
Introduction to my Blog (postscript)
And yes, if there was any lingering doubt about it before, I believe I am now officially one of Time magazine's Person(s) of the Year for 2006. Like the cover says, welcome to my world.
Introduction to my Blog
I am still not quite sure exactly what I am doing here, but no doubt time will tell. Some of you have gotten mass distribution emails with similar content, so it will be something like that, only instead, I hope it will be a little every few days, instead of months all at once and then long periods of silence. Also this way I do not have to decide who to include on the distribution or wonder who really wants to get the email; it is instead your decision whether you want to read it or not, and therefore one less thing for me to think about. I imagine it will be an assembly of random notes on anything I have come across or am thinking about and feel like sharing.
As most of you know, I am quite fond of the cinema and I get people bugging me to write about it all the time, so that will likely be a significant part of this—not that I will be diving into the really serious writing that people are encouraging (there, that is a nicer word than bugging) me to do, but at least I will be getting my feet wet. I imagine it will an odd hybrid sort of film notes, a little serious criticism, a little populist fluff, part notes to myself after seeing a film, and part what I would say if one of you asked me what I thought of a film, and that in part if you were asking me with an eye to deciding whether you wanted to invest or waste, as the case may be, a few moments of your limited and precious lifespan watching it. Needless to say, but I will anyway, you all have very busy lives, but to the extent that you actually get around to reading one of my entries, I would heartily encourage (there is that nice word again, notice I am not bugging) you to post a comment, and who knows, we may even get some interesting discussions going. Although you do not need to write an elaborate comment, even something simple would be nice just so I know occasionally someone out there is bothering to read this—personal reply emails would also work, if you do not feel like sharing your thoughts with the public at large, such as it may be. Here, for example, are some suggestions for how you could reply briefly, given the demanding time constraints of your existence:
1) Hi Pardis, I liked this film too.
2) I hated this film. What is wrong with you? I’m never reading your stupid blog again.
3) Clive Owen is so HOT!!!
While you will be able to read the current entries on the main page, if you want to comment on an entry, you need to go to its own page by clicking on the title in the list on the right-hand side of the main page. Rest assured that failure to read my blog, let alone post a comment, will neither be seen as a reflection of your love for me, or lack thereof, nor will it diminish my affection for you. But then you should at least bookmark it in your Favorites as a token gesture.
I do not think I am going to restrict access with a password, because that seems too self-importantly paranoid even for me (do I really need to lock a gate assuredly almost no one will walk through? I think not), but if things start getting unruly in the discussion forum, by golly, there will be a clampdown!
OK, I think that covers everything for now, so without further ado…
As most of you know, I am quite fond of the cinema and I get people bugging me to write about it all the time, so that will likely be a significant part of this—not that I will be diving into the really serious writing that people are encouraging (there, that is a nicer word than bugging) me to do, but at least I will be getting my feet wet. I imagine it will an odd hybrid sort of film notes, a little serious criticism, a little populist fluff, part notes to myself after seeing a film, and part what I would say if one of you asked me what I thought of a film, and that in part if you were asking me with an eye to deciding whether you wanted to invest or waste, as the case may be, a few moments of your limited and precious lifespan watching it. Needless to say, but I will anyway, you all have very busy lives, but to the extent that you actually get around to reading one of my entries, I would heartily encourage (there is that nice word again, notice I am not bugging) you to post a comment, and who knows, we may even get some interesting discussions going. Although you do not need to write an elaborate comment, even something simple would be nice just so I know occasionally someone out there is bothering to read this—personal reply emails would also work, if you do not feel like sharing your thoughts with the public at large, such as it may be. Here, for example, are some suggestions for how you could reply briefly, given the demanding time constraints of your existence:
1) Hi Pardis, I liked this film too.
2) I hated this film. What is wrong with you? I’m never reading your stupid blog again.
3) Clive Owen is so HOT!!!
While you will be able to read the current entries on the main page, if you want to comment on an entry, you need to go to its own page by clicking on the title in the list on the right-hand side of the main page. Rest assured that failure to read my blog, let alone post a comment, will neither be seen as a reflection of your love for me, or lack thereof, nor will it diminish my affection for you. But then you should at least bookmark it in your Favorites as a token gesture.
I do not think I am going to restrict access with a password, because that seems too self-importantly paranoid even for me (do I really need to lock a gate assuredly almost no one will walk through? I think not), but if things start getting unruly in the discussion forum, by golly, there will be a clampdown!
OK, I think that covers everything for now, so without further ado…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)