tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91582624480065490932024-03-18T16:19:33.866+01:00Specter of ReasonPolitics, Art, PlayJason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.comBlogger266125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-22172550838786569782024-02-18T01:13:00.012+01:002024-03-18T16:19:01.908+01:00Philosophy at Specter of Reason<p> Here are links to my philosophical writing at Specter of Reason (2007-2014).</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Philosophy" target="_blank">Philosophy</a></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/philosophy%20of%20mind" target="_blank">Philosophy of Mind</a></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Intentionality" target="_blank">Intentionality</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Knowing%20How" target="_blank">Knowing How</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Consciousness" target="_blank">Consciousness</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Conceivability%20Argument" target="_blank">The Conceivability Argument</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Incompatibility%20Argument" target="_blank">Zombie Mary and The Incompatibility Argument</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Knowledge%20Argument" target="_blank">The Knowledge Argument</a></li><li><a href="http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Swampkinds" target="_blank">Swampkinds</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Gilbert%20Ryle" target="_blank">Gilbert Ryle</a></li></ul><p></p><div><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/morality" target="_blank">Ethics</a></div><div><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Free%20Will" target="_blank">Free Will</a></p><p></p></div><div><p></p></div><div><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/epistemology" target="_blank">Epistemology</a></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"></ul><p></p></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search?q=gettier" target="_blank">Gettier Problems</a></li></div></blockquote><div><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Philosophy%20of%20Language" target="_blank">Philosophy of Language</a></p></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Meaning" target="_blank">Meaning</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Knowing%20How" target="_blank">Knowing How</a></li><li><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/06/analytic-synthetic-distinction-and.html" target="_blank">The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction</a></li></ul></div><div><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/science" target="_blank">science</a></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/naturalism" target="_blank">Naturalism</a></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/neuroscience" target="_blank">neuroscience</a></p></div><div><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/atheism" target="_blank">atheism</a></div><p></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Daniel%20C.%20Dennett" target="_blank">Dennett</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Jason%20Stanley" target="_blank">Jason Stanley</a></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Kant" target="_blank">Kant</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Kripke" target="_blank">Kripke</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/religion" target="_blank">religion</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Sam%20Harris" target="_blank">Sam Harris</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/search/label/Philosophy%20of%20Mathematics" target="_blank">Philosophy of Mathematics</a></p><div><br /></div>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-38614554613820191042024-02-13T20:19:00.004+01:002024-02-16T14:45:10.109+01:00Philosophy Elsewhere<p> Just a heads up. I've started a new blog where I'm going to carry on all of my philosophical work. (You can find it here: <a href="https://astudyinphilosophy.blogspot.com" target="_blank">A Study In Philosophy</a>.) I will continue writing (sporadically) about film and politics here at Specter of Reason. However, for reasons I explain at the other blog, I've decided to create a new, separate space for new philosophical endeavors.</p>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-29471087837024957372024-02-01T22:11:00.231+01:002024-02-16T15:14:58.196+01:00Poland and Palestine after WWII: A Comparison<p>My wife and I were talking about it this evening, how her paternal ancestry was rooted in a part of Poland that doesn't exist anymore. The land exists, and many of the villages exist, but it stopped being Poland in 1945. Today it is part of Ukraine. We discussed how this might be similar to what happened around the same time with Palestine in the Middle East.</p><p>After WWII, Britain and the Soviet Union negotiated new Polish borders. On the one hand, northeastern Germany was absorbed by Poland. (That's why the city we live in now is called Szczecin, and not Stettin, and why Danzig is now Gdańsk.) On the other hand, eastern Poland went to the Soviet Union. Over one million Poles were forced to relocate. Looking at the map below (Poland gained the brightly coloured areas and lost the grey area), it's easy to see that Poland also got smaller in the process.</p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="undefined" class="mw-mmv-final-image svg mw-mmv-dialog-is-open" crossorigin="anonymous" height="516" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Curzon_line_en.svg/1280px-Curzon_line_en.svg.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="567" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Poland's borders before and after WWII</td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>This was only about two years before Britain abandoned its Palestine Mandate, leaving Israel with unstable borders and hostile neighbors.</p><p>After the Great War (the First World War), the League of Nations awarded Britain and France mandates for what had been the Ottoman Empire. There was no state of Palestine (or Jordan or Iraq or Egypt, for that matter) before WWI. There was the Ottoman Empire, and it was Muslim ruled. The majority of the population was Arab. There were Jews, too, and they had rights--sometimes more, sometimes less, but they were never equals. Towards the end of the 19th century, Palestine became more attractive to both Jews and Arabs. For Jews (partly because they were being forced out of other parts of the world) there was a growing desire to establish a Jewish state--or, if not a state, at least a homeland, preferably in their historic homeland. Jews had been living there for thousands of years, after all--since before Islam was founded and even before the Arabic language was born. </p><p>Very early in the 20th century, prior to the Great War, Palestinian Arabs had already begun to worry about the emergence of a Jewish quasi-state in Palestine. Even though it was still part of the Ottoman Empire, it was clear to Arab notables (including Christian Arabs) that new Jewish settlers had nationalistic aims. Thus there was organized physical violence against Jewish settlements in the region as early as 1914. This was before Zionism had gained significant support from Britain and, again, while Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire. It's worth emphasizing that the Zionist aims at this point were not specifically about the formation of a state, but more about the formation of a national home for Jews. However, even this relatively modest aim was not acceptable to the majority of Palestinian Arabs, and led to violence.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjoSBSFk9XJD0yVXBGmWnuHur6A3nxS1YWAi5hIZxvHkoELzRVhah7dtK-yxzyT8E9taF2LxbQf5EEOAehyFOyIdFNZF2g0ve14Wyia57O8WZNuxXjQ9kapW2Ve8dgS6tvNrEjRityk3OQDegjCgETGfm9Pjp301h4TEHrh1Q_LhptLhi8zZQITZnI_saQk" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2576" data-original-width="2450" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjoSBSFk9XJD0yVXBGmWnuHur6A3nxS1YWAi5hIZxvHkoELzRVhah7dtK-yxzyT8E9taF2LxbQf5EEOAehyFOyIdFNZF2g0ve14Wyia57O8WZNuxXjQ9kapW2Ve8dgS6tvNrEjRityk3OQDegjCgETGfm9Pjp301h4TEHrh1Q_LhptLhi8zZQITZnI_saQk=w608-h640" width="608" /></a></div><p>Britain did not know or did not care that the majority of indigenous Arabs (mostly, but not only, Muslim) did not want a Jewish homeland, let alone a Jewish state, in the region. The British thought that Arab nationalism and Zionism were compatible. Thus, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Great Britain was given a mandate for Palestine and Transjordan. This required the creation of national homes for both Jews and Muslims. The land west of the river was therefore to become a Britain-friendly Jewish state, probably because Britain wanted to maintain its trade route and keep Palestine out of French or Russian hands. </p><p>The land east of the Jordan River quickly became the Muslim nation of Transjordan (eventually Jordan), but the plan for Palestine was not so easily settled. The indigenous population and the international community could not agree on Britain's plan for Palestine. Eventually, the UN approved a two-state solution for the land west of the Jordan. To allow international control of the region, Jerusalem was to be an international zone. </p><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiK-PcAFptcmY6mln_PisM7RXP8iDBvopHtnRbIrw2OnA1rnfY13TplomRKKsY9nLdlsGPMxDRtkyp-0c8t62xRmd0yaH26fdRpLempOJWVONoRqkmrlQNjS7slXjBBxf_P9ise2Le5h5CyS9QfVJAAzNTEyYToAHC1AdiDRmpxe5-RXOP9moGVmCfFAD2p"><img data-original-height="2422" data-original-width="2480" height="624" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiK-PcAFptcmY6mln_PisM7RXP8iDBvopHtnRbIrw2OnA1rnfY13TplomRKKsY9nLdlsGPMxDRtkyp-0c8t62xRmd0yaH26fdRpLempOJWVONoRqkmrlQNjS7slXjBBxf_P9ise2Le5h5CyS9QfVJAAzNTEyYToAHC1AdiDRmpxe5-RXOP9moGVmCfFAD2p=w640-h624" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Jewish leaders in Palestine accepted these borders, at least tentatively, but influential Arabs still did not want any Jewish state in the region. There was much violence (from both Arab and Jewish quarters) and much resistance (from Arabs) to the establishment of a democratic infrastructure--so much that, for the first and only time in its entire history as a colonial empire, Britain simply <i>walked away</i> before a stable government or even stable borders could be put in place.<div><br /></div><div>After this unparalleled British failure, Israel declared its borders according to the UN partition plan (though many in Israel felt, perhaps rightly, that they should have all of the land west of the Jordan River) and prepared to defend itself from imminent attack. This is the cause of what is now called the "nakba": the "catastrophe" in which approximately half of the Arab population of Palestine (about 700,000 people) were displaced. Some left voluntarily and some were forced to move because they were deemed a threat to Israel's national security. This was not an exodus from Palestine, though; it was an exodus from one part of Palestine to another.<div><div><p></p><p>Looking at the UN partition plan above, it's easy to see why Israel would feel unsafe and unsatisfied with the UN's borders. Not only would a hostile state stand between Jews and Jerusalem, but more threateningly, the southern part of Israel could easily be cut off from the north. Anticipating the coming Arab war, Israeli militias forcibly removed many Arab communities in that region (communities which were not a threat to Israel's military presence were allowed to stay). The displacement continued throughout the Arab-Israel war, on both sides of the Israel/Palestine border. Finally, and on its own, Israel successfully defended itself against Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and thereby established new, more secure borders (also establishing unimpeded access to Jerusalem). </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhB5hv2OnLqN11Pj9mmdUoFjBitVhvbgTp1eOcE79Qk7wGpHjIsUFviJAIQRCysBBkkQ3CBfXHfeyxdBwSkZtCxOjR6j8uoMBYtBz6pZHEp0ZZPuv-6bCKZpwfCL6EeShMWyOslHiZKcuD8wnjLTQvTnL7yOnf7-gNR93Z6rubDfnjWL6NOT7pXR8eiLMTU" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2430" data-original-width="2472" height="629" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhB5hv2OnLqN11Pj9mmdUoFjBitVhvbgTp1eOcE79Qk7wGpHjIsUFviJAIQRCysBBkkQ3CBfXHfeyxdBwSkZtCxOjR6j8uoMBYtBz6pZHEp0ZZPuv-6bCKZpwfCL6EeShMWyOslHiZKcuD8wnjLTQvTnL7yOnf7-gNR93Z6rubDfnjWL6NOT7pXR8eiLMTU=w640-h629" width="640" /></a></div>Even though the war ended and two Palestinian territories (what we now call Gaza and the West Bank) were in Arab hands, a Palestinian state was not established. Gaza became part of Egypt and the West Bank became part of Jordan. (That's why it is called the West Bank: It was the part of Jordan that lay west of the Jordan River.) </div><div><br /></div><div>Why didn't Gaza and the West Bank become a unified, independent Palestinian state at that time? I think this is a crucial question.</div><div><br /></div><div>Any hope for national unity among Palestinian Arabs was undermined by the same power structures and allegiances that led them to resist partition and the establishment of Zionism in the first place. They were stratified according to clan, sect, family and village, and there was much conflict between them, with very little literacy and little developed national identity. While the budding Jewish state had roots in Western democratic principles of governance, nothing of the sort had been established for Palestinian Arabs. In the 1920s, under British direction, attempts to establish a joint Muslim-Christian-Jewish legislative council were not supported by the Arab population—only seven percent of the Arab community turned out to vote (compared to fifty percent of the Jewish population), making a mockery of the effort, even though the Muslim representatives would have comprised 80 percent of the body, and Arab Christians another ten. After this failure, Palestinian Arabs were forced to live under British appointees without any legislature. When Britain left, there was no infrastructure or culture in place for national governance.*</div><div><p></p><p>With all of that in mind, I wonder what the exodus could have meant for most of those 700,000 Palestinian Arabs. Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Arab Muslims moved relatively freely from one territory to another. In so doing, some may have been leaving their tribes or sects, but they were not leaving their nation or their country. They were not even leaving Palestine (which was not yet a nation or a country, but only a territory). On top of that, many Arabs in Palestine had not been there for very long--perhaps only one or two generations. So why should they have felt that leaving one part of Palestine for another was such a catastrophe? How was it different from other migrations within the region during the reign of the Ottoman Empire? </p><p>The only significant difference, perhaps, was that Israel had become a Jewish state. Maybe it wasn't moving to Egypt and Jordan that was the problem. Maybe it was being displaced <i>by Jews</i>.</p><p>I do not mean to underplay the trauma that any mass displacement can cause people. Certainly many Palestinian Arabs felt a connection to the land that they left behind. However, Arabs being exiled from Israel was not comparable to Jews escaping massacred by Nazis in Europe. What the dislocated Arabs experienced was much more like what happened to Poles and Germans in 1945. </p><p>Palestinians in Gaza were not afforded <i>all</i> of the rights that other Arabs enjoyed in Egypt, but they were generally free and respected. Some even went to university in Cairo. Meanwhile, Palestinians in the West Bank were given full rights as citizens of Jordan. This may also help account for why there was no significant movement for a Palestinian nation at that time. There was absolutely a feeling throughout the Arab world that <i>Israel should not be there</i>, that <i>all of the land west of the Jordan should be Arab</i>, without any significant Jewish homeland at all. There was anger and resentment, but there was no organized movement <i>of or for</i> a Palestinian nation as such. At least, not in 1949.</p><p>I asked my wife, why didn't her grandparents want to reclaim the land that is now Ukraine? Their dislocation was surely just as traumatic, if not more so. For one thing, it came right on the heels of a Ukrainian massacre of between 50,000 and 100,000 Poles in German-occupied Poland during WWII. The horrifying details of this genocide are depicted in the phenomenal 2016 film, "Wołyń," which I only recommend if you have an iron stomach. (My wife's grandmother, who lived through the massacre, saw the film and said the reality was far worse!) Poles must have had very strong feelings about being forced off that land. To make matters worse, families were torn apart. Despite the tragic tensions between Poles and Ukrainians, there had been much intermarriage between them, which meant my wife's family and many others were forced to leave behind family members who weren't Polish. And yett, there has never been a movement to return, or to change Poland's borders to what they were before the war. More than that, Poland now supports Ukrainian independence.</p><p>After WWII, Arabs and Poles were similarly forced from their homes and had to relocate, though all remained in lands that were connected to their national and cultural identity. None had been forced to leave their own country or their own nation—though Poles were uniquely forced to leave their families. All were traumatised, but I'm tempted to say that Poles had it worse. Palestinian Arabs were free citizens living in Muslim countries in Palestine, whereas Poles were living behind the Iron Curtain, under constant watch and threat from the Soviet Union. Their identity was largely suppressed, and that could not be said of the displaced Arabs. </p><p>It is common these days to hear people say that Palestinians have been living under Israeli occupation for something like 75 years. Unless you count the existence of Israel itself as an occupying presence (which would be weird, since there was no country there for Israel to occupy), that is simply not true. It wasn't until the late 1960s that the territories of Gaza and the West Bank came under Israeli occupation, in response to yet another war started by Israel's neighbors (materially supported and motivated, if not entirely manipulated, by the Soviet Union). The West Bank has been occupied since then--about 55 years. Many would not say that Gaza has been occupied that whole time, however, since Israel completely withdrew from there in 2005. Furthermore, considering Gaza and the West Bank were never independent territories and had never established any sort of self-governance, I am not convinced that Israel was occupying either territory at all--at least not before the UN declared Palestine a state in 1988 (thanks largely to the Soviet Union's support of the PLO). Palestine's status as a state is still controversial, however, and Israel's rights with respect to those territories is still hotly debated.</p><p>After the Six Day War in 1967, I don't think Israel had a choice but to occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and I can understand why Israel's leaders continued to feel a need to occupy and promote settlements in them as a matter of national security. Obviously not all Israelis feel that way, and most of the rest of the world certainly doesn't feel that way. And perhaps I wouldn't feel that way, either, if Israel's neighbors were not a constant mortal threat.</p><p>I do not think nationalism is necessarily a problem, though it has played a problematic role in what has transpired in the Middle East. The political push for Palestinian national independence began in the 1950s in Cairo, by Palestinian refugees and also, notably, Yasser Arafat, a native of Cairo. The movement was explicitly aimed at reclaiming all of Palestine from Israel, but it did not gain broad traction until after 1967--after Israel occupied those territories and a great deal of anti-Israel (and anti-USA) antisemitic propaganda flooded the Middle East (thanks again to the Soviet Union). It took twenty-one years after Israeli occupation for a Palestinian State to emerge and be recognised at all. This was under the leadership of the Soviet-backed PLO, a designated terrorist organization. The two decades between 1967 and 1988 saw the simultaneous births of the Palestinian nation and <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/48652013?seq=13" target="_blank">systematic aviation terrorism</a>, and both were orchestrated by the Soviet Union and the PLO.</p><p>Polish nationalism had also begun to surge around the same time, producing the anti-authoritarian Solidarity movement of the 1980s which helped bring down the USSR. Nationalism in Poland is no small thing. The Polish identity had survived one hundred twenty-three years of partition (from 1795 until the end of WWI in 1918), during which time Poland was completely erased from the map (the land was divided between Russia, Austria and Prussia). In fact, over the centuries, Poland has lost a great of land. In 1492, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the largest territory in Europe. Today Poland is the ninth largest.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Territorial-changes-of-Poland-1635-2009-small.gif#/media/File:Territorial-changes-of-Poland-1635-2009-small.gif" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Territorial-changes-of-Poland-1635-2009-small.gif" height="527" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Territorial-changes-of-Poland-1635-2009-small.gif" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: #f8f9fa; caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 34); color: #202122; font-size: 13.714286px; text-align: left;">Territorial changes of Poland from 1635 to 2009</span><span style="text-align: left;">, Public Domain, </span><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10272564" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">Link</a></td></tr></tbody></table><p>It is not surprising that Polish nationalism was strong enough to withstand Soviet oppression. And yet, again, Poles never made an effort to reclaim that land. I am sure the displacement has always mattered, but not enough to fight over. </p><p>In contrast, there is great discontent in Israel and Palestine. Jews and Muslims in the Middle East have never had a chance for peace. Still, there is a huge asymmetry in their attitudes and positions. While 700,000 Arabs were displaced from Israel in 1947, around 900,000 Jews were displaced from Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East after WWII. Yet there has never been a widespread effort to remove any of those Muslim countries from the map. The vast majority of what was once the Ottoman Empire remains Arab and Muslim, and there has been no effort or desire to change that. One small part of that fallen empire is now a Jewish state--the only Jewish state in the world, built in and around Jewish historic holy lands, built in part by Jews who have always lived on those lands, with a national and ethnic lineage that traces back thousands of years. And that Jewish state remains the only democracy in the Middle East. Yet there are millions of people all over the world, Muslim and not, Arab and not, who think it should not exist, and that its very existence is a catastrophe of the greatest proportions.</p><p>It does make me wonder.</p><p><i>*Much of my commentary on the history of Palestine is drawn from </i>Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914-1958, <i>by D. K. Fieldhouse.</i></p></div></div></div>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-30309205001377015482024-01-13T13:44:00.007+01:002024-01-13T13:44:55.394+01:00Thoughts on South Africa and Israel's first appearances before the ICJ<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">South Africa's strongest case seems to be that Israel has not done enough to crack down on hate speech and possible incitements to genocide within the country. While Israel has taken some steps in this direction, the ICJ may decide that they have not done enough. A </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a style="color: #385898; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit;" tabindex="-1"></a></span><span style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">plausible outcome would be a provision recommending that they do more.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>As for South Africa's argument that Israel's military activities should be suspended until a verdict is reached: I think the case is extremely weak, and the ICJ is almost certain to reject it. On the one hand, South Africa ignores the many efforts Israel has made to protect innocent Palestinian lives and comply with the Genocide Convention. Second, South Africa fails to take into account the fact that Hamas continues to be an active participant in hostilities, and that hostages and other Israeli civilians are still in danger--hundreds of thousands of whom have already been displaced. South Africa's argument is ideologically driven, which they make clear at the outset: It is based on the belief that Israel's very existence is a "nakba" unjustly suffered by the Palestinian people. The ICJ is not likely to take up that ideological position, since the existence of Israel was itself the product of a UN resolution.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Generally, I think both sides performed just as we all could have expected, so I doubt anyone watching at home was swayed one way or the other--unless they hadn't been paying attention beforehand. Israel did a competent job of pointing out the many weaknesses in South Africa's arguments, which include: a failure to distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties; a failure to distinguish between casualties caused by Israel and those caused by Hamas itself; a failure to recognise the threats against Jewish lives in the region; and so on . . .</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Unfortunately, I don't think the ICJ's decisions will change many minds, either. We are all too confident in our abilities to decide these things for ourselves. It's a sign of the times. Our online information bubbles rely on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The more an online personality can convince you that you're right about something seemingly pivotal and controversial, the more you're going to go back for more. Expertise is sacrificed at the altar of personality, and wisdom is lost to the wind.</p>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-88007291807179544802023-12-20T14:58:00.015+01:002023-12-23T16:10:31.729+01:00Does Hamas = ISIS? Unravelling More Anti-Zionist Propaganda<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5-_HX3tgMapeaSI6aed4TLkXxP9a-uJLuWw_vaydPqjd-oa-e01Op5t95v7D8SJQZNFBijCFMe27DVfP7SifiPjLL0hAvTq7uZHwhm8el9orf3-RCucUNgIeZCNiC6VmRN3No6N5ZfoxFLtCMBeEfZz1I44xWdOpknvMXJLQNL6kbG8jr_3HOcATt6xuw/s1200/34ZR66HN5VALBA4QBSJAYMRNDQ.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5-_HX3tgMapeaSI6aed4TLkXxP9a-uJLuWw_vaydPqjd-oa-e01Op5t95v7D8SJQZNFBijCFMe27DVfP7SifiPjLL0hAvTq7uZHwhm8el9orf3-RCucUNgIeZCNiC6VmRN3No6N5ZfoxFLtCMBeEfZz1I44xWdOpknvMXJLQNL6kbG8jr_3HOcATt6xuw/s16000/34ZR66HN5VALBA4QBSJAYMRNDQ.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div>Does Hamas = ISIS?</div><br /><div>What does that slogan even mean? Certainly ISIS and Hamas are distinguishable. I don't think anyone is saying that Hamas and ISIS are the same organization, with the same leaders, the same members, or even the exact same ideas. It seems obvious that "Hamas=ISIS" only means that their goals and practices are *similar enough* so that we should treat them the same.<br /><br /></div><div>On that topic, I encourage you to read this analysis from <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-hamas-the-same-as-isis-the-islamic-state-group-no-and-yes-219454" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. It provides a good overview of similarities and differences between the two terrorist organisations, if you want to make up your own mind on the topic. It is certainly much more useful than <a href="https://time.com/6329776/hamas-isis-gaza/?fbclid=IwAR2AVYEnoLdTG7v9aGdgt5SOiK0i9fPkWc_ZiPj4kJ4UnbmYZ8HSUCvwRCA">this opinion piece by Monica Marks</a>, which I believe is representative of the pro-Palestinian movement. My suspicion is that its publication in <i>Time</i> was not based on the merits of its argument, but rather because of the anti-Israel rhetoric it propagates.<br /><br /></div><div>The inadequacy of Marks' argument is plain as day. While she admits that Hamas is a terrorist organization that resembles ISIS, she claims there are two significant differences that people are forgetting. The problem is, nobody seems to be forgetting anything--except Marks. <br /><br /></div><div>First, she reminds us that there's a difference between Hamas' nationalism and the pan-Islamism of ISIS. True, Palestinian nationalism is different, but that doesn't mean their goals and practices are significantly different wrt Israel. Both Hamas and ISIS refuse to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state, and both seek to eliminate Jewish sanctuary and self-determination in the Middle East. While Hamas does it in the name of Palestinian nationalism, as opposed to pan-Islamism, the difference does not seem to make a difference to Israel.<br /><br /></div><div>Second, she reminds us that Hamas does not exhibit the same religious extremism as ISIS. True again, Hamas is more tolerant of *some* Western influences and institutions, to a degree. But again, it's not clear why this should make a difference to Israel.<br /><br /></div><div><div>Strangely, Marks overlooks a fundamental similarity between Hamas and ISIS. She says that Hamas alone feeds off of anger, anguish and impoverishment, whereas ISIS feeds off of religious extremism. The truth is that the religious extremism that ISIS fosters *also* feeds off anger, anguish and impoverishment. Hamas and ISIS traffic in the same emotions and needs, utilise many of the same tactics, and share many of the same ends. She says Hamas should be treated differently because it is "a hydra that feeds off embittered youth," not realising that ISIS could be described the very same way.</div><div><br /></div><div>She ends her argument with some dangerously misleading advice for Israel and its supporters: "Ensuring that Palestinians get the freedom, dignity, and self-determination they have demanded for over 75 years would be the most effective way to ensure Israel’s long-term security." For one thing, the Palestinian national identity doesn't go back that far. The Palestinian national identity did not exist 75 years ago, nor was there any movement for Palestinian nationalism. The identity and movement did not begin to solidify until after Israel took control of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967; and, <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2006%2F08%2Frussian-footprints-ion-mihai-pacepa%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3PIijbTs4LGW60nuQVHnR50lBDYZv-Tk0hU9H0i6bsh6hpEcaikQFElKc&h=AT2wWyT7SjrMTP_xBWLpAtxC90xgEfzjz4ATZLjErXJda8vDycA1DbDXRZMpVTgCZO6hpCB1YDubrqFGZ5RcPYq81lve6WUotlMPLKrf6Y4vjcV7H-ee7RD7zlxICuV-E2aYORQ&__tn__=H-R&c[0]=AT0M9gTj_C6Du8gBO394hQLxqFX89QHn4pcPcXEkv1yDiu3G09rXDwDWYMabbs7TIINijlmFIenGunQPU2VICdbA-Qup5xvtYEXkkW7wJIkrim36gW06aG4j7tPwq9gix-5xSEKpP_qklhH3t7gbWI3quzf8AV2xTp8y-z9_6Q38wUvs90yKRw" target="_blank">as explained by an ex-Soviet general</a>, it was largely fuelled by Soviet-controlled anti-US and anti-Israel propaganda. Furthermore, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/" target="_blank">according to polls</a>, Palestinians do not want Israel's long-term security. They do not want Israel to exist at all. They want a single, Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea--one that does not afford Jews equal rights--and they are willing to resort to terrorism to reach those ends. Contrary to Marks' claim, the demands of Palestinians preclude Israel's long-term survival. Instead of acknowledging the deep-rooted anti-Zionism prevalent in Palestine, Marks makes it sound like Hamas has been perfectly happy to negotiate peacefully with Israel--as if Hamas had ever acknowledged Israel as a state at all.</div><div><br /></div><div>Despite the glaring problems with her argument, Marks launches a rhetorically sophisticated attack on Israel. She calls Hamas a "Frankenstein's monster" created by Netanyahu. This is odd, since Hamas was created long before Netanyahu came to power. That point aside, the remark has political teeth. We all know the monster was the misunderstood victim of Doctor Frankenstein's misguided experimentation. Marks wants us to think that Netanyahu is to blame for any violence or terrorism caused by Hamas. She even says that Hamas "justifies" terrorism, instead of saying that Hamas "tries to justify" terrorism, indicating that the terrorism is justified, with only Israel to blame.</div></div><div><br />This kind of victim-blaming is sadly prevalent among left-leaning academics. We see the same thing in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/11/my-life-has-been-defined-by-genocide-of-jewish-people-i-look-on-gaza-with-concern" target="_blank">Jason Stanley's provocative opinion piece in the Guardian</a>, where he blames "the complete security breakdown by Netanyahu’s government" for the Oct 7 massacre. Stanley portrays Netanyahu as an "obsessed" politician only looking out for his own interests "and those of the extremists who put him into power"--going so far as to suggest that Netanyahu was not democratically elected and that the attack on Israel was the result of Israeli extremism. To hammer home the accusation that Netanyahu is the real monster behind the Oct. 7 massacre, Stanley says Netanyahu and Hamas were "partners." The reality, which Stanely skews with such rhetoric, is that Israel had supported Qatar's decision to send humanitarian aid into Gaza--funds specifically marked for civilian use. We can only imagine what Israel's enemies would have said if Netanyahu had refused to support humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Typical for pro-Palestinian activists and sympathisers, Israel is blamed for everything, including antisemitism and violence against Jews. There is no sense of nuance or balance, and no attempt to recognise how Hamas's own behaviour has played a role in the horrifying conditions that Palestinians in Gaza have faced over the years. It is much easier to demonize Netanyahu, create a scapegoat, and pretend that everything would be fine for all the Jews in the Middle East if only . . . </div><div><br />If only what? That's really the question, isn't it?</div>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-49583418552502365482023-12-15T14:58:00.012+01:002023-12-17T12:17:58.193+01:00Defending Zionism: An Open Letter To Jason Stanley<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIfqrbXtyamk7-P2L_7WtRQcicYswY95awjDnD7oyKMOJyLTWgdMvwx2Dwk3Y9fQrPhMiczgZrnPxhtvN7t7Tz-szORj-fxb8K0exw1dC46TvRG-542kyWkahKl8_gOxyJkOPiLH1IT-1MAosaQ9LZvz0RRpqj-DuVds4x8HrYk19f4xJKNg_mp_WhytIb/s4000/headshot-2erv9ad.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2544" data-original-width="4000" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIfqrbXtyamk7-P2L_7WtRQcicYswY95awjDnD7oyKMOJyLTWgdMvwx2Dwk3Y9fQrPhMiczgZrnPxhtvN7t7Tz-szORj-fxb8K0exw1dC46TvRG-542kyWkahKl8_gOxyJkOPiLH1IT-1MAosaQ9LZvz0RRpqj-DuVds4x8HrYk19f4xJKNg_mp_WhytIb/w400-h254/headshot-2erv9ad.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Professor Jason Stanley. Photo taken from</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><a href="https://campuspress.yale.edu/jasonstanley/" style="font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://campuspress.yale.edu/jasonstanley/</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p><br /></p><p>Approximately a month after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, instigating the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, the Guardian published <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/11/my-life-has-been-defined-by-genocide-of-jewish-people-i-look-on-gaza-with-concern" target="_blank">an opinion piece by Jason Stanley</a>, the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, entitled, "My Life Has Been Defined By Genocide of Jewish People. I Look On Gaza With Concern." Though I had not had any interaction with Professor Stanley in a number of years, I felt inclined to share my immediate reaction with him. After all, we had enjoyed some acquaintance in the past, primarily spawned by my criticisms of his philosophical approach to know-how and his take on Gilbert Ryle. Unfortunately, our heated exchanges over the 2016 Democratic primary led us to lose contact. (Incidentally, I decided to break off contact first, though he might have been considering doing the same.)</p><p>Unsurprisingly, he did not respond to my initial thoughts on his recent Guardian piece except to tell me that he had already received over 200 replies, mostly by fellow Jews, and only three were negative. Mine, of course, was one of the select three. That was less than 48 hours after the piece's publication, so now--a month later--I am sure he has received many more responses, though perhaps still more positive than negative. In any case, and with little hope of his engagement, I have decided to write once more. This time my thoughts are a bit more organised and focused, and perhaps worthy of public attention. I share the complete email, which I sent today, below.</p><p><br /></p><p><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-size: small;">Hi again, Jason. I am contemplating attempting a semi-formal and more thorough essay on all of this (with little hope of any significant readership, unfortunately), since I am disheartened by how the ongoing conflict is persistently characterized across the board, though especially on the political left. I'm writing to you again because there are some points in your Guardian piece that are still bothering me, and if nothing else, this affords me a chance at a sort of rough draft at what I might one day attempt. Any response could be very helpful towards that end, and towards mutual understanding.</span></p><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One issue I have is how you equate the suffering of children in Gaza to the suffering of children in Israel on Oct. 7. Considering that children were brutally tortured and raped in the midst of a massacre in Israel on Oct. 7, I wonder if you made your remark in ignorance. If not in ignorance, then how do you justify it? It is no easy matter to compare sufferings, but the horrors reported from Oct. 7 seem to be of a profoundly different order to anything witnessed in Gaza. Not only is the character of the suffering profoundly different, but the circumstances, as well. Unless you refuse to give Israel the benefit of any doubt, it is possible that all of the civilian casualties in Gaza--at least, those caused by the IDF--were the necessary result of actions aimed at disarming and ultimately destroying Hamas. If so, then they were plausibly justified under the principle of proportionality, in which case Israel is not clearly guilty of a war crime. In contrast, the horrors inflicted on children in Israel on Oct. 7 is clearly a war crime, as civilians were clearly targeted in an act of terrorism. In reality, we don't even know how many of the children killed in Gaza are civilians. While I do not want to minimize the horrors innocent children continue to experience because of the IDF's actions in Gaza, attempting to equate horrors of such different character and circumstance is more than disheartening. It is morally outrageous.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another issue is your characterization of the exodus of Arabs from Israel in 1948-49. Some were forced out, yes, but many Arabs left willingly, hoping to wait out the war until Israel was destroyed. Those who were forced out were resistant to Israel's military efforts to secure itself against attack. In 1948, to prepare for the pending assault on all sides from Arab neighboring territories, Israel had to establish a geographical continuity between the north and south, and sought to only disrupt those Arab villages which opposed this defensive military effort. Those Arabs which were expelled were therefore either a direct or indirect military threat. That is the documented reason for their military expulsion, and it is why <i>half of the Arab population remained and continued to thrive in Israel</i>.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Instead of considering that perhaps Israel had a legitimate military aim, you use a name, "the Nakba," that many have used to equate the Arab exodus to the Holocaust. "Nakba" and "Shoah" are both translations for the English word "catastrophe," yet one has become a rallying call of the "Free Palestine" movement while the other refers to the genocide of millions of Jews. By hiding the truth of the Arab exodus behind such a word, you legitimize those who equate Jewish nationalism to Nazism. In addition, your rhetoric betrays a bias against the 900,000 Jews (and their descendents) who were forced to flee Arab- and Muslim-controlled territories during the same period. You apparently support an Arab claim to national heritage in the whole of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea--why else call attention to their historic displacement? Yet your rhetoric suggests no sympathy at all for any Jewish claim to the land--for you blame Jewish nationalism for the so-called catastrophe, as if the ideology were at fault. Why no sympathy for the Jewish side? Do you share Hannah Arendt's bias against Palestinian Jews, and believe that the state of Israel is an essentially European construct? While European powers and European Jews certainly played a defining role in the creation of Israel, I would not erase the role of indigenous Jews from history. If we could perhaps agree that no people has an *essential* right to any land, then we should also be able to agree that descendents of Egyptians or other Arabs who migrated to the areas now known as Gaza, Israel and the West Bank in the 19th century have no more of a right to that land than descendents of Jews who have lived there for thousands of years.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps you would like to see the land west of the Jordan to be governed without religious or ethnic considerations of any kind, where Jews and Muslims exist and congregate interchangeably, their differences a matter of cultural curiosity rather than political tension. As a long-term goal, I would be happy to agree with you. However, there is no short-term possibility of anything of that sort. I don't think even a two-state solution has any chance of stability for the foreseeable future. Your attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Israel can only serve, at best, to uproot and displace the entire Jewish population of Israel. At worst, you are indirectly supporting the massacre of all Israeli Jews. What else could you expect to happen if the so-called "Palestinian right to return" is institutionalized and Jews become a despised and demonized minority in the entire region? Who would you task with protecting Jewish lives?</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps you intended your Guardian piece to have a modest aim: to rally liberals in the support of Palestinian civilians, to end what you believe is a bitter and unjust massacre against an entire people. Perhaps you sincerely believe that Israel faces no existential threats, that Israel should not be afraid of Hamas or any other groups. Perhaps you believe that Israel is attempting a genocide, and you believe that the terms "Nakba" and "Shoah" are not just linguistically, but also politically, equivalent. For such reasons, you must believe your rhetoric is justified. You believe you are supporting a righteous cause and fighting a false ideology which props up Israel as an unjust settler-colonial state. From where I'm standing, however, you are the one promoting a false ideology. You appeal to fears of antisemitism, claiming that Israel's attempts to quash Hamas will only make the world less safe for Jews, and yet you ignore--and tragically propagate--the antisemitism that persists throughout the discourse. You deny and diminish the threats Jews in Israel face. Your rhetoric undermines both democracy and freedom by calling for an end to any and all attempts to analyze and justify Israel's defensive actions; by erasing the historical and political complexity of Israel's existence as well as the demographics of the Levant; by undermining Jewish nationalism; by supporting a political movement (ironically dubbed "Free Palestine") which prioritizes the political aspirations of anti-democratic governments; and by equating proportional defensive actions with terrorist offenses. You know how this kind of propaganda works, which just goes to show--false ideology can lead even the educated and intelligent to do the damndest deeds.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It has been over a month since your piece was published in the Guardian. It has taken me this long to find the time and mental space to collect my thoughts in a more focused and, hopefully, effective manner. I would be honored if you had the time for engagement, but I expect nothing. I wish you and your family well.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Regards,</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jason</div><p><br /></p>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-77639338767503214922023-04-03T08:53:00.007+02:002023-04-08T16:39:32.125+02:00Mathemagical Card Trick<p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; height: 2.4; text-indent: 48px; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; height: 2.4; text-indent: 48px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; height: 2.4; text-indent: 48px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br />Yesterday somebody showed me a mathematical card trick and asked for an explanation. It's a simple solution, but not a very obvious one. This might be fun for math teachers to share with their students. All you need is a normal deck of cards and some very basic algebra skills.</span><p></p><p></p><div style="text-indent: 48px;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg5C2XpBs73xXoKIcf_QVP5cF2SvKta_DuM2JVlVYzWCanZNS8m9lpHTXDNQTqwLRJz2LOKSFxcM4l0qq1FYdcbHHpLOYzji0gEcXepROK6rxDN-d8YN_UWmMqrc4PdiI202nVf2FC9pb9nz_PJcBsHQu6_9OQAhurzjV7qr98L6CBpQn-s5Ka_msEibw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg5C2XpBs73xXoKIcf_QVP5cF2SvKta_DuM2JVlVYzWCanZNS8m9lpHTXDNQTqwLRJz2LOKSFxcM4l0qq1FYdcbHHpLOYzji0gEcXepROK6rxDN-d8YN_UWmMqrc4PdiI202nVf2FC9pb9nz_PJcBsHQu6_9OQAhurzjV7qr98L6CBpQn-s5Ka_msEibw=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p><br /></p><ol style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-inline-start: 48px;"><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Start with a full deck of 52 cards in your hand.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Put a random card face up, then add cards (all face up) on top of it by counting up to the King. (</span><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ace = 1; Jack = 11, Queen = 12; King = 13). </span><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, if you put down a King, don't add any cards. If the first card was a Queen, add one card. If the first card was a seven, add six cards to the pile.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Repeat step 2, making as many additional piles as you can. If you cannot add the necessary number of cards to the last pile, then keep that pile in your hand. </span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Choose three of the piles to keep on the table and add the rest of the piles to your hand. </span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Turn over the three piles, and then reveal two of the three top cards. One top card must remain hidden.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Add the values of those two top cards that you uncovered, and then subtract that number of cards from your hand.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Finally, remove another ten cards from your hand.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Count the number of cards left in your hand. Whatever number you get is the same number as the top card that is face down. Turn it over and see!</span></p></li></ol><p><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span> </span>Neat trick! </span></p><p><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span> </span>So how does it work?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First, let's identify a couple mathematical relationships.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The <b>number of </b></span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">cards in your hand</span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is equal to </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">52 minus the number of cards on the table</span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. This is obvious, because there are 52 cards in the deck, and they're either in your hand or on the table. So we have: </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Formula 1. </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12.5pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">H = 52 - T</span></p><p><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We can represent the number of cards on the table by looking at how the piles were constructed. Each pile has a certain number of cards, which we can call P. Since there are three piles at the end, we can call them P1, P2 and P3.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span> <span> <span> </span></span></span>Each pile started with a card, so let's call the pile starters C1, C2 and C3. The number of cards in each pile is equal to 1 + (13 - C). That is because you start with one card and then count from C up to King, which is the 13th card. That gives us: </span></p><p><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Formula 2. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">P = 14 - C</span></p><p><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Using Formula 2, we can calculate the number of cards on the table--the number of the cards in the three piles--like this:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">T = (14 - C1) + (14 - C2) + (14 - C3)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That is equal to:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">T = 42 - C1 - C2 - C3 </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span> <span> <span> </span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span><span></span></span><span> <span> <span> </span></span></span>When there are three piles left on the table and you turn them over, the top three cards are C1, C2 and C3. We want to know the value of the hidden top card. We can choose any of the three to see how it works, so let's go with C1. That gives us:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">C1 = 42 - C2 - C3 - T</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">42 is a nice number, because it's only 10 less than 52, and that's the total number of cards in the deck. So let's change 42 to (52 - 10), like this:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">C1 = 52 - 10 - C2 - C3 - T</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now let's use formula 1, which says that the number of cards in your hand is 52 - T. We have (52 - T), so we can substitute H to get:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">C1 = H - 10 - C2 - C3</span></p><p><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That's it! </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That last formula tells us that the value of a top card (C1) is equal to the number of cards in our hand, minus ten, and minus the values of the other two top cards. So, if you remove that many cards from your hand, you will be left with the value of the hidden card.</span></p><p><br /></p>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-6557375691405158882023-03-11T11:59:00.106+01:002023-03-30T12:05:54.948+02:00"The Banshees of Inisherin" is not the first tragicomedy about a fiddler and a milkman - Analysis with Spoilers<div class="separator"><p style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img height="733" src="https://images.ottplay.com/posters/829a133424b1aa1825bd69d576841bad.jpg" style="-webkit-user-select: none; cursor: zoom-in; display: block; float: left; margin: auto;" width="488" /><br /></p></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="text-align: justify;">Great films invite multiple interpretations, so it is no wonder my take on Martin McDonagh's masterpiece, </span><i style="text-align: justify;">The Banshees of Inisherin</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, is unique. I don't see it as an allegory for the Irish Civil War. I don't see it as an indictment of an insular and parochial way of life. Instead, I see it as an existentialist portrait of the resilience of the human spirit in the face of life's absurd fragility. In fact, the best way to understand the film may be by comparing it to another tragicomic film also set in the early 20th-century--a film that, like </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Banshees</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, is about a milkman and a fiddler in a small village trying not to buckle under the weight of cultural strife. I'm talking about Norman Jewison's beloved classic, </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Fiddler On The Roof</i><span style="text-align: justify;">.</span></p><p><span style="text-align: justify;">I have been wanting to write about these two films for some time. Today is the day, in part because the Oscars are tomorrow and <i>Banshees </i>is my favorite for Best Picture, and also because yesterday we lost Chaim Topol, who performed as Tevye on stage over 3,000 times and who immortalised the role in the acclaimed film.</span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Chaim Topol, 'Fiddler on the Roof' actor, dies age 87 | CNN" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/230309093335-02-chaim-topol-death.jpg?c=original" style="height: 379.988px; margin: 0px auto; width: 574px;" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chaim Topol (1935-2023)<br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Struggle for Balance</h2><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; float: right; text-align: right;"><span style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiiH3GeaB8jRp5BDfJQcaJDTAmdLXgokx3BVdJuukzrQ6h-sYA4EBDQTB7Wl7utEumvd2VTuuEcik7hXSVSlnpEuslKeDAQraheMAHeF5NfIO4JiwW0otlkQl7E8M-91rLCIebQVbTdUzcoWs0lRmJBbdTyBGj0LdAf-wNInvrZY0_tNXYVOYv65DVF-g" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" float:left="" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiiH3GeaB8jRp5BDfJQcaJDTAmdLXgokx3BVdJuukzrQ6h-sYA4EBDQTB7Wl7utEumvd2VTuuEcik7hXSVSlnpEuslKeDAQraheMAHeF5NfIO4JiwW0otlkQl7E8M-91rLCIebQVbTdUzcoWs0lRmJBbdTyBGj0LdAf-wNInvrZY0_tNXYVOYv65DVF-g=w493-h277" width="493" /></a><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span></span>As a figment of Tevye's imagination, the fiddler must be understood figuratively, as a personification of the search for balance amidst the crumbling of tradition. He explains this early in the film, when he says that, without their traditions, their lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on a roof. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The fiddler comes to life several times in the movie. In one scene, they dance together after Tevye learns that his village will be subjected to a pogrom. Tevye says in horror and disbelief, "A Pogrom? Here?" And yet, he refuses to let the terrifying news throw him off balance. The fiddler smiles at him from atop his roof, and then reprises "If I Were A Rich Man," charming Tevye into a jig. The choice of song may be significant: Perhaps the fantasy of having great fortune is what helps him keep his balance.</div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></span></div><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh64m7p4uUKcLM9ivJhTFn6slrfeMiDq1IIo4FkT4j7RMqMuJLqEVPRv8_ys5gR1UmZErGUz-7gxZmDTlf2fAPKuezpbyCAbfqVt1r0WQE9_aNuwfMEjkf2-FU3n1DDQdB1m87g3xCb9fg3R7jA_H1hcJ_pjIo5-t7obxmMAtktbtVXQV70bV1goDZ66Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh64m7p4uUKcLM9ivJhTFn6slrfeMiDq1IIo4FkT4j7RMqMuJLqEVPRv8_ys5gR1UmZErGUz-7gxZmDTlf2fAPKuezpbyCAbfqVt1r0WQE9_aNuwfMEjkf2-FU3n1DDQdB1m87g3xCb9fg3R7jA_H1hcJ_pjIo5-t7obxmMAtktbtVXQV70bV1goDZ66Q=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; float: right; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; float: right; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgv9WZ17Db-8EQYFIFOgnMoFRJWsLu7-JE1CE3R-Cc0UqcnewOqcfI-yOJJo7ZxEDIRcFUFnSCvokTIooPnPqErCsdy82ZHoKOR90NUfqoOrsZ-VxMXWzwMLS-GTtIlC67DYqz3PlljhhWfazSOGhbw02hvsSKsyeghBC76iAwcpM10GaimtJluDJwQBA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgv9WZ17Db-8EQYFIFOgnMoFRJWsLu7-JE1CE3R-Cc0UqcnewOqcfI-yOJJo7ZxEDIRcFUFnSCvokTIooPnPqErCsdy82ZHoKOR90NUfqoOrsZ-VxMXWzwMLS-GTtIlC67DYqz3PlljhhWfazSOGhbw02hvsSKsyeghBC76iAwcpM10GaimtJluDJwQBA=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">When I was younger, I thought the fiddler represented tradition. When Chava runs away from the fiddler and into the arms of a gentile, I thought it was symbolic of her running away from her people. Now I think a deeper interpretation is preferable: If the fiddler is Tevye's search for balance, then Chava's break with the fiddler symbolises Tevye's own inability to find balance with her decision.</div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj73G039nIoL1KwdHoVNGfSL5HSBD1HmoMl-51ozwtPeQppdiCl41Fh_Sx0o3erx0CS5ziUCdNuLRB-AzS8Y-jNgJrBk2_e_bJnnyWRAGKxVxToqY_PsgE9VbZ8C7Y8Dt6hC11y7a_5sxct8FCSEiAt_okTqdZQMDJiMK4YAkePu3wWPp4G8y0mKk84LA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj73G039nIoL1KwdHoVNGfSL5HSBD1HmoMl-51ozwtPeQppdiCl41Fh_Sx0o3erx0CS5ziUCdNuLRB-AzS8Y-jNgJrBk2_e_bJnnyWRAGKxVxToqY_PsgE9VbZ8C7Y8Dt6hC11y7a_5sxct8FCSEiAt_okTqdZQMDJiMK4YAkePu3wWPp4G8y0mKk84LA=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></p><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Fiddler and the Milkman</h2><p style="text-align: justify;">Like Tevye, <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> (Colin Farrel) is a poor milkman struggling to find balance after his tradition suddenly collapses. And as with Tevye, he only finds balance by coming to terms with his fiddler. Colm (Brendan Gleeson) is quite the opposite of Tevye's fiddler, however. He is as grim and solemn as Tevye's fiddler is jovial. Colm does not smile, let alone frolic, but his behavior is equally absurd: He chooses to destroy his own hands, threatening any hope of balance, in order to force <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> to accept the loss of tradition. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjIgDsZ9GfkZGw8Iz3bdu-CROV9pvRdsuE_0rC6DB9bBxaW2AxUumx7Mnn1D_DylnqsBSFTNwSzjXrZ_qVRZrU7rDDBskPM7M54gjKGtBTRKgEGes1uTa_Gd901Y7fZRrimmP39sCPOiKo5caGpAW4qW2ofdEAeDwk0NGmg-P_kVXfXHZ2KqysoTVN5cA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjIgDsZ9GfkZGw8Iz3bdu-CROV9pvRdsuE_0rC6DB9bBxaW2AxUumx7Mnn1D_DylnqsBSFTNwSzjXrZ_qVRZrU7rDDBskPM7M54gjKGtBTRKgEGes1uTa_Gd901Y7fZRrimmP39sCPOiKo5caGpAW4qW2ofdEAeDwk0NGmg-P_kVXfXHZ2KqysoTVN5cA=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5pJaVMsp-08T3wBi9XN1NgiYEG3QZYq-CmcfZzWNQHmoumye5SFcWoUNFQq47bVj4wcN9Z2RVgdB_lJSMHMQedgwhkCSPmnOejHUhFKEuNXfasfBNASBCefZ-q7uDpmbo_wj3vLaP7EGIJKFVp3wyeZp9UXZdESERpsxS3LApZBm7NKIUSk9uCnPv7g" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5pJaVMsp-08T3wBi9XN1NgiYEG3QZYq-CmcfZzWNQHmoumye5SFcWoUNFQq47bVj4wcN9Z2RVgdB_lJSMHMQedgwhkCSPmnOejHUhFKEuNXfasfBNASBCefZ-q7uDpmbo_wj3vLaP7EGIJKFVp3wyeZp9UXZdESERpsxS3LApZBm7NKIUSk9uCnPv7g=w400-h225" width="400" /></a> </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaiQmyfWlNo0g3HMvyjUO8DjIYjzY4r93z3Sj-byboyQ3_6gWZBwj-BeXtj2ByWIItMSZ4m3OuY7mpccLN23SxEuQ9ae4ndzKvbJYSLCxeQjpQJYGmKLwwWqhvcgnvLKqMbPsKMKhSo0KLRfwUawvnbEuyDATmB3A_0bM5jxZtmhLVbTKIiB99t73Zhw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaiQmyfWlNo0g3HMvyjUO8DjIYjzY4r93z3Sj-byboyQ3_6gWZBwj-BeXtj2ByWIItMSZ4m3OuY7mpccLN23SxEuQ9ae4ndzKvbJYSLCxeQjpQJYGmKLwwWqhvcgnvLKqMbPsKMKhSo0KLRfwUawvnbEuyDATmB3A_0bM5jxZtmhLVbTKIiB99t73Zhw=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmX3XaKPr992_Ny1GOyue380fSqNPYdGFAfDP9i72uNhXUZ8ZwHEphcIWgvwrm630C8saX65X4Jwbc2_U7dvCOWaizYGKJNO4ft6C_-e_NP6sTI93qvQgV5XIZee3C82P19x4oRU9VUZly5yTIHW5wJ4HF9ppgE4bhHhAP69zMova85Rtxe_15yZXaSw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmX3XaKPr992_Ny1GOyue380fSqNPYdGFAfDP9i72uNhXUZ8ZwHEphcIWgvwrm630C8saX65X4Jwbc2_U7dvCOWaizYGKJNO4ft6C_-e_NP6sTI93qvQgV5XIZee3C82P19x4oRU9VUZly5yTIHW5wJ4HF9ppgE4bhHhAP69zMova85Rtxe_15yZXaSw=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Throughout the film, <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> tries to fight against the lost tradition--he tries to get Colm (Brendan Gleeson) to return to life as it was before. By the end of the film, he accepts that this is no longer possible, but he has bent. He has found a new balance, a new way forward in life with his stubborn fiddler.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiKKX1OaqhU_2934i9ZbYBK9rOm2ME1WbFNj8FquUtzme0QpY9OD8uCb8mhizoKsVh7v7Y4yysA3xA0tKKTMy0bjdh71pt0CB0w_llksuAxZczo3-JXI7rhsx16FiHYKOXoT_MVVhz44PuqL2U0_rQWKAYmHj2f7SlwIs1D2t-zTwJ62AO2OP3drwk45Q"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiKKX1OaqhU_2934i9ZbYBK9rOm2ME1WbFNj8FquUtzme0QpY9OD8uCb8mhizoKsVh7v7Y4yysA3xA0tKKTMy0bjdh71pt0CB0w_llksuAxZczo3-JXI7rhsx16FiHYKOXoT_MVVhz44PuqL2U0_rQWKAYmHj2f7SlwIs1D2t-zTwJ62AO2OP3drwk45Q=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's not simply that <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> is like Tevye and Colm is like his fiddler, however. Colm also shares qualities with Tevye. Colm's break with tradition stems from his need for a legacy after his death. We can assume that he feels the imminence of death not merely because he is getting older, but because of the terrible loss of life in the ongoing Irish Civil War. His composition, "The Banshees of Inisherin," is meant to survive death. He wants greatness, not the dull, common life he associates with <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span>. Tevye also dreams of greatness, of transcending the impoverished confines of his simple life. When he sings, "If I Were a Rich Man," he says the best of all would be having time for endless Talmudic debates with learned rabbis. Like Colm, he is not satisfied with his life, and dreams of touching something closer to eternity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Faced With Death</h2><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">In <i>Banshees</i>, Colm and Pádraic's conflict reflects the existential crisis of the Irish witnesses to the Irish Civil War--the people whose cultural foundations, their national identity and way of life, have turned against them. They see the war from a distance. They feel its effects. They know that their world has changed. It is violent and horrifying, and they can neither stop nor make sense of it. </span><span style="text-align: left;">Their struggle is not an allegory for the war--it is in response to the war, much the way Tevye's struggles are in response to the conflicts in Russia and the changing world around him.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrYnqbj2BfFbr4gUbxR9lYpmh2taLgVwML8LJMmJ4GJH-FLK6BVb0P2bEBUALddwPEtr9UwxANTLnDv9kJQppSgjL6LJnhdg_9YnF8mkrF8zJD2gREmD3ot2JbBP0DsurD-twDfmbTAWq9g-uiwk2R8DrgCwWn_h-YZ6ndd34RVQ0-KZb2mpsGhzcI7w" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrYnqbj2BfFbr4gUbxR9lYpmh2taLgVwML8LJMmJ4GJH-FLK6BVb0P2bEBUALddwPEtr9UwxANTLnDv9kJQppSgjL6LJnhdg_9YnF8mkrF8zJD2gREmD3ot2JbBP0DsurD-twDfmbTAWq9g-uiwk2R8DrgCwWn_h-YZ6ndd34RVQ0-KZb2mpsGhzcI7w=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> witnesses the Irish Civil War.</td></tr></tbody></table></span></div><div><br /></div><div><i style="text-align: justify;">Banshees</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> has a darker tone than </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Fiddler</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, not merely because the stubborn joviality of Tevye’s fiddler is replaced with Colm’s solemn yet horrifying self-mutilation, but because of the stronger existentialist theme of impending death. Surprisingly, death is entirely absent from </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Fiddler. </i><span style="text-align: justify;">The pogrom that eventually takes place is more horrifying for </span><i style="text-align: justify;">when</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> it happens--in the middle of Motel and Tzeitel's wedding celebration--than for the damage wrought. There is no blood. Nobody is hurt.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /> <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgGVFsMGb5HArB6HypKV9lA5c16U6fjXZVQmwpv6sVxxw1um7NCzuIx0hSni_TH17aXaAAVsmn8pcZoO-CIrVUBEzaG4dm6_wFz-2wXqoivooWYpW-L1F84Acp8nAllbPV0u9532gaXrZkLsQXUpTTbjQIHpfcz0_BTp-fF1JCfVEHKKHlHTWjIdUn2Tw" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgGVFsMGb5HArB6HypKV9lA5c16U6fjXZVQmwpv6sVxxw1um7NCzuIx0hSni_TH17aXaAAVsmn8pcZoO-CIrVUBEzaG4dm6_wFz-2wXqoivooWYpW-L1F84Acp8nAllbPV0u9532gaXrZkLsQXUpTTbjQIHpfcz0_BTp-fF1JCfVEHKKHlHTWjIdUn2Tw=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tevye looks for answers as his family cleans up after the pogrom.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />In real life, pogroms involved devastating acts of murder and rape, not simply the destruction of property. The darkness that loomed over the lives of Jews like Tevye and his family was at least as profound and unrelenting as any experienced during the Irish Civil War, and probably worse. Yet, as with the stage version, the film does not attempt to grapple with the true ugliness of history.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite their differences, the two films tell remarkably similar stories. In the end, Tevye and <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> find balance by bending more than they thought possible. <span style="text-align: left;">Pádraic</span> becomes hostile and aggressive, expressing darker emotions which previously only came out when he was drunk, and earning him respect, though not comfort, from his fiddler. Tevye's surprising turn is when he makes a kind gesture to Chava that brings his entire family happiness, but which would have been unthinkable for him earlier in the film. After that, when he and all the other Jews are forced out of their homes, it is no surprise he takes his grinning fiddler with him.</div><p></p><div><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhc6kkp9frL92ciG-5R03O4fjhX15cM75ew71uMS3ve1DlPQUHI9iWnhj5PizhOlWyTVzeG-6Sig7UfechG1bfmsketXZGiGHzLos582udxDo3bR3fbw-Na_zYRlJD_ofNv4i3QKPGmWI8hN7zF8ybCF0Mus5F_M82QGz8kxGNEyzy6etPZHhgsY0JV_w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhc6kkp9frL92ciG-5R03O4fjhX15cM75ew71uMS3ve1DlPQUHI9iWnhj5PizhOlWyTVzeG-6Sig7UfechG1bfmsketXZGiGHzLos582udxDo3bR3fbw-Na_zYRlJD_ofNv4i3QKPGmWI8hN7zF8ybCF0Mus5F_M82QGz8kxGNEyzy6etPZHhgsY0JV_w=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div></span></div></div><br />Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-21208861399191248572023-01-30T19:04:00.059+01:002023-03-31T15:48:41.498+02:00Tár: An Amazon Woman In Hell - Analysis with Spoilers<p>Todd Field's acclaimed and enigmatic <i>Tár</i> manipulates sound, images and even time itself in unconventional ways, immersing us in the labyrinthian mind of its plagued anti-heroine. Though the line between reality and perception is blurry, some events seem unquestionably real: Lydia Tár uses her position to exert a toxic power dynamic over women near her, both professionally and personally; she alienates herself from all the women in her life, including her closest friends, her family and even herself; she spurns one of her closest protégées, a young woman named Krista, who eventually commits suicide; Lydia Tár loses her chance to conduct Mahler's Fifth Symphony, which was to complete the Tár-Mahler cycle and cement her place in music history; and finally, she loses her family, her professional position and esteem, and her self-respect. </p><p>That is the broad outline of the layered, complex story, but it fails to capture what makes the film so intriguing and perplexing; for what is far less certain than all of that is the cause of Tár's downfall, and how much of it is all in her head. I have my own interpretation, which I will discuss below, but there may not be a simple explanation for the unfolding of events. Still, a handful of scenes do suggest a key to unlocking the story's mysteries, and I will use them to build my interpretation.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Who is Lydia Tár? </h3><p>Before the opening credits, the film opens with a shot of her assistant's smartphone as she live-streams Lydia Tár (Cate Blanchett) asleep on a transatlantic flight to New York. We see part of the chat, as well:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgT8q6icVAWVL1OsPXckyFhrMGh4AkqGRVojZepv7swSKbxvpwCN2hULlWm9W9VxMVgu6h8KwGS2ZiST1g2tFA3vQ5wooJV_OLCIXN4wTohdQk07n29ZC_J6bvP6ARjv0TGwpWXRVT1kja0G-bl5V7Xi7eHMheMcEJb4Nqy_k1oCL4rGY3MXvXtBowpVA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgT8q6icVAWVL1OsPXckyFhrMGh4AkqGRVojZepv7swSKbxvpwCN2hULlWm9W9VxMVgu6h8KwGS2ZiST1g2tFA3vQ5wooJV_OLCIXN4wTohdQk07n29ZC_J6bvP6ARjv0TGwpWXRVT1kja0G-bl5V7Xi7eHMheMcEJb4Nqy_k1oCL4rGY3MXvXtBowpVA=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Even though we don't know any of the characters yet, the chat reveals a great deal about Tár and her relationships. First, we are given the suggestion that Tár may be haunted by her sins. Second, we are told that her sins are so grave, you would have to be blinded by love to think she had a conscience at all. Third, we are told that she spends her nights with different partners: It wasn't the assistant last night; it was "S."<p></p><p>We later find out that "S" is her romantic partner, Sharon (Nina Hoss). The assistant is her protégée, Francesca (Noémie Merlant), and we can assume the person on the other end of the chat is Krista. This is never directly verified, but later we find out that Francesca has been in contact with Krista, and that the three of them were once very close. The reference to "our girl" in the chat suggests that sort of intimacy, so Krista is a likely bet.</p><p>Tár's intimacy with Francesca is briefly shown in the very next scene, when Tár is preparing for her interview with <i>The New Yorker</i>. We see them standing over a collection of records, all featuring male conductors. The two women are selecting the right look so Tár can have a suit tailor-made for the occasion.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='645' height='537' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyzJKWrBZ-kLnSL4qyXr68pJFyre7CqHRhI9TgACauyuVi-eA93igly0E9bJYvjIgYR3ECWjCguttIELVXttA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p>This is the first, but not the last, time we see Tár curating her public image to emulate the great male conductors of the past. She does not want to appear feminine, a point which is reinforced much later when she confronts a school bully by calling herself Petra's "father." While Lydia Tár does not identify as trans (she identifies as a woman and calls herself a "u-haul lesbian" early on), this opening scene helps establish that her relationship to her gender is at best uncertain.</p><p>The issue of gender is developed in the next scene, during the interview, when she tells the interviewer that women in her time no longer need to struggle against sexism and inequality. This is dramatic irony, since we know that women do still struggle with sexism. Of course, plenty of people in the world might deny it, but it is safe to assume that Todd Field's intended audience would not. Indeed, the movie proceeds to show us various ways Tár uses her position to exploit women below her. She exploits the same toxic power dynamics that led to the #MeToo movement, which is part of--and maybe even the heart of--what leads to her downfall.</p><p>By denying the struggles of women (and her own role in perpetuating those struggles), Lydia Tár alienates herself from not only other women, but also herself. She must have been a warrior, after all. She must have fought hard and struggled to gain such prestige in a profession so dominated by men. To deny the struggle is to deny who she is. Eventually, we discover the full extent of her denial: even her name is an attempt to hide her working-class American roots.</p><p>Cate Blanchett's skilled performance in this early scene makes it easy to see the artifice and affectation of Lydia's public persona. Later, as the story unfolds, we see glimpses of the pained woman beneath the inhuman mask: when she cries after seeking comfort at her family home; in the Philippines, when her request for a massage leads her to a brothel and she vomits--presumably in recognition of her past sins and how they have ruined her. Yet, by the end, it is not clear that she has changed. She is again conducting, again trying to maintain as much affectation as she can muster. But now she is alone, with no assistants or protégées, conducting before an audience all covered in masks.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Keeping Time</h3><p>Lydia Tár makes another key point in that <i>New Yorker</i> interview. She explains that when she performs, her right hand is responsible for keeping time, and that when she is performing, she knows exactly when each moment will happen. Her art requires a mastery of time itself, which makes the injury to her right shoulder all the more devastating. After her fall, she can no longer keep good time. When we see her conducting after that, she looks pained and out of control. She has compromised one of the basic pillars of her craft. </p><p>It is impossible to say how much of an impact the injury has on her career, but if it made it too difficult for her to keep time, it may have directly led to her needing a replacement to conduct Mahler's Fifth. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to think that she loses her chance to conduct Mahler's Fifth because of so-called "cancel culture." After all, she becomes embroiled in a law suit and suffers many accusations, all of which lead to protests and even, indirectly, the dissolution of her marriage. We do know that her reputation is eventually ruined, though it is likely that her physical attack on the replacement conductor--an assault which occurs on live television--caused significant damage to her reputation, as well. </p><p>The fact remains that we never see how she is fired. We never see the decision being made to replace her. It may have been due to scandal, but it may also have been the injury. On the other hand, maybe those factors contributed to her mental breakdown, but it was the breakdown itself that ultimately led to her being replaced.</p><p>While its direct impact on Tár's career may be uncertain, the injury's effect on the structure of the film is striking. After the injury, as if to mirror Tár's loss of control over time, the narrative unfolding of time becomes erratic. The time line jumps, and we are only afforded glimpses into events--Lydia's performance copy of Mahler's Fifth is missing; she attacks her replacement on stage, where the book has apparently found its home; she returns to her family in America; she takes a job in the Philippines. The events are no longer clearly connected, and we have little sense of cause and effect.</p><p>The disjointed narrative may be intended to alienate the audience a bit, much in the same way that Lydia is alienated by herself. Lydia's life, like the narrative itself, no longer seems to follow a controlled, rational thread. We can still connect each event to the past and try to interpret it as the natural outcome of what came before; however, we cannot be sure which situations are causes and which are effects, or how all the pieces fit together. This may be because Lydia Tár herself has no answers, either. The fractured film reflects her fractured mind.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">A Ghost Of A Chance</h3><p>If the goal is to immerse us in Lydia's mind, so that we experience her mental deterioration through the film, then the key to understanding the movie is to understand her mind. This leads us back to that very first scene, when Francesca describes Tár as "haunted" in the chat with Krista. It turns out that Tár is very much haunted, and by Krista herself (among others), though we do not know the nature or full extent of the haunting.</p><p>The only time we see the real, living and breathing Krista is during the <i>New Yorker </i>interview. The scene opens with a view from the back of the audience, where the stage itself seems far less important than the back of a woman's head:</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1y2RZ7Hz2eLk3zjDl_3pEnm1xGT9nWBlQYMzP__Ultum700BxNnkjdHq5i0OBCKeml8JA4cMSK8r6Uj-AREuHWwVbXS9Rbzov6Fgcy66Uahv19TNSdahtwSznDnvOHN1NUae0Llvd6f15c0C0ta9l5L3vSjnlfOJjwKXR1lnDwGXzv4eEvE2O0SIBOw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1y2RZ7Hz2eLk3zjDl_3pEnm1xGT9nWBlQYMzP__Ultum700BxNnkjdHq5i0OBCKeml8JA4cMSK8r6Uj-AREuHWwVbXS9Rbzov6Fgcy66Uahv19TNSdahtwSznDnvOHN1NUae0Llvd6f15c0C0ta9l5L3vSjnlfOJjwKXR1lnDwGXzv4eEvE2O0SIBOw=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>Her face is never fully shown, but Krista's likeness appears at least three times later in the film. It appears much later in an erotic dream, which suggests that Lydia still longs for her past lover.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhIfRoKnMdOL6xrxKBJAMkU1E4e2JbUP58LpZ8GivDav-Xw-5X7Q2eoOCavbXDx06nzgl-kYSh7kJMjoZlDExxfqsrswj5LtKO9ZC9AiL-1yKdebXkPoEfFIkjfalebqa5erkaIGqHz9iJjF4q75ZpBb6W0ZoJavXj4tbakWoAAlg4B_dzeklmv6xaeHg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhIfRoKnMdOL6xrxKBJAMkU1E4e2JbUP58LpZ8GivDav-Xw-5X7Q2eoOCavbXDx06nzgl-kYSh7kJMjoZlDExxfqsrswj5LtKO9ZC9AiL-1yKdebXkPoEfFIkjfalebqa5erkaIGqHz9iJjF4q75ZpBb6W0ZoJavXj4tbakWoAAlg4B_dzeklmv6xaeHg=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /> The other two appearances are much subtler and more unusual. The first is in this scene early on in the film:<p></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='633' height='526' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxzNJ5U1XVcdYIGZIsEC-MD1su350yDzCn3Edee0EAZsOLuMXK1K5riOvitoZpDv4nHFTUsVs6wjqMQeiNyXw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><p></p>That scene is remarkable for a number of reasons. Before Lydia enters, our attention is drawn to a picture on the wall which shows her with a Shipibo-Conibo healer. We know she spent many months with that tribe in the Amazon, thanks to the introduction from <i>The New Yorker</i>, so we can assume the smoke and markings on her face are not simply for the photograph. The photo documents a real-life ritual, the significance of which is yet to be determined:<div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi6IhPc5sRoAymAlZLWCs-5Ana3AtQU8BQGP4z8nnmrIUaEp7UM796tBlVpOSdb8ffQKiIsHf0CZwmmHI8XgI58Xaa9DD2d6lX_nAV5ANBYcBAOKQ-8EKETYio66qs-L45F7r4xsRUcS1e9qKpt7LnFqcWXqftJEFWMquW7qJbBc_PpxjWmGJ9vP7semA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi6IhPc5sRoAymAlZLWCs-5Ana3AtQU8BQGP4z8nnmrIUaEp7UM796tBlVpOSdb8ffQKiIsHf0CZwmmHI8XgI58Xaa9DD2d6lX_nAV5ANBYcBAOKQ-8EKETYio66qs-L45F7r4xsRUcS1e9qKpt7LnFqcWXqftJEFWMquW7qJbBc_PpxjWmGJ9vP7semA=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br />After she enters the room, she performs a sort of ritual with smoke in front of a mirror, reinforcing that the ritual in the photograph was not just for show. Then, when Lydia walks in another room to get sheet music, we see a woman in the next room, behind the piano. It is presumably Krista, but she is half-obscured by a doorway:<div><br /><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEikV9qjAaXNyCD2f6bQqjl0x9INCpm1xyCgX5g7pM1BDeT1e5H21GLcYwnhkM15lCLp_w6eOsZP1lrWVsfzu7qbZdNrvV7-WBa5evxnVvl3GWvn8o-OYbHtu9N6D5CSj6VTQpLOEnrYOm1qehTX-RzzPSXVb13Ayh5ssVM9AveK6SStWqW84pL7Y6qqww" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEikV9qjAaXNyCD2f6bQqjl0x9INCpm1xyCgX5g7pM1BDeT1e5H21GLcYwnhkM15lCLp_w6eOsZP1lrWVsfzu7qbZdNrvV7-WBa5evxnVvl3GWvn8o-OYbHtu9N6D5CSj6VTQpLOEnrYOm1qehTX-RzzPSXVb13Ayh5ssVM9AveK6SStWqW84pL7Y6qqww=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /></div>Then Lydia enters the room and sits at the piano, and the woman is nowhere to be seen. Lydia begins composing, but is soon interrupted by a mysterious humming sound which seems to echo her playing.</div><div><br /></div><div>If it was Krista's ghost, then Lydia is quite literally haunted in a way Francesca could not have imagined. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is other evidence to support the ghost hypothesis. In addition to the numerous other times Lydia experiences audio hallucinations, we see another, even more ghost-like image of Krista. The apparition is shown very briefly, when Lydia is awoken by Petra's screams in the middle of the night:</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='647' height='538' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyCBDHFh6sETQ9MzgGHVM4VfGRrcQtGJLj53UtEPnHNoDzrFVqIgpCI3WDaqsfPgvTF3FvjiMLAyMCrBmmrKQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><br /></div><div>Lydia does not seem to notice the figure in the chair with long red hair, which suggests she is not hallucinating, but is rather being watched by a ghost. Still, nobody else ever experiences the haunting, so we cannot be sure if it's all in her head or not.</div><div><br /></div><div>One might object that it would be too much of a coincidence if it were not a ghost. After all, why does she start hallucinating about Krista at the same time Krista commits suicide? It's not like she knows about the suicide yet, right?</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, maybe she has good reason to suspect it. The book Krista sends could be seen as a message indicating her intention to kill herself. </div><div><br /></div><div>I had no idea while watching the movie, but the book, called "Challenge," was inspired by an illicit love affair between two women in the early 20th century: Vita Sackville-West, the author, who liked to pass as a man at the time; and Violet Keppel, a woman who often threatened to commit suicide if Sackville-West ever dared to end their relationship. Interestingly, Vita and Violet began working on the novel together, as a way to memorialise their passionate affair. When Vita passed as a man, she went by the name Julian, which is the male lover's name in the novel. However, while Violet only threatened to commit suicide in real life, Julian's lover in the novel actually does it.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps Krista sends the book to Lydia as a statement of purpose. In that case, Lydia would be anticipating the suicide. That would explain why the hallucinations begin around the time of the suicide. Perhaps Lydia was always haunted, as Francesca suggests at the very beginning of the movie, and it only takes on a much darker, self-destructive turn after she receives the book.</div><div><br /></div><div>By sending her that book, Krista may also be making a statement about Lydia betraying her own identity, accusing her of trying to pass as something she is not. Perhaps that is what enrages Lydia and leads her to literally tear out its pages. </div><div><h3>The Amazonian Within</h3></div><div>When Lydia opens the book, she sees a maze-like drawing which is very similar to the one we saw on her face in the photograph on her wall: </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjYOrSqS1Mk7vnjie-UVAKZtOSuxL2id5OvkIN3KAFLZa4wPohz52q1y9o2uUMI0_PBmjA8F71R5USh8T5hg80nkFpgcofptanZo-_XzouGeTN12TVpjakg1JT79LUt0qhvJG08DouBKUzI7xEMOY0D5IyiRAlIEVLiKLLkYIV7rnSzJfdD_ACy8hU7IQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjYOrSqS1Mk7vnjie-UVAKZtOSuxL2id5OvkIN3KAFLZa4wPohz52q1y9o2uUMI0_PBmjA8F71R5USh8T5hg80nkFpgcofptanZo-_XzouGeTN12TVpjakg1JT79LUt0qhvJG08DouBKUzI7xEMOY0D5IyiRAlIEVLiKLLkYIV7rnSzJfdD_ACy8hU7IQ=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">She sees that same pattern later, on the metronome that mysteriously wakes her up in the middle of the night:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjWIILJ-gcqZQHCeFu_0xJwp28yPOKfJc3bR-X9mg4xy8oGcCmsQJd44VrqUnYPn1BdkvRv6k5pZYKNjFm1suMivvEcHfRe0EhuGKtLmDia3EBiOKSE6Z6C5IJrvw8eRtFZ3_X8Sr4oTIoU_VQeNFZ4zkcu5J_Lx_mxCqr8Py3fLuU3Rmmo6go7najgzQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjWIILJ-gcqZQHCeFu_0xJwp28yPOKfJc3bR-X9mg4xy8oGcCmsQJd44VrqUnYPn1BdkvRv6k5pZYKNjFm1suMivvEcHfRe0EhuGKtLmDia3EBiOKSE6Z6C5IJrvw8eRtFZ3_X8Sr4oTIoU_VQeNFZ4zkcu5J_Lx_mxCqr8Py3fLuU3Rmmo6go7najgzQ=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">She sees it again in Petra's bedroom, made out of child's clay:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkPQPN6xkyhA9hGycl1T1NVdcoyEewed3v4awBvPh3bQrQUsFpiIbRMPRrJ168tYMrP6POsGWgvWcOzKyJBETzI_0fX110fGgDLvG0k6ddQz9olzrXrxUofPNP0S7CW1785gWH4iSzUqqcqt2wQw8k5R7eLm4sZ9fnfCGt6Grj6DEXlK7uNzDSnROjNQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2268" data-original-width="4032" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkPQPN6xkyhA9hGycl1T1NVdcoyEewed3v4awBvPh3bQrQUsFpiIbRMPRrJ168tYMrP6POsGWgvWcOzKyJBETzI_0fX110fGgDLvG0k6ddQz9olzrXrxUofPNP0S7CW1785gWH4iSzUqqcqt2wQw8k5R7eLm4sZ9fnfCGt6Grj6DEXlK7uNzDSnROjNQ=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br />The film does not offer a direct explanation for the metronome or the clay, but we can assume Krista sent her the book. We can therefore conclude that either Krista's ghost is responsible for the metronome and the clay, or these are hallucinations, symptoms of her psychological deterioration. The question is, why that pattern?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">On the one hand, since it's the same pattern she saw in the book, it may only serve as a reminder of Krista's suicide note--if that's what the book was, after all. However, we have good reason to think it is more than that. The pattern is connected to the Shipibo-Conibo tribe, which suggests a deep connection between her relationship with women and her connection to the Amazon. The connection is strengthened by the dream seen here, where images of women in her life lead to images of the Shipibo-Conibo and the Amazon:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='655' height='544' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxSAQQRPMjRp5uxOEaAicLrhhTMnHG-ys8g5CCqlFRGONNWIyKX0A5k9wph0ye1a3x2TjReZwpt0MDWp16Kvw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /></div></div>The film gives us multiple opportunities to associate the Amazon not only with Lydia's identity, but with her relationship to women. It may not be a leap to wonder if we are meant to connect Lydia to the race of Amazonian women warriors of Greek myth. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even though she denies the need for women to band together to fight--she does not care to remember when International Women's Day is celebrated, and she does not accept that women need to unite for equality and power--Lydia is, in fact, a warrior. She has fought to attain power, and she continues to wield that power without mercy. Whether the labyrinthian tribal markings are a product of her own mind or haunting reminders left by Krista's ghost, they are at the heart of what Lydia wants to bury, the core of what she is trying to hide: her struggle to attain and wield power in a man's realm.</div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Lydia dominates women because she views femininity as weak. She wants to hide her own struggle and her own femininity as much as possible. Yet, her struggle as a warrior is what defined her. It is the spiritual core which she must have nurtured in the Amazon. Yet, in her dreams, she sees herself asleep in a bed in the middle of the jungle, a snake encroaches, and her heart bursts into flame. She is spiritually vulnerable and alone. The fire of her own passion, the passion that she allowed to live and breathe in the Amazon, is consuming her.</div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Unlocking the Mystery</h3><div>Lydia Tár is driven by a quest for power. Her passion for music betrays a desire for control which shapes every aspect of her life. She views power as masculine, and so she tries to emulate the great male conductors. She leads her life as if it were a symphony where only her tempo, her interpretation, and her vision mattered. She emotionally disconnects herself from all the women in her life, because she thinks femininity is weak. She consumes women to affirm her power, until the fire consumes Lydia Tár herself.</div><div><br /></div><div>It doesn't matter if she is haunted by a real or a metaphorical ghost. The effect is the same: she is confronted with her inner truth, and it leads to a psychological breakdown. Perhaps we are not meant to know if the ghost is real or not, because she cannot tell the difference, either.</div><div><br /></div><div>It doesn't matter if her career is ruined by a physical injury or scandal or the psychological breakdown itself. All of those factors combined to produce a singular result: She is burning in a hell of her own creation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps she always was in a sort of hell. Perhaps she was always haunted, and it was easier for her to hide it when she had power and everyone fawned over her. When her persona could thrive, it was easy to prop it up with more and more conquests. Once the facade cracked, the hell was exposed.</div>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-23347573939342150262023-01-02T13:41:00.054+01:002023-03-31T15:49:27.673+02:00Why Payakun is my favorite character from Avatar: The Way Of Water - Analysis with Spoilers<p><img alt="Avatar 3' Will See the Return of Payakan and His Nemesis from 'The Way of Water' - Murphy's Multiverse" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" height="360" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.murphysmultiverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/avatar3.jpg?resize=800%2C450&ssl=1" style="height: 356.625px; margin: 0px; width: 634px;" width="640" /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 18px;">I will be the first to admit that </span><i style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 18px;">Avatar: The Way of Water </i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 18px;">is not a great film, or even a very good one. While the visuals are often stunning, the dialogue and characters are rarely compelling--and sometimes downright problematic. The film propagates patriarchal tropes and appropriates Maori and Native American culture in superficial ways, and all at the expense of character development. To top it off, the plot is full of holes. And yet, on a thematic and emotional level, it sometimes works. </span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 18px;">At the very least, </span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 18px;">the power-hungry, Tulkun-hunting Captain Mick Scoresby (Brendan Cowell)</span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 18px;"> is set up to become a formidable villain in the next installment. More than that, Payakun may be the most sympathetic adaptation of the character of Moby Dick in film history. (Unfortunately, that says more about the inadequacies of prior film adaptations than it does about Cameron's film.) In the end, James Cameron has established a viable connection to one of the greatest works in American literature, making his statement about humanity and hubris that much stronger.</span></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><img alt="Moby Dick (1956) - IMDb" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" height="200" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTU2NjkzOTgyMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjUzODI1NA@@._V1_.jpg" style="-webkit-user-drag: auto; -webkit-user-select: text; float: right; height: 624px; margin: 0px; width: 492.856305px;" width="158" /></p>Some critics have already noticed superficial commonalities between Scoresby and American literature’s favorite villain, the puritanical and monomaniacal Captain Ahab. If you know anything about Herman Melville's <i>Moby Dick</i>, you know that Ahab was a peg leg sea captain who set his vengeful sights on the great white whale, and that he ended up drowning, pulled by the whale under the sea with the lines of his own harpoon. What you might not know, however, is Ahab’s backstory—the story of how he was first scarred and humiliated by the white whale, and why he went mad with a monomaniacal desire for revenge. <p></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><img alt="Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Redhouse - Ebook | Scribd" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/word_document/500174768/original/93b89ef8cd/1677892278?v=1" style="-webkit-user-drag: auto; -webkit-user-select: text; float: right; height: 624px; margin: 0px; width: 390.821053px;" />Ahab had been a great whale hunter, perhaps the greatest captain of the world’s largest global industry. At that time, whale ships crossed the seas in search of spermaceti, the oil from sperm whales which was needed to light oil lamps and lubricate machinery. Sperm whales were not an easy catch—it required multiple boats and harpoons to slow them down. Yet, despite their enormous size and power, they never fought back. They never attacked. That is, until Moby Dick. The white whale was unique in its ferocious desire for revenge. Moby Dick, the scarred, battered and angry sperm whale, attacked whaling ships, and crushed them. </p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 11px;">Ahab thought himself larger than life—a symbol of civilisation's advancement over nature. That’s why, when Moby Dick attacked, Ahab was insulted. The whale was standing up against mankind’s greatest industry, and Ahab took it personally. Instead of bowing in the face of defeat, he grabbed his knife and tried to take on the great whale in hand-to-hand combat. That’s how he lost his leg. In the weeks it took before he could reach land to receive medical attention, he was writhing in pain and thinking of only one thing: Moby Dick must pay for his crime—the crime of standing up against man’s industry. Thus it was that Ahab, the very image of man's attempt to conquer nature, ended up killing himself.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><img alt="Captain Ahab caught in a harpoon line and dragged down to … | Flickr" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://live.staticflickr.com/4762/40464502281_d640b85928_b.jpg" style="height: 319.511719px; margin: 0px; width: 574px;" /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Tulkun of Pandora don’t look a whole lot like sperm whales, and they aren’t hunted for their oil. Instead, they are hunted for an amber-like substance that promises an end to ageing. To get to this fountain of youth, you have to go inside the whale and dig deep into its head. Surprisingly, this substance (called amrita) does not play a bigger role in the story, and is forgotten quicker than it was mentioned. Perhaps it will play a role in future installments. In any case, its function here is to motivate Captain Scoresby, establishing him, like Ahab, as the master of the most profitable and valued industry in the galaxy.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><img height="407" src="https://www.marinemammalcenter.org/storage/app/uploads/public/21f/056/056/thumb__1600_0_0_0_crop.jpg" style="-webkit-user-select: none; display: block; margin: auto;" width="884" /></p><p></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><img alt="Tulkun | Avatar Wiki | Fandom" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" height="426" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/jamescameronsavatar/images/4/46/Tulkun.png/revision/latest?cb=20221030103522" style="height: 364.744667px; margin: 0px; width: 634px;" width="740" /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Scoresby’s story in <i>The Way of Water </i>is a clear retelling of Ahab’s backstory. Like Ahab, Scoresby is an arrogant yet very capable whale hunter. He enjoys the hunt, and takes pride in it. Like Ahab, he doesn’t expect the whales to fight back. Like sperm whales, the Tulkun don’t attack—that is, until Payakun resorts to violence to protect his friends. When confronted with this abomination, Scoresby does not grab a knife and dive under the water, but he doesn’t back down, either. Like Ahab, he throws caution to the wind and continues to fight, losing an arm and almost his life in the process.</p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">You may have assumed that Scoresby is dead, but that was never shown. According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(franchise)" target="_blank">the franchise’s Wikipedia page</a>, Brendan Cowell is set to resume his role as Captain Scoresby in <i>Avatar 3, </i>tentatively titled <i>The Seed Bearer</i>. Dr. Ian Garvin (Jemaine Clement), his marine biologist cohort, will also return. The fourth film in the series is tentatively titled <i>The Tulkun Rider</i>, indicating that the whales will continue to play a central role in the epic.</p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">For me, Payakun’s fight with Scoresby was the emotional climax of the film. By far the most rewarding line of dialogue in the entire screenplay is when the whale finally has the upper hand, and Garvin mocks Scoresby with the line, “Who has the harpoon now?” </p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><img alt="Avatar 3 Will Bring Back Both Payakan And His Nemesis Scoresby | Movies | Empire" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://images.bauerhosting.com/empire/2023/01/avatar-the-way-of-water-payakan-excl.jpg?format=jpg&quality=80&width=960&height=540&ratio=16-9&resize=aspectfill" style="height: 356.625px; margin: 0px; width: 634px;" /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">At that moment, the link to <i>Moby Dick</i> was as clear as could be: The whale was turning the tables on the industry. It only made sense that Scoresby would lose a limb after that. When he returns, he will surely have a hi-tech replacement, and while he might not exhibit Ahab’s insane level of vengefulness, he will undoubtedly seek to punish Payakun for insulting him. He will be battered, he will be scarred, he will hunt the whale, and he will die in the process.</p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">As it happens, Scoresby's prized amrita has a link to Melville’s novel, as well. Apart from spermaceti oil, whale hunters found another valuable substance in the bowels of sperm whales: ambergris. In the novel, Melville devotes a chapter to this amber-like substance. He describes it as the most valuable commodity in the world. Ironically, though it is only found deep in the gruesome, noxious bowels of a sick sperm whale, it produces a beautiful aroma. The rich and powerful paid a pretty penny for its use in perfumes. </p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Of course they couldn't let perfumery be the underlying industry for Scoresby's story. That would hardly resonate. It had to be something more representative of civilisation's self-destructive tendencies. What could be more fitting than the commodification of eternal youth? The idea of a fountain of youth has been around for millennia, but it has particular significance for American culture today. The last century of American consumerism has been increasingly focused on and targeted toward youth culture, to the point of toxicity. This develops the themes Melville was pursuing in ways he probably could not have envisioned. I don't know if Cameron will explore the issues raised by amrite in any depth, but the potential is there.</p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">It is not surprising that James Cameron has turned to Melville for inspiration. The <i>Avatar </i>saga is a tale about reimagining the relationship between humanity and nature, and finding a more spiritually fulfilling and harmonious way of life. Melville’s novel is undoubtedly a more accomplished, profound and richer work--it is considered one of the greatest novels of all time, after all--but it shares something of the same spirit. Both <i>Moby Dick </i>and <i>Avatar </i>romanticise native peoples and their relationship with nature. Cameron romanticises Native American tribes and the Maori of New Zealand. Melville romanticises Native Americans, too, and also natives of the South Seas. Both Melville and Cameron flirt with religion and mysticism, as well. You can barely go a page in <i>Moby Dick </i>without finding multiple references to religion, Egyptology or some kind of mysticism, including numerous criticisms of Christianity. Melville’s novel appears to be a sincere attempt to create its own mythology, its own spiritual foundation for a new relationship with nature. That’s why Melville blurs the boundary between his fictional world and the real one. Cameron’s project is not nearly that ambitious or complex--his mysticism is rather simplistic and superficial, and his mythology takes place in a world of fantasy which could never be mistaken for our own. Still, there is a similarity of intent. They are not trying to promote faith in the supernatural, but rather humility and compassion in the face of nature’s enormous and incomprehensible power. The enemy in both cases is hubris and the threat it poses to life itself.</p>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-78328418388029525082022-11-18T21:07:00.089+01:002023-12-15T23:56:14.573+01:00JAZZ ~ An American History (1913-2022)<p>Many people say that "Livery Stable Blues" was the first jazz music put on record. That was in 1917, by a group of white musicians who called themselves the Original Dixieland Jass Band. However, Wilbur Sweatman, a successful African-American composer and musician, made a few jazz recordings several months earlier, near the end of 1916. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="The Syncopated Times" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyGRSzevlrQRlV_T0G4pHJpactuOnWKu0JqPwkc7AzDhVZSEg3" style="height: 600px; margin: 0px auto; width: 511px;" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wilbur Sweatman (1882-1961)</td></tr></tbody></table><p>You can hear one of Sweatman's 1916 recordings ("Down Home Blues") as well as Dixieland's 1917 recording of "Livery Stable Blues" near the top of my Spotify playlist, <a href="https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0PAwOvsmlAmMZfnsfeQBID?si=f466bf0eed4a4cdc" target="_blank">"JAZZ ~ An American History (1913-2022)."</a> It contains over 1,700 songs, ordered chronologically, covering every year from 1913 to 2022. The whole thing is over 170 hours long. </p><p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10E198uL_4WXAd6Vtu-_y7xgevkXn83VgGORKHL9UpIA/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">Here is a spreadsheet with detailed info</a>. Scroll down for an embedded preview of the playlist.</p><p></p><p>The list started off as a way for me to expand my own experience of music, and to fill in gaps in my knowledge of jazz history. My aim was ultimately to improve my own creative abilities. Perhaps it can do something similar for others.</p><p>If you take a look, you'll see that Sweatman isn't first on my playlist. Neither is the Original Dixieland Jass Band. Instead, it starts with some earlier recordings of James Reese Europe's Society Orchestra. In these recordings from 1913 and 1914, Jim Europe combined ragtime with other influences, including various strands of folk music as well as spirituals. I wouldn't insist that it's jazz, but it might be.</p><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="James Reese Europe, 1881-1919 | Library of Congress" class="n3VNCb pT0Scc KAlRDb" data-noaft="1" height="448" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/html/images/europe-band.jpg" style="-webkit-user-drag: auto; -webkit-user-select: text; height: 344px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 275px;" width="358" /></div><p>Jazz has always involved mixing and blending influences, and its branches blend into other genres, like the blues, rock, R&B, soul, funk and avant-garde experimentalism. The lines between genres can be blurry. It's easy to embrace the fuzziness with words like "fusion" and phrases that indicate a mixing of genres, like "soul jazz" or "jazz funk." Those labels can be helpful, but they don't answer all the questions. Of course, this usually doesn't bother the musicians much, and I'm not letting it bother me much, either. I did not begin with an explicit definition of "jazz," and I didn't end with one, either. I've tried to respect the musicians as much as possible. I've also tried to include enough variety to indicate the expansive, fluid and evolving nature of jazz as part of the American experience.</p><div><p>Jazz has become a global phenomenon, but my focus is on American music. I am only including recording sessions led by American musicians; non-Americans only appear as side-musicians and, in one case, as a co-leader. As for who qualifies as an American musician, it is not where you were born, but where you grew up and came to musical fruition. </p><p>To keep the list as short and tidy as possible, I have stuck to one rule: no more than one song per recording session. The order is not based on when the music was published, but on when it was recorded. Multiple songs can appear from the same album, but only if the recordings can be traced to different sessions.</p></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="380" loading="lazy" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/playlist/0PAwOvsmlAmMZfnsfeQBID?utm_source=generator" style="border-radius: 12px;" width="100%"></iframe>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-61826274164531244962020-08-28T02:05:00.058+02:002020-09-12T09:57:26.931+02:00The Rise of Skywalker<p><i>This post contains spoilers for </i>The Rise of Skywalker<i> and other films in the Skywalker saga.</i></p><p>Having enjoyed <i>The Last Jedi </i>more the second time around, I decided to rewatch <i>The Rise of Skywalker </i>after only seeing it once back when it was in the theaters. I'm glad to say I enjoyed the final episode even more the second time, as well. I am quite impressed with how J. J. Abrams was able to pull it all off. Not only did he create a fast-paced, action-packed adventure story, but he also connected so many plot and character threads with abundant humor and emotional depth. I think it is one of the most satisfying <i>Star Wars </i>films of all and a powerful end to the saga. And yet, it is often rated as one of the worst. I'm trying to understand why.</p><p>A lot of people complain that the movie is too focused on a lot of running around trying find things that don't really matter. I don't think that's a fair criticism. It's an adventure story, after all, and every aspect of it is clearly and appropriately motivated. None of it is aimless or random. Yes, I know there is a plot hole regarding the knife that Rey finds and eventually uses to find the Sith wayfinder. There's simply no reason why such a knife would ever exist. It's an illogical plot device that gives an excuse for a lot of fun action, humor and even some drama. Are we going to complain whenever a Star Wars movie depends on an illogical plot device? Because all <i>Star Wars </i>films have them. In <i>The Last Jedi</i>, how does Maz Kanata know exactly where the master codebreaker will be, and what game he will be playing, and what he will be wearing on his lapel at the precise time they will show up at the casino? That plot hole means the whole casino mission makes little to no sense. Here's <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/plotholes/comments/8pzy20/last_jedi_list/" target="_blank">a list of other plot holes from the same film</a>. I am sure similar lists have been created for all the <i>Star Wars </i>films, some longer than others. If you want to nitpick about plot holes, fine, but don't act like they are unique to this movie.</p><p>I've also seen complaints that the film doesn't take consequences seriously: specifically, Chewbacca's death is a fake-out, C3PO regains most of his memory, and Kylo Ren is apparently killed by Emperor Palpatine, only to somehow climb his way back. I have a few responses to this criticism. First, the movie does have a number of significant deaths (most notably, Leia and Ben Solo). I don't think more were necessary. It's not like we're talking about <i>Game of Thrones </i>here. Second, would the story be better if Chewbacca had died at that moment, or if C3PO never got any of his memory back, or if Ben Solo was simply gone at that moment? No, I don't think so. All of these reversals are satisfying to me, and none feel cheap. Finally, the use of reversals has merit. It provides for a more dynamic emotional experience. I would agree with the criticism if <i>every </i>negative turn was reversed, or if the reversals felt cheap and worked against the story. But that is not the case.</p><p>Another complaint has to do with who has access to the Force. A lot of people responded well to the populist message in <i>The Last Jedi</i>, and wanted more of the same from <i>Episode IX. </i>However, I don't see Abrams' film as negating or ignoring that message in any way. On the contrary, he expands on it. <i>The Rise of Skywalker </i>focuses a lot on common people, how they can be empowered and united, and how anyone (including disillusioned storm troopers) can be Force sensitive. Finn discusses his own Force sensitivity, linking it directly to feelings. Of course, having feelings can't be enough to become Force sensitive, because then it would be a lot more common, but feelings clearly play a role. There must be some explanation for why everyone in the <i>Star Wars </i>universe hasn't been using the Force. Rian Johnson's film doesn't address that question at all. At least Abrams explores it, and without invoking Midichlorians.</p><p>Now, some of the criticisms run deeper, and have to do with ideas about what <i>Star Wars </i>films are or should be. For example, some people say that J. J. Abrams was trying too hard to please fans, that he was playing it too safe by undoing the supposedly risky moves that Rian Johnson had made in the previous episode. This line of argument is hard for me to accept, though. Part of the reason is that I don't appreciate all of Johnson's decisions. As <a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-last-jedi-revisited.html" target="_blank">I wrote previously</a>, his attempt to end the question of destiny was premature and resulted in weak character arcs for Rey and Kylo Ren, who are the two most important characters in the third and final trilogy. So, yes, Abrams walked back some of Johnson's maneuvers, but he did it in a way that feels authentic and true to the spirit of the Skywalker saga. Ultimately, the moves (in particular, bringing back Ren's helmet and making Rey a Palpatine) allowed the film to focus on the crucial question of destiny. And I think Abrams handled that question remarkably well.</p><p>After being rejected by Rey and after a humiliating encounter with Luke Skywalker, why <i>wouldn't </i>Kylo Ren feel the imposing weight of Darth Vader's legacy? Why <i>wouldn't</i> he try to hide behind his old mask again? Abrams' choices make perfect sense. Kylo Ren is not a confident, stable military leader. He is a frightened man-child who cannot come to terms with who he is. As Luke tells Rey in <i>Episode IX</i>, a Jedi's destiny is to face their fear. The saga has always focused on the relationship between identity and bloodlines, and the fear that can induce. That is why it's called the Skywalker saga, after all, and not simply the <i>Star Wars</i> saga. In the original trilogy, Luke's destiny is to face his father, whom he is afraid of becoming. Rey's destiny is to face her grandfather, whom she is afraid of becoming. And Ben Solo's destiny is to come to terms with his own grandfather's shadow. Destiny, in this sense, is not about fatalism. It's not that everything is predetermined. It's that becoming a Jedi just <i>means </i>that that is what you have to do. Being a Jedi means being balanced and in control, and you cannot do that if you don't face your fear and come to terms with who you are.</p><p>Abrams didn't just rehash old plot lines, either. Rey's story is unique in a number of important ways. For one thing, she breaks the tie to her lineage, giving new meaning to the entire saga. When Luke prevails at the end of <i>Return of the Jedi</i>, it is because he has successfully rekindled the love in his father's heart. He wins because his father protects him, and so he proudly keeps his father's name. When Rey prevails at the end of the saga, however, she does not honor her family name. Seeing Luke and Leia's Force ghosts looking over her, she chooses the Skywalker name for herself. This is a much stronger ending than Luke's. Unlike Luke, Rey wins because she is stronger than Emperor Palpatine. Yes, she basically dies in the process of killing him, and she only survives because Ben Solo repays the debt he owes her for saving his life. But that points to another key difference about Rey's story: She also prevails because of the compassion which allows her to love Ben Solo and save his life (effectively killing Kylo Ren). Unlike Luke, or any other Star Wars character, Rey's story has always been about compassion--about letting compassion guide you, even if it means leaving your biological family. That is what starts her journey when she meets BB-8, and it is what carries her through until the end.</p><p>Does <i>The Rise of Skywalker </i>feel more like a sequel to <i>The Force Awakens </i>than to <i>The Last Jedi</i>? If so, it is not because Abrams was rejecting Rian Johnson's film. Rather, it's because the main characters--Rey, Finn, Poe, Leia, Kylo Ren--never really changed at all in Rian Johnson's film. <i>The Last Jedi </i>ends with them all basically where they were at the end of <i>The Force Awakens</i>, except Luke and Snoke are dead, Finn is conscious, Kylo Ren broke his helmet and Rey thinks her parents didn't matter. <i>Episode IX </i>picks up those pieces and tells a story that threads together all the previous films in the Skywalker saga. It is a sequel to <i>The Last Jedi</i> and to <i>The Force Awakens </i>and to the six episodes that came before. That is what it should be.</p><p>Now, if you simply didn't enjoy the movie, what can I say? Maybe you weren't in the mood for it. Or maybe it just didn't match your expectations. I recommend watching it again. You might enjoy it more the second time. If not, oh well. We all have different tastes. For me, this is a lot better--it's funnier, more exciting and more emotionally impactful--than it has any right to be. I'd rank it up there with the best of the saga.</p><p>If you are interested in reading another defense of the film against common criticisms, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2019/12/23/the-critics-must-be-crazy-the-rise-of-skywalker-is-the-best-star-wars-movie-in-the-new-trilogy/" target="_blank">check out what Erik Kain wrote at Forbes.</a></p>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-42103780212290543952020-08-27T14:03:00.056+02:002020-08-28T14:06:26.734+02:00The Last Jedi, RevisitedIt took almost three years, but I finally rewatched <i>The Last Jedi</i>. I enjoyed it more the second time, which isn’t saying a whole lot. I don’t hate the movie, but I don’t love it, either. Some of it works terrifically well, while other parts are frustrating and disappointing. As a stand alone movie, I think it's pretty good, but not great. As the second part of a <i>Star Wars</i> trilogy, and as the eighth episode of the nine-part Skywalker saga, my view is a bit lower. The reason is the way it handles one of <i>Star Wars</i>’ central themes: destiny. <br /><br />Like Luke and Anakin before them, Kylo Ren and Rey both have to struggle with the question of destiny. In <i>The Force Awakens</i>, Ren kills his father in an effort to fulfill the destiny of following in Vader’s footsteps, and Rey is confronted with <a href="https://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-saga-continues-why-i-admire-force.html" target="_blank">the question of her own destiny</a> when she finds Luke’s light saber calling to her. Destiny is central to both of their inner conflicts, so the second part of the new trilogy should have added new complications on their respective paths toward resolution. Instead, Rian Johnson’s film effectively puts an end to the issue altogether.<br /><br />Kylo kills Snoke and, now without the Vader-inspired mask, has dispensed with all ties to the past. He is on his own, without any question about his destiny. Similarly, Rey learns that she never had a meaningful tie to the past, and so it was always up to her to create her own destiny. Thus, when the film ends, there is no longer a question of destiny for either character. The only questions are: When’s the next battle, how can the resistance win, and will Kylo Ren eventually turn away from the dark side? Those are important questions, but without the question of destiny, they are incomplete. The reason J. J. Abrams had to walk back some of the developments from <i>The Last Jedi</i> was precisely this: Because he had to revive the issue of destiny so that its resolution came with the final triumph of the resistance. Bringing Palpatine back in some way or other was probably the best way to do that, so Rey could choose the Skywalker path—choose her own destiny—despite her lineage.<br /><br />I discussed several of the film’s character arcs at length in <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">my previous post on <i>The Last Jedi</i></a>, but I never got to Rey. Now that I’ve seen it again, I want to finally discuss Rey’s character arc and why I think Rian Johnson’s script doesn’t do her justice. But first, I will revise some of the observations I made the first time around.<br /><br /><b>Poe Dameron</b> <br />My view of Poe’s arc has not changed. His resistance to female leadership all but destroys the resistance. There could have been a compelling story about toxic masculinity here, but unfortunately Poe’s story is not developed in a convincing or satisfying way. After he goes so far as to lead an armed mutiny against Holdo, endangering the entire resistance, Leia and Holdo merely smile, calling him a likable troublemaker as if they were talking about a harmless little boy who was still growing up. Yes, Poe soon realizes Admiral Holdo was more of a hero than he thought, but that’s no reason to think he has changed. I don't understand why he is giving orders after that, or why Leia tells everyone to follow him at the end of the movie. Why should anyone trust or even like him?<br /><br /><b>Finn</b> <br />Finn’s arc, if he has a coherent one at all, is about heroism. At the beginning of his story, he thinks the resistance is doomed and tries to save himself and Rey. He meets Rose, who calls him a hero, and he rejects the distinction. But suddenly he decides to go along with her to try and save the resistance. Has he changed somehow? And they and Poe decide to do it in secret, because for some unknown reason, none of them trust the resistance’s leadership. Is that also supposed to be heroic? This reckless decision ultimately costs many lives and almost destroys the entire resistance, but nobody seems to care about that in the end. Their irresponsibility is overlooked. In any case, somehow, presumably thanks to his and Rose’s casino escape and rescue success (success? not really, but whatever), Finn has decided to die a hero. He ignores Poe’s orders to call off the attack on the Battering Ram Cannon and is going to sacrifice himself to save the resistance. (Though we have to wonder why the First Order stopped shooting down the rebels when there were only one or two left.) But then Rose stops him in a move that was likely to kill them both, but survives to tell him, before practically dying, that the only way they can win is through saving what they love. This ties in with the theme of compassion, but wasn’t Finn trying to save what he loved? And wasn’t that what he was doing at the very beginning of the movie? There's no clear Finn arc at all.<br /><br /><b>Kylo Ren</b> <br />We are led to hope that Ren is becoming more compassionate and turning away from the dark side through his mysterious interactions with Rey. However, as Luke predicts, that doesn’t happen. In <i>The Force Awakens</i>, he killed his father. Now he kills his spiritual leader. There’s no sign that killing Snoke has changed Ren, just like killing Han didn’t free him the way he thought it would. We are still waiting for Ren to grow or change in a significant way.<br /><br /><b>Snoke</b> <br />I will note a small arc for Snoke that I didn’t notice the first time around. In classically tragic fashion, Snoke is destroyed by his own hubris. He was so confident in his control over Ren that he created a force connection between him and Rey, knowing it would lure her to him. While his plan seems a bit too unlikely to be taken seriously, it at least gives a somewhat satisfying reason for Snoke’s death. He didn’t know Ren as well as he thought, and so he invited his own downfall. I enjoyed that outcome much more the second time.<br /><br /><b>Luke Skywalker</b> <br />I still think Luke’s redemption is the only compelling arc in the film, even if it is hard to accept that he would have so easily turned his back on the Force. The second time around, I noticed a line early in the film that foreshadows his death. When Ren and Rey see each other for the first time, Ren wonders if Rey is making herself appear in front of him; he immediately rejects the hypothesis, saying that the effort would kill her. So if we're paying attention, we shouldn't be shocked when the effort kills Luke.<br /><br />That’s it for the male characters. As I noted in my previous post on the film, the women in <i>The Last Jedi</i> don’t have compelling arcs of their own. Leia and Holdo make decisions that drive the plot forward, but their conflicts primarily serve Poe’s story. Rose also makes decisions, but the conflicts only serve to (allegedly) teach Finn about love, justice and heroism. So what about Rey?<br /><br /><b>Rey</b> <br />Her arc forms <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">part of the backbone of <i>The Force Awakens</i></a>, so I had high expectations for her role in <i>Episode VIII</i>. Fortunately, she does have some complexity and agency in <i>The Last Jedi</i>, and yet, like all the other female characters in the film, Rey is largely there to prop up the men.<br /><br />For a long while, Rey has two external goals: persuade Luke to come back to the resistance and become his protégé. She is unable to achieve these goals, which apparently makes her unstable. Luke only agrees to teach her to <i>not </i>be a Jedi. And while Luke does eventually decide to risk his life to save the resistance in the end, this is not thanks to Rey so much as to Yoda. Rey eventually gives up on Luke and leaves (taking the ancient Jedi texts with her) so she can try and enlist Ren to her cause. This allows Ren to kill Snoke, but that is all.<br /><br />While Rey does have something of an arc, it is somewhat vague and unconvincing. Unlike the independent and powerful Rey at the end of <i>The Force Awakens, </i>this Rey seems much more dependent on men and much less secure in her own identity. Though she chose compassion and the Skywalker path over her family ties in <i>The Force Awakens</i>, she now feels the heavy shadow of her unknown lineage and uncertainty about her identity. Her insecurity amplifies, perhaps because Luke is unable to properly mentor her and unwilling to help the resistance; however, Ren says the problem is that she is looking for parent figures in the first place. Either way, it's not a well-defined inner conflict. For whatever reason, Rey desperately wants to know what happened to her parents and what that means for her--she must known her destiny--and this makes her unstable. Her lack of balance is evident when we see her accidentally destroy a rock with her light saber and, less subtly, when she becomes very emotional talking about it with Kylo Ren.<br /><br />All this time, she feels a dark hole calling to her from below the island and Luke fears that she is too open to the dark side. But what is pulling her to the dark side? She is not driven by hate. She seems more compassionate than anything else. Her compassion is what (surprisingly quickly) leads her to open up to Ren in the first place. It must be her insecurity about her destiny. So she descends into the hole to look for answers, but she is not satisfied with what she sees (which is an image only of herself, echoing Luke's vision of himself behind Vader's mask in <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i>). <br /><br />Rey's questions about her lineage are only resolved later, when Ren tells her she doesn’t have one. Perhaps this moment is supposed to be a heavy one for Rey. According to Kylo Ren, she is insecure because she has been too dependent on father figures (Han and Luke) and the idea of her own family. He strips it all away when he tells her her parents were nobodies, and he says that she means something to <i>him</i>. In Kylo Ren's mind, he might be the only option, but we know Rey from <i>The Force Awakens. </i>In that movie, Rey was never so insecure. She never would have seen the dark side as an option, let alone the only one. She already chose her new family at the end of that movie, so why would she abandon them now?<br /><br />Is it supposed to be a hard choice, then, when she leaves Kylo Ren to help the resistance? If so, it is not convincing. Yes, Rey is devastated--as were many fans--when Kylo convinces her that her parents were nobodies and that she is “nothing.” However, her choice to take Luke's lights saber and help the resistance does not resolve any inner conflict in her, because she was never truly tempted by the dark side. She only went to Ren to recruit him, not to find herself. She was a little unstable earlier, but not so much that it would affect any of her decisions. We never saw her truly doubt which way she should go. Thus, at the end of the movie, she is back where she was at the end of <i>The Force Awakens</i>. Nothing has changed for her, except now she is not troubled by questions about her family or her destiny anymore. She is only concerned about the resistance and how they can move forward. In short, we never see her making a hard choice and changing as a result of it. Thus, she lacks a strong character arc.<br /><br />If Rey had been given a strong arc in <i>Episode VIII</i>, with her discovering she was a Palpatine, for example, we would have been perfectly set up for a new destiny-centered conflict in the final film of the saga. Yes, it would have echoed the reveal of Luke’s lineage at the end of <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i>, but why is that a bad thing? So many parts of <i>The Last Jedi</i> echo that previous film. By bluntly resolving the question of destiny, <i>The Last Jedi</i> ended a central pillar of the story before it was time. I believe this, and not any plot or character weaknesses, is what hurt the film the most.Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-31179450760590726822019-07-13T13:20:00.009+02:002023-03-12T09:48:00.557+01:00Reflections on Midsommar<div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; float: right; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;"><img alt="Midsommar (2019 film poster).png" class="mw-mmv-final-image png mw-mmv-dialog-is-open" crossorigin="anonymous" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Midsommar_%282019_film_poster%29.png" /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;">My thoughts on Midsommar haven't evolved much since I saw it the other day, but they won't go away, either. I've enjoyed having ideas and images from the movie float around in my mind, but I don't think I'll be satisfied until I share my thoughts on them. </div><div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;"><SPOILERS AHEAD></div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: left;">
Director Ari Aster has said he was trying to make <a href="https://ew.com/movies/2019/07/05/midsommar-ending-ari-aster/">"a big operatic break-up movie."</a> Midsommar is certainly that. Sentencing your boyfriend to death is perhaps the most operatic break-up imaginable. What makes the movie work so well, for me, is how deeply we are drawn into Dani's plight. It's not that she simply needs to get rid of her manipulative, toxic boyfriend. No, she needs to understand what he has been doing to her. She needs to grow to the point where she is emotionally capable of breaking up with him. That's why Florence Pugh's performance is so central to the success of the film. She brings us up from the depths of emotional trauma, through maddening mazes of gaslighting and anxiety, to dance, play, communal catharsis, and ultimately, joy.</div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
What makes the movie so thought-provoking, for me, is not simply that Dani's triumph comes by joining a murderous cult. It's that we are allowed to understand why joining the cult, and sentencing Christian to death, makes sense for her. Partly, it's because she is at her most vulnerable. Yes, she lost her parents and sister; but more importantly, she blames herself. She blames herself for everything. She blames herself for not handling her sister better. She even blames herself for relying too much on her boyfriend to support her when she is trying to support her sister. She carries the world on her shoulders, and it falls so heartbreakingly.</div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
Dani cries out multiple times in the movie, but two scenes stand out. The first is at the beginning, when she is crushed and curled up, wailing on her boyfriend's lap--her silent boyfriend, who cannot give her the emotional support she needs, and who makes her feel bad for wanting him to try. The second scene is the opposite. It occurs toward the end of the film, after she's witnessed the same boyfriend cheat on her. Now her wailing is shared. She is surrounded by young women who mirror her every cry and moan, refusing to let her suffer alone.</div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
If the film is making a statement, I believe it is this: contemporary society has made it too difficult for people to be emotionally present and supportive. We experience the stark contrast between nature and technology as the film opens. The very first image we see is a peaceful and pristine forest. We hear a folk chant that feels very old and connected to the earth. After a moment, the ringing of a telephone jolts us into the suburbs. Yet, technology fails. Nobody answers the phone. Her sister never receives her text messages. It appears that the main connection Dani has with her parents and sister is indirect and unnatural, mediated through the telephone and Internet. We can blame some of Dani's problems on her toxic relationship, but the film is making a much deeper point. She suffers toxicity to a great extent because she is used to emotional disconnection. We are all similarly vulnerable to toxicity and crave something like the family that Dani ultimately finds.</div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(29, 33, 41); color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
As a final comment, I think it's also very interesting what Aster chose to show and not show. The movie is gruesomely violent, but only when showing the ritualistic suicides. Aster does not fetishize murder, nor does he make death look insignificant. That's what horror movies too often do, but this is not a typical horror movie. And yet, it is horrifying. We want Dani to triumph, but we cannot be comfortable with how it happens. This is the tragedy: That our world is so devoid of emotional connection that a person might only find strength and comfort in the most horrifying of places.</div>
Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-61442773669508181112017-12-17T11:07:00.010+01:002020-08-31T09:50:19.939+02:00The Last Jedi: Character Arcs, Part 1<i>This post contains spoilers for </i>Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.<br />
<br />
It's great that <i>The Last Jedi </i>continues to make the franchise more inclusive, but I am not ready to sing its praises. The fact is, <i>Episode VIII </i>is primarily about two white men: Kylo Ren and Luke Skywalker. Yes, there are a handful of strong women and people of color, but their development in the film leaves a lot to be desired.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the film, Poe Dameron is a headstrong, independent and overly optimistic pilot who doesn't like to follow orders. He wants to lead the Resistance in its fight against the First Order, but his dramatic conflict in the film is not with anyone in the First Order. It is with Leia, who censures and demotes him when his insubordination results in an extreme loss of life, and who even shoots him when he attempts a mutiny that almost kills the entire Resistance. He needs to learn restraint and humility, though there is little evidence that he overcomes his limitations. Yet, at the end of the film, he commands the remaining members of the Resistance to follow him. They hesitate and turn to Leia for guidance. Leia quips, "What are you looking at me for?", as if Poe has earned their unquestioning loyalty. In this light-hearted moment, Leia hands the baton of leadership over to Poe, signaling the completion of his character arc.<br />
<br />
There is some evidence that Poe has changed, though not necessarily for the better: He may be less willing to sacrifice soldiers, and less confident in his ability to succeed against enormous odds. He suggests this when he calls off the mission to charge the First Order at the last minute, seeing his comrades being too easily picked off. However, this decision doesn't make Poe out to be a more competent or trustworthy leader, since he doesn't have a better plan for the Resistance's survival. What did he think was going to happen when he started the mission? Did he think they would be able to charge the First Order without significant casualties? It was a last ditch effort--of course there were going to be significant casualties--so why give up at the last minute? His actions make little sense and don't suggest an improved approach to leadership, so why does Leia now expect everyone to follow him? Is it just because she likes him? For whatever reason, Leia is satisfied with Poe, so we are supposed to be, too.<br />
<br />
Leia's role in the film is particularly disappointing, as she has no arc to speak of at all. Her desire is to keep as many members of the Resistance alive as possible, but her actions are only in relation to Poe. She has nothing else to do but be an obstacle for him, until she decides he doesn't need her anymore. Admiral Holdo serves a similar role: She is a stand-in for Leia, and she sacrifices herself when Leia returns. Consider how much more powerful it would have been if Leia stayed behind to "pilot" the ship at the end. Why did Holdo do it? There's no sense of character here. They're both just props, there for Poe to resist and then to tell us that Poe is entirely likable and worthy despite his devastating choices.<br />
<br />
On a more positive--if tragic--note, Luke has a coherent arc in this installment, though it is not without its problems. For one thing, it is hard to believe that his devastating failure with Ben Solo would turn him away from the Force completely. Luke Skywalker once walked into the belly of the beast to confront his father and turn him away from the Emperor. How did he become so overcome by fear that he would consider killing Ben Solo in cold blood, just because Ben was <i>gradually </i>turning towards the Dark Side? What had Ben done? What had Snoke done? While I like the <i>Rashomon</i>-style of storytelling--giving us three different versions of Luke's fateful confrontation with Kylo, and leaving the audience with uncertainty--none of the stories tell us what led Luke to that pivotal moment in the first place. It is therefore hard to accept that he has completely shut off himself from the Force. This is a significant gap that would probably take a whole separate film to fill.<br />
<br />
Still, there is a clear redemption narrative here. Luke's goal is to find a way to live with his guilt and anger, but he cannot let go of the Jedi in him. For most of the film, he just wants to be left alone, thinking that he cannot be helped. He tries to destroy Rey's hope, though it's not clear if he has any compassion for her, or if he is just bitter. But he is not willing to destroy the ancient Jedi texts. Perhaps he hates the Jedi for still wielding power over him. He hates himself and the entire Jedi Order for all of their failures. He has shut himself off from the Force, even though he knows it is the greatest power in the universe. He's basically in hell. Then, Yoda frees him from bondage by tricking him into thinking he has destroyed the ancient texts. Yoda knows the texts aren't in the tree: Rey has taken them already. Yoda wants Luke to find his way back to the Force on his own. Freed from the burden of the past, Luke reconnects with the Force and finds hope again. It is perhaps ironic that Luke becomes a Jedi legend through an act of trickery. While Luke may be a fool, he is redeemed with his triumph over Kylo Ren--an act which doesn't actually make a lot of sense (if his goal was to give Leia time to escape, he might've told her when he saw her), but ends up helping the resistance escape, sending waves of hope throughout the galaxy.*<br /><br />
While Luke's development has its good and bad points, Finn's is overall just bad. He apparently change from a person who is only out to protect himself and the people he loves (that would be Rey, at least at the beginning of the film) to a person who is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. This comes about due to his connection to the compassionate and inspirational Rose, though his transformation (and their relationship) is rushed and mostly buried under a cartoonish escape and rescue sequence. Finn suddenly shifts from potential runaway to hero when he realizes he and Rose can help the Resistance escape. Within moments of meeting Rose, he eagerly goes on a "mission impossible" without the slightest hesitation. There could have been a compelling, even endearing, narrative here about compassion and self-sacrifice: Rose could have forced Finn to go along with the plan, threatening to expose his attempt to run away; he could have abandoned her at the casino, only to decide at the last minute to help Rose save the animals and return to help the Resistance. But no, we just get a magical shift in attitude early in the film.<div><br /></div><div>Then, apparently Rose is supposed to teach Finn something at the end about saving those you love. Except that's what Finn was trying to do at the beginning of the movie: Save himself and Rey. And at the end, wasn't Finn also trying to save people? That was the purpose of his attempted self-sacrifice. Is Rose saying self-sacrifice is never a good idea? (Strange, considering she easily could have died trying to save Finn the way she did.) Or was this just a moment of weakness for Rose: Was she being selfish, trying to keep Finn alive at the expense of the Resistance? Why was Finn wrong to keep going? Rose risked her life and Finn's by colliding right in front of the First Order. She had no reasonable hope for saving anyone's life, and good reason to think that she was destroying any hope for the Resistance. <br />
<br />That leaves us with Rey and Kylo Ren, the two central characters in the new and final trilogy in the Skywalker saga. I'll save Rey for another post. As for Kylo Ren, his conflicts are not clearly defined or resolved. For one thing, his interests and desires are always in question. Does he want Snoke's approval, or is he just using Snoke so he can become stronger? Is his goal to start a new world order? He asks Rey to join him: Is this a tactical decision or does he want her companionship, or both? Does he just want to be loved? Does he want revenge on Luke Skywalker for not believing in him? What about his mother? He didn't want to kill her, but he seems fine when he thinks she is dead. Does he ever discover that she is still alive? With so much in doubt, we cannot say for sure if he changes at all over the course of the film.<br />
<br />
Early in the film, Snoke ridicules him for wearing a mask, knowing--as we all did--that the mask was keeping Kylo from reaching his true potential. Humiliated, Kylo immediately destroys the mask, but it doesn't have the effect Snoke had expected. The newly confident Kylo won't kill Leia, and when given the chance, he seems to explore his compassionate side with Rey. But was he really opening up to compassion? Perhaps. In any case, when faced with the choice between killing Rey and killing Snoke, Kylo chooses to kill his master. He is free from Snoke's influence, free from the past, and ready to create a future of his own making--but has he only done it so he can be with Rey? He is still an incompetent leader prone to temper tantrums. He has not gained compassion or self-control. And while he may be leading the fight against the Resistance, he's going to have to sleep with one eye open, since nobody in the First Order wants to follow him.<br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><i>* How do slave children on Canto Bight learn of Luke's victory, anyway? Also, it's more than a little frustrating that Luke's death doesn't have a profound effect on any of the other characters, even though many lives had been lost in the effort to find him and bring him back to the Resistance. We don't even get a reaction to his death from R2D2? The shallow treatment of this crucial moment takes away some of the power of Luke's arc, and the film as a whole.</i><br /></div></div>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-89757336904236482562017-12-05T12:45:00.001+01:002017-12-07T08:31:02.306+01:00Coco, The Book of Life: What's the Difference?If you've seen <i>Coco </i>and <i>The Book of Life</i>, you've surely noticed some of the similarities. At the very least, they are both animated musicals set in Mexico on the Day of the Dead (Día de Muertos). And you surely noticed that they both feature a guitar-wielding male protagonist who enters and returns from the Land of the Dead. But how many other similarities did you notice?<br />
<br />
--SPOILER ALERT--<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In both films:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Authenticity is a defining characteristic of the protagonist (Miguel in <i>Coco</i>; Manolo in <i>The Book of Life</i>).</li>
<li>The protagonist learns the guitar in secret, and against the wishes of his family. This sets up a conflict between the desire to be true to yourself and devotion to your family.</li>
<li>The conflict is resolved in a touching moment when the protagonist picks up his guitar and sings a plaintive song in front of his family. Authenticity and family both prevail in the end.</li>
<li>Main characters (Juaquin and Xibalba in <i>The Book of Life </i>and Ernesto in <i>Coco</i>) achieve fame and/or power through deception.</li>
<li>The deceptions are eventually exposed.</li>
<li>The protagonist meets an ancestor in the Land of the Dead who is also musical (Jorge Sanchez in <i>The Book of Life </i>and Hector in <i>Coco</i>).</li>
<li>The protagonist meets several other relatives in the Land of the Dead, who fight for him.</li>
<li>Among those relatives are twins who fight as a team.</li>
</ul>
<div>
There are significant differences, of course.</div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><i>The Book of Life</i> is a love story, whereas the plot of <i>Coco </i>focuses on the protagonist's desire to connect to his roots and uncover a family secret.</li>
<li>In <i>The Book of Life</i>, the human characters are manipulated by a god (Xibalba) whom Manolo must defeat.</li>
<li>In <i>The Book of Life, </i>the main story is presented as a myth, a story-within-a-story. In contrast, <i>Coco </i>is presented as a straightforward story taking place in the real world.</li>
<li><i>The Book of Life</i> has a subplot about redemption: Juaquin proves to be compassionate and ultimately redeems himself through an act of selflessness.</li>
<li><i>The Book of Life </i>is also about compassion, including compassion for animals. Manolo is defined by his compassion as much as his authenticity.</li>
<li><i>The Book of Life </i>deals heavily with the tradition of bullfighting, which is not mentioned at all in <i>Coco.</i></li>
<li><i>The Book of Life</i> has deeper Mexican roots. It is produced by a Mexican filmmaker (Guillermo del Toro), and directed and co-written by another (Jorge R. Gutiérrez). (<a href="http://www.miaminewtimes.com/arts/guillermo-del-toro-on-the-book-of-life-this-film-is-unapologetically-latin-and-mexican-6492046">They discuss their personal feelings about the film here.</a>) In contrast, <i>Coco </i>is produced, directed and written entirely by Americans. (Adrian Molina, one of <i>Coco</i>'s<i> </i>co-writers and co-directers, is Mexican-American. <a href="http://remezcla.com/features/film/nalip-media-summit-animation-master-class-adrian-molina-coco/">He discusses his background and personal feelings about the film here.</a>)</li>
<li><i>Coco </i>features an all-Latino cast, though the vast majority of voice actors in <i>The Book of Life </i>are also Latino.</li>
<li>Spirit animals play a significant role in <i>Coco.</i></li>
</ul>
<div>
Maybe all the similarities are a coincidence, though it's hard to believe it. <i>The Book of Life </i>was not only released first--its whole production process started first. It seems likely that <i>Coco </i>was heavily influenced by <i>The Book of Life</i>. Hopefully <i>Coco</i>'s<i> </i>enormous success will draw more attention to the earlier, and in my mind superior, film.</div>
</div>
Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-4827661919951658812016-08-06T10:39:00.006+02:002023-02-09T16:46:47.145+01:00The Neon Gatsby<span face=""><i>This post contains spoilers for the film, </i>The Neon Demon.</span><br />
<span face=""><span face=""><br /></span>
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Hollywood excels at masking the shallow as profound. It is ironic, then, that a film offering a profound critique of Hollywood is widely seen as shallow. The film is Nicolas Winding Refn’s </span><i style="font-size: 12.8px;">The Neon Demon</i><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">, and its surface is so stunning that </span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.google.pl/search?q%3Dneon%2Bdemon%2Bshallow%26oq%3Dneon%2Bdemon%2Bshallow%26aqs%3Dchrome..69i57j69i60l3.3001j0j7%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8&source=gmail&ust=1470558700584000&usg=AFQjCNEZJ0KUkr6a8w0iW8JkG3GpeoY7AQ" href="https://www.google.pl/search?q=neon+demon+shallow&oq=neon+demon+shallow&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.3001j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">some critics</a><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> assume that’s all there is. Yet,</span></span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">there is a familiar alienation and darkness beneath its skin, just </span><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">as the grotesque lurks beneath the seductive glitz and glamour of a</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> decadent party from <i>The Great Gatsby</i>. In fact, Refn's stylized portrait of Hollywood is strikingly reminiscent of F. Scott Fitzgerald's</span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"> New York. Both </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">explore the romanticization of a corrupt narcissist while exposing the depraved society that consumes him--or her, as the case may be.</span><br />
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<span face=""><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhNJ3nTzkBPwAmzvMLit_PBzIkDlOKsDZ8iJS7S7ktI0TTLFrbGaEyq4psdI4w1mKaLdjmLz_8fay2uDX2s5Jkh165fbXiZtME01hi4crL88Qrwr15utyi6mi9MQaDPg3NQRROLUAfVkC_/s1600/Neon+Demon+1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhNJ3nTzkBPwAmzvMLit_PBzIkDlOKsDZ8iJS7S7ktI0TTLFrbGaEyq4psdI4w1mKaLdjmLz_8fay2uDX2s5Jkh165fbXiZtME01hi4crL88Qrwr15utyi6mi9MQaDPg3NQRROLUAfVkC_/s640/Neon+Demon+1.jpg" width="640" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8e91foxDxwnurO7SlDMb4dS_DZrb9PQDBDxvhwtfcW6FmWGdzVHIV4JFXsDv-tL3jbLhA7h8emt53SlbrM7-7uCFeRgX_YmifXZD5aHzZ7ckJjr0uC1DU_Q2EkFrB-koolqredjGYR3P4/s1600/Gatsby+Cover.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8e91foxDxwnurO7SlDMb4dS_DZrb9PQDBDxvhwtfcW6FmWGdzVHIV4JFXsDv-tL3jbLhA7h8emt53SlbrM7-7uCFeRgX_YmifXZD5aHzZ7ckJjr0uC1DU_Q2EkFrB-koolqredjGYR3P4/s400/Gatsby+Cover.jpg" width="400" /></a></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span face=""><br /></span></div>
<span face=""><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Though many view <i>The Great Gatsby </i>as a tragic love story between Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, Fitzgerald’s novel is primarily about Nick Carraway,</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> the narrator and purveyor of Gatsby's image. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">We see Gatsby through Nick’s desperate, judgmental eyes. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Nick values Gatsby's reckless naivete above the irresponsible manipulations of the haves (Tom and Daisy Buchanan, in particular), and seduces us into making a moral distinction between them</span><i style="font-size: 12.8px;">. </i><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">It is as if Nick's American Dream depends on the moral worth of Jay Gatsby. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Nick dreams of success and redemption—running away from the war and his Midwestern past, reinventing himself as a New York City bondsman, but unable to commit to any level of intimacy and too easily tempted by the mire of prohibition-era crime and decadence. </span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Nick is a hypocrite, shamelessly participating in everything that he condemns. He helps Gatsby and Daisy pursue adultery in secret. He risks moral condemnation and criminal prosecution by joining illegal parties and indulging in homosexual behavior.</span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"> The novel is framed around </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Nick's struggles to maintain his dignity. Gatsby only makes sense as a fetish or scar in Nick’s imagination: a tragic image of purity and beauty destined for failure in modern America. The real Gatsby, if there is one, is something of a phantom, a phony and a crook who will stop at nothing to fulfill his own dark yet naïve fantasies.</span><span face=""> </span></span><br />
<span face=""><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">At the beginning of Fitzgerald's novel, Nick says of Gatsby:</span><span face=""> </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, as if he were related to one of those intricate machines that register earthquakes ten thousand miles away. This responsiveness had nothing to do with flabby impressionability which is dignified under the name of the "creative temperament"--it was an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any other person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again. No--Gatsby turned out alright at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men. (<a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/chapter1.html">Chapter 1</a>)</span> </span></blockquote>
The same lines (with minor alterations) could be about <i>The Neon Demon</i>'s ostensible heroine, Jesse (Elle Fanning), and they would be spoken by Jesse's friend and aspiring photographer, Dean (Karl Glusman). If the film had a narrator, it would have to be Dean. Though he is discarded before the final act of the film, Dean's point of view is central to how we understand the story. Dean frames the film at the outset with his foreboding photographic vision of Jesse, defining her as an innocent face and nubile body to be consumed, a dreamer destined to perish under the gazing moon.<span face="" style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<span face="" style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 6px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div style="margin: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGxmbZFYDbAGwt2qgi8sAU-wdRqftiTG-suLJ37fU4xv3CW_iXJbhp0DyU6ek6bbRIzKwvUK2FExGNwBOZLfe49Wfp_RNSjnKTYgnAIElQk-IHyzDSEWb5OjthPT2WvdogRtmYL3mP9tj4/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+Dean.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGxmbZFYDbAGwt2qgi8sAU-wdRqftiTG-suLJ37fU4xv3CW_iXJbhp0DyU6ek6bbRIzKwvUK2FExGNwBOZLfe49Wfp_RNSjnKTYgnAIElQk-IHyzDSEWb5OjthPT2WvdogRtmYL3mP9tj4/s640/Neon+Demon+-+Dean.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="640" /></a></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;"><div style="margin: 0px;">
Dean (Karl Glusman) creates a tragically romantic portrait of Jesse.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 6px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div style="margin: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqdnTcXu4Hj_o17CFAObc0j0qkXXTtcvkGFaISN21INqE0-qXMsLlr1-L_0_MPzdAPjVjmmc8nYf-sT_aNAkUamh7LFo5A8v7IU3B5oSyfEJt7W1nRd2Xhv7L-9gqC7AzfCWUOMteobOEm/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+Jesse.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqdnTcXu4Hj_o17CFAObc0j0qkXXTtcvkGFaISN21INqE0-qXMsLlr1-L_0_MPzdAPjVjmmc8nYf-sT_aNAkUamh7LFo5A8v7IU3B5oSyfEJt7W1nRd2Xhv7L-9gqC7AzfCWUOMteobOEm/s640/Neon+Demon+-+Jesse.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="640" /></a></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;"><div style="margin: 0px;">
Introducing Jesse (Elle Fanning). Are these innocent eyes?</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span face=""><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Just as Nick </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">(temporarily?)</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">gives up his dream of becoming a bondsman, Dean (temporarily?) walks away from the world of fashion when his dignity is challenged. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">And just as Nick stands up for Gatsby and condemns the New York haves, Dean alone stands up for Jesse's inner value and condemns the Hollywood elites for their superficiality. Yet, like Nick, Dean is a hypocrite. </span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Dean balks at Jesse for wanting to be like the elites, but their friendship</span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"> grew out of a mutual desire to succeed in that world. His photography facilitated Jesse's career, and he hoped it would open doors for him, as well.</span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;"> On top of that, h</span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">e knowingly risks moral condemnation and criminal prosecution by dating an underage girl. </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">His indignation at the fashionistas is most likely a temporary upheaval. </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Dean might leave Hollywood, but he has not found a better path.</span></span><br />
<span face=""><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The parallels between Jesse and Jay Gatsby are also striking. James Gatz, the youth who would become Jay Gatsby, took his good looks and charm for granted. At the age of 17, Gatz used his innate gifts to redefine himself: He devoted himself to “a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty,” inventing “just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end” </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">(</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/chapter6.html&source=gmail&ust=1470558700584000&usg=AFQjCNF7s_K6P2wSJf9qn9j-4CdYYwJLvg" href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/chapter6.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">Chapter 6</a><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">). In <i>The Neon Demon</i>, </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse falls in love with her own image at the age of 16, and is faithful to it </span></span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">until the end. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse's raw materials are the same as Gatsby’s: good looks and an innocence that captivate everyone in the fashion world. They are all taken in by Jesse, and it is not long before she is confidently using her image to her advantage--or so she thinks. Yet, like Gatsby, h</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">er persona is a fabrication. We cannot be sure where she came from or how she got to Hollywood. She could be a runaway, though she is happy to let others assume that her parents are dead. What matters is that her parents are dead to her, and she will forge their signature to get what she wants. And it's not just money and fame. Jesse wants glamour, to be the brightest star in every room she enters, and she is willing to cheat and turn her back on humanity to get there.</span></span>
</span><br />
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6j3DAkmG3IsV_dw1Y89ssACpYh1AqbUGmKDUji-LOXL038n-4eHW_56lU25dC6QbEkm_Xz9ysXtJOiZTimZkuSY5Osdir6c2DzXs1hAL0buQQ3Ho_AJOrU8ffq8er7No3Kl5Dc8byUgDJ/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+Jesse+falls+in+love+2.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6j3DAkmG3IsV_dw1Y89ssACpYh1AqbUGmKDUji-LOXL038n-4eHW_56lU25dC6QbEkm_Xz9ysXtJOiZTimZkuSY5Osdir6c2DzXs1hAL0buQQ3Ho_AJOrU8ffq8er7No3Kl5Dc8byUgDJ/s640/Neon+Demon+-+Jesse+falls+in+love+2.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jesse (Elle Fanning) falls in love with her reflection.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Gatsby's dream takes its final shape--"the incarnation is complete" </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">(</span><a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/chapter6.html" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Chapter 6</a><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">)--</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">when he kisses Daisy for the first time. Daisy is the outward projection of his narcissistic desire, and his blind devotion to her is what ultimately destroys him. Jesse, in contrast, is her own outward projection. Her dream is wholly centered around her own image. It is therefore when she kisses her reflection that her incarnation is complete. And it is her devotion to the image of her own purity that eventuates her demise.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"></span><br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-size: 12.8px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRBqbItoz3xz7FhCXhVgzmGfnLOoBm24WtX0tp5nOlXwoGXyRUc_T2pgUjdtuQBa6J9vyEyuPWnGj1ECfpEg6wopTsgj-2DQQ5S0n4X76mouehu5bGzYtnNEBQPUDs-a0vuRtUYVgHL9Ih/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+alive+or+dead.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRBqbItoz3xz7FhCXhVgzmGfnLOoBm24WtX0tp5nOlXwoGXyRUc_T2pgUjdtuQBa6J9vyEyuPWnGj1ECfpEg6wopTsgj-2DQQ5S0n4X76mouehu5bGzYtnNEBQPUDs-a0vuRtUYVgHL9Ih/s640/Neon+Demon+-+alive+or+dead.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse (Elle Fanning) feeling a bit self-absorbed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
<span face=""><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Neither Gatsby nor Jesse earns our scorn. We see their lack of compassion, their moral bankruptcy, and we feel sorry for them. They are victims of their singular dreams. They each seem to understand this right before they die. Nick describes Gatsby enjoying his swimming pool for the first time at the peak of a fevered summer, but rather than suppose Gatsby hoped for or expected Daisy’s call, Nick says:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
I have an idea that Gatsby himself didn’t believe it would come, and perhaps he no longer cared. If that was true he must have felt that he had lost the old warm world, paid a high price for living too long with a single dream. He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass. A new world, material without being real, where poor ghosts, breathing dreams like air, drifted fortuitously about (<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/chapter8.html&source=gmail&ust=1470558700584000&usg=AFQjCNE1RKoi7B5TO9Y0bEQMKeCsgLXXuw" href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/chapter8.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">Chapter 8</a>). </blockquote>
These words could be used to describe Jesse as she, like Gatsby, hovers above a swimming pool moments before her death. In Jesse's case, the pool in which she is murdered is empty. The blue of her dress replaces the reflective blue of the water. She has become no more than her own image.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjbgzaj6nHgIA-6zMI33fLHOpPXVqPXfDWojIKqyUCQb57Maj7WVInOt6ylqjqsvzXmCoq7gotyEQsZio376tnilgafGe1kCOI-7JY720khreiDrZm8ue4j2Ab4lsv_9SlaVwbjRwUfEeh/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+pool.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjbgzaj6nHgIA-6zMI33fLHOpPXVqPXfDWojIKqyUCQb57Maj7WVInOt6ylqjqsvzXmCoq7gotyEQsZio376tnilgafGe1kCOI-7JY720khreiDrZm8ue4j2Ab4lsv_9SlaVwbjRwUfEeh/s640/Neon+Demon+-+pool.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jesse (Elle Fanning) hovers above the emptiness.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse and Gatsby accept nothing but their demon, an impossible dream at odds with the material world. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Gatsby lives in his own image for a number of excruciatingly lonely years before finally realizing that his dream is false and his life is a lie. In contrast, Jesse’s misery is not prolonged. We could imagine Jesse growing old, never coming to terms with the lie her life has become, always reaching for another star, always trying to shine brighter than before, but always feeling lost and alone. We can imagine her aging in Gatsby’s mansion, throwing parties she cannot bear to attend, full of people who know her but do not care about her. And she would not care about them, either. She would watch them desperately, like Norma Desmond in <i>Sunset Boulevard</i>, hoping their presence heralded a new dawn, a final validation of her quest for greatness. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Everyone wanted a piece of Gatsby and Jesse when they were alive, but few will miss them once they're dead. Very few show up for Gatsby's funeral. Who besides Dean will care that Jesse is gone?</span></span><br />
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-size: 12.8px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8p751ME_MivfBUrqB32ecWsJyirgO8TAlYqR26fKk9kFbXE5ClalwgAZJV_owm9pUtysaZVCeZoS1-yNzrjTbifXp6kbvq_EBmH-7NDY3IhpPl221M3viPmN4HnGyQVMm5Zi1ayS0Juw0/s1600/Norma+Desmond.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8p751ME_MivfBUrqB32ecWsJyirgO8TAlYqR26fKk9kFbXE5ClalwgAZJV_owm9pUtysaZVCeZoS1-yNzrjTbifXp6kbvq_EBmH-7NDY3IhpPl221M3viPmN4HnGyQVMm5Zi1ayS0Juw0/s640/Norma+Desmond.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), ready for her close-up.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">In <i>Gatsby, </i>Nick fetishizes Gatsby's beauty. He worships Gatsby at the same time he sees through the facade, and it leaves him lost and alone in the end. We are tempted to elevate Gatsby, as well--and many do see him as a Romantic hero. In much the same way, <i>The Neon Demon </i>also lets us see through the facade, but invites us to worship Jesse's so-called "natural beauty" all the same. It even tempts us into valuing her beauty above all others, by opposing her beauty to the supposedly inferior, "artificial" beauty of Gigi (Belle Heathcote). Yet</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">, this distinction is a trap. Who is to say Gigi is not more beautiful than Jesse? To the fashionistas, Jesse is an oasis in the desert. She pulls at their thirst, just as she is meant to pull at ours. Gigi, in contrast, looks like a model trying on somebody else's style. Gigi does not look like the product of cosmetic surgery so much as the product of a weak and uptight imagination. </span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse succeeds because she is able to sell the image of authenticity. Once she realizes its value, she manufactures and sells the idea of her own innocence. It is her artifice, and her demon.</span><br /></div>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFTNoraT4fDGqx8-3fBM6B2NegKAFxvnPOiYRiopzIhm3Pg8Ab67WddOPguywanjDqxuWhSRsqqRbljw4ksrdyYpNkXsPUYRlQ9y7kMcZt9JOiKxbRFN0jEScYvIh_L3GNW2UEWuEWc6ig/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+Gigi.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFTNoraT4fDGqx8-3fBM6B2NegKAFxvnPOiYRiopzIhm3Pg8Ab67WddOPguywanjDqxuWhSRsqqRbljw4ksrdyYpNkXsPUYRlQ9y7kMcZt9JOiKxbRFN0jEScYvIh_L3GNW2UEWuEWc6ig/s640/Neon+Demon+-+Gigi.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gigi (Bella Heathcote) does not like to be challenged.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"></span><br /><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse's love of artifice is manifest in her relationship to Ruby (Jena Malone). </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Ruby is the master of artifice, the maker of outward beauty, who longs for purity but lives only through reflections. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">She craves Jesse, either for sex or food, or both. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Ruby thrives in emptiness, makes love to make-up, be it on living flesh or a corpse. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">As the scene revealing Ruby's necrophiliac depravity is interlaced with images of Jesse's self-love, we are invited to question the relationship between them. When Jesse touches herself, is she, like Ruby, making love to a corpse? Is Jesse dead beneath her skin? Is Ruby Jesse's alter-ego? Are they reflections of each other? </span></span><br />
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">When Ruby and Jesse meet for the first time, they are looking in opposing mirrors with their backs to each other. Ruby apologizes to Jesse for staring at her, but it seems as if they were only staring at themselves. It is as if they each exist inside of the other. Of course, we can take their relationship at face value, as one between a model and a predatory make-up artist; however, we can take it as a metaphor for something deeper. We can see Ruby as the demon taking possession of Jesse; conversely, we can see Jesse as the haunting image of purity within a depraved Ruby.</span></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbjKzeMm4Ku6qq8AO6jKC_uz8sCrhltyN0uPvYTGVaBVFCKGRdTMmngJbNbumpqqYPus_yK4LJ4u4VMAVQ6gMsP3up2IFwMa1mEpfLqtSmJcIR1LXuxwh0bUoeOdwbiV4VZfIxf0JB3Esa/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+Ruby+in+the+mirror.jpg" style="font-size: 12.8px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbjKzeMm4Ku6qq8AO6jKC_uz8sCrhltyN0uPvYTGVaBVFCKGRdTMmngJbNbumpqqYPus_yK4LJ4u4VMAVQ6gMsP3up2IFwMa1mEpfLqtSmJcIR1LXuxwh0bUoeOdwbiV4VZfIxf0JB3Esa/s640/Neon+Demon+-+Ruby+in+the+mirror.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ruby (Jena Malone) through the looking glass.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"></span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></span><div><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Right after the masturbation scene, Jesse changes into the blue dress and stands above the empty pool. Just as a "ghost" named George Wilson comes to haunt and murder Jay Gatsby in his swimming pool, a ghost-like Ruby appears to Jesse in the emptiness of the pool beneath her. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">When Jesse sees Ruby, she sees the truth about herself: Ruby has already consumed her, because Jesse has consumed herself. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">It is possible to read the murder sequence as a metaphor for Jesse’s suicide: She was not pushed into the empty pool; she let herself fall in after she saw the falsity of the image with which she had fallen in love. On the other hand, we can take it as a scene of literal murder. It does not matter. Ruby killed her either way, and either way, Jesse was already dead inside.</span></span><br />
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Like Jesse, Gigi also dies after she sees the falsity of her own image. She (literally or metaphorically?) cannot stomach what happened. Her body violently rejects her actions. She claims to be the Bionic Woman, but she cannot exorcise her conscience. In the end, it is her humanity that kills her.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>In <i>The Great Gatsby</i>, the dilapidated billboard with Dr. T. J. Eckleburg's eyes represent an absent God watching over the waste-land of American capitalism, and burning into the conscience and dreams of Teddy Wilson, leading him to murder-suicide. In <i>The Neon Demon</i>, it is Jesse's eye which burns inside of Gigi and leads to her suicide.<br />
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></span><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The conflict at the heart of the film is between ways of relating to beauty--between compassion and consumption. </span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">It is telling that w</span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">e are never told whether or not Sarah (Abbey Lee), the only model that survives in the end, has ever had any cosmetic surgery. </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse, Gigi and Sarah are more alike than they may realize. They all relate to beauty in terms of consumption. They long to be shot and consumed. Yet, only Sarah survives, because only Sarah accepts the grotesque for what it is. </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse and Gigi’s deaths don’t faze Sarah. She watches Gigi’s suicide with detached curiosity and understanding. She consumes Jesse's eye of conscience whole. It doesn't matter if Sarah has had cosmetic surgery or not. </span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Sarah survives because she is unhindered by compassion and she knows it. She exemplifies what Hollywood rewards: sociopathic consumption. Yet, in the end, she is wandering alone in a barren desert, a wasteland without humanity.</span><br />
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"></span></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-5xuAdsw7xyw6R6oag_dK6zGhOwC3AhVfpYKRDzOyJ2Z65zi7N5H4LMqy5u4oEoQKKdjKNo5HHFtBXx3wfTwuhOEWa0ByU8-nqDjw0e3-Bjk5wwpgXgz4GcyVjY98wvuuBjrYRDzTYfN-/s1600/Neon+Demon+-+Sarah.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-5xuAdsw7xyw6R6oag_dK6zGhOwC3AhVfpYKRDzOyJ2Z65zi7N5H4LMqy5u4oEoQKKdjKNo5HHFtBXx3wfTwuhOEWa0ByU8-nqDjw0e3-Bjk5wwpgXgz4GcyVjY98wvuuBjrYRDzTYfN-/s640/Neon+Demon+-+Sarah.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sarah (Abbey Lee) triumphant.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Gatsby’s and Jesse's stories can be seen as two versions of the same cautionary tale: This is what happens when American individualism runs amok. It is hard to shake the American Dream, the capitalistic conviction that all you need are the raw materials and the drive, and you can become whoever you want to be. Refn and Fitzgerald warn that, if you devote yourself entirely to that dream and follow it to its logical conclusion, you end up living and dying alone, and all for an illusion. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jesse and Gatsby are themselves more illusion than reality, and their deaths are less tragic than their lives. We can balk at their deaths as affronts to human dignity. Alternatively, we can see them as trite, as inevitabilities: standard set pieces in the story of American depravity. The most compelling interpretation might be this: The deaths of Gatsby and Jesse are theatricalities, performances meant to draw the curtain on a depraved illusion. They</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> are not tragic heroes in the Romantic mold. They are the constructions of morally compromised yet tragically romantic imaginations. We are invited to partake in this imagination by witnessing their downfalls through Nick Carraway's and Dean's hypocritical eyes. </span></span><span face="" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Dean is a stand-in for the audience and frames our vision of Jesse and the broader conflicts between the Hollywood haves and have-nots, much the way Nick curates the reader's experience of Gatsby and class conflict in the Roaring Twenties. And like Dean and Nick, audiences are likely to balk at what they see without learning from it.</span></div>
<span face=""><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">For <i>The Neon Demon</i>, as for <i>The Great Gatsby</i>, there is no path to happiness</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">. There is only hypocrisy, cruelty and isolation. </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The irony at the heart of the film i</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">s that the fashion designer may be right when he says, "Beauty is not everything. It's the only thing.” All creation is the same, he says, be it a line of clothing or a dramatic character. Art is a unity and beauty is an indivisible, all-encompassing whole, the monistic God of Spinoza, the one, supreme substance of which all else is made. Thus, what we see in the film depends on how we define ourselves in relation to beauty. We can laugh at the film, embrace narcissism and celebrate ourselves as beautiful products to be consumed. Yet, can humanity--the lived compassion for other people--survive in the process? </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">What the designer does not understand is that compassion is also beautiful.</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The fashion designer's Hollywood is a reflection of our world, where consumption is rewarded over compassion and children grow up embracing narcissism, longing to be mass-consumed. This is the profound dilemma at the heart of </span><i style="font-size: 12.8px;">The Neon Demon</i><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">. If it is shallow, it is no shallower than the pool in which we see our own reflection.</span></span>
</div>Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-23746336094547243482016-01-18T13:16:00.002+01:002020-08-26T15:05:19.190+02:00Luke Skywalker and Rey: Comparing Character ArcsMy second viewing of <i>The Force Awakens</i> only reinforced my admiration. I'm very impressed by Rey as a character, and so I want to respond to the prevalent criticism that she does not have a satisfying character arc. I think she stands up better than many people think. To prove it, let's compare her arc to Luke's in the original <i>Star Wars, Episode 4: A New Hope. </i>Luke and Rey each have two inner conflicts dealing with the themes of loyalty and trust, but in Rey's case, the conflicts converge and are developed in a more dramatic and I think satisfying way.<br />
<br />
At the start of <i>Episode IV: A New Hope</i>, Luke wants to be loyal to his aunt and uncle, but also wants to follow his own dreams. This is his first inner conflict. His dreams are somewhat vague at first: He wants to get off Tatooine, join the academy, be heroic, etc. When Ben Kenobi tells him his father was a Jedi Knight killed by Darth Vader, his motivation becomes more focused: He wants to join Kenobi and the rebellion, and become a Jedi Knight like his father. When he is finally free to follow this path, Luke faces another internal conflict: to let go of his senses and trust his feelings and the force. <br />
<br />
Here is a breakdown of how this all plays out in relation to Luke's choices.<br />
<br />
<b>In Act 1, Luke chooses . . .</b><br />
<ul>
<li>to help his uncle take care of droids.</li>
<li>To remove R2-D2's restraining bolt, because he thinks it is limiting the droid's ability to function (he wants to see the rest of the message from Leia)</li>
<li>to give in to his uncle's command to remain on Tatooine another year, even though he is anxious to leave.</li>
<li>to chase after R2-D2 after the droid escapes, because Luke doesn't want to disappoint his uncle.</li>
<li>to reject Kenobi's offer to join him, because his uncle wants him to stay on Tatooine.</li>
<li>to race home and see if his aunt and uncle are okay after he realizes that stormtroopers are looking for the droids.</li>
</ul>
When Luke removes R2-D2's restraining bolt, we see how excited he is at the prospect of adventure. This is the only time he comes close to being untrue to his uncle and it is what allows his entire adventure to begin. Apart from this act, his loyalty to his uncle always wins out, making him rather whiny and anxious during this part of the film. Act 1 ends when Luke's aunt and uncle are dead and he no longer has any reason to stay on Tatooine. His internal conflict is thereby resolved. He is now free to follow his dreams: Join Kenobi, train to become a Jedi Knight and defeat Vader. This motivation carries him through the rest of the film.<br />
<br />
<b>In Act 2, Luke chooses . . .</b><br />
<ul>
<li>to join the rebellion</li>
<li>to train to become a Jedi Knight</li>
<li>to rescue Princess Leia</li>
</ul>
The second internal conflict is set up when Luke begins training: Luke must learn to trust his feelings and the force. This is not much of a conflict, however. It only takes a brief verbal interaction with Kenobi before Luke is expertly blocking laser beams while blindfolded. He insists that he felt "something," even though Han Solo is skeptical. It's a first step--he's no Jedi Knight yet. The rescue of Leia is Luke's first trial, but it does not require overcoming any internal obstacles. It is all external conflict, a typical "save the damsel in distress" scenario, and Luke's struggle with trusting the force is not even addressed.<br />
<br />
<b>In Act 3, Luke chooses . . .</b><br />
<ul>
<li>to attack the Death Star</li>
<li>to rely on the force</li>
</ul>
When Luke chooses to use the force at the end of the film, it is not the result of a significant struggle. His inner conflict is resolved and the Death Star is destroyed at the culmination of an exciting action sequence, but Luke does not go through any internal struggle here. He hears (or "hears", depending on how you want to look at it) Kenobi's voice telling him to use the force, and he does it.<br />
<br />
Let's look at this a bit more critically. Luke's Act 1 inner conflict is resolved at the end of Act 1, which makes him a less engaging character as we enter Act 2. Additionally, he does not choose to resolve that conflict: It ends when stormtroopers kill his aunt and uncle. If it were up to him, he'd spend the next year whining about how his uncle won't let him follow his dreams. Furthermore, his motivation to follow in his father's footsteps is primarily established through exposition, not action. Luke's motivation intensifies through dramatic action in Act 2, when he witnesses Kenobi's death, but his motivation has already been established at this point. Act 2 sets up a new internal conflict for Luke--trusting the force--but this is given very thin development, without any significant internal obstacles.<br />
<br />
How does this compare to Rey's arc in <i>The Force Awakens</i>? Like Luke, Rey is also torn between family loyalty and a desire to leave the planet she calls home. She also must struggle with the inner conflict of learning to trust the force. While these two conflicts play out sequentially in the first Star Wars film, they are combined in <i>The Force Awakens</i>, leading to a richer and more satisfying character arc for Rey.<br />
<br />
<b>In Act 1, Rey chooses . . .</b><br />
<ul>
<li>to scavenge in order to survive on Jakku</li>
<li>to rescue a lost droid</li>
<li>to befriend said droid</li>
<li>to protect the droid from traders</li>
<li>to help Finn and the droid escape stormtroopers</li>
</ul>
While Luke's adventure begins with a feeling of excitement for adventure and heroism as he removes R2-D2's restraining bolt, Rey's adventure begins with a feeling of compassion for a lost droid. (It's worth noting that at this point in the film, Finn's story has already established that there is no place for compassion in the First Order.) Rey is staying on Jakku out of loyalty to her family, because that is where they left her to wait for their return, even though she is unhappy and dreaming of a better life elsewhere. Her feelings of compassion drive her off Jakku, but her inner conflict is not resolved: She still does not want to betray her family; she wants to return to Jakku.<br />
<br />
<b>In Act 2, Rey chooses . . .</b><br />
<ul>
<li>to recruit Han Solo in BB-8's mission</li>
<li>to help Han Solo and Finn escape Han's enemies</li>
<li>to reject Han's job offer</li>
<li>to plead with Finn to get him to help BB-8 and the resistance</li>
<li>to reject the call of Luke's lightsaber</li>
<li>to fight Kylo Ren</li>
</ul>
Rey's choices reflect her conflicting motivations: Her loyalty to her family is drawing her back to Jakku, even though her compassion for BB-8 is drawing her towards the resistance. When she finds Luke's lightsaber, however, she faces a new internal conflict: trusting the force. This conflict builds on the first, because trusting the force requires trusting her feelings and letting go of her desire to stay on Jakku. She feels that there is nothing left for her on Jakku, but she cannot believe it. She feels the force (and her compassion) pulling her towards a new path, but she cannot trust it, so she runs away in fear. She doesn't stand a chance against Kylo Ren at this point, and he easily uses the force to paralyze her.<br />
<br />
<b>In Act 3 + Epilogue, Rey chooses . . .</b><br />
<ul>
<li>to escape Kylo Ren's control using the force</li>
<li>to fight Kylo Ren again, this time using Luke's lightsaber and the force</li>
<li>to find Luke Skywalker and return his lightsaber</li>
</ul>
<div>
Luke Skywalker first uses the force in an otherwise useless scene in which nothing is directly at stake. In contrast, Rey first discovers she can use the force when she is under great duress, and she uses it to protect herself (and the entire resistance) from Kylo Ren. It's a stunning scene which turns an all-too-common victim narrative on its head. Where Luke passes a typical hero's trial (saving the damsel in distress), Rey faces a twist on a typical female victim narrative: Mind rape. First, Rey successfully stops Kylo Ren from having his way with her. (He does violate her, but he doesn't get the information he wants). More profoundly, she violates him in return, stealing and revealing his deepest fear. Later, when she beats him in a contest to see who can pull Luke's lightsaber from the snow, we are thrilled, but not shocked, because we've already seen evidence that Rey is at least as powerful as Kylo Ren. She knows it, too. She is no longer afraid. By taking up Luke's lightsaber and using the force against her foe, both of Rey's internal conflicts are resolved. She's not going back to Jakku. She trusts the force and her feelings and she is following the Skywalker path.<br />
<br />
At the end of the fight, after Kylo Ren is defeated, Rey is confronted with a choice: She could kill him or she could show mercy. We know she has a strong capacity for compassion, but her wrath might be a significant obstacle. And Kylo Ren has earned her wrath. We've seen it all unfold through action, not exposition. Will she be ruled by hate or compassion? Alas, the choice is stolen from her as the planet is torn apart, but the seeds for a new internal conflict are there for the next film.<br />
<br />
In the film's epilogue, Rey takes her first step forward on her new path: taking the lightsaber to Luke. He doesn't accept it, at least not right away. Is it now hers? That's another question for the next installment, but however it is answered, the film has completed a compelling arc. Rey finally trusts the force and is no longer torn between family loyalty and compassion. She doesn't know who her family is or what happened to them, but she has made her choice all the same.</div>
Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-38211692773356650502015-12-27T16:36:00.005+01:002020-08-30T11:44:22.449+02:00The Saga Continues: Why I Admire The Force Awakens<div style="font-family: uictfonttextstylebody; font-size: 17px;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">My curiosity about <i>The Force Awakens </i>was mild. I was more skeptical than anything else. And yet, when opening day crept up on me, I found myself getting excited. Finally, sitting in the cinema as the opening crawl started the film, I was captivated in a way I had not expected: After all these years, I am still deeply connected to Luke Skywalker's story.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: uictfonttextstylebody; font-size: 17px;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I was too young to see the original <i>Star Wars</i> in the cinemas, but just old enough for <i>The Empire Strikes Back. </i>I was nine for <i>Return of the Jedi. </i>I had my share of the toys and books, and I'm pretty sure I had <i>Star Wars</i> underwear, too. My infatuation was gone before puberty hit, but the iconography and mythology never lost their potency. <i>Star Wars </i>references have always been there--not just because they are fun, but because they are meaningful.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Now, witnessing the continuation of the mythology as a middle-aged man with a soft spot for nostalgia? Finding that the story is not over and that new characters can pick up where the old must end? The complexity of emotions is striking.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
Yes, <i>The Force Awakens</i> is a product. Yes, they are trying to make money and reboot an old franchise. That's all true, but there is also love and art in it. <i>The Force Awakens</i> respects the mythology and the iconography. It doesn't pander. The fan service is a way of paying respect to the original trilogy, to remind us that <i>that </i>is where this film owes its dues. It may be excessive at times, but that is a minor complaint. Like so many others, I found enough freshness, fun and authenticity to satisfy me. More than that, my childhood connection to Luke's story has not merely been awoken, but also developed in a meaningful way. <br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The more I reflect on the film and compare it to the original <i>Star Wars</i>, the more I understand why it feels right. The original trilogy is all about destiny. The characters talk about it enough, but more importantly, it is shown through coincidences. In the original <i>Star Wars</i>:</span><br />
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Leia's ship is waylaid right next to Tatooine.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The Empire doesn't fire on the escape pod carrying R2-D2 and C-3PO at the beginning of the film. They presumably know that it could be carrying droids, but they let it go because they don't detect any life forms.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">R2-D2 and C-3PO split up on Tatooine, only to be captured by the same group of traders.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The second unit Luke's uncle wants to buy from the traders breaks down, leading him to buy R2-D2 instead.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Luke and his uncle happen to need droids at that moment at all.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The Empire doesn't notice there are life forms on the Millennium Falcon, giving the good guys a chance to sneak past the stormtroopers on the Death Star.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The Death Star has a design flaw that allows it to be destroyed by a single fighter pilot. What young Jedi-to-be could ask for a better opportunity to prove his or her worth?</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">All of these coincidences and absurdly fortuitous circumstances (and more) help nurture the audience's belief that Luke is following his destiny. He was <i>meant</i> to find R2-D2. He was <i>meant</i> to study under Kenobi. He was <i>meant</i> to blow up the Death Star. It just had to be. If the film had relied exclusively on exposition to tell us about Luke's destiny, we might not believe it; but when we see all the pieces just happening to fall into place, it feels right.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So it is with <i>The Force Awakens.</i> I was first critical of its heavy reliance on coincidence, but now I see it as a necessity.<i> </i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I'm not the first to observe that there are many similarities, deep as well as superficial, between <i>The Force Awakens </i>and the original<i> Star Wars</i>. You could criticize the writers for that, but it's not like they were trying to hide it. All the criticism means is that some people don't <i>want </i>a movie that is so similar to the original <i>Star Wars</i>. And that's fine. Not everybody wants it. Not everybody is going to appreciate it. But for the rest of us, it's exhilarating. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">As it happens, I think Rey is a lot more compelling than Luke in the original <i>Star Wars</i>, which relies more on exposition. We are told (by his uncle) that Luke has a lot of his father in him, and we are told (by his aunt) that most of his friends have already gone off to join the academy, and we are told (by Luke) that he wants to join the academy and do something bigger and more exciting with his life, and we are told (by Obi-Wan Kenobi) that Luke's father was a Jedi who had been killed by Darth Vader. Exposition sets up Luke's inner conflict, telling us who Luke is and what he wants. All we really see from Luke at the beginning is that he is loyal to his family: He races after R2-D2, because he does not want to disappoint his uncle. Then he races home, heedless of the danger, to find his aunt and uncle killed by the Empire. He only agrees to join Kenobi when he has nothing left on Tatooine. These acts are important, but don't go very far in establishing Luke as a young Jedi-to-be.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Compare that to Rey. We see her struggling to survive on Jakku. We see her isolation. We see how she wants to feel close to the old legends, putting on an old fighter pilot's helmet as she sits alone, eating her meager rations outside an old, fallen AT-AT. We see her make a difficult choice: to give up a fortune in order to protect a droid, her new and apparently only friend. We know she doesn't belong where she is and that she has a great deal of inner (and outer) strength. Sure, in many ways, Rey is a sort of Luke Skywalker reboot. In fact, the two films are structured around their respective character arcs in remarkably similar ways. There's nothing wrong with that. <i>The Force Awakens </i>takes the time to bring Rey to life, to let us believe in her, and that's what counts.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div><div>Some audiences have trouble believing in Rey on the grounds that she shouldn't be able to use the force so effectively without training. For example, how could she retrieve the lightsaber from the snow in her final confrontation with Kylo Ren? Well, how did Luke learn how to do that at the beginning of <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i>? He just did it. Significant training was never required to use the force. Jedi training has always been about nurturing inner balance, which Rey possesses to a greater degree than Ren. While she could certainly benefit from formal training, there's no reason to think it was necessary to defeat her opponent.</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Nobody goes into a <i>Star Wars </i>movie as if it were just another action-adventure. The expectations are too high. The mythology is too ubiquitous. And that, I think, is what makes the success of this movie so impressive and worthy of respect. There are plenty of complaints one could make about the film. It is flawed, and it can be fun and interesting to go over everything that does or does not work. But the more interesting question to me is, what makes this so satisfying for so many fans--fans who have long felt mistreated, and who can be hyper-critical of how <i>Star Wars </i>properties are developed? I think it's about destiny, and that is more a feeling than anything else. <i>The Force Awakens </i>makes us feel the way a <i>Star Wars </i>movie is supposed to make us feel: like the hero is fulfilling her destiny, and the Skywalker saga is alive and well and up to date.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Some say this film only works as a promise for new films. On the contrary, I think it is a solid stand-alone film. Of course we're being set up for more, but there is a clear beginning, middle and end to this story. If the next <i>Star Wars </i>films are disasters--or even if they never come about by some bizarre twist of fate--this will remain a compelling addition to the mythology.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">My nephew--he's not yet ten years old, but he's seen all seven films--he says this new one is the best so far. His previous favorite was <i>Return Of The Jedi</i>. One day he'll grow up and realize that there is no topping <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i>. But when it comes to second best? <i>The Force Awakens </i>may not be <i>that </i>good, but it might give the original a run for its money. I'm looking forward to seeing it a second time.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Some additional thoughts on character development below.</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">***SPOILER ALERT***</span></div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Some complain that Kylo Ren is a weak or inconsistent version of Darth Vader. His apparent inconsistency did bug me for a while. At the beginning of the film, his power over the force is impressive. By the end of the film, he's not a very intimidating adversary. In fact, he doesn't seem to know what he's doing. How is Finn able to stand up against him in combat at all? (Some speculate that Finn must be strong with the force, but I don't buy that.) And Rey could actually defeat him? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Then I considered the characters. We only see Kylo Ren having strong command over the force when he's wearing his mask. Maybe, when he takes it off, his insecurities take over. He clearly lacks self-control and self-confidence. When Finn raises his light saber against him, Kylo Ren is unmasked and unexpectedly weakened by his confrontation with Han Solo. He wields his light saber with the angst and insecurity of a petulant child, not the discipline and focus of a Sith. He's no Vader, and he knows it. Ren is emotionally unbalanced enough so that Finn is able to put up a fight, if only for a short time. When looked at that way, it is not so surprising that Rey--who is much more self-assured, has learned to defend herself on Jakku and is apparently much stronger with the force than her opponent--is able to beat him.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">There is another Finn moment that didn't sit well, but which makes more sense to me now. I initially thought that, at the beginning of the film, Finn's primary goal was to help Poe escape, even though Poe said that Finn was doing it just because he needed a pilot. So when Finn seems like a coward later on, and runs away from the resistance, I thought it was out of character. I think I was just misled by my own desires: I wanted Finn to be selfless, to be only interested in helping Poe escape. That was my mistake. Of course Finn just needed a pilot. He was happy to help Poe escape, but that was not his goal. He'd risk his life to escape the First Order, but he doesn't see any sense in trying to fight a war. He was never out to help the resistance. So he comes clean at the cantina and decides to split--to get as far away from the First Order as possible. That all works for me.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-76515733462480721952015-05-23T16:30:00.004+02:002016-01-22T22:52:32.472+01:00Mad Max: Fury Road - Renewing Old Mythology<i>Mad Max: Fury Road</i> is a fitting allegory for modern times: We can find messages about reproductive rights, natural resources and religious warfare, as well as some meditations on the more general themes of home, family, power, freedom and survival. What makes the film more than just a generic action flic is that these themes are brought to life through the creation of a compelling, mythologically rich world. Though it is unmistakably a <i>Mad Max </i>film, <i>Fury Road </i>surprisingly calls to mind the familiar mythological territory of the original <i>Star Wars</i> saga.<br />
<br />
Spoiler Alert: <i>Mad Max: Fury Road </i>is all about the action and visual spectacle, so you can still enjoy it even if the plot has been spoiled. However, it offers plenty to think about in the few quiet moments between (and after) those astonishing action sequences. If you'd rather not know much about how the plot develops, don't read what follows.<br />
<br />
<i>Fury Road</i>' opens at breakneck speed and within minutes we learn a few key details about Mad Max (Tom Hardy): He is independent, he is capable of doing anything to survive, and he is a universal blood donor. Metaphorically, that last part could represent his lack of loyalty to any cause: he could give his blood to anyone, for any reason. At the beginning, his blood is used (against his will) to help Immortan Joe's (Hugh Keays-Byrne) tribe. As his blood is literally forced out of his veins, Max is caught in the middle of a deadly chase between Joe and Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). Still, Max shows no inclinations of sympathy for either side. He and Furiosa soon start working together, but Max is reluctant. Like Han Solo, he finds common cause with and eventual sympathy for Furiosa and her rebels. When he gives her his blood at the end, the opening metaphor comes full circle. Max's war is won when he is able to give blood as he sees fit. If there is a message here, it's about taking ownership of our own lives.<br />
<br />
This is a film about life, and the fluids that sustain it: blood, mother's milk, gasoline and water. All of these fluids are used to control, exploit and sustain life in this post-apocalyptic wasteland. If the film raises a question, it is this: Who has a right to the fluids of life, and what kind of power can they wield?<br />
<br />
Immortan Joe is the great exploiter of fluids. Under his reign, blood is stolen from Max, mother's milk is stolen from women, gasoline is stolen from anybody who has it, and water is hoarded and used to subjugate the masses, who try to steal it from each other. If Max is Han Solo, then Immortan Joe is Darth Vader. We are introduced to Joe with imagery that calls Vader to mind: Joe's old, scarred and worn torso is slowly covered with a sort of military armor. We never see his full face, as it is behind a grotesque version of Vader's mask. And like Vader, he has two primary concerns: his power and his progeny.<br />
<br />
Furiosa is the only character who is not clearly exploited or subjugated in the film. The reason for this is never directly stated. She tells Max that she is seeking redemption by freeing Joe's wives. Furiosa therefore must have been one of the exploiters. All we learn about her past is that she was taken from her home and family as a child and eventually became a great warrior in Joe's army. Perhaps Joe adopted her, took her on as one of his own. Indeed, if Joe is Vader, Furiosa is Luke Skywalker, except in this version, Luke has succumbed to the dark side and now wants to make amends. Like Luke, she has a mechanical replacement for a missing hand, she is from a desert world which was once green and full of life, and she was taken from her parents when she was young. A great warrior, she stands up against and fights her "father," who wishes to use the force (fluids of life) to exploit and subjugate, to wield an unnatural power over people.<br />
<br />
To emphasize the unnaturalness of Joe's power, we see his followers exhibit a religious devotion to him. They explode in ecstasy if Joe gives them the simple honor of looking directly at them. They have a highly ritualized way of dying in battle for Joe. And when one of them sees that Joe is fallible, the spell is broken: If Joe is capable of error, then the whole mythology of his world is a lie.<br />
<br />
To make the comparison to the Star Wars mythology complete, we can identify Furiosa's people, who she eventually finds again in the desert, as jedi knights. They are the rightful mothers, the righteous givers of life. They are the ones who know how to make the world green again. The oldest and wisest of them is Keeper Of The Seeds, too old to fight, but still wise in the old ways: in short, Yoda.<br />
<br />
Warning: Way Bigger Spoilers Below<br />
<br />
While George Miller has succeeded in creating a compelling world with absolutely thrilling and visually stunning setpieces, I didn't find the dramatic development entirely convincing. When Furiosa found her "green place" and had to come to terms with that harsh reality, I didn't feel a strong enough connection to her character. I didn't believe what she was going through. I never felt like she needed the redemption she was after. And I didn't like that she had to be saved by Max. The Furiosa in the second half of the film seems weaker than the one in the first half. Also, I wasn't convinced when Nux (Nicholas Hoult) had his profound transformation, or by his connection with Joe's wife, Capable (Riley Keough). It was too quick and painless. I was also disappointed with Max's development. It was never clear exactly how or why he started to care about Furiosa. I also think the women should have headed back to the Citadel on their own. Max should have decided to follow them, to help them, but not to lead them. And it should've been because he didn't have a choice. If 160 days of riding in the desert wasn't going to get them anywhere, where would it have gotten him? Finally, at the end of the film, Max has no car, nowhere to go, no way to survive on his own. Furiosa would certainly be willing to help him along on his way. I guess there's symbolism in him disappearing into the crowd as Furiosa is raised into the sky, but it doesn't really make much sense. He should've stayed, at least for a little while. Anyway, it's an enormously entertaining and impressive film, but the development just didn't always work for me.Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-34318336074212768582015-02-27T11:25:00.002+01:002015-03-04T21:07:54.275+01:00Cold In July: Grappling With Character and NarrativeI watched <i>Cold In July </i>last night. It's not a bad movie. The acting and directing are stellar, and it is in some ways original and daring. But when it was over, I was more frustrated than satisfied. Be warned: the following contains spoilers.<br />
<br />
Rich (Michael C. Hall) accidentally kills a man whom he and Ben (Sam Shepard) are told is Ben's son. Ben makes thinly veiled threats, but the police refuse to act until Ben does something illegal. The police are very concerned about the law, apparently. Then Ben breaks into Rich's house. That gives the police enough suspicion to watch the house, but not to arrest Ben? Fine. So they watch and find out that Ben never left the house. Well, they don't see him, but they assume it was him. So they arrest him. For what? For breaking in and not leaving until late at night? They couldn't have just arrested him for breaking in in the first place? In any case, they arrest him. Then the police try to kill him. They sneak him out of jail and try to make it look like an accidental death. For what? There is no reason at all for the police to want him dead, or to break the law to get rid of him. One minute, the police are very concerned about carefully following the rules; the next, they are breaking them without any reason.<br />
<br />
What was Ben going to do to Rich's son, anyway? He could have killed him. He could have kdinapped him. He did nothing. Did he just want to scare Rich? He hid in the house all day and then risked getting caught (or killed) by the cops, just to scare them? Ben must be insane to do that to a person's family just because the father accidentally killed his son in self-defense. Which makes us wonder: Why was Ben in jail for most of his son's life, anyway? We never find out.<br />
<br />
The Ben of the first part of the film is a dark, deranged and menacing figure. Then Rich saves his life. After that, Ben seems remarkably centered and disciplined, with a strong sense of duty. Sure, he persumably a bit disturbed and he is clearly comfortable taking the law in his own, violent hands; but he's not so off-kilter that he would terrorize a family in these circumstances. He is not so dark and not at all deranged or menacing. Instead of carrying through with Ben's sinister edge in the second half of the film, Ben comes across as too likable, too principled, too moral. This is not the same Ben that was in the first half of the movie.<br />
<br />
This may to some extent be intentional. The movie might be saying something about monsters and men. Perhaps Ben has two sides: one is a monster, the other is a man. And we can see Rich's character arc in these terms. By the end of it all, Rich has changed. He is no longer afraid to use his gun. He kills with determination. Rich and Jim Bob Luke (Don Johnson) help him along with this transformation, but it comes from within. Rich changes himself, and it is compelling drama. He becomes more like Ben and Jim Bob Luke. Perhaps we are supposed to be left with this question: Has Rich become a man, or has he become a monster?<br />
<br />
Perhaps they wanted Ben to have two sides, one monster and one man. But in that case, we should see them co-existing. We should be able to interpret the same action from both sides. Instead, we just get two different characters when it is convenient to the plot. Thus, Ben's character doesn't ring true, and the entire story that brings him and Rich together is unconvincing. It's really a shame. I found a lot to enjoy in <i>Cold In July</i>, but couldn't shake the bad taste after it was over.Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-54299361027024007722015-02-27T09:54:00.002+01:002015-03-04T21:08:15.378+01:00The Unintended Irony of Birdman and Big Hero 6<i>Birdman, </i>Oscar's Best Picture of 2014, is a satire of Hollywood's lack of artistic gravitas. The primary target is the dark hole of superhero films that attracts much of the industry's money and talent. <i>Birdman </i>goes out of its way to repeatedly poke fun at superhero movies. And yet, the Oscar for Best Animated Feature went to <i>Big Hero 6</i> . . . a superhero movie. Who said the Academy had to be consistent?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I just watched <i>Big Hero 6 </i>and enjoyed a lot of it. Yet, it suffers from all of the problems that often plague superhero movies. It is the perfect example of the sort of film that <i>Birdman </i>is making fun of. (Warning: the rest of this post contains major spoilers.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The hero (subtly named "Hiro"), a thirteen-year-old boy of limited means, somehow manages to produce thousands of tiny 'microbots,' and gear for controlling them directly through his thoughts. It's not even so ridiculous that he could come up with a way to build such things--it's that he actually was able to build them. But okay, he does. Absurd, but let's move on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He builds them and shows them off, because he wants to impress the head of a school: Callaghan, who is duly impressed and convinces Hiro to bring the new technology to his school for further research. To repeat, Callaghan--who is in charge of what may be the most advanced technological research academy in the world--has successfully convinced Hiro to bring the tech to his school. This would put this new technology in Callaghan's hands. Callaghan wants the technology in order to exact some twisted revenge fantasy. So what does Callaghan do? He destroys one of the buildings at his school, fakes his own death and steals the technology. He risks his life and gives up his career just to steal technology that he otherwise would have had complete control over at his school. Nonsense.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, remember that Hiro thought all his microbots were destroyed in the fire. Hiro, the person who built them. If anybody knew how those microbots would respond to a fire, it was Hiro. But Callaghan assumed that the microbots could protect him from the fire--that the microbots were actually fire-proof. How did Callaghan know that, and how could Hiro not have known that?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then there's the fact that Callaghan's plan is absurd: he thinks the best revenge is to destroy Krei's building. The building? If he just wanted to destroy a building, he didn't need microbots. And if he just wanted to destoy a building, he didn't need to put together that weird interdimensional teleportation device. (And how'd he get that device to work without a power source? Where were its controls?) As with many superhero movies, we have a villain who is so poorly motivated and whose plan is so convoluted, we cannot possibly take it seriously.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The flaws don't end with Callaghan. There's also the fact that Hiro knows every spec about the microbots and the headgear which Callaghan steals from him. It should be very easy for him to regain control of the microbots, or just build new ones of his own--which could've been cool: a microbot showdown--but he never even considers that. Instead, he creates superheroes out of his late brother's fellow science students (and one mascot), people who have had no combat training at all. How are they all of a sudden supposed to be super warriors?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At the beginning of the movie, we learn that Hiro is a hustler. He does not respect authority or rules. He is a loner, happy to use his skills to take advantage of others. At the end of the movie, he has control over the most powerful technology in the world. Why are we supposed to trust him? Oh yeah, because he gave up his prior life and decided to commit himself to . . . to what, exactly? To going to school, where he could develop even bigger and better technology? To exacting revenge on the person who stole his technology and killed his brother? At what point did Hiro become a good person with a convincing sense of social responsibility? Never.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There was supposed to be some transformative moment when he watched the video of his brother. He learned that we should heal people, not hurt them. That's it? One video, and he's a different person? That's just the sort of magic moment that distinguishes popcorn entertainment from serious drama. It's just the sort of narrative weakness we have come to expect from Hollywood.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In reality, Hiro does not seem interested in making Baymax the sort of health care provider his brother had intended. Instead, Hiro makes Baymax into his personal slave. Why isn't Baymax constantly trying to help as many people as possible? Why is this "health care provider" only doing what Hiro wants? We are supposed to think that Hiro is following his brother's altruistic footsteps, helping bring his dream of health care to life. But in reality, Hiro is stealing his brother's invention and using it for his own personal betterment. Sure, Hiro thinks he can save the world. He's delusional. He's selfish. He's thirteen. We should not be happy with how this movie ends.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Last point. At the end of the film, before Baymax uses his super-punch to send Hiro back into our world, he takes out the disc which controls his programming and puts it in his hand. That way, Hiro is able to make another Baymax just like the first one. The problem is, how and why would Baymax send Hiro back into our world once he removed the disc? Without the disc, he is nothing. Baymax magically transcends his wiring in order to make sure that Hiro gets a hard copy of his programming. Again, nonsense. This plot hole could have been avoided. Hiro could have returned home after losing Baymax and then found a copy of Baymax's program. I mean, his brother must have made a back-up disc, right? No? Seriously?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Big Hero 6 </i>is funny, exciting, touching and visually-entertaining. It lacks well-developed characters and the plot is absurd. Nobody acts in a way that makes sense, and the whole thing is an absurdly disturbing sort of wish-fullfilment. It is everything that <i>Birdman </i>is against. Yet, both films won Oscars. Can we be fans of both? Can we enjoy <i>Big Hero 6 </i>one minute, and make fun of it the next? What does this say about us? Are we just used to living with cognitive dissonance? Do we enjoy it? Or are we not even paying attention?</div>
Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-81795629703559725332015-02-22T23:09:00.005+01:002016-06-07T22:36:13.291+02:00The Movies of 2014In lieu of the Oscars, here are my own categories (and winners) for 2014 films.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Best Drama:</b> <br />
Leviathan<br />
Runners-Up:<br />
Nightcrawler<br />
Selma<br />
<br />
<b>Best Sci-Fi:</b> <br />
Under The Skin<br />
<br />
<b>Best Horror:</b><br />
The Babadook<br />
Runner Up:<br />
A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night<br />
<br />
<b>Best Comedy:</b> <br />
Frank<br />
Runner Up:<br />
What We Do In The Shadows<br />
<br />
<b>Best Action:</b><br />
Edge Of Tomorrow<br />
<br />
<b>Best Children's Movie:</b> <br />
Maleficent<br />
<br />
<b>Best Director:</b><br />
Richard Linklater (Boyhood);<br />
Runners Up:<br />
Ava DuVernay (Selma)<br />
Jonathan Glazer (Under The Skin)<br />
Jennifer Kent (The Babadook)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Actress:</b><br />
Essie Davis (The Babadook);<br />
Runner Up:<br />
Julianne Moore (Still Alice)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Actor:</b><br />
Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler)<br />
Runners Up:<br />
David Oyelowo (Selma)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Actress in a Supporting Role:</b> <br />
Laura Dern (Wild); <br />
Runner Up:<br />
Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Actor in a Supporting Role:</b> <br />
J. K. Simmons (Whiplash)<br />
Runner Up:<br />
Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Cinematography:</b> <br />
Mikhail Krichman (Leviathan)<br />
Runner Up:<br />
Robert Yeoman (Grand Budapest Hotel)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Adapted Screenplay:</b><br />
Jonathan Glazer & Walter Campbell (Under The Skin)<br />
Runner Up:<br />
Jon Ronson & Peter Straughan (Frank)<br />
<br />
<b>Best Screenplay:</b><br />
Andrey Zvyagintsev & Oleg Negin (Leviathan)<br />
<br />
<b>Most Overrated Movie:</b><br />
The Imitation Game;<br />
Runners Up:<br />
Interstellar<br />
Captain America: Winter Soldier<br />
Gone Girl<br />
<br />
<b>Most Underrated Movie:</b> <br />
The Amazing-Spider Man 2<br />
Runner-Up:<br />
Annie <br />
<br />
<b>Biggest Disaster/Disappointment:</b><br />
Transcendence<br />
<br />
<b>Movies I still want to see:</b><br />
The Tale of the Princess Kaguya<br />
Song of the Sea<br />
Two Days, One Night<br />
Two Faces of January<br />
Mr. Turner<br />
Winter Sleep<br />
and all of the Oscar-nominated documentariesJason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-3669994742378943332015-02-15T23:16:00.003+01:002015-02-16T14:35:29.090+01:00Judaism Lost: A Comment on "Ida"My initial reaction to Pawel Pawlikowski's <i>Ida </i>was anger and frustration: Not at the historical injustice documented in the film. Not at the personal tragedy. Rather, it's the film itself that bothers me: It is a film about two Jewish women in the wake of the Holocaust, but Judaism itself is absent from the picture. A. O. Scott observes, in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/movies/ida-about-an-excavation-of-truth-in-postwar-poland.html?_r=0">his <i>New York Times</i> review</a>, the film "unfolds at the crossroads where the Catholic, Jewish and Communist strains of Poland's endlessly and bitterly contested national identity intersect." What Scott fails to notice, however, is that Judaism exists in the film only negatively: Jews are victims of the Holocaust; Jews are corrupt communists, faithless, self-destructive and morally lost. The film makes "an implicit argument . . . between faith and materialism," as Scott also observes, but it is Catholic faith that is on the line, not Judaism. There is no representation of Judaism as a viable option in the film at all. <br />
<br />
Finally, thanks to Joanna Auron-Górska, there is <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywood/article/what_ida_gets_right_and_wrong">a review of the film I can wholly get behind</a>. She writes:<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"> "</span><i>Ida</i> shirks the responsibility that there is in the terrible knowledge imparted to its main character." That knowledge, of course, is that the titular Ida is a Jew whose parents were slaughtered by Polish farmers during the Holocaust. The entire review is well-worth reading, but this is where she identifies what I think is the main problem with the film:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Why doesn't Ida ask herself what her being Jewish may mean to her? She has a go at the secular life; why does she not at least try on her Jewishness, the way she tries on the pearls and the vodka? It may have been difficult if not impossible to be a Jew at that time in Poland in any other sense than that of an internalized, partially hidden identity, of memory, or of faith; but it was certainly possible in those ways. For Ida, though, Jewishness is inconsequential. Had she at least explored the appearances, she would have to ask herself what it is like - if it is not possible to learn what it actually is - to be a Jew; she would have to assess the viability of her Jewishness; try to make meaning out of her family's death; attempt to understand the significance of the virtual disappearance of Jewish communities from Poland; finally, she would have to critically appraise the Poles and their Church. She does none. The return to the convent is Ida's best, in fact her only choice."</blockquote>
<br />
During a scene in the middle of the film, Ida and Wanda struggle over a Christian Bible. It may be the most emotionally salient scene in the film, for it is the only time Ida expresses any significant emotions. As Wanda suggests, it is as if a wild beast awoke inside the otherwise placid and stoic girl. When Ida finds out she is Jewish, her face doesn't change. When she sees the man who killed her parents during the Holocaust, her face doesn't change. When she is handed their remains, and travels a long distance to bury them properly, her face doesn't change. But when Wanda wants to quote the Bible to her, seeking to justify her decadent lifestyle, Ida erupts in violence and forces the holy book out of her hands. Ida can face genocide with a dispassionate eye, but she cannot tolerate misuse of the Christian Bible--at least, not in the hands of a drunken, promiscuous Jew.<br />
<br />
Ida's violent outburst over the Bible is not a sign of bubbling anger or frustration with the world and her place in it. She never again shows any inclinations towards violence. She never again shows anger or frustration at all. In fact, her only other outburst in the film is the momentary, slight laugh she accidentally emits during dinner back at the convent. What recollection or insight brought laughter to her lips? We have no way of knowing. The point is not why she was laughing, but that she was noticeably out of place, no longer comfortable in her old skin. It didn't have to be laughter. It could have been any emotional outburst at all. Why does she laugh? This should be striking, for nowhere in the film is Ida ever given reason to laugh. She and Wanda have just found the man who killed her parents, watched him dig up their remains, and then driven a long way across Poland for a proper burial. After all of that, Ida returns to the convent without any hint of emotion. No anger, no frustration, no tears. Then, for no apparent reason, she gives a small laugh over dinner?<br />
<br />
Imagine if, instead of a laugh, Ida had quickly suppressed an unintended cry of grief? What if she gripped her fork tightly and brought it down just a tad too hard on the table, causing some heads to turn? Wouldn't that have made more sense? Wouldn't it have given some depth to her journey, and not made her seem so empty and uncaring? Some sense that she was struggling with what had happened to her and her family?<br />
<br />
Or does she simply not care? Is that the point? Forgive and forget, as they say?<br />
<br />
When Ida finally decides to leave the convent on her own, it is not because she is Jewish. It is not because of her situation, her family's fate or her people's tragedy. It is because she is childishly and innocently curious about the world. And what she finds is death and a meaninglessness that cannot be cured by romance or the possibility of a family. So she turns back. Pawlikowski has said that we are not supposed to know if Ida returns to the convent or not at the end of the film. Why, then, does he have her dress as a nun? If he wanted an ambiguous ending, he should have had Ida wearing plain clothes at the end of the film. And how much more effective would that have been: a young woman taking the first steps alone towards self-discovery as a Jew, with no clear path forward, venturing bravely into a mysterious world alone, hoping for meaning but not sure where to look? That would be a powerful ending, especially if we had seen her struggling with anger and rage, fear and mortification, beforehand. Especially if we had seen her doubt the institution and faith which so far had dressed her. Unfortunately, that is not <i>Ida</i>.<br />
<br />
Ida looks most comfortable, most natural, when she is a nun. At the hospital, after they have confronted the man they believe killed her parents, Ida holds Wanda, comforting her. Wanda is in turmoil, but Ida is emotionless. She is dutiful. That is her character, but it does not feel real. She does not seem human. This may be partly because of how the part is acted (we have to wonder whether Ida's restrained characterization is the result of Agata Trzebuchowska's acting talents or the lack thereof; either way, it is surely intentional), but it is also because of how unnaturally the image is framed: the two women are at the lower right-hand corner of the screen, their bodies cut awkwardly out of the frame, and their huddled shapes overwhelmed by the vast, barren wall behind them. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<img alt="img_ida4" src="http://lumiere.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/img_ida41.jpg" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Such awkward framing is common in <i>Ida</i>, and it is visually striking. It also draws our attention away from the characters, making them seem less real, as if they aren't quite there. The characters take on a more symbolic significance: Ida, the innocent, graceful child; Wanda, the emotionally-charged victim of evil, her own as well as others.<br />
<br />
Has Ida struggled with her faith? Presumably she had some doubts, or she wouldn't have left the convent the second time. But where is her struggle? How does it play out? In a short-lived experiment with alcohol and cigarettes? In a one-night flirtation with secular romance? These are traversed without pause or hesitation, without reflection or consideration of their significance. It is as if Ida is trying to force her awakening before its time. Or perhaps she is awake, but unable to feel.<br />
<br />
Ida tries on Wanda's decadent lifestyle, but without Wanda's tears. Ida still does not cry. She does not scream. She does not rage against her fate. There is no visible grief or struggle at all. Instead, she is playful. She spins delicately in Wanda's curtains and falls clumsily to the floor. As with the laugh in the dining hall, this scene would make much more sense in a different movie, one with a lighter tone and less at stake. Ida does not seem to experience the world around her. She does not respond to the world as it is. She is not there.<br />
<br />
<i>Ida</i> is a film, like its protagonist, without an emotional compass. It ends with Ida as she has always been: most comfortable clothed in Catholic garments, without an identifiable sense of loss or discovery. Ida is more cipher than human. And while we might respect the artistry with which the auteur has pulled off this abstraction, we have to wonder at its meaning. What is gained by making a film about the Holocaust in which the only salient emotional struggle occurs between two Jewish women and a Christian Bible?Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9158262448006549093.post-70216383070430368922014-11-25T21:33:00.000+01:002014-11-25T21:33:11.174+01:00TOK: Reason and EmotionThe following is a post I put together for my TOK class this year:<br />
<br />
We're often told to listen to reason and not our emotions. Emotions might help us in the moment, but they won't help us in the long run. Emotions are about immediate gratification (getting what you want right away, living for the moment), not long-term planning. Emotions are wild and unpredictable. Reason is domesticated, calm and respectable.<br />
<br />
But is that really so?<br />
<br />
Or is the truth more like this: People who try to change your mind about something by telling you not to follow your emotions are actually being hypocrites. When they tell you not to follow your emotions, they are actually appealing to your emotions. They are appealing to your sense of responsibility, and where does responsibility come from, if not emotions?<br />
<br />
Emotions give us love, empathy, compassion, joy and excitement. Emotions may just be the glue that holds society together.<br />
<br />
Consider this scenario: You don't want to do your homework--you'd rather go out with some friends. A voice in your head says, "Aw, the homework isn't so important. You can get it done during a break tomorrow. It won't be great, but it'll be fine. Just go out and have some fun!" <br />
<br />
Then another voice says, "Wait a minute, now. Let's be responsible. You know that if you don't do the homework tonight, it's not going to get done properly. You might get a bad grade, and you won't learn the material." <br />
<br />
The first voice returns: "Aw, you're no fun. Come on, let's have some fun for once!" <br />
<br />
The second voice answers: "Fun? Is that all you care about? What about your education? What about your future?"<br />
<br />
I'm sure you've had similar arguments in your head about all sorts of things. Is this a fight between reason and emotion?<br />
<br />
We might say that reason is the voice that is concerned about the future, about education and responsibility. We might say that emotion is the voice that wants to have fun with friends, and which is trying to justify not doing the homework. Emotion is the voice of <i>rationalization</i>. So reason seems smarter, perhaps, but also totally boring and a real downer.<br />
<br />
But we don't have to look at it that way. Actually, I don't think we should look at it that way at all.<br />
<br />
First of all, there are reasons to go out and have fun. Not every homework assignment is going to make that much of a difference. That argument about your education and your future all hinging on this one homework assignment? That's a very bad argument. Why should you think that your entire future is going to be destroyed because of one homework assignment? It's not like the first voice was saying that all homework is a waste of time, and that you shouldn't do your school work at all. The first voice was just talking about one homework assignment and one night. So the so-called "voice of reason" here wasn't being very reasonable.<br />
<br />
We can easily be misled into thinking that we are listening to the voice of reason, when all we are actually hearing is a very bad argument.<br />
<br />
This is not a fight between reason and emotions. It is a fight between two different points of view: One view is that you need a break and going out with friends is more important than doing your homework. The other view is that doing your homework is more important than going out with friends. Both views rely on reason and emotion.<br />
<br />
<b>QUESTION 1:</b> Can you think of any real situations where you had a conflict between reason and emotion? How do you know it was not just a conflict between two different points of view, each with their own emotions and reason?<br />
<br />
Emotion keeps us interested in the world and our role in it. If we had no desires or feelings, we would have no motivation to act. Without emotion, our reason would be a cold, heartless tool. In fact, we might not be able to reason at all if we didn't have emotions. What motivates us to formulate arguments in the first place? What motivates us to accept premises? Remember: no matter how well-reasoned your argument is, your conclusion is only as good as your premises, and those can't all be based on reason. If we had no emotions, we would have no reason to use reason.<br />
<br />
Yet, there is a common belief that reason and emotion are against each other. It's a very, very old idea, going back many centuries. In fact, the idea that reason and emotion are enemies is such a well-established part of Western culture that it was used in the 20th century for propaganda. And so we have the 1943 Disney cartoon, "Reason And Emotion."<br />
<br />
(The actual cartoon starts about 30 seconds into the video.)<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nvp3zAPraF4" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
This unfortunately very sexist cartoon was one of numerous wartime propaganda films that Disney made for the US Government in the early 1940s. On the surface, the cartoon appears to be about the dangers of being led by our emotions. That is not what the film is really about, though. The purpose of the film is <u>not</u> to educate Americans about human psychology or theory of knowledge. It is to increase support for the American war effort. <br />
<br />
The propaganda really begins in the middle of the cartoon, when we see John Doe, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyman">everyman</a>, sitting at home trying to "keep up with current events." He does not know who to believe or what to think: On the radio, in the newspapers, in the streets, everywhere he looks he hears people talking about the war, about how America is doomed, about how it is a waste of money. His emotions are driving him crazy. Then the friendly narrator's voice comes in to guide him away from his emotions and towards reason. And, of course, reason tells him that America should be in the war and everything is going to be okay, so stop worrying and just be happy.<br />
<br />
The irony is that the narrator does not really lead us away from emotions at all. Instead, we are given exaggerated representations of Hitler which appeal heavily to our emotions. Apparently reason and emotion have a common enemy: Nazi Germany. At the end, we are told that reason and emotion should be patriotic--notice that patriotism is an emotion--and they should fly together. If our emotions are good and healthy (in other words, if they are patriotic), then they will let reason drive.<br />
<br />
The conclusion of the movie is very clear: It tells us that any Americans who oppose the war are unpatriotic and led by emotions. Of course, the cartoon does not appeal to reason--we are not given factual reasons to support the war--but only to emotion. But it creates the illusion that we are following reason, and that is the key.<br />
<br />
Again, it seems that when we are told that we must choose between reason and emotion, we are being misled.<br />
<br />
<b>QUESTION 2: </b>Why do we distrust emotions? Perhaps because we think that emotion and reason are at war. Where does this idea come from?<br />
<br />
<b>QUESTION 3:</b> What if reason and emotion don't compete for the driver's seat? What if we need a totally different metaphor to understand the relationship between reason and emotion? Can you think of any other possibilities?<br />
<br />
Perhaps reason is the navigational tools on a sailboat, and emotion is the water and wind that keeps it afloat and moves it forward.<br />
<br />
Or maybe reason is a flashlight, and emotion is the bulb that glows. Or is emotion the flashlight and reason the bulb?<br />
<br />
<b>QUESTION 4: </b> The ultimate question is, in our quest for knowledge, how do we know when we can trust our emotions and the emotions of others?Jason Streitfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com0