Updates, Live

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Bob Zoellick is the new guy at the World Bank

Bob ZoellickAmerican president Bush nominated Bob Zoellick (former US Trade Representative and Deputy Secretary of State) to replace Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank (ABC).
For Euronews, Zoellick is a low key guy: if honesty and the absence of charisma were key criteria in the choice, then Washington has certainly found its man. For The Scotsman, Zoellick has a reputation as being extremely demanding but he is also seen as a consensus builder. Zoellick vows to reunite World Bank, says Financial Times. For Financial Express, Zoellick may prove Wolfowitz antidote as World Bank chief .

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Arhitecturi cinematografice - un outline rapid

EisensteinEste un subiect vast. Incerc un outline, la repezeala.
Hou Hsiao-Hsien in Maestrul Papusar conduce povestea filmului pe trei planuri - actiunea se desfasora in paralel cu povestirea ei de catre erou (voce in off) si cu comentariile pe care le face acelasi erou la actiune si la povestea ei - de data asta asezat pe un scaun in fata aparatului de filmat. Aceeasi actiune in trei planuri - care se misca intre ele precum miscarea norilor pe cer!
In alt film al lui, Good Men, Good Women, doua actiuni in paralel - o actrita joaca intr-un film despre o eroina din timpul razboiului, actiunea adevarata a eroinei in paralel cu actiunea din filmul despre ea - eroina inca mai traieste si comenteaza. Tip de arhitectura folosit si de Atom Egoyan in Ararat.
Arhitectura pana la un punct asemanatoare si in filmele lui Julio Medem (Lucia y el Sexo, Los Amantes del Circulo Polar) - povestea este creata din bucati spuse de fiecare erou, ca niste bucati de mozaic pe care insa trebuie sa le asezam noi cap la cap - aceeasi poveste poate insemna cu totul altceva dupa cum ne decidem noi - si fiecare versiune este perfect credibila. Inteleg ca aceeasi arhitectura este si in filmul Tierra, pe care nu l-am vazut.
Oricum, Atom Egoyan foloseste de fapt aceeasi arhitectura in alte filme ale lui (de ex. in Where the Truth Lies, pe care l-am vazut, se pare ca si in The Sweat Hereafter pe care inca nu l-am vazut) - insa la el ideea pare a fi ca adevarul nu poate fi cunoscut - nu ca noi trebuie sa il reconstituim din fragmentele care ni se prezinta.
Almodovar in Hable con Ella - o serie de episoade care nu au nici o semnificatie pentru ele insele - dar care isi trimit semnificatia catre intregul filmului - o catedrala baroca formata din capele kitsch - rostul fiecarei capele este sa se explice nu pe ea, ci sa sprijine celelalte capele si sa trimita totul catre barocul catedralei.
Guillermo del Torro in Labirintul lui Pan - doua universuri contradictorii care evolueaza unul langa altul - universul fetitei, in care copacii sunt oameni intelepti si insectele sunt spiridusi, universul maturilor, care este atroce - schimburi subtile de informatii intre cele doua universuri.
Cutitul in apa al lui Polanski - tanarul vine din alt univers si pleaca inapoi in universul lui - barbatul nu il intelege si se simte amenintat - femeia este atrasa de universul tanarului.
Toate filmele lui Kim Ki Duk au aceeasi arhitectura ca si Cutitul in apa - coliziunea dintre doua universuri - cel al nostru, de toate zilele, cel transcendent, coliziune, atractie, respingere - limbajul lui Kim Ki-Duk este altul - magia exprimata prin violenta si sordid. Universul transcendent ni se arata doar in Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, again Spring, dar e in toate celelalte.
Arhitectura transcendenta din filmele lui Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer, dar si in Away from Her (al Sarei Polley)- explicata prin koan-ul zen:
1. cand am inceput sa studiez zen, muntele arata ca un munte
2. cand am crezut ca stiu zen, muntele nu mai arata ca un munte
3. cand am ajuns sa cunosc cu adevarat ceva din zen, muntele arata din nou ca un munte, dar altfel (pentru ca intelegeam si de ce nu mai aratase ca un munte)
Filmul ca structura muzicala - Symphonie diagonale, Regen, Ballet Mecanique, The Hearts of Age, Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt, Opus I, Romance Sentimentale, Le Retour a la Raison, Rhythmus 21, H2O- paralela dintre structura de imagini si structura muzicala - incercare de a vedea fiecare din filmele acestea si fara sonor - imaginile filmleor sunt muzica fara sunete - e un limbaj la fel de coerent ca si limbajul sunetelor.
Filmul ca un tot inseparabil - cameraman si ceea ce cameramanul filmeaza, editare, spectacol - deci film care se creaza in fata spectatorilor - Dziga Vertov, Omul cu camera de filmat.
Filmul ca o poveste care se spune numai de catre imagini, asa cum muzica nu are nevoie decat de sunete - Eisenstein, Parajanov, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Egoyan, Almodovar, Wong Kar-Wai, Ang Lee.
Vigoarea naratiunii prin imagini, montaj, ritm: Griffith, Eisenstein.
Cu Wong Kar-Wai incepe noua varsta a filmului?

(Filmofilia)

Labels:

Friday, May 25, 2007

Malevich: The Black Square

Malevich, The Black SquareWe walked out of the white. Follow me ... let's swim into the abyss.
(Malevich)

What is modernity, asked Baudelaire. He was answered by those four pillars of 20th century art: Picasso, who atomized form, Matisse, who emancipated color, Duchamp, who abolished the artwork in his ready-mades, and Malevich, who brandished his iconic Black Square like a crucifix.
Each might have adopted Picasso's 1923 dictum, in art we express what nature is not. Malevich said something similar in relation to his Black Square... arise, free yourselves from the tyranny of objects.
Malevich added a fourth dimension to the programs of his three great peers. The Black Square was not merely a symbol of liberty, it was also an icon, made not to be adored but to lead the spectator into the embrace of the divine. Nor can his œuvre be understood without reference to his mysticism.
(Gilles Néret, Kazimir Malevich and Suprematism)


(Suprematism and Constructivism)

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Malevich: Thoughts about Monet

Claude Monet, Rouen Cathedral, Wewst Facade, 1894, Washington DC National Gallery of Art
For most people, Monet had, when painting the cathedral, sought to render the lights and shadows on the walls. But they were wrong. In fact, all Monet's efforts had gone into the walls of the cathedral. His main task was not the shadows and the light, but the painting that lay in the shadow and the light... when the artist paints, and he plants the paint, and the object is his flower-bed, he must sow the paint in such a way that the object disappears, because it is merely a ground for the visible paint with which it is painted.
(Malevich - On New Systems in Art, Static, and Speed, 1919)


(Suprematism and Constructivism)

(Monet)

Labels: ,

Monday, May 21, 2007

Away from Her - Analiza unui film

Enid Romanek, libraria Barnes & Noble din Bethesda
Libraria Barnes and Noble din Bethesda. Imaginea este o lucrare a artistei Enid Romanek - acum cateva zile am cumparat o alta pictura a ei, imaginea cinematografului.
Este un loc in care ma duc deseori.
In scuarul din fata librariei se afla o placa memoriala - acolo a inceput constructia asezarii - este un text din Evanghelia dupa Ioan:
Iar în Ierusalim, langa Poarta Oilor, era o scaldatoare, care pe evreieste se numeste Vitezda, avand cinci pridvoare. In acestea zaceau multime de bolnavi, orbi, schiopi, uscati, asteptand miscarea apei. Caci un inger al Domnului se cobora la vreme în scaldatoare si falfaiala aripilor tulbura apa si cine intra intai, dupa tulburarea apei, se facea sanatos, de orice boala era tinut ...
Imanent si transcendent. Oamenii aceia, bolnavi, orbi, schiopi, uscati, aflati langa Poarta Oilor, asteptau miracolul.
Oraselul de langa Washington poarta numele locului mentionat de textul Evangheliei. In fata librariei ne plimbam sau ne odihnim langa o placa de fier care ne aminteste despre transcendent.
Este transcendentul undeva in afara universului nostru? Sau este amestecat in viata noastra? Nu cumva tot ce se intampla este in acelasi timp imanent si transcendent?
Cativa mari regizori de film au fost preocupati de aceste lucruri. Iar arhitectura filmelor pe care le-au creat este speciala - filmele lor sunt denumite filme transcendentale.
Filmul pe care l-am vazut de curand la cinematograful din Bethesda, Away from Her, face si el parte din categoria filmelor transcendentale si pot sa il asez alaturi de filmele lui Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer.
Paul Schrader a explicat structura unui film transcendental, intr-un studiu intitulat Transcendental Style in Film. Cum unul din locurile de onoare in studiu ii este acordat lui Ozu, nu e de mirare ca Schrader porneste in explicatia sa de la un koan:
1. Cand am inceput sa studiez zen, muntele arata ca un munte
2. Cand am crezut ca intelesesem zen, muntele nu mai arata ca un munte
3. Cand am inceput sa inteleg zen cu adevarat, muntele a inceput sa arate din nou ca un munte.
Prima etapa este viata de zi cu zi, in care toate lucrurile sunt normale.
In filmul Away from Her cei doi soti sunt impreuna de aproape cinzeci de ani, si la bine, si la rau. Este intre ei multa dragoste, si ea isi revarsa darurile: loialitate, delicatete, duiosie.
A doua etapa este cea in care normalul este din ce in ce mai mult contrazis de fapte, pana se ajunge la un moment de disruptie.
La inceput momente in care eroina are dificultati de memorie, repede depasite de amandoi, boala se agraveaza, sotia trebuie internata, o luna nu poate fi vizitata, dupa o luna ea nu il mai tine minte, s-a indragostit de altcineva, poate fi ceva de moment, insa incet-incet sotul isi da seama ca nu este asa - celalalt dispare, sotia nu ii poate suporta absenta si devine irecuperabila. Este momentul de disruptie.
Iar el sotul, vine in fiecare zi la spital si sta de-o parte, nestiind ce sa faca. Ii aduce carti pe care i le citea seara, carti despre Islanda, de unde ea era originara, dar degeaba - ea nu isi mai aminteste nici de carti, nici de Islanda. Toata duiosia ei se revarsa acum pentru barbatul de care s-a indragsotit, care este si el foarte bolnav, boala i-a adus mutenie si statul in carucior.
A treia etapa - sotul intelege ca singurul mod de a fi loial, de a-si manifesta iubirea, este sa il gaseasca pe celalalt si sa il aduca sotiei lui - numai asa ea va mai putea fi fericita, in conditiile bolii care nu are vindecare - ea are un moment de luciditate si isi recunoaste sotul, il imbratiseaza si il saruta, spunandu-i in gluma, crezi ca puteai scapa de mine?
Schrader numeste aceasta a treia etapa momentul de stasis. Altii folosesc termenul de epifanie.
Desigur ca dupa aceea sotia va recade in boala - dar pentru film acesta este momentul de stasis - sotul nu se mai framanta, a inteles, s-a resemnat, este de acum intelept, dar altfel, este loial, dar altfel, este indragostit, dar altfel - si este linistit din nou - muntele arata din nou ca un munte, dar privim de fapt muntele cu alti ochi, pentru ca am trecut prin experienta muntelui care nu arata ca un munte.
Filmele lui Ozu si Bresson sunt construite pe aceeasi structura. Am incercat sa regasesc aceasta structura si in filmele lui Wong Kar-Wai - am regasit momentul de stasis in In the Mood for Love - asa am inteles eu scena finala in care eroul de acolo se afla in Cambodgia in fata templelor de la Angkor Vat - asa am inteles si scena finala din 2046.
Iar in Away from Her, momentul de stasis este simbolizat de miracolul revenirii ei la luciditate pentru o clipa, cand il recunoaste si il imbratiseaza. Stim ca asemenea momente exista in boala aceasta cumplita, dar bolnavul recade dupa aceea - insa aici filmul iti da iluzia ca miracolul va fi poate permanent - pentru ca este un simbol - pentru ca stasisul trebuie tratat filmic.
La Ozu, finalul oricarui film arata apa unui rau - curgerea apei este acolo simbolul stasisului - tot ce s-a intamplat, bun, sau rau, are un rost, asta sugereaza miscarea linistita a apei - un rost pe care poate ca nu il intelegem dar pe care trebuie sa il acceptam, cu intelepciune si cu fior.
Filmele transcendentale - legaturi subtile dintre arta si credinta. Cartea lui Schrader incepe cu un motto datorat lui Gerardus Van Der Leeuw:
Religion and art
are parallel lines
which intersect only at infinity,
and meet in God.
Religia si arta
sunt linii paralele
care se intretaie in nemarginire
si se intalnesc in Dumnezeu.


Filmofilia

Labels:

Bill Richardson enters oficially the race

Bill Richardson
The buffalo from New Mexico joins the crowd for the White House. Bill Richardson did let us know officially his intentions (AHN). There are rock stars in the race, he said, but he is exactly in the exact place, which is moving up.
A man full of good sense and good humor, very effective everywhere he was sent, as US ambassador at the UN, as the head of the Department of Energy in DC, as the presidential envoy for all the tough negotiations in Baghdad (when Saddam was the ruler there) and Pyongyang, as Governor of New Mexico (re-elected this year).
Well, Hillary would be the first female president, Barack would be the first Black, what about Billy? You guessed it, he would be the first Latino president. Wow! His mother and his paternal grandmother were both Mexicans, and he speaks perfectly Spanish. Super Padrisima!
Mr. Richardson is the best representative of the Democratic Center, pragmatic, realist, flexible, the kind of a Democrat that New Yorkers give their vote only not to loose for a GOP guy.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Los Amantes del Circulo Polar


Naiwa Nimri
Otto and Ana are kids when they meet each other. Their names are palindromes. They meet by chance, people are related by chance. A story of circular lives, with circular names, and a circular place (Círculo polar) where the day never ends in the midnight sun. There are things that never end, and Love is one of them.
Sunt cateva randuri pe care le-am gasit pe imdb despre Los Amantes del Circulo Polar. Si urmeaza pe imdb vreo sapte pagini de comentarii
Otto si Ana s-au intalnit prima data cand erau copii in clasele primare. Numele lor sunt palindroame. Nume circulare, destine care evolueaza si ele in cercuri, visele sunt si ele cercuri, spre Cercul Polar, unde ziua nu are sfarsit pentru ca lumina se invarte la nesfarsit. Nici dragostea nu are sfarsit, pentru ca tine de destin si nu de lucruri atat de marunte cum e viata sau moartea.
Daca nu va plac filmele lui Julio Medem, nu are rost sa vedeti nici filmul acesta. Vi se va parea fie copilaresc, fie absurd, fie melodramatic, fie toate la un loc.
Daca nu stiti nimic despre Medem, poate e mai bine sa vedeti mai intai Lucia y el Sexo - stiu si eu?
Los Amantes del Circulo Polar - am stat sa il vad aseara, tarziu. Vazusem Lucia y el Sexo - si voiam neaparat sa il vad si pe acesta. M-a descumpanit. Mi s-a parut copilaresc, absurd, melodramatic.
Noaptea e un bun sfetnic. M-am trezit cu gandul la film. L-am inteles dintr-odata. Nu e copilaresc, nu e absurd, nu e melodramatic. E un film care evolueaza in cercuri, urmarind cu o delicatete extraordinara dragostea care evolueaza intre doi copii pe masura ce cresc - si relatiile lor complicate cu parintii lor.
E o poveste pe muchie de cutit. Tatal lui a divortat si traieste cu mama ei. Toata lumea ii considera pe cei doi copii frate si sora vitregi.
Dar asta e harul lui Julio Medem, sa mearga pe muchie de cutit, pentru ca este un pasionat al virtuozitatii.
Oare moare Ana la sfarsit? Poate ca da, avand in ochi pastrata imaginea lui pentru totdeauna, in ultimele clipe visand ca in sfarsit il reintalneste acolo, la Cercul Polar. Poate ca nu, poate ca el este cel care moare undeva in munti, cu multi ani in urma, visand in ultimele clipe ca ea se apleaca asupra lui. Povestea se roteste in cercuri si nu se termina la sfarsitul filmului -pentru ca filmul nu are sfarsit. Filmul la care lucreaza acum Julio Medem se numeste Caotica Ana.
Iar ea, Ana, este Naiwa Nimri, o femeie cu o senzualitate cu totul speciala, cu un glas parca incarcat de dorinta si de pacat greu.
No tengo palabras, ii scrie Naiwei Nimri un entuziast, solo decir que sacas la luz y la oscuridad de quien te ecucha y te ve, una deliciosa ambiguedad.
Si filmul asta, ca si Lucia y el Sexo, este incarcat de o senzualitate grea, ambigua, nebuna. Si am inteles deodata mult mai bine Lucia y el Sexo.
Pentru ca si evolutia mea ca spectator despre filmele lui Medem se aseamana unui mozaic, ale carui piese se aranjeaza incet in cercuri, fara sfarsit.
Dati-mi voie sa va istorisesc o amintire. Cu multi ani in urma, intr-un tramvai un baietel a fost asezat din intamplare pe un scaun in fata unei fetite. Ochii lui m-au invatat ce inseamna entuziasmul in fata frumusetii. Fetita a inteles totul, cu precocitate. Si a inceput sa ii vorbeasca. Iar el nu putea sa scoata un sunet. Ochii lui spuneau totul.

(Julio Médem)

Labels:

Friday, May 18, 2007

Wolfowitz steps down from the World Bank.

Wolfie says bye - so it goes
Paul Wolfowitz has resigned from the World Bank presidency (Free Europe/Liberty). It is the result of a strong campaign against him. He was accused of bank ethics violation: a wage increase and promotion for Shaha Ali Riza, a World Bank employee with whom he has a personal relationship. Dr. Wolfowitz asked to be recused for all personnel decisions involving her job at the bank, but the Ethics Committee considered that she should be moved in a position outside the bank. The way Dr. Wolfowitz tried to solve this issue was eventually considered inappropriate.
The whole problem should be considered in its larger context. Paul Wolfowitz is one of the most prominent representatives of the neo-conservative camp and one of the main promoters of the Iraqi war - so he has a huge number of political adversaries. On the other hand he used a very tough style of leadership at the World Bank - so another huge number of adversaries. So it goes.
It's a pity that the name of Mrs. Riza (a highly praised Middle East expert) was put in the focus this way.
Anyway, Dr. Wolfowitz said bye and the logical question would be who's next. Only this question has multiple meanings. You could think on the next president for the World Bank, or you could think that Mr. Gonzales does not feel too well either.

Global Guerrillas

David BrooksSetbacks in the war on terror don’t only flow from the mistakes of individual leaders and generals. They’re structural. It’s pointless to decapitate the head of the insurgency or disrupt its command structure, because the insurgency doesn’t have these things. Instead, it is a swarm of disparate companies that share information, learn from each other’s experiments and respond quickly to environmental signals. Democratic nations need to build their own decentralized counterinsurgency networks.

Look on the Global Guerrillas blog of John Robb. And read this op-ed of David Brooks in today's NYT:

May 18, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Insurgent Advantage
By
DAVID BROOKS
The war on terror has shredded the reputation of the Bush administration. It’s destroyed the reputation of Tony Blair’s government in Britain, Ehud Olmert’s government in Israel and Nuri al-Maliki’s government in Iraq. And here’s a prediction: It will destroy future American administrations, and future Israeli, European and world governments as well.
That’s because setbacks in the war on terror don’t only flow from the mistakes of individual leaders and generals. They’re structural. Thanks to a series of organizational technological innovations, guerrilla insurgencies are increasingly able to take on and defeat nation-states.
Over the past few years, John Robb has been dissecting the behavior of these groups on his blog, Global Guerrillas. Robb is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and Yale University, and he has worked both as a special ops counterterrorism officer and as a successful software executive.
In other words, he’s had personal experience both with modern warfare and the sort of information management that is the key to winning it. He’s collected his thoughts in a fast, thought-sparking book, “Brave New War” that, astonishingly, has received only one print review — distributed by U.P.I. — in the month since it’s been published.
Robb observes that today’s extremist organizations are not like the P.L.O. under Yasir Arafat. They’re not liberation armies. Instead, modern terror groups are open-source, decentralized conglomerations of small, quasi-independent groups.
There are between 70 and 100 groups that make up the Iraqi insurgency, and they are organized, Robb says, like a bazaar. It’s pointless to decapitate the head of the insurgency or disrupt its command structure, because the insurgency doesn’t have these things. Instead, it is a swarm of disparate companies that share information, learn from each other’s experiments and respond quickly to environmental signals.
For example, the U.S. has spent billions trying to disrupt attacks from improvised explosive devices, but the I.E.D. manufacturing stream has transmogrified and now includes sophisticated metallurgy, outsourcing and fast innovation cycles. The number of I.E.D. attacks has remained pretty constant throughout the war.
Superempowered global guerrillas — whether it’s Al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Nigerian oil fighters or the Brazilian gang P.C.C. — specialize in what Robb calls systems disruption. They attack the networks that support modern life. In one case, Iraqi insurgents spent roughly $2,000 to blow up an oil pipeline in Southeast Iraq. It cost the Iraqi government $500 million in lost revenue. For the insurgents, that was a return on investment of 25 million percent.
The 9/11 attacks, the Madrid bombings, the Niger Delta oil well attacks and even the Samarra mosque bombing were all attempts to disrupt the economic and social systems of target nations.
But, Robb continues, these new groups are not seeking to take over their countries the way 20th-century guerrillas did. They have a prenational, feudal mind-set to go along with their postnational Silicon Valley-style organizational methods. They merely seek to weaken states, so they can prosper in the lawless space created by collapse of law and order. That way the groups don’t have to construct anything or assume responsibility for anything.
In fact they’ve learned, as Lawrence of Arabia learned decades ago, that it’s better to weaken target governments, but not actually destroy them. When nations don’t feel existentially threatened, they don’t mobilize all their resources to defeat their foes. They try to fight wars on the cheap, and end up in a feckless semibelligerent state somewhere between real war and nonwar.
Robb is pessimistic (excessively so) that top-heavy, pork-driven institutions like the Defense Department or the Department of Homeland Security can ever keep up with open-source insurgencies. Since 9/11, he believes, big government institutions have engaged in a process of hindsight re-engineering designed to reduce future risk, when in fact, the very nature of the threat is that it’s random and cannot be anticipated.
He thinks democratic nations need to build their own decentralized counterinsurgency networks, though he goes over the top in imagining local squads of grass-roots terror fighters.
But time and again, he hints at the core issue, which is that nation-states are inefficient learning organizations, at least compared to their feudal and postnational foes. If the Iraqi insurgents defeat the U.S. then every bad guy on earth will study and learn their techniques. The people now running for president will find themselves in bigger heaps of trouble than the current one now is — trouble that this presidential campaign hasn’t even dealt with.

Labels:

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Julie Christie in Away from Her

Enid Romanek, Cinematograful din BethesdaCinematograful din Bethesda, unde am vazut atatea si atatea filme de neuitat. Eram din nou acolo, duminica dupa masa, asteptand ora de incepere pentru un film pe care il presimteam a fi cu totul special.
Unul din chioscurile de pe platoul din fata expunea cateva lucrari ale pictoritei Enid Romanek, imagini din Bethesda sau din ale cateva localitati apropiate. Am cumparat o pictura infatisand chiar locul unde eram: restaurantul Mon Ami Gabi pe colt, urmat de o cofetarie si apoi de cinematograf. Am mancat de cateva ori la Mon Ami Gabi, atras de bucataria franceza. M-am tot intrebat de ce nu e Mon Amie Gabi, pana cand m-am lamurit - amicul la care se refera numele restaurantului este de fapt un barbat, Gabichon. Asta-i situatia. Cofetaria are dever, spectatorii intra sa isi ia inghetata, fie inainte, fie dupa film.
Vremea era placuta. Era de acum sase seara, caldura de peste zi se mai domolise.
Filmul pe care urma sa il vad o avea in rolul principal pe Julie Christie.
Cativa dintre noi suntem de varsta lui Julie Christie. Era tanara cand eram noi tineri, ne incanta cu jocul ei inteligent si cu frumusetea ei speciala.
Apoi am vazut fiecare cand am putut Doctor Jivago, unii dintre noi atunci cand a aparut, altii mai tarziu, pe vreun video. Nu am apucat niciodata sa il vad de la inceput pana la sfarsit cat am fost in Romania. Ori ajungeam prea tarziu la prietenul care avea un video, ori dupa 90, ajungeam prea tarziu acasa cand se dadea la televizor - pana la urma odata ajuns in America am cumparat DVD-ul si l-am vazut.
Julie Christie in rolul Larei, emotionanta... si mi-am amintit de anii cei tineri, cand o vazusem in Billy Mincinosul, alaturi de Tom Courtenay.
A imbatranit si ea, odata cu noi, cei care eram tineri cand ea era tanara, este o doamna distinsa si inca frumoasa, desigur ca varsta isi are semnele ei.
Si joaca in filmul pe care l-am vazut duminica in Bethesda rolul unei doamne distinse si inca frumoase, chiar daca varsta isi are semnele ei.
Un film canadian, Away from Her, in regia lui Sarah Polley. Julie Christie este in film Fiona, o doamna casatorita de aproape cinzeci de ani. Aproape cinzeci de ani in care au impartit bucuriile si incercarile, cu multa dragoste, cu mult umor, cu seninatate.
El, sotul, a fost profesor universitar - a avut o aventura cu douazeci de ani in urma, de care ii e rusine si acum - ar vrea sa o uite, din cand in cand ea isi aduce aminte, el tace incurcat, ca un adolescent.
Si viata curge frumos. Locuiesc intr-o casa mare, in mijlocul padurii, iarna schiaza impreuna - sunt de fapt tot timpul impreuna, si sunt atenti unul cu celalalt - si dragostea lor este insotita de multa, multa tandrete. Seara ea se aseaza pe canapea, cu capul pe genunchii lui, iar el ii citeste, in timp ce ii mangaie parul. O carte de povestiri din Islanda - Fiona s-a nascut in Islanda. S-au casatorit la initiativa ei - imaginea ei cand era tanara ii revine mereu in minte, zambetul ei cand l-a intrebat, nu crezi ca ar fi nostim sa ne casatorim? iar el a inebunit de fericire.
Numai ca Fiona incepe un Alzheimer. La inceput nu e greu. Ea nu isi aminteste un cuvant, el o ajuta, ea mai baga cratita in frigider in loc de dulap, el o pune la loc dupa ce iese ea din bucatarie - seara sta si ii citeste ca de obicei ... insa boala avanseaza, la un moment dat ea pleaca pe schiuri in jurul casei, dar uita si de schiuri si de casa si ajunge undeva departe pe o autostrada - el reuseste sa o gaseasca... de acum va trebui internata.
Azilul este ca orice azil pentru oameni cu bunastare materiala. Este curat, elegant, personalul medical este de calitate - exista si un etaj doi, unde bolnavii ajung daca boala evolueaza - sigur ca nu o sa fie cazul Fionei.
Si mai e ceva - in prima luna nu sunt permise vizitele. Pacientul trebuie sa se obisnuiasca.
Iar dupa o luna, sotul are o surpriza - Fiona a uitat ca a fost maritata, nu prea mai intelege cine este el, s-a indragostit de un alt pacient - care este de acum mai avansat in boala - nu mai vorbeste, sta tot timpul in carucior - dar intre ei este o relatie de mare tandrete - ea il mangaie mereu, il ajuta sa manance, incearca sa il convinga sa se ridice din carucior - el o deseneaza - foi de hartie cu chipul ei, desenate la nesfarsit - si privirea lui spune cat de mult o iubeste, cat de mult are nevoie de dragostea ei.
Si sotul revine zilnic, incercand fara succes sa ii trezeasca o amintire - de fapt el nu este chiar un necunoscut pentru Fiona, dar ea nu reuseste sa isi dea seama de unde il cunoaste. Si ca intotdeauna in boala asta, incearca tot timpul sa ascunda adevarul, inteligenta a ramas, memoria a parasit-o.
Exista si sotia celuilalt - care intelege ca nu exista nici o iesire si ca viata ei trebuie sa mearga mai departe.
Ce va face sotul eroinei? Va reveni zilnic, ii va privi pe cei doi,va incerca sa lupte sa ii trezeasca sotiei lui memoria, va imbatrani si el, incet, incet, va avea momente de deruta, apoi va reveni -pacientul celalalt va dispare la un moment dat - poate mutat in alt ospiciu, cine stie - Fiona, ramasa fara pacientul cel mut, va decade foarte repede, va ajunge la etajul superior, la incurabili - si deodata sotul va intelege ca singurul lucru pe care il poate face pentru Fiona este sa il aduca el inapoi pe celalalt.
Si atunci se intampla miracolul - sotia ii zambeste si il imbratiseaza.
Un film foare trist - si foarte frumos.

Bazat pe o povestire de Alice Munro.

(Filmofilia)

(Alice Munro)

Labels:

Jerry Falwell died

Rev. Jerry FalwellRev. Jerry Falwell died today. He was 73.
A highly controversial figure, praised by the Born-Again Christians while reviled by liberals of all sorts, he was one of the most influential leaders of the American religious right.
He founded and led the Moral Majority, the political expression of the conservative Christians, registering millions of members. It was through this organization that in the eighties the shift of the Southern states toward GOP was made possible.
For Howard Fineman, (Newsweek’s Chief Political Correspondent) the death of Rev. Falwell signifies the end of an era.
Says Mr. Fineman, the Reagan Revolution has come and gone, and now the Republican Red State Machine—assembled by Karl Rove on the Reagan foundations—is grinding its gears. If you are looking for a sign that “CHANGE IS A COMIN’,” as they say, the death of the Rev. Jerry Falwell is as good an indicator as any. He saw patterns where others didn’t—for good and for ill—and, knowing him, I think he would see his passing for what it is: the end of an era.

(Church in America)

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Evangelical Leader Returns To Catholicism

Francis J. Beckwith
The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Francis J. Beckwith, stepped down as he decided to return to Catholicism (Washington Post). He is a tenured Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at the Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
Prof. Beckwith was raised as a catholic and became born-again in his teens. Now he is making the journey back. He explains the reasons in his blog.
Prof. Beckwith considers the doctrine of justification as the most important issue between Catholics and Protestants. He says he was deeply affected by a joint declaration in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification, which went a long way toward eliminating this historical source of division.
As this issue no more exists, says Prof. Beckwith, the default position should be to belong to the historic church.
His decision raised many reactions in the Evangelical camp; in the same time it reflects the similarity of conservative positions between Catholics and Evangelicals in many key cultural issues of today's world.
Here is a copy of the article from W. Post:
Evangelical Leader Returns To Catholicism
Move Reflects Narrowing Gap Between Denominations
By Alan CoopermanWashington Post Staff WriterSaturday, May 12, 2007; B09
The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, resigned this month because he has joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The May 5 announcement by Francis J. Beckwith, a tenured associate professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex., has left colleagues gasping for breath and commentators grasping for analogies.
One
blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan's defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
"This is a sad day for all true sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation, for all who lived and died for its truths," Douglas Groothuis, a professor at the evangelical Denver Seminary, said in a posting on Beckwith's
own blog, adding sternly: " . . . you are embracing serious theological error."
Beckwith, 46, said in a telephone interview that he had expected some repercussions in academic circles but was stunned by the public response. He said strangers have called him at home to berate him, and that his Internet server was overwhelmed by 2,000 e-mails a day to his personal
Web site, which in the past seldom generated more than 90 a day.
"It's beyond anything I've ever experienced," he said.
Beckwith is not the first, or even the most prominent, evangelical to switch to Catholicism in recent years. Others include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), theologian Scott Hahn and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things. On the other side of the equation, the Catholic Church has been losing droves of ordinary worshipers to the Pentecostal form of evangelicalism, particularly in Latin America.
Beckwith said his decision reflects how dramatically the divisions between evangelicals and Catholics have narrowed in recent decades, as they have stood shoulder to shoulder on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and school vouchers.
The stormy reaction, however, is a reminder of the gaps that remain, particularly on such theological questions as whether to baptize infants and how human beings gain "justification," or righteousness in the eyes of God.
Beckwith said he was raised as a Catholic in Las Vegas and was "born again" as an evangelical during his teens, at the height of the countercultural "Jesus movement" in the 1970s. He earned a master's degree and a doctorate in philosophy from Fordham University, a Jesuit institution, but then taught at Protestant schools, including Trinity International University and Baylor.
He said that for many years he agreed with the criticisms of the Catholic Church made by Martin Luther and other leaders of the 16th-century Reformation, who emphasized the authority of the Bible alone -- rather than the pronouncements of church leaders -- and who argued that justification resulted from the grace of God, not from good deeds.
But his thinking began to change, he said, as he read more deeply into Catholic theology, including works by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. After studying Ratzinger's book "Truth and Tolerance" last year, he said, he called a prominent evangelical philosopher, read him a passage about whether theology is really knowledge, and asked him to guess the author.
"He reeled off the names of a bunch of evangelical theologians," Beckwith recalled. "I said, 'No, it's Ratzinger!' And he said, 'So he's one of us!' " Beckwith said he was also deeply affected by a joint
declaration in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification, which he said went a long way toward eliminating this historical source of division.
"I do agree with Protestants that there is no good I can do, no work I can perform, that would justify me," Beckwith said. "But there are many places in scripture that say there's an obligation Christians have to take on the character of Christ, and that contributes to their justification. The Catholic solution is: I am required to take on the character of Christ, but it is not my power that does it, but God's grace."
Chuckling gently, Beckwith said that in discussions with fellow theologians over the past year, he suddenly found himself making "Catholic-type arguments" about natural law and truth, arguing that everything found in the Bible is true, but not everything that is true is found in the Bible.
"At the end of the day, the reason for the Reformation was the debate over justification. If that is no longer an issue, I have to be Catholic," Beckwith said. "It seems to me that if there is not a very strong reason to be Protestant, then the default position should be to belong to the historic church."
On his blog last week, he said he wrestled with whether to inform the Evangelical Theological Society immediately of his intention to return to Catholicism, or to wait until the end of his term in November. He said he and his wife prayed for guidance and received an answer when a 16-year-old nephew asked him to take part in his Catholic confirmation ceremony tomorrow. "I could not do that unless I was in full communion with the church," Beckwith said.
Because Baylor does not require its faculty to sign any statement of beliefs, a university spokeswoman said, Beckwith's change of heart will not affect his teaching post. And because he was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic in his youth, he did not have to undergo conversion -- he simply had to go to confession and receive Holy Communion. He did so in a quiet ceremony April 29 at a small church in Bellmead, Tex.


(Church in America)

Friday, May 11, 2007

Blair versus Huntington

Young Tony Blair

The guy in the photo is Tony Blair - the way he looked like in 1986. As he will step down in June, there is much talk about him these days.

David Brooks (in his Op-Ed from today's NY Times) considers that Tony Blair and Samuel Huntington have opposite views on the world. While for Huntington the present-day world is just a clash of irreducible civilizations, for Blair the process of globalization compels us to be interdependent. Mr. Brooks believes that Blair's commitment to Iraqi war comes from his strong anti-Huntingtonian vision.


Here is the copy of the article:

May 11, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Human Community
By DAVID BROOKS
The conventional view of Tony Blair is that he was a talented New Labor leader whose career was sadly overshadowed by Iraq. But this is absurd. It’s like saying that an elephant is a talented animal whose virtues are sadly overshadowed by the fact that it’s big and has a trunk.
Blair’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq grew out of the essence of who he is. Over the past decade, he has emerged as the world’s leading anti-Huntingtonian. He has become one pole in a big debate. On one side are those, represented by Samuel Huntington of Harvard, who believe humanity is riven by deep cultural divides and we should be careful about interfering in one another’s business. On the other are those like Blair, who believe the process of globalization compels us to be interdependent, and that the world will flourish only if the international community enforces shared, universal values.
Blair’s worldview began to take shape when he was 11 and his father suffered a debilitating stroke. That sent him off on an intellectual journey that led him to the theologian John Macmurray. “If you really want to understand what I’m all about, you have to take a look at a guy called John Macmurray,” Blair once said. “It’s all there.”
Blair absorbed from Macmurray a strong communitarian faith. As prime minister, he tried to remove the class and political barriers that divide the British people. Abroad, his core idea was also communitarian: “Globalization begets interdependence, and interdependence begets the necessity of a common value system to make it work.”
In April 1999, Blair delivered a speech in Chicago in which he ran down all the features of the globalized world that cross borders and unite humanity: trade, communications, disease, financial markets, human rights and immigration. “Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater,” he argued. “We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community.”
This meant moving away from the Westphalian system, in which the world and its problems were divided into nation-states. “The rule book of international politics has been torn up,” he argued in a speech last year. What’s needed instead are multilateral institutions that act “in pursuit of global values: liberty, democracy, tolerance, justice.” The economics of globalization are mature, he concluded, but the politics are not.
In his 1999 speech, Blair maintained that the world sometimes has a duty to intervene in nations where global values are under threat. He argued forcefully for putting ground troops in Kosovo and highlighted the menace posed by Saddam Hussein.
He saw the terrorists of Sept. 11 as extremists who sought to divide humanity between the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb — the House of Islam and the House of War. “This is not a clash between civilizations,” he said last year in the greatest speech of his premiership. “It is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence.” He concluded that Britain had to combat those who would divide the human community, even without the support of the multilateral institutions that he cherished.
The crucial issue now is: Is this human community real? Is Iraq merely an intervention that was botched? Or are interventions inherently doomed because people in other cultures don’t want what we want, and will never see the world as we do?
Over the past three years, people on the left and right have moved away from Blair and toward Huntington. There has been a sharp rise in the number of people who think it’s insane to try to export our values into alien cultures. Instead of emphasizing our common community, people are more likely to emphasize the distances and conflicts between cultures. Whether the subject is immigration, trade or foreign affairs, there is a greater desire to build separation fences because differences in values seem deeply rooted and impossible to erase.
If Huntington turns out to be right, then Blair will be seen as one of the most naïve communitarians of all time. But I wouldn’t count him out just yet. It could be that over the long term, and despite the disaster in Iraq that he co-authored, his vision of a human community will be vindicated. Or it could be that Blair’s vision of that community was right — except in the Middle East, the region where he most aggressively sought to apply it.



Tony Blair


(And here is again Tony Blair, in a very informal situation)

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

David Brooks about Britain

Queen Elisabeth II
We lost the American colonies because we lacked the statesmanship to know the right time and the manner of yielding what is impossible to keep.
The Queen is now visiting us. David Brooks has an op-ed in today's NY Times - it's about the British way to be. A smart conservative view on a smart conservative society.
Britain is a nation with the soul of a historian, says Mr. Brooks.
And with a few obvious exceptions, British historians have not seen history as the march toward some culminating Idea. Instead they’ve seen history as a hodgepodge of activity — as one damn thing after another.
This skepticism, continues David Brooks, permeates national life, for while the British can be socially deferential, they are rarely intellectually deferential. The French and the Germans might defer to their intellectuals, and the Arabs might defer to their clerics, but the British public is incapable. That’s why the British trade unions could take on the upper classes in their day, and why the Brits had an open debate about European unification. The British elites exerted enormous pressure in favor of union, but the tabloid readers didn’t care.
Well, what is better to be, an American or a Brit? If you ask Mr. Brooks, here's his answer: Before I slip totally into sceptred isle fanaticism, I should point out that it’s better to be an American Anglophile than to be British. As an American, you don’t actually have to put up with the snobbery, the cynicism and the insularity. You can choose the slice of Britain you want to admire.
Here's a copy of the whole article:. Enjoy the reading.
May 8, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Where History Reigns
By DAVID BROOKS
Although as a child I had turtles named Disraeli and Gladstone, I was never invited to sip Champagne with the queen until yesterday. Although I’ve been an Anglophile all my life, I was never able to participate in a fawning orgy of Albion worship until the British ambassador’s party for the monarch yesterday afternoon.
It was wonderful.
I got to enjoy many of the features I love about Britain: repressed emotions, overarticulate conversationalists and crustless sandwiches. It reminded me why over the decades so many of my Jewish brethren have gone in for the “Think Yiddish, Act British” lifestyle — shopping at Ralph Lauren and giving their sons names that seem quintessentially English: Irving, Sidney, Norman and Milton. More deeply, it reminded me why Britain is such a successful country.
Britain is a nation with the soul of a historian. Its society is studded with institutions that keep the past alive, of which the monarchy is only the most famous. Its press is filled with commemorations, anniversaries and famously eloquent obituaries. Britain has always produced politically engaged celebrity historians, from Gibbon, Macaulay and Trevelyan down to Simon Schama, John Keegan, Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson today.
In short, Brits live with the constant presence of their ancestors. When Isaiah Berlin compared F.D.R. and Churchill, he observed that while Roosevelt had an untroubled faith in the future, Churchill’s “strongest sense is the sense of the past.”
History, in the British public culture, takes precedence over philosophy, psychology, sociology and economics. And with a few obvious exceptions, British historians have not seen history as the unfolding of abstract processes. They have not seen the human story as the march toward some culminating Idea.
Instead they’ve seen history as a hodgepodge of activity — as one damn thing after another. As a result, George Orwell generalized, the English “have a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic ‘worldview.’ ” This isn’t because they are practical — that’s a national myth, Orwell wrote — it’s just that given the stuttering realities of history, they find systems absurd.
Even philosophers in Britain tend to be skeptics, and emphasize how little we know or can know. Edmund Burke distrusted each individual’s stock of reason and put his faith in the accumulated wisdom of tradition. Adam Smith put his faith in the collective judgment of the market. Michael Oakeshott ridiculed rationalism. Berlin celebrated pluralism, arguing there is no single body of truth.
This skepticism permeates national life, for while the British can be socially deferential, they are rarely intellectually deferential. The French and the Germans might defer to their intellectuals, and the Arabs might defer to their clerics, but the British public is incapable. That’s why the British trade unions could take on the upper classes in their day, and why the Brits had an open debate about European unification. The British elites exerted enormous pressure in favor of union, but the tabloid readers didn’t care.
The Brits’ historical consciousness means that in moments of crisis they can all swing together and act as one. But in normal times, as Orwell also noted, “the gentleness of the English civilization is perhaps its most marked characteristic.” Americans talk of “happiness,” but Brits talk, less transcendentally, of “enjoyment.”
American journalists, for example, are spiritually descended from Walter Lippmann. We are always earnestly striving toward some future elevated state. British journalists are spiritually descended from Samuel Johnson. They are conversationalists enjoying the inevitable conflicts that, as W. C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman put it, pit the wrong but romantic against the right but repugnant.
Before I slip totally into sceptred isle fanaticism, I should point out that it’s better to be an American Anglophile than to be British. As an American, you don’t actually have to put up with the snobbery, the cynicism and the insularity. You can choose the slice of Britain you want to admire.
The slice I was enjoying yesterday on the ambassador’s lawn, as hundreds of Washington power broker types directed their rapturous attention toward Her Majesty, is the Britain that doesn’t often fall for ludicrous ideas. It’s the Britain that has revitalized its economy even while France struggles, and has mostly preserved the pillars, like the monarchy, of its distinct national identity. It’s the Britain still too well bred to mention, as a few expats and Yanks did yesterday, that the Queen looks a bit shorter than Helen Mirren
.

Labels:

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Sarko is the new guy in town

Super Sarko
Nicolas Sarkozy will be the next French president: 53% from the 70% counted ballots. Enthusiasm in Place de la Concorde, anger in Place de la Bastille. So it goes.
Well, it looks like there's a new guy in town, isn't it?
He takes an impressive heritage, it seems: stagnant wages, a lagging economy, frustration in impoverished, immigrant-heavy suburbs... all that kind of stuff (MSNBC). So it goes.
Any questions? Just that one: who's the president of the French Senate? Just in case.