Friday, March 31, 2006
Danger Man, oh boy
I got my first TV tape from Zip.ca and dived right into a warm bath of resurrected teenage cool.
Ah, nostalgia - Bunuel (Toronto, ON)
"Danger Man" was a favourite TV show of mine in the mid-60s. Season 1 brings back fond memories - or are they "pre-memories"? The series started in 1959, and I certainly would not have seen the first season then, if at all. Of the first 8 episodes on Disc 1, I can't say I have a specific recollection of any of them, although the style, the narrative structure, and the settings are certainly familiar.
These are half-hour episodes, and they zip (pardon the pun) right along. The dilemma is established immediately, before the credits - an assassination attempt on a foreign leader, a kidnapping of the daughter of an industrialist with sensitive plans, etc. Cut to the intro, Patrick McGoohan's voice-over explaining that he's "Drake, John Drake", and does "difficult" jobs for NATO Security. The simple three-note theme, then into the often foreign locale. Drake quickly locates the bad guy, dispatches him with a little judo and a few crisp punches; and off he goes, returning to the West. Often there is a beautiful woman, but Drake's relations with her are always chaste.
The gadgetry is kept to a minimum. Indeed, everything is kept to a minimum. McGoohan is a minimalist actor. In these early episodes, he's more charming than I recall him; less tight-lipped and grim. As for guest stars, they've been pretty modest so far; but I did see Donald Pleasance, Lois Maxwell (before she became Miss Moneypenny), and Sam Wanamaker.
It's all wonderfully refreshing and simple.
One curiosity, though: Drake is obviously British, yet he says he's an American. My understanding is that the series, which was produced by ITV in England, was not shown in the U.S. until much later. So why not just say he's British? Oh well, no more mysterious, I suppose, than the fact that no matter what fictitious country Drake visits, all the major characters there are also British.
Ah, nostalgia - Bunuel (Toronto, ON)
"Danger Man" was a favourite TV show of mine in the mid-60s. Season 1 brings back fond memories - or are they "pre-memories"? The series started in 1959, and I certainly would not have seen the first season then, if at all. Of the first 8 episodes on Disc 1, I can't say I have a specific recollection of any of them, although the style, the narrative structure, and the settings are certainly familiar.
These are half-hour episodes, and they zip (pardon the pun) right along. The dilemma is established immediately, before the credits - an assassination attempt on a foreign leader, a kidnapping of the daughter of an industrialist with sensitive plans, etc. Cut to the intro, Patrick McGoohan's voice-over explaining that he's "Drake, John Drake", and does "difficult" jobs for NATO Security. The simple three-note theme, then into the often foreign locale. Drake quickly locates the bad guy, dispatches him with a little judo and a few crisp punches; and off he goes, returning to the West. Often there is a beautiful woman, but Drake's relations with her are always chaste.
The gadgetry is kept to a minimum. Indeed, everything is kept to a minimum. McGoohan is a minimalist actor. In these early episodes, he's more charming than I recall him; less tight-lipped and grim. As for guest stars, they've been pretty modest so far; but I did see Donald Pleasance, Lois Maxwell (before she became Miss Moneypenny), and Sam Wanamaker.
It's all wonderfully refreshing and simple.
One curiosity, though: Drake is obviously British, yet he says he's an American. My understanding is that the series, which was produced by ITV in England, was not shown in the U.S. until much later. So why not just say he's British? Oh well, no more mysterious, I suppose, than the fact that no matter what fictitious country Drake visits, all the major characters there are also British.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Another movie review
I reprint my review of A Face in the Crowd for Zip.ca. In fact, you get a bonus here, because the review was apparently too long for Zip and it got truncated. Now, can I remember what I wrote after that point?
Ahead of its time - Bunuel (Toronto, ON)
Between Meet John Doe and Bob Roberts, there was A Face in the Crowd. Made in 1957, it was definitely ahead of its time in its recognition of the power of television to shape an image for political purposes, and of the demogogic potential of doing so. Larry Rhodes (Andy Griffith) is picked out of an Arkansas jail by a clever radio host, Marcia Jeffries (Patricia Neal), for her show "A Face in the Crowd" that interviews ordinary people. She nicknames him "Lonesome Rhodes", and with his folksy charm and no-nonsense speech, he becomes an immediate hit.
Of course, he quickly outgrows this backwater, graduating to a television show on Memphis and soon to a major network in New York, thanks to the clever manipulation of an ambitious hustler (Anthony Franciosa). The more popular he becomes, the more he becomes infatuated by his own power. He is manipulated by a rich sponsor to promote the Presidential ambitions of a right wing Senator with no charisma or media savvy; but by the end of the film it's not clear who's manipulating whom.
Marcia, who has fallen in love with Lonesome but is also appalled by the monster she's created, finally pulls the plug on him by allowing the sound to run after he thinks he's off the air. He mocks the Senator and, worse, shows his contempt for his audience. (This episode is based on a famous real incident from this time involving a children's show host.) He shows up at what was to have been a meeting with the Senator and others that would have confirmed his ascendancy. When he realizes he's finished, he has a mental breakdown. He appeals to Marcia to save him, but she finally abandons him.
It's a powerful story, well written and well told. Andy Griffith is a revelation. This is definitely not the smiling Mayberry sheriff I grew up with; it's really a stunning performance, even more so when one realizes that this was his film debut and that beforehand - although he starred in a Broadway play for a year - he was a stand-up comic. In addition to Griffith, Franciosa and Lee Remick - as a baton-twirling nymphette Rhodes suddenly marries as a rating gimmick - appear in film for the first time, and both are excellent. And Rip Torn also debuts in a small role as the man chosen to replace Rhodes after his downfall.
Walter Matthau does a fine job as a bright TV director who quickly sees through Rhodes. (Although his Tennessee accent quickly disappears.) And Patricia Neal is stunning. What a great actress she was. Alas, only she and Griffith of the principals are still alive.
My main complaint is that the film, at 115 minutes, is too long. And the scenes set in the world of broadcasting and advertising are much more persuasive than those in the corridors of political and business power, where the characters seem lifted from a Capra film of the 30s or 40s.
Accompanying the movie on the 2005 DVD release is a short feature which includes interviews with a film historian, a professor, and Griffith, Neal, and Franciosa. (He died only this year.) Also discussed is the sad fact that both the director, Elia Kazan, and the writer, Budd Schulberg - who also collaborated on On the Waterfront - testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953 and named names. That is, they informed on their friends who had also been members of the Communist Party. Schulberg was 90 when interviewed, and he's unapologetic; but at least he's not as strident as Kazan was at the time. Griffith seems embarrassed to discuss it, since he clearly admires Kazan greatly. Neal, at least, says outright that Kazan was wrong. Considering the great talent of these two men, and that they did in fact have a social conscience and a generally progressive point of view, it's tragic that they chose to act the way they did.
Ahead of its time - Bunuel (Toronto, ON)
Between Meet John Doe and Bob Roberts, there was A Face in the Crowd. Made in 1957, it was definitely ahead of its time in its recognition of the power of television to shape an image for political purposes, and of the demogogic potential of doing so. Larry Rhodes (Andy Griffith) is picked out of an Arkansas jail by a clever radio host, Marcia Jeffries (Patricia Neal), for her show "A Face in the Crowd" that interviews ordinary people. She nicknames him "Lonesome Rhodes", and with his folksy charm and no-nonsense speech, he becomes an immediate hit.
Of course, he quickly outgrows this backwater, graduating to a television show on Memphis and soon to a major network in New York, thanks to the clever manipulation of an ambitious hustler (Anthony Franciosa). The more popular he becomes, the more he becomes infatuated by his own power. He is manipulated by a rich sponsor to promote the Presidential ambitions of a right wing Senator with no charisma or media savvy; but by the end of the film it's not clear who's manipulating whom.
Marcia, who has fallen in love with Lonesome but is also appalled by the monster she's created, finally pulls the plug on him by allowing the sound to run after he thinks he's off the air. He mocks the Senator and, worse, shows his contempt for his audience. (This episode is based on a famous real incident from this time involving a children's show host.) He shows up at what was to have been a meeting with the Senator and others that would have confirmed his ascendancy. When he realizes he's finished, he has a mental breakdown. He appeals to Marcia to save him, but she finally abandons him.
It's a powerful story, well written and well told. Andy Griffith is a revelation. This is definitely not the smiling Mayberry sheriff I grew up with; it's really a stunning performance, even more so when one realizes that this was his film debut and that beforehand - although he starred in a Broadway play for a year - he was a stand-up comic. In addition to Griffith, Franciosa and Lee Remick - as a baton-twirling nymphette Rhodes suddenly marries as a rating gimmick - appear in film for the first time, and both are excellent. And Rip Torn also debuts in a small role as the man chosen to replace Rhodes after his downfall.
Walter Matthau does a fine job as a bright TV director who quickly sees through Rhodes. (Although his Tennessee accent quickly disappears.) And Patricia Neal is stunning. What a great actress she was. Alas, only she and Griffith of the principals are still alive.
My main complaint is that the film, at 115 minutes, is too long. And the scenes set in the world of broadcasting and advertising are much more persuasive than those in the corridors of political and business power, where the characters seem lifted from a Capra film of the 30s or 40s.
Accompanying the movie on the 2005 DVD release is a short feature which includes interviews with a film historian, a professor, and Griffith, Neal, and Franciosa. (He died only this year.) Also discussed is the sad fact that both the director, Elia Kazan, and the writer, Budd Schulberg - who also collaborated on On the Waterfront - testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953 and named names. That is, they informed on their friends who had also been members of the Communist Party. Schulberg was 90 when interviewed, and he's unapologetic; but at least he's not as strident as Kazan was at the time. Griffith seems embarrassed to discuss it, since he clearly admires Kazan greatly. Neal, at least, says outright that Kazan was wrong. Considering the great talent of these two men, and that they did in fact have a social conscience and a generally progressive point of view, it's tragic that they chose to act the way they did.
Monday, March 27, 2006
You can't be serious
The Merry Widow? The Merry Fucking Widow??? By Franz Lehar? Give me a fucking break. No one listens to this shite, no one not in a nursing home or a coma. This music was old-fashioned 70 years ago. Andre Rieu should be locked up in his ridiculous Italian castle and not be allowed to leave the country, unless it's to torture prisoners at secret CIA locations. The members of the Johann Strauss Orchestra should all be forced to get honest jobs.
What's most amazing about Classical96 playing this treacle is that it is nearly 1:30 in the morning. Anyone who might find this entertaining went to bed at least two hours ago.
But ... and here is the explanation for the quick rotation I spoke of earlier. There is no one actually at the microphone at this hour spinning discs. This is all on tape. And the playlist is all recycled from earlier shows. Probably the station's research shows that practically no one listens to it from 1:00 to 6:30 a.m., so it doesn't matter what they play then; and certainly going to the trouble of actually thinking up and arranging a programme is not worthwhile.
Fie, fie on you.
What's most amazing about Classical96 playing this treacle is that it is nearly 1:30 in the morning. Anyone who might find this entertaining went to bed at least two hours ago.
But ... and here is the explanation for the quick rotation I spoke of earlier. There is no one actually at the microphone at this hour spinning discs. This is all on tape. And the playlist is all recycled from earlier shows. Probably the station's research shows that practically no one listens to it from 1:00 to 6:30 a.m., so it doesn't matter what they play then; and certainly going to the trouble of actually thinking up and arranging a programme is not worthwhile.
Fie, fie on you.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
They can send a man to the moon ...
You know what's coming next: ... but they can't - and here you insert some miserable failure to solve a simple problem, like "make a jar that's easy to open." We've all heard it, and most of us have said it. So why should I be different?
They can send a man to the moon, but they can't make shoelaces that don't come undone.
There are some problems with this formulation, chiefly having to do with "they". Yes, they - NASA - can send a man to the moon, but it's not the same they who make the shoelaces. That might be two guys named Moe in a garage. And it took NASA who knows how many billion dollars before they got a man to the moon, whereas the research and development budget of the Acme Shoelace Company is probably about five dollars and a banana. Besides, NASA did manage to send a man to the moon, but they also managed to blow up a lot of missiles and get several astronauts killed in the attempt. So maybe I don't want them designing and making my shoelaces. They'd cost $25.00 a pair and explode occasionally.
That said, the state of shoelaces is pretty sad. I mean, they're shoelaces. How hard can it be to make a long string that when knotted doesn't come undone? Lately, every time I go out in my winter boots, I have to stop before I get where I'm going and retie them. Alternatively, I can shlep along with the laces undone, looking like one of the Sauve brothers I went to public school with. And they blew their noses directly onto the sidewalk, and ate mud.
They can send a man to the moon, but they can't make shoelaces that don't come undone.
There are some problems with this formulation, chiefly having to do with "they". Yes, they - NASA - can send a man to the moon, but it's not the same they who make the shoelaces. That might be two guys named Moe in a garage. And it took NASA who knows how many billion dollars before they got a man to the moon, whereas the research and development budget of the Acme Shoelace Company is probably about five dollars and a banana. Besides, NASA did manage to send a man to the moon, but they also managed to blow up a lot of missiles and get several astronauts killed in the attempt. So maybe I don't want them designing and making my shoelaces. They'd cost $25.00 a pair and explode occasionally.
That said, the state of shoelaces is pretty sad. I mean, they're shoelaces. How hard can it be to make a long string that when knotted doesn't come undone? Lately, every time I go out in my winter boots, I have to stop before I get where I'm going and retie them. Alternatively, I can shlep along with the laces undone, looking like one of the Sauve brothers I went to public school with. And they blew their noses directly onto the sidewalk, and ate mud.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Liberalism is My God, and Dworkin is its Prophet
I reprint here a short essay by Ronald Dworkin on the subject of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. Since the piece is available free online at the link shown above, and this is not a commercial site, I assume I am not committing any copyright infringement - but it is more convenient if I reprint it. The title is not too exaggerated. In fact, I have never read anything by Ronald Dworkin with which I have not agreed. This piece is not his best reasoned, perhaps - it's much shorter than his usual writings - but in essence I think it is quite correct. At the end, I will add a note of my own.
The Right to Ridicule
By Ronald Dworkin
The British and most of the American press have been right, on balance, not to republish the Danish cartoons that millions of furious Muslims protested against in violent and terrible destruction around the world. Reprinting would very likely have meant—and could still mean—more people killed and more property destroyed. It would have caused many British and American Muslims great pain because they would have been told by other Muslims that the publication was intended to show contempt for their religion, and though that perception would in most cases have been inaccurate and unjustified, the pain would nevertheless have been genuine. True, readers and viewers who have been following the story might well have wanted to judge the cartoons' impact, humor, and offensiveness for themselves, and the press might therefore have felt some responsibility to provide that opportunity. But the public does not have a right to read or see whatever it wants no matter what the cost, and the cartoons are in any case widely available on the Internet.
Sometimes the press's self-censorship means the loss of significant information, argument, literature, or art, but not in this case. Not publishing may seem to give a victory to the fanatics and authorities who instigated the violent protests against them and therefore incite them to similar tactics in the future. But there is strong evidence that the wave of rioting and destruction—suddenly, four months after the cartoons were first published —was orchestrated by Muslim leaders in Denmark and in the Middle East for larger political reasons. If that analysis is correct, then keeping the issue boiling by fresh republications would actually serve the interests of those responsible and reward their strategies of encouraging violence.
There is a real danger, however, that the decision of the British and American press not to publish, though wise, will be wrongly taken as an endorsement of the widely held opinion that freedom of speech has limits, that it must be balanced against the virtues of "multiculturalism," and that the Blair government was right after all to propose that it be made a crime to publish anything "abusive or insulting" to a religious group.
Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display. Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.
Ridicule is a distinct kind of expression; its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended. That is why cartoons and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.
So in a democracy no one, however powerful or impotent, can have a right not to be insulted or offended. That principle is of particular importance in a nation that strives for racial and ethnic fairness. If weak or unpopular minorities wish to be protected from economic or legal discrimination by law—if they wish laws enacted that prohibit discrimination against them in employment, for instance—then they must be willing to tolerate whatever insults or ridicule people who oppose such legislation wish to offer to their fellow voters, because only a community that permits such insult as part of public debate may legitimately adopt such laws. If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to accept. Whatever multiculturalism means—whatever it means to call for increased "respect" for all citizens and groups—these virtues would be self-defeating if they were thought to justify official censorship.
Muslims who are outraged by the Danish cartoons note that in several European countries it is a crime publicly to deny, as the president of Iran has denied, that the Holocaust ever took place. They say that Western concern for free speech is therefore only self-serving hypocrisy, and they have a point. But of course the remedy is not to make the compromise of democratic legitimacy even greater than it already is but to work toward a new understanding of the European Convention on Human Rights that would strike down the Holocaust-denial law and similar laws across Europe for what they are: violations of the freedom of speech that that convention demands.
It is often said that religion is special, because people's religious convictions are so central to their personalities that they should not be asked to tolerate ridicule of their beliefs, and because they might feel a religious duty to strike back at what they take to be sacrilege. Britain has apparently embraced that view because it retains the crime of blasphemy, though only for insults to Christianity. But we cannot make an exception for religious insult if we want to use law to protect the free exercise of religion in other ways. If we want to forbid the police from profiling people who look or dress like Muslims for special searches, for example, we cannot also forbid people from opposing that policy by claiming, in cartoons or otherwise, that Islam is committed to terrorism, however misguided we think that opinion is. Certainly we should criticize the judgment and taste of such people. But religion must observe the principles of democracy, not the other way around. No religion can be permitted to legislate for everyone about what can or cannot be drawn any more than it can legislate about what may or may not be eaten. No one's religious convictions can be thought to trump the freedom that makes democracy possible.
My addendum has to do with the question of Holocaust denial. In Canada, this issue has been tested. In the Zundel case, the Supreme Court held that the criminal offence of "spreading false news" was an unjustifiable violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed by our Charter of Rights, and declared it of no force and effect. So, it is permissible here to deny the Holocaust, as Zundel did, even if you know that to be false. Of course, in Germany and other European countries, it is an offence, and Zundel in fact has been charged with that offence there for the same conduct as he engaged in here. (As I write, he is, I believe, still on trial; but he may already have been convicted. The English historian David Irving was also recently convicted.)
But this is not the proper analogy to the cartoons. To deny the Holocaust is to distort the historical record - indeed, to tell lies. The equivalent in this context would be to declare that Muhammad as a person never existed, that he was an invention of later commentators. And the answer to such a claim, just as the answer to a claim that the Holocaust never happened, is to point to the historical record - extensive, in the case of the Holocaust - to disprove the false claim.
On the other hand, we also have in Canada the offence of "wilful promotion of hatred", contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Its constitutionality was upheld in the case of Keegstra. It requires (a) wilfully; (b) promoting hatred; (c) against any identifiable group; (c) by communicating statements; (d) other than in private communication. [These letters are not in the section; I have added them for explanatory purposes.] "Wilfully" means that the accused have the intention to cause the prohibited consequence. By s. 319(3), there are four defences to this crime: (a) that the statements are true, the onus to prove this being on the accused; (b) that they were a good faith attempt to establish an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) that they were relevant to a subject of public interest, discussion was in the public interest, and the accused on reasonable grounds believed them to be true; and (d) good faith irony [my wording]. The definitions of "communicating" and "statements" are broad. The definition of "identifiable group" in s. 318 is adopted: "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." A prosecution under s. 319(2) may not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of the province.
Note, as an aside, that the second defence gives special protection to religious views. For example - and I think that Parliament had this example specifically in mind - if a Christian fundamentalist were to say that homosexuals were evil and deserved to go to Hell because the Bible condemns sodomy, and if he honestly believed this, he could not be convicted - even if he knew that by saying this he was promoting hatred against homosexuals.
Would publication of the Danish cartoons in Canada be punishable as a crime, even assuming a malicious intent on the part of the publisher? Clearly not; and in fact Ezra Levant, who published them in the Weekly Standard in Alberta, was not prosecuted for it. For one thing, the meaning of the "statements" is not entirely clear. What is clear, in my view, is that the cartoons - and the meaning of a cartoon is usually subject to interpretation - are not saying that Muhammad was a terrorist. What some of them seemed to say is that currently, Islam (represented by Muhammad, its symbol) has been hijacked by terrorists; or that radical or fundamentalist Islam is inherently violent. I think a person might reasonably hold the latter view; and there is no doubt that this opinion is a subject of public interest, and discussion of it is in the public interest.
What of the fact that the cartoons depicted an image of Muhammad, and that this is contrary to orthodox Islam and offensive per se to Muslims? Tough. That's their religion, and they can censure other Muslims who break that rule. They certainly can't tell non-Muslims not to do it, any more than a Jew can tell gentiles that they can't eat pork because her religion tells her not to. But what if I draw Muhammad just to offend you, a Muslim? Okay, I've offended you. That's not the same thing by any means as promoting hatred against you.
What would be? Well, if I were to suggest that Muslims were by nature a vile, depraved lot of people, uncivilized, naturally prone to violence, incapable of governing themselves or modernizing - and if I said this to encourage other people to hold them in contempt (it's hard to imagine why else I would say all of that) - I think this would qualify. Likewise, if I were to say not merely that the Holocaust didn't happen, but that "the Jews" fabricated it in order to get reparations and make the West feel guilty so that they would look the other way when the Jews ran roughshod over the Palestinians and created the State of Israel - I think this would qualify.
But even here we must be careful. We might all agree that the former parts of those two statements are outrageous and deserving of punishment, and yet we might also feel that the latter parts are political opinions worth debating - even if they are grossly offensive to their subjects. It then becomes a question of balancing harms and benefits, and it's not an easy exercise. On the whole, it's probably better in most cases to err on the side of licence, of allowing a very wide range of permissible public speech.
But on the question of ridicule, there is no question. If I want to draw the Emperor with no clothes, or Jesus in a bustiere, or Muhammad with a bomb on his head, or Moses as a pawnbroker, I should be allowed to do so. And if you don't like it, too bad.
The Right to Ridicule
By Ronald Dworkin
The British and most of the American press have been right, on balance, not to republish the Danish cartoons that millions of furious Muslims protested against in violent and terrible destruction around the world. Reprinting would very likely have meant—and could still mean—more people killed and more property destroyed. It would have caused many British and American Muslims great pain because they would have been told by other Muslims that the publication was intended to show contempt for their religion, and though that perception would in most cases have been inaccurate and unjustified, the pain would nevertheless have been genuine. True, readers and viewers who have been following the story might well have wanted to judge the cartoons' impact, humor, and offensiveness for themselves, and the press might therefore have felt some responsibility to provide that opportunity. But the public does not have a right to read or see whatever it wants no matter what the cost, and the cartoons are in any case widely available on the Internet.
Sometimes the press's self-censorship means the loss of significant information, argument, literature, or art, but not in this case. Not publishing may seem to give a victory to the fanatics and authorities who instigated the violent protests against them and therefore incite them to similar tactics in the future. But there is strong evidence that the wave of rioting and destruction—suddenly, four months after the cartoons were first published —was orchestrated by Muslim leaders in Denmark and in the Middle East for larger political reasons. If that analysis is correct, then keeping the issue boiling by fresh republications would actually serve the interests of those responsible and reward their strategies of encouraging violence.
There is a real danger, however, that the decision of the British and American press not to publish, though wise, will be wrongly taken as an endorsement of the widely held opinion that freedom of speech has limits, that it must be balanced against the virtues of "multiculturalism," and that the Blair government was right after all to propose that it be made a crime to publish anything "abusive or insulting" to a religious group.
Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display. Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.
Ridicule is a distinct kind of expression; its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended. That is why cartoons and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.
So in a democracy no one, however powerful or impotent, can have a right not to be insulted or offended. That principle is of particular importance in a nation that strives for racial and ethnic fairness. If weak or unpopular minorities wish to be protected from economic or legal discrimination by law—if they wish laws enacted that prohibit discrimination against them in employment, for instance—then they must be willing to tolerate whatever insults or ridicule people who oppose such legislation wish to offer to their fellow voters, because only a community that permits such insult as part of public debate may legitimately adopt such laws. If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to accept. Whatever multiculturalism means—whatever it means to call for increased "respect" for all citizens and groups—these virtues would be self-defeating if they were thought to justify official censorship.
Muslims who are outraged by the Danish cartoons note that in several European countries it is a crime publicly to deny, as the president of Iran has denied, that the Holocaust ever took place. They say that Western concern for free speech is therefore only self-serving hypocrisy, and they have a point. But of course the remedy is not to make the compromise of democratic legitimacy even greater than it already is but to work toward a new understanding of the European Convention on Human Rights that would strike down the Holocaust-denial law and similar laws across Europe for what they are: violations of the freedom of speech that that convention demands.
It is often said that religion is special, because people's religious convictions are so central to their personalities that they should not be asked to tolerate ridicule of their beliefs, and because they might feel a religious duty to strike back at what they take to be sacrilege. Britain has apparently embraced that view because it retains the crime of blasphemy, though only for insults to Christianity. But we cannot make an exception for religious insult if we want to use law to protect the free exercise of religion in other ways. If we want to forbid the police from profiling people who look or dress like Muslims for special searches, for example, we cannot also forbid people from opposing that policy by claiming, in cartoons or otherwise, that Islam is committed to terrorism, however misguided we think that opinion is. Certainly we should criticize the judgment and taste of such people. But religion must observe the principles of democracy, not the other way around. No religion can be permitted to legislate for everyone about what can or cannot be drawn any more than it can legislate about what may or may not be eaten. No one's religious convictions can be thought to trump the freedom that makes democracy possible.
My addendum has to do with the question of Holocaust denial. In Canada, this issue has been tested. In the Zundel case, the Supreme Court held that the criminal offence of "spreading false news" was an unjustifiable violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed by our Charter of Rights, and declared it of no force and effect. So, it is permissible here to deny the Holocaust, as Zundel did, even if you know that to be false. Of course, in Germany and other European countries, it is an offence, and Zundel in fact has been charged with that offence there for the same conduct as he engaged in here. (As I write, he is, I believe, still on trial; but he may already have been convicted. The English historian David Irving was also recently convicted.)
But this is not the proper analogy to the cartoons. To deny the Holocaust is to distort the historical record - indeed, to tell lies. The equivalent in this context would be to declare that Muhammad as a person never existed, that he was an invention of later commentators. And the answer to such a claim, just as the answer to a claim that the Holocaust never happened, is to point to the historical record - extensive, in the case of the Holocaust - to disprove the false claim.
On the other hand, we also have in Canada the offence of "wilful promotion of hatred", contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Its constitutionality was upheld in the case of Keegstra. It requires (a) wilfully; (b) promoting hatred; (c) against any identifiable group; (c) by communicating statements; (d) other than in private communication. [These letters are not in the section; I have added them for explanatory purposes.] "Wilfully" means that the accused have the intention to cause the prohibited consequence. By s. 319(3), there are four defences to this crime: (a) that the statements are true, the onus to prove this being on the accused; (b) that they were a good faith attempt to establish an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) that they were relevant to a subject of public interest, discussion was in the public interest, and the accused on reasonable grounds believed them to be true; and (d) good faith irony [my wording]. The definitions of "communicating" and "statements" are broad. The definition of "identifiable group" in s. 318 is adopted: "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." A prosecution under s. 319(2) may not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of the province.
Note, as an aside, that the second defence gives special protection to religious views. For example - and I think that Parliament had this example specifically in mind - if a Christian fundamentalist were to say that homosexuals were evil and deserved to go to Hell because the Bible condemns sodomy, and if he honestly believed this, he could not be convicted - even if he knew that by saying this he was promoting hatred against homosexuals.
Would publication of the Danish cartoons in Canada be punishable as a crime, even assuming a malicious intent on the part of the publisher? Clearly not; and in fact Ezra Levant, who published them in the Weekly Standard in Alberta, was not prosecuted for it. For one thing, the meaning of the "statements" is not entirely clear. What is clear, in my view, is that the cartoons - and the meaning of a cartoon is usually subject to interpretation - are not saying that Muhammad was a terrorist. What some of them seemed to say is that currently, Islam (represented by Muhammad, its symbol) has been hijacked by terrorists; or that radical or fundamentalist Islam is inherently violent. I think a person might reasonably hold the latter view; and there is no doubt that this opinion is a subject of public interest, and discussion of it is in the public interest.
What of the fact that the cartoons depicted an image of Muhammad, and that this is contrary to orthodox Islam and offensive per se to Muslims? Tough. That's their religion, and they can censure other Muslims who break that rule. They certainly can't tell non-Muslims not to do it, any more than a Jew can tell gentiles that they can't eat pork because her religion tells her not to. But what if I draw Muhammad just to offend you, a Muslim? Okay, I've offended you. That's not the same thing by any means as promoting hatred against you.
What would be? Well, if I were to suggest that Muslims were by nature a vile, depraved lot of people, uncivilized, naturally prone to violence, incapable of governing themselves or modernizing - and if I said this to encourage other people to hold them in contempt (it's hard to imagine why else I would say all of that) - I think this would qualify. Likewise, if I were to say not merely that the Holocaust didn't happen, but that "the Jews" fabricated it in order to get reparations and make the West feel guilty so that they would look the other way when the Jews ran roughshod over the Palestinians and created the State of Israel - I think this would qualify.
But even here we must be careful. We might all agree that the former parts of those two statements are outrageous and deserving of punishment, and yet we might also feel that the latter parts are political opinions worth debating - even if they are grossly offensive to their subjects. It then becomes a question of balancing harms and benefits, and it's not an easy exercise. On the whole, it's probably better in most cases to err on the side of licence, of allowing a very wide range of permissible public speech.
But on the question of ridicule, there is no question. If I want to draw the Emperor with no clothes, or Jesus in a bustiere, or Muhammad with a bomb on his head, or Moses as a pawnbroker, I should be allowed to do so. And if you don't like it, too bad.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Stupid service people
I ordered a pizza last Friday. The person on the phone who takes your order always asks if you will be paying cash, and I said I would be. So why, I ask, does the delivery man not show up with any change? Does he think I will have the exact change? Or does he hope that if I don't - which is almost surely going to be the case - I will let him keep whatever the difference turns out to be as a tip? In this case, the bill was $23.23 (including tax) and I wanted to leave a $2.00 tip. I had 23 cents and a $20 bill, but not a $5. He didn't have a $5 either - or two twonies and a loonie. So did he think I was going to give him a $7.00 tip? Good luck, buddy.
Actually, I don't blame the delivery man. When he begins a shift, the pizzeria manager should give him a float so he can make change.
In the event, the fellow took my credit card number and I signed the bill. I haven't got my Mastercard statement yet to see if that went through correctly. Or if I unexpectedly ordered a set of golf clubs.
By the way - twonie, or toonie? The latter looks better, but the former makes more sense. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary gives toonie or twoonie, which is asinine, and just shows what a load of bollocks that reference is. Katherine Barber can kiss my toonies.
And finally, my last rant of the night. While I was typing (you don't really expect me to say "keying", do you?) this, Classical96 played the "diamond music". You all know what I'm talking about. It's the Allegretto from Karl Jenkins's "Palladio" Suite, which everyone knows from the DeBeers "A Diamond is Forever" commercials. Again, a good piece of music - and I'll bet it sold a lot of diamonds. But now I hear it now at least twice a week, and I'd like to shove an uncut diamond up Mike Duncan's ass.
Actually, I don't blame the delivery man. When he begins a shift, the pizzeria manager should give him a float so he can make change.
In the event, the fellow took my credit card number and I signed the bill. I haven't got my Mastercard statement yet to see if that went through correctly. Or if I unexpectedly ordered a set of golf clubs.
By the way - twonie, or toonie? The latter looks better, but the former makes more sense. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary gives toonie or twoonie, which is asinine, and just shows what a load of bollocks that reference is. Katherine Barber can kiss my toonies.
And finally, my last rant of the night. While I was typing (you don't really expect me to say "keying", do you?) this, Classical96 played the "diamond music". You all know what I'm talking about. It's the Allegretto from Karl Jenkins's "Palladio" Suite, which everyone knows from the DeBeers "A Diamond is Forever" commercials. Again, a good piece of music - and I'll bet it sold a lot of diamonds. But now I hear it now at least twice a week, and I'd like to shove an uncut diamond up Mike Duncan's ass.
The Presumption, Part 2
This will test if you've been paying attention. Good grief, this will test if I've been paying attention.
I told a story last month about me and the concierge - oddly, I haven't seen that fellow since; lately the sweet old buzzard with the false teeth has been at the desk whenever I've been down - in which there was some, shall we say, mutual suspicion and annoyance. I probably allowed my impatience with his incompetence (or lack of training or experience, if you prefer) to show; and he got a bit paranoid when I wouldn't sign the register before receiving a delivery.
Well, what I did not mention in the original telling of the story - but which you may have guessed - is that the concierge was a member of a visible minority. I'm not sure, but I would guess Indian. He probably suspected my reaction to him was triggered by prejudice. It wasn't. Little does he know that I am rude to people regardless of their race, ethnicity, colour, or religion. (I don't think I'm rude, but perhaps I am short. Ha, ha - everyone jump in here with a cheap joke.) So yes, I know, one should be more patient with people in service positions, especially low-paying service positions - or is that a redundancy?
On the other hand, he should not have been so suspicious. People, all people,are entitled to a presumption of good faith. That is the presumption to which the title of this blog refers. In other words, if you don't know a person, you must - that is, you ought to - assume that person to be acting in good faith. Obviously, this is a rebuttable presumption: a person can say or do something to make it clear that he or she is acting in bad faith. But until that happens, it is better - better for you, better for that person, and better for society - to assume what I have said.
Alas, this presumption does not even occur to many people; and it is ignored by most people acting in groups.
I told a story last month about me and the concierge - oddly, I haven't seen that fellow since; lately the sweet old buzzard with the false teeth has been at the desk whenever I've been down - in which there was some, shall we say, mutual suspicion and annoyance. I probably allowed my impatience with his incompetence (or lack of training or experience, if you prefer) to show; and he got a bit paranoid when I wouldn't sign the register before receiving a delivery.
Well, what I did not mention in the original telling of the story - but which you may have guessed - is that the concierge was a member of a visible minority. I'm not sure, but I would guess Indian. He probably suspected my reaction to him was triggered by prejudice. It wasn't. Little does he know that I am rude to people regardless of their race, ethnicity, colour, or religion. (I don't think I'm rude, but perhaps I am short. Ha, ha - everyone jump in here with a cheap joke.) So yes, I know, one should be more patient with people in service positions, especially low-paying service positions - or is that a redundancy?
On the other hand, he should not have been so suspicious. People, all people,are entitled to a presumption of good faith. That is the presumption to which the title of this blog refers. In other words, if you don't know a person, you must - that is, you ought to - assume that person to be acting in good faith. Obviously, this is a rebuttable presumption: a person can say or do something to make it clear that he or she is acting in bad faith. But until that happens, it is better - better for you, better for that person, and better for society - to assume what I have said.
Alas, this presumption does not even occur to many people; and it is ignored by most people acting in groups.
May It Be
I listen much of the time to Classical96. It has what's referred to in the business as a "quick rotation", which means that they play the same things very frequently. Actually, over and over and over again. I don't mind hearing, say, the opening movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony quite often. On the other hand, the listenership of this station is composed primarily - I have concluded - of aging baby boomers. Yes, I am quite aware that I am an aging baby boomer. But these are aging baby boomers with lousy taste. So, I just heard - for the umpteenth time - "May It Be (a Shining Star)", by Enya, from the first LOTR movie. Get me to a vomitorium. Soporific and pretentious crap, with a few portentous Howard Shore chords thrown in at the end.
(I will leave for another time the lousy movie tastes of aging baby boomers. But fantasy seems popular. Perhaps it is meant to compensate for the spiritual poverty of their lives. Or perhaps they were into Tolkien and the like back in university. I thought it was crap then and I think it's crap now. And if Al Qa'eda had chosen to blow up The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers instead of those other two towers, it would have suited me just fine.)
Movie music is very popular with the programmers at this station. Thus, earlier today I heard yet again the "John Dunbar" theme from Dances with Wolves by John Barry. No week would be complete without Mark Isham's theme from A River Runs Through It. Or "Tara's Theme", by Max Steiner, from GWTW. The "Warsaw Concerto", written by Richard Addinsell for Dangerous Moonlight, is a favourite. But no piece is as frequently aired as Jay Ungar's "Ashokan Farewell", better known as the theme song of Ken Burns's TV mini-series "The Civil War".
Now, all of these pieces are pleasant to listen to. (With the exception of the Warsaw Concerto which, with all due respect to those who might think otherwise, is a musical joke.) They all enriched the movies in which they appeared. However, familiarity does breed contempt. And over-familiarity breeds rage. Ashokan Farewell is played, I venture to say, not fewer than three times a week on this station. I phone in to Classical96 to participate in contests in the hope that if I win, I can get on air and plead with them to not play this corny, shlocky, syrupy, rancid, putrid CRAP for at least a week. Indeed, I would gladly give up any prize they have to offer if they would do so.
And I haven't even mentioned the "Air" by Billy Joel. You don't want to get me started on that.
(I will leave for another time the lousy movie tastes of aging baby boomers. But fantasy seems popular. Perhaps it is meant to compensate for the spiritual poverty of their lives. Or perhaps they were into Tolkien and the like back in university. I thought it was crap then and I think it's crap now. And if Al Qa'eda had chosen to blow up The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers instead of those other two towers, it would have suited me just fine.)
Movie music is very popular with the programmers at this station. Thus, earlier today I heard yet again the "John Dunbar" theme from Dances with Wolves by John Barry. No week would be complete without Mark Isham's theme from A River Runs Through It. Or "Tara's Theme", by Max Steiner, from GWTW. The "Warsaw Concerto", written by Richard Addinsell for Dangerous Moonlight, is a favourite. But no piece is as frequently aired as Jay Ungar's "Ashokan Farewell", better known as the theme song of Ken Burns's TV mini-series "The Civil War".
Now, all of these pieces are pleasant to listen to. (With the exception of the Warsaw Concerto which, with all due respect to those who might think otherwise, is a musical joke.) They all enriched the movies in which they appeared. However, familiarity does breed contempt. And over-familiarity breeds rage. Ashokan Farewell is played, I venture to say, not fewer than three times a week on this station. I phone in to Classical96 to participate in contests in the hope that if I win, I can get on air and plead with them to not play this corny, shlocky, syrupy, rancid, putrid CRAP for at least a week. Indeed, I would gladly give up any prize they have to offer if they would do so.
And I haven't even mentioned the "Air" by Billy Joel. You don't want to get me started on that.
Recycling me
Bach and Raymond Chandler, inter alia, recycled themselves, so why can't I? So here is a short review I wrote for Zip.ca of After the Fox, which I watched tonight.
Long wait, small pay-off - Bunuel (Toronto, ON)
I remember when this movie came out in 1966, but for whatever reason I'd never seen it. I probably would have enjoyed it more then than now. It isn't bad, but it's barely above mediocre. The problem is the thoroughly pedestrian script by Neil Simon. The idea is cute: a famous thief, "The Fox" (Peter Sellers), will smuggle a shipload of stolen gold into Italy by pretending he is a film director and that the incident is part of the movie he is shooting in a small Italian town.Simon and director Vittorio De Sica go mostly for the obvious, which is a pity, given the cast. Peter Sellers is miles above this, and the movie is worth watching only for his performance. The funniest bit in the picture I am guessing he improvised. It's a little shtick which occurs after he cons the police chief into getting him a shooting permit in exchange for a walk-on in the movie - Sellers goes a little crazy and rips things off the shelves, then explains that he is emotional and must express himself. It's totally unexpected and very funny. Alas, the rest of the what's on screen is much more predictable.Britt Ekland is charming as Sellers's sister, and Victor Mature is quite funny as an actor much like himself. Sellers's two sidekicks, when they're not mugging, provoke a few laughs. And De Sica has a cute cameo as himself, as well as allowing a satiric jibe at neo-realism.All in all, mildly amusing, but far from a classic. But worth seeing to appreciate Peter Sellers's genius and integrity as a comic actor.
Incidentally, the DVD - the first one I received from Zip.ca since I joined - was damaged. I missed a whole scene. In fact, it was the penultimate scene, in which the gold arrives and Sellers and for that matter the whole town is arrested. Cut to the final scene, in which the judge threatens to imprison them all but Sellers takes the rap and makes a corny speech. Not an auspicious debut for Zip.
Long wait, small pay-off - Bunuel (Toronto, ON)
I remember when this movie came out in 1966, but for whatever reason I'd never seen it. I probably would have enjoyed it more then than now. It isn't bad, but it's barely above mediocre. The problem is the thoroughly pedestrian script by Neil Simon. The idea is cute: a famous thief, "The Fox" (Peter Sellers), will smuggle a shipload of stolen gold into Italy by pretending he is a film director and that the incident is part of the movie he is shooting in a small Italian town.Simon and director Vittorio De Sica go mostly for the obvious, which is a pity, given the cast. Peter Sellers is miles above this, and the movie is worth watching only for his performance. The funniest bit in the picture I am guessing he improvised. It's a little shtick which occurs after he cons the police chief into getting him a shooting permit in exchange for a walk-on in the movie - Sellers goes a little crazy and rips things off the shelves, then explains that he is emotional and must express himself. It's totally unexpected and very funny. Alas, the rest of the what's on screen is much more predictable.Britt Ekland is charming as Sellers's sister, and Victor Mature is quite funny as an actor much like himself. Sellers's two sidekicks, when they're not mugging, provoke a few laughs. And De Sica has a cute cameo as himself, as well as allowing a satiric jibe at neo-realism.All in all, mildly amusing, but far from a classic. But worth seeing to appreciate Peter Sellers's genius and integrity as a comic actor.
Incidentally, the DVD - the first one I received from Zip.ca since I joined - was damaged. I missed a whole scene. In fact, it was the penultimate scene, in which the gold arrives and Sellers and for that matter the whole town is arrested. Cut to the final scene, in which the judge threatens to imprison them all but Sellers takes the rap and makes a corny speech. Not an auspicious debut for Zip.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
A heavy price
I was of course happy that Jon Stewart hosted the Oscars. But, as a result, the whole week beforehand "The Daily Show" showed re-runs. Tonight, another re-run. How long will it take him to recover? If it's a whole week, I may ask for Billy Crystal to come back.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The new beautiful? NOT
Okay, Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts, and Uma Thurman are very pale and very thin. I would not, as the saying goes, kick any of them out of bed for eating crackers - assuming they ate crackers, which I guess they don't. But I am really getting tired of hearing people who say that Queen Latifah is beautiful. That's like preferring Serena Williams to Maria Sharapova. Get real. What's next, Meesha Boogergrossman? Liking grossly oversized black women with attitude is a political opinion, not an aesthetic judgement.
No accounting for taste
It's hard to defend one's taste. Often, a choice comes down to the fact that you like something, and little more can be said. Still, it never fails to amaze and confound that a person who shares some of your tastes does not share all of them. Or rather, that you'll agree on liking one thing, but you will like another and he or she will hate it - and vice versa.
Thus, what more can I say about caraway liking Dolly Parton? Do I add anything by describing her (Dolly Parton, not caraway) as grotesque, or the song as banal and repetitive? Sweet Jesus!
With respect to josh budd, how can he say that my #1 movie of the year was "bad"? It was riveting, dramatic, and incisive, as well as being visually stunning. The performances were all good. It had sufficient depth that a person like me could see it as profoundly anti-war and even anti-American, whereas other people obviously saw it quite differently.
I haven't seen Murderball, but it sounds a bit like the documentary equivalent of Jarhead - in a different context, admittedly. March of the Penguins did suffer from some anthropomorphism or pathetic fallacy, but at the same time I found the starkness of the environment and the steadfastness of the penguins' behaviour - regardless of how much volition we are prepared to attribute to it - grand, if not heroic. I also admired the bravery of the film makers in shooting the film in such incredibly severe conditions.
The Squid and the Whale obviously had a limited appeal. Not everyone is a New York Jewish intellectual - which is too bad for them. Those that are not, strangely, are often not interested in the particular problems suffered by those who are. Go figure.
And as for the pimp song, I did try to approach it with an open mind - or as open as my old mind can be towards hip-hop. I didn't pay much attention to the lyrics - in part because I couldn't understand them, mostly because I was not impressed by the fact that a pimp has to pay his rent. We all have to pay rent, and most of us manage to do it without grossly exploiting poor women. Musically, however, I feel quite comfortable in saying that it was just a really bad song. Hook, shmook.
Thus, what more can I say about caraway liking Dolly Parton? Do I add anything by describing her (Dolly Parton, not caraway) as grotesque, or the song as banal and repetitive? Sweet Jesus!
With respect to josh budd, how can he say that my #1 movie of the year was "bad"? It was riveting, dramatic, and incisive, as well as being visually stunning. The performances were all good. It had sufficient depth that a person like me could see it as profoundly anti-war and even anti-American, whereas other people obviously saw it quite differently.
I haven't seen Murderball, but it sounds a bit like the documentary equivalent of Jarhead - in a different context, admittedly. March of the Penguins did suffer from some anthropomorphism or pathetic fallacy, but at the same time I found the starkness of the environment and the steadfastness of the penguins' behaviour - regardless of how much volition we are prepared to attribute to it - grand, if not heroic. I also admired the bravery of the film makers in shooting the film in such incredibly severe conditions.
The Squid and the Whale obviously had a limited appeal. Not everyone is a New York Jewish intellectual - which is too bad for them. Those that are not, strangely, are often not interested in the particular problems suffered by those who are. Go figure.
And as for the pimp song, I did try to approach it with an open mind - or as open as my old mind can be towards hip-hop. I didn't pay much attention to the lyrics - in part because I couldn't understand them, mostly because I was not impressed by the fact that a pimp has to pay his rent. We all have to pay rent, and most of us manage to do it without grossly exploiting poor women. Musically, however, I feel quite comfortable in saying that it was just a really bad song. Hook, shmook.
Oscars Post Mortem
A desultory review
1. First Things First
I scored 15/24 picking winners. Not a great score, but not bad either. I scored 5/8, the same percentage, in the major categories.
2. Brokeback Backlash?
Nominated in eight categories, it won only in four - and not for Best Picture. Since I did not have it even in my top 8, I certainly can't complain, but I am surprised. Did members of the Academy vote against this movie?
3. Hurray for Canada
Bully for Paul Haggis for winning not only Best Original Screenplay (with Robert Moresco) but also Best Film (with Cathy Schulman) for Crash. It was not my first choice in either category, but was my second in the first and my third in the second, so I don't object. In fact, I intend to see it again.
4. And the Rest of the World
A lot of winners were not Americans. Aside from Haggis, there were Ang Lee, Rachel Weisz, and plenty of winners in the technical categories - from England, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Argentina.
5. Other Deserving Awards
Philip Seymour Hoffman and Reese Witherspoon were the best of the nominees in their categories. Rachel Weisz was the best, period. Incidentally, these last two were the only ones to win both an Oscar and a Stuart - a rare double.
6. Speeches - Good, Bad, and Truncated
Reese Witherspoon made a very fine speech, quite unlike the interminable, teary, self-congratulatory rubbish we've had from the Best Actress winners recently. George Clooney was very dignified - as well as realistic, acknowledging that winning Best Supporting Actor meant he was not going to win Best Director. Rachel Weisz was, as we expect from British actors, very dignified. Haggis made a good speech - how often do you hear Brecht mentioned at the Oscars? Ang Lee was dignified. John Myhre and John Canemaker and Peggy Stern made very nice speeches.
Philip Seymour Hofffman should, I thought, have thanked his fellow actors - i.e., in Capote. It wasn't a 110-minute monologue, you know. On the other hand, he seemed genuinely moved by the award, and he's a wonderful screen actor. Howard Berger, who won for make-up, got majorly carried away, leaving poor Tami Lane no chance to say anything.
I thought the producers of the show have gone way too far with keeping a lid on the acceptance speeches. First off, they played music as soon as the winner started speaking - this was very off-putting. Most speakers stayed within the time limit, which I gather was 45 seconds. However, many of the Oscars went to two or more people jointly. In those cases, the same time limit applied. This is not fair. Poor Robert Moresco, who after all was a co-winner of a major award (Best Original Screenplay), spoke to the live audience while the carry-off music was being played and ABC cut to commercial. He deserved a chance to have the viewing audience hear what he said. I could see at least one lady in the theatre was appalled, as am I - the current practice is simply rude.
7. Looking Good, and Not So Much
In the former category: Naomi Watts, Charlize Theron, Salma Hayek, Jessica Alba, Hilary Swank, and - especially - the Chinese actress. In the latter: Uma Thurman (did Tim Burton do her eye make-up?), Jennifer Garner (her make-up looked like part of the Will Farrell-Steve Carell skit), and the two Jennifers, Anniston and Lopez, both of whom looked like they didn't want to be seen in public. Sandra Bullock looked pretty miserable too, but maybe that was because she got stuck presenting an award with Keanu Reaves and figures she deserves a solo gig. (Plus he's prettier than she is.)
8. Wardrobe Notes, and Props
I know Reese Witherspoon is from Tennessee, but she's a big star now and can afford a better dress. Naomi Watts's dress looked like it wasn't finished yet, but I'm not complaining. Rachel McAdams's dress was pretty ugly; maybe she'd look better nude after all. Steve Box and Nick Park, who won for Best Animated Feature, definitely had the best bow ties. Did Larry McMurtry really wear jeans with his tux? The Frenchmen looked very silly with their stuffed penguins, not to mention that it showed they knew they had a lock on Best Documentary Feature. Tch, tch.
9. Not Dead Yet
I am not a huge fan of Robert Altman as a film maker. Indeed, he's in my Hall of Fame of the Overrated. Still, it seemed that there was genuine respect and affection for him from the audience. And you have to admire a man who's still working at his age. He gave a lovely speech.
10. Let's All Pat Ourselves on the Back
First, we had a tribute to biopics - as though these were serious contributions to biography, rather than an easy way to get a subject for a movie, often without having to pay royalties. Thus Ray Charles becomes as significant as Helen Keller, Charlie Chaplin as important as Gandhi, and the closer was Lou Gehrig. (Far more pics about athletes and entertainers than any other category.)
Then we had a tribute to film noir. Fine, I love noir, but where the hell did that come from? And why didn't Lauren Bacall wear her contact lenses? That was embarrassing.
There was also a brief montage - as Jon Stewart said, they were running out of clips; all they lacked was a montage of montages - to epic films. The point was, as Jake Gyllenhaal told us, that movies must be seen in the theatre, not on DVD. The President of the Academy made the same point. Hello, are we scared or what?
Lastly, and most egregiously, there was a tribute to Hollywood liberalism. Puh-lease! Yes, Hollywood makes some liberal films, but not before the fact - as George Clooney would like to believe - but after, much after. Hollywood did not confront anti-Semitism or Naziism until after the war was over; it was not in the vanguard of civil rights, it trailed; it's only recently caught up to the gay rights movement, just as it lagged with women's rights. It's only because American culture at large, particularly American politics, is so far behind the times that Hollywood can make this claim without being laughed out of the building. Fortunately, Jon Stewart made a couple of acute remarks in this regard; I hope they were noticed.
11. Humour
Well, Bill Conti, as always, looked funny. Same for Mickey Rooney, nodding with approval during the President's speech. Stephen Colbert's mock attack ads was a clever idea, well executed. Jon Stewart, I thought, started slowly. The sketch intro was weak. He got better as he went along, though; and made some very good ad-libs. He definitely deserves a return engagement.
12. Last, and Least
As always, the musical numbers were the lowlight of the show. It was noteworthy that the Academy managed to come up with only three nominated songs. Of these, Dolly Parton's "Travelin' Thru" was horrible, and badly sung. I don't want to hear any song with the phrase "sweet Jesus" in it, thank you, unless it's "One Toke Over the Line". I don't feel like seeing Transamerica now. "In the Deep", from Crash, was quite good; and I thought the slow-mo production number and the burning car were quite effective. "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" was a dreadful piece of crap. That guaranteed it the win, but still, I was shocked. For a rap song - a ghetto rap song yet - to win the Oscar represents, I think, a major cultural shift. The acceptance "speech" by 3-6 Mafia was of a piece with the song. What the fuck did they say?
Oh well, tolerance is the order of the day, so peace and love, brother.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Oscar predictions and the first annual Stuarts
As promised, and not a moment too soon, here are the first annual "Stuart" awards - named, of course, after that obscure yet much admired film actor, Stuart Sklar. Yes, that is I.
First, some words of introduction. I have seen 32 movies that were released in (the U.S. in) 2005. I did not see a few of the Oscar-nominated movies, although I did see all of those nominated for Best Picture. I did not make notes of films as I saw them - or at least not notes I collected or readily have access to - so there is bound to be a bias for films I saw more recently. This hurts mostly Crash, which I saw quite early in the year. I saw 26 of the 32 in a theatre; the only one where this made a signficant difference was with Batman Begins, which I saw on DVD on my relatively small television screen, and which would clearly have benefitted from a big screen. Lastly, some categories - in particular Original Screenplay, Director, Cinematography, Actor, and especially Supporting Actor - were very strong and required some serious culling; whereas one category - Actress - I struggled to fill with five nominations. I also regret that, because of my lack of notes, I was unable to choose an Original Score winner. This is a category on which I have very strong feelings, and feel that the Oscars almost always get it badly wrong.
All right, with that out of the way, here they are, the 2005 Stuarts:
Best Picture
Jarhead
A History of Violence
Crash
Cache
The Squid and the Whale
(Honourable mentions to The Constant Gardener; Capote; and Good Night and Good Luck)
Best Director
Fernando Meirelles, The Constant Gardener
Sam Mendes, Jarhead
David Cronenberg, A History of Violence
Bennett Miller, Capote
Michael Haneke, Cache
(Honourable mentions to Steven Spielberg, Munich; Wong Kar Wei, 2046; and Chris Nolan, Batman Begins)
Best Original Screenplay
Noah Baumbach, The Squid and the Whale
George Clooney and Grant Heslov, Good Night and Good Luck
Michael Haneke, Cache
Paul Haggis and Robert Moresco, Crash
Andrew Niccol, Lord of War
(Honourable mentions to Francois Boulay and Jean-Marc Vallee, C.R.A.Z.Y.; Woody Allen, Match Point; Stephen Gaghan, Syriana; and Miranda July, Me and You and Everyone We Know)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Dan Futterman, Capote
Jeffrey Caine, The Constant Gardener
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, Brokeback Mountain
Josh Olson, A History of Violence
William Broyles, Jr., Jarhead
(Honourable mention to Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, Munich)
Best Actor in Leading Role
Jeff Daniels, The Squid and the Whale
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Ralph Fiennes, The Constant Gardener
Viggo Mortensen, A History of Violence
Eric Bana, Munich
(Honourable mentions to Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain; Tony Leung, 2046; Daniel Auteuil, Cache; and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Match Point)
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Embeth Davidtz, Junebug
Claire Danes, Shopgirl
Laura Linney, The Squid and the Whale
Charlize Therron, North Country
Best Supporting Actor
Terrence Howard, Crash
Clifton Collins, Jr., Capote
Danny Huston, The Constant Gardener
Frank Langella, Good Night and Good Luck
Ciaran Hinds, Munich
(Honourable mentions to Michael Caine, Batman Begins; Michel Cote, C.R.A.Z.Y.; Bill Nighy, The Constant Gardener; Peter Sarsgaard, Jarhead; Richard Jenkins, North Country; George Clooney, Syriana; and Michael Pena and Shaun Toub, Crash)
Best Supporting Actress
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Annie Girardot, Cache
Maria Bello, A History of Violence
Amy Adams, Junebug
Thandie Newton, Crash
(Honourable mentions to Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain; Frances McDormand, North Country; and Emily Mortimer, Match Point)
Best Cinematography
Roger Deakins, Jarhead
Janusz Kaminski, Munich and War of the Worlds
Cesar Charlone, The Constant Gardener
Robert Elswit, Good Night and Good Luck
Christopher Doyle, Pung-Leung Kwan, and Yiu-Fai Lai, 2046
(Honourable mentions to Wally Pfister, Batman Begins; Rodrigo Prieto, Brokeback Mountain, Adam Kimmel, Capote; and Laurent Chalot and Jerome Maison, March of the Penguins)
Others
As I think is apparent, the best foreign language film I saw - by far - was Cache, from France; but I didn't see enough films in this category. Likewise for documentary film, where I only saw one - March of the Penguins; although it was excellent. (Does The Aristocrats count as a documentary?)
So, there they are. The prizes? Any of the winners is encouraged to hire Stuart Sklar for his or her next film.
Now, for my Oscar predictions. I am going to go with a Brokeback Mountain sweep. Well, not really a sweep - I'm giving it five Oscars.
Picture - Brokeback Mountain
Actor - Hoffman
Actress - Witherspoon
Supporting Actor - Paul Giamatti (make-up for not being nominated for Sideways)
Supporting Actress - Catherine Keener (tough one)
Director - Ang Lee
Original Screenplay - Crash
Adapted Screenplay - Brokeback Mountain
Cinematography - Brokeback Mountain
Editing - Munich
Art Direction - Memoirs of a Geisha
Costume Design - Memoirs of a Geisha
Original Score - Brokeback Mountain
Original Song - "In the Deep", Crash (as usual, really weak category; they couldn't even get 5 nominations)
Make-up - Star Wars: Episode III
Sound - King Kong (got to get something for all that money)
Sound Editing - War of the Worlds (kind of covering my bets here)
Visual Effects - King Kong (the movie was five hours long, it mush have had some good effects)
Animated Feature - Wallace & Gromit
Foreign Language Film - Tsotsi
Documentary Feature - March of the Penguins
Documentary Short - A Note of Triumph (as usual, I'm completely guessing)
Animated Short - Badgered (no idea)
Live Action Short - Our Time Is Up (there's a reason these categories are listed last)
Hope it's a good show. Good luck, Leibo!
First, some words of introduction. I have seen 32 movies that were released in (the U.S. in) 2005. I did not see a few of the Oscar-nominated movies, although I did see all of those nominated for Best Picture. I did not make notes of films as I saw them - or at least not notes I collected or readily have access to - so there is bound to be a bias for films I saw more recently. This hurts mostly Crash, which I saw quite early in the year. I saw 26 of the 32 in a theatre; the only one where this made a signficant difference was with Batman Begins, which I saw on DVD on my relatively small television screen, and which would clearly have benefitted from a big screen. Lastly, some categories - in particular Original Screenplay, Director, Cinematography, Actor, and especially Supporting Actor - were very strong and required some serious culling; whereas one category - Actress - I struggled to fill with five nominations. I also regret that, because of my lack of notes, I was unable to choose an Original Score winner. This is a category on which I have very strong feelings, and feel that the Oscars almost always get it badly wrong.
All right, with that out of the way, here they are, the 2005 Stuarts:
Best Picture
Jarhead
A History of Violence
Crash
Cache
The Squid and the Whale
(Honourable mentions to The Constant Gardener; Capote; and Good Night and Good Luck)
Best Director
Fernando Meirelles, The Constant Gardener
Sam Mendes, Jarhead
David Cronenberg, A History of Violence
Bennett Miller, Capote
Michael Haneke, Cache
(Honourable mentions to Steven Spielberg, Munich; Wong Kar Wei, 2046; and Chris Nolan, Batman Begins)
Best Original Screenplay
Noah Baumbach, The Squid and the Whale
George Clooney and Grant Heslov, Good Night and Good Luck
Michael Haneke, Cache
Paul Haggis and Robert Moresco, Crash
Andrew Niccol, Lord of War
(Honourable mentions to Francois Boulay and Jean-Marc Vallee, C.R.A.Z.Y.; Woody Allen, Match Point; Stephen Gaghan, Syriana; and Miranda July, Me and You and Everyone We Know)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Dan Futterman, Capote
Jeffrey Caine, The Constant Gardener
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, Brokeback Mountain
Josh Olson, A History of Violence
William Broyles, Jr., Jarhead
(Honourable mention to Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, Munich)
Best Actor in Leading Role
Jeff Daniels, The Squid and the Whale
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Ralph Fiennes, The Constant Gardener
Viggo Mortensen, A History of Violence
Eric Bana, Munich
(Honourable mentions to Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain; Tony Leung, 2046; Daniel Auteuil, Cache; and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Match Point)
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Embeth Davidtz, Junebug
Claire Danes, Shopgirl
Laura Linney, The Squid and the Whale
Charlize Therron, North Country
Best Supporting Actor
Terrence Howard, Crash
Clifton Collins, Jr., Capote
Danny Huston, The Constant Gardener
Frank Langella, Good Night and Good Luck
Ciaran Hinds, Munich
(Honourable mentions to Michael Caine, Batman Begins; Michel Cote, C.R.A.Z.Y.; Bill Nighy, The Constant Gardener; Peter Sarsgaard, Jarhead; Richard Jenkins, North Country; George Clooney, Syriana; and Michael Pena and Shaun Toub, Crash)
Best Supporting Actress
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Annie Girardot, Cache
Maria Bello, A History of Violence
Amy Adams, Junebug
Thandie Newton, Crash
(Honourable mentions to Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain; Frances McDormand, North Country; and Emily Mortimer, Match Point)
Best Cinematography
Roger Deakins, Jarhead
Janusz Kaminski, Munich and War of the Worlds
Cesar Charlone, The Constant Gardener
Robert Elswit, Good Night and Good Luck
Christopher Doyle, Pung-Leung Kwan, and Yiu-Fai Lai, 2046
(Honourable mentions to Wally Pfister, Batman Begins; Rodrigo Prieto, Brokeback Mountain, Adam Kimmel, Capote; and Laurent Chalot and Jerome Maison, March of the Penguins)
Others
As I think is apparent, the best foreign language film I saw - by far - was Cache, from France; but I didn't see enough films in this category. Likewise for documentary film, where I only saw one - March of the Penguins; although it was excellent. (Does The Aristocrats count as a documentary?)
So, there they are. The prizes? Any of the winners is encouraged to hire Stuart Sklar for his or her next film.
Now, for my Oscar predictions. I am going to go with a Brokeback Mountain sweep. Well, not really a sweep - I'm giving it five Oscars.
Picture - Brokeback Mountain
Actor - Hoffman
Actress - Witherspoon
Supporting Actor - Paul Giamatti (make-up for not being nominated for Sideways)
Supporting Actress - Catherine Keener (tough one)
Director - Ang Lee
Original Screenplay - Crash
Adapted Screenplay - Brokeback Mountain
Cinematography - Brokeback Mountain
Editing - Munich
Art Direction - Memoirs of a Geisha
Costume Design - Memoirs of a Geisha
Original Score - Brokeback Mountain
Original Song - "In the Deep", Crash (as usual, really weak category; they couldn't even get 5 nominations)
Make-up - Star Wars: Episode III
Sound - King Kong (got to get something for all that money)
Sound Editing - War of the Worlds (kind of covering my bets here)
Visual Effects - King Kong (the movie was five hours long, it mush have had some good effects)
Animated Feature - Wallace & Gromit
Foreign Language Film - Tsotsi
Documentary Feature - March of the Penguins
Documentary Short - A Note of Triumph (as usual, I'm completely guessing)
Animated Short - Badgered (no idea)
Live Action Short - Our Time Is Up (there's a reason these categories are listed last)
Hope it's a good show. Good luck, Leibo!
