Moon (2009) contains little of what we expect from the typical Hollywood sci-fi movie. Moon prides itself on leaving out end-of-the-world scenarios and excessive technical mumbo-jumbo. That's certainly a good thing. This is far from a flawless movie, but a nicely executed idea nonetheless. What speaks for it is the focus on psychological tension and the dazzling absence of characters (strictly speaking, there's only one character in the movie but everything hinges on how you define "character") and action. It's a quiet little film that contains one reference to 2001: a space odyssey after another. Hell, Moon has a HAL of its own (with Kevin Spacey's voice). It's hard to say anything about the themes of the film without spoiling the twists of the story. Let's say it revolves around the inner struggles of Sam Bell, operator of a space station on the moon. He's an astronaut on a 3-year shift. The purpose of the base is to mine rocks for energy which is sent to earth. It's a lonely existence that is only aggravated throughout the film...
What bugged me at times about Moon is its slightly conventional aesthetics. It doesn't feel like a very original film. We've seen the same thing in the first part of Sunshine and in other contemporary sci-fi movies too. Don't get me wrong, visually, it's a truly a good-looking film (the details of the base etc.) and some images have a mind-chilling quality. The problem is perhaps that the pictures are a bit shallow - there's nothing really surprising about them. There's the obligatory 5-10 second cuts and the obligatory "eerie stillness" that we've learned to expect from this type of movie. All in all - the film is perhaps too pretty for its own best. That problem is only deepened by the use of sentimental, tv-drama piano music.
On the level of character excavation, the film is a positive experience in that it dodges the worst clichés. That said, I was still a bit disappointed. What I presume to have been an interesting script with some interesting ideas has not really transformed into a movie that digs deep enough, or let's say it isn't very clear into what depths it sets out to dig.
It's a good film, but not a great one.
22 November 2009
19 November 2009
18 November 2009
I LOVE YOU DIANE CLUCK!
This song is so damn nice. I listen to it all the time. It's a shame there's no "real" version on YouTube.
(It's hard not to love somebody who chooses the title "My virtue's gone (hooray, hooray)" for a song!)
mörda män
"Dessutom har hon blivit chefredaktör för ett nytt fanzine, Pervers Kroki. – Det är en tecknad, pornografisk tidskrift för män. Innehåller bilreportage med tillhörande lättklädda kvinnor. Och så mord då.– Mord?– Ja, först tänkte jag visa bilder av mördade män, i stället för kvinnor eftersom kvinnor alltid framställs som offer. Men så kom jag på att det inte skulle funka. Män vill inte se på mördade män."
(jag vill i förbigående nämna seriemagasinet Hothead Paisan: Homicidal Lesbian Terrorist som gjorde stort intryck på min filosofiska och estetiska bildning i tiden.)
(jag vill i förbigående nämna seriemagasinet Hothead Paisan: Homicidal Lesbian Terrorist som gjorde stort intryck på min filosofiska och estetiska bildning i tiden.)
14 November 2009
"en god gammal berättelse"
En sak driver mig till vansinne. Det är när det börjar tindra i ögonen på ett visst slags kulturmänniska genast då ordet "berättelse" kommer på tal. För de här människorna signalerar "berättelse" något alldeles underbart mänskligt och något alldeles underbart traditionsbärande och något alldeles underbart stort och vackert. Kort sagt: berättelsens kraft ska rädda oss från samhällets förfall, själslig atomisering och rå individualism. Genom berättelserna ska vi föras samman kring brasan och den spontana lusten att berätta och berätta vittnar om en djupt liggande kärna av mänsklighet som inga konsumistiska eller cyniska samhällssystem råder sig på.
Nä. Det förhåller sig helt tvärtom. Det vi ska räddas från är i första hand sentimentala kulturtomtar som talar sig rödkindade om litteraturens och berättelsens storhet, som alltid blir lite andäktiga när Berättelser kommer på tal.
Jag var på ett litteraturseminarium idag i min egen hemtrakt. Där uppträdde ett antal mer eller mindre kända finlandssvenska författare. Kulturtanter och -gubbar bänkade sig förväntansfullt. Temat var kärlek och författarna var rörande överens om att ämnet bäst greppas genom att tala om just berättelser. Tanken som återkom gång på gång var att vi vet vad kärlek är eftersom vi hör berättelser om den. Ibland kom det förnöjda suckar från publiken som bekräftade att berättelser är något synnerligen fint och ädelt. Visserligen berättade de här författarna saker som var fina och intressanta. Men sedan punkterades för det mesta den ärlighet som eventuellt fanns i det dom sa genom att de insisterade på att se det som de just sagt som en Berättelse som på något sätt ska göra oss visa och kloka och kärleksfulla. Det finns goda berättelser, sades det. De goda berättelserna innefattar inte slasherfilmen som sänds på teve klockan fyra på morgonen. De bra berättelserna ska helst ta ställning mot dassig litteratur. De bra berättelserna ska föra oss samman på det där fina sättet (d.v.s. inte det dåliga och billiga). Gubbarna och tanterna i publiken kippade efter andan. Ja-a, visst är det underbart med lite kultur ibland eller hur?
Bilden av den där arkaiska lägerelden (myter med lite orientaliska inslag kanske som en extra krydda) ger mig vaga obehagskänslor. Jag fattar inte alls varför samhället skulle behöva "berättelser". Inte heller förstår jag varför det måste finnas något som "binder oss samman" i den bemärkelse som man verkar tänka sig här. Den bild jag ser för mig här är ärkeförfattaren Björn Ranelid som står i en predikstol nånstans i Ångermanland Småland och myser vältaligt om berättelsens Storhet (speciellt kärlekshistorien) och hur vi blir mänskliga genom berättandet.
Ja och det är ju från början symptomatiskt att oroa sig för samhällets sönderfall och att det är en sammanbindande kraft som borde till. Alisdair Macintyres bok After Virtue representerar tycker jag det här perspektivet. För honom är det ett narrativitetsperspektiv som borgar för mening, både personligt och i samhället. Allt handlar för honom om att skapa ett "sammanhang". Livet är en berättelse och genom detta finns det ett meningsperspektiv. Mina obehagskänslor lämnar mig inte ifred.
Jag kommer också att tänka på litteraturmanifestet som ett antal författare slungade ut i den svenska kulturdebatten för ett tag sedan. Jag förstår i och för sig syftet: det finns en helvetes massa klichéer om konstaplar med magsår och kvinnor som äter choklad och skvallrar med sina väninnor. Men så ska man återta Berättelsen. Den realistiska. Ja, t.o.m. det "renodlade". Form & språk mot Berättelse. En berättelse är tillgänglig och substantiell och inte ytlig och intern.
I kulturdebatt och t.o.m. i en del moralfilosofi framhävs litteraturen som hisnande existentiell och fin och framför allt framhålls vad vi kan lära oss av den. Jag tror det är en dålig tendens. Man kan förstås säga - och det vill jag också säga - att vi blir något specifikt genom det vi läser och genom de sätt som vi berörs av eller låter oss dras med av litterära verk. Det är en viktig dimension av vad det är att tala om att läsa skönlitterära texter. Men den poängen pekar ju mot att litteraturen själv är varken moralisk eller omoralisk. Det finns inget sånt som litteraturens potentiella kraft att skildra det Existentiella. Det finns ingen "berättelsens form" som skulle baxa upp en sån potential. Åtminstone kan jag inte se det. Därmed inte sagt att litterära verk inte kan ställa oss inför oss själva på ett antal olika sätt. Men väldigt lite handlar om att det skulle röra sig om "berättelser". Perspektivet "vad vi kan lära oss genom litteraturen" finner jag en smula moraliserande. Det blir lätt svulstigt och innehållslöst. Att klä litteraturen i högtidsdräkt.
"Men vad är det för fel med en enkel kärlekshistoria då?"
Svar: allt.
(loggar ut för att ägna sig åt a- och omoralisk, fragmentarisk fulkultur.)
Nä. Det förhåller sig helt tvärtom. Det vi ska räddas från är i första hand sentimentala kulturtomtar som talar sig rödkindade om litteraturens och berättelsens storhet, som alltid blir lite andäktiga när Berättelser kommer på tal.
Jag var på ett litteraturseminarium idag i min egen hemtrakt. Där uppträdde ett antal mer eller mindre kända finlandssvenska författare. Kulturtanter och -gubbar bänkade sig förväntansfullt. Temat var kärlek och författarna var rörande överens om att ämnet bäst greppas genom att tala om just berättelser. Tanken som återkom gång på gång var att vi vet vad kärlek är eftersom vi hör berättelser om den. Ibland kom det förnöjda suckar från publiken som bekräftade att berättelser är något synnerligen fint och ädelt. Visserligen berättade de här författarna saker som var fina och intressanta. Men sedan punkterades för det mesta den ärlighet som eventuellt fanns i det dom sa genom att de insisterade på att se det som de just sagt som en Berättelse som på något sätt ska göra oss visa och kloka och kärleksfulla. Det finns goda berättelser, sades det. De goda berättelserna innefattar inte slasherfilmen som sänds på teve klockan fyra på morgonen. De bra berättelserna ska helst ta ställning mot dassig litteratur. De bra berättelserna ska föra oss samman på det där fina sättet (d.v.s. inte det dåliga och billiga). Gubbarna och tanterna i publiken kippade efter andan. Ja-a, visst är det underbart med lite kultur ibland eller hur?
Bilden av den där arkaiska lägerelden (myter med lite orientaliska inslag kanske som en extra krydda) ger mig vaga obehagskänslor. Jag fattar inte alls varför samhället skulle behöva "berättelser". Inte heller förstår jag varför det måste finnas något som "binder oss samman" i den bemärkelse som man verkar tänka sig här. Den bild jag ser för mig här är ärkeförfattaren Björn Ranelid som står i en predikstol nånstans i Ångermanland Småland och myser vältaligt om berättelsens Storhet (speciellt kärlekshistorien) och hur vi blir mänskliga genom berättandet.
Ja och det är ju från början symptomatiskt att oroa sig för samhällets sönderfall och att det är en sammanbindande kraft som borde till. Alisdair Macintyres bok After Virtue representerar tycker jag det här perspektivet. För honom är det ett narrativitetsperspektiv som borgar för mening, både personligt och i samhället. Allt handlar för honom om att skapa ett "sammanhang". Livet är en berättelse och genom detta finns det ett meningsperspektiv. Mina obehagskänslor lämnar mig inte ifred.
Jag kommer också att tänka på litteraturmanifestet som ett antal författare slungade ut i den svenska kulturdebatten för ett tag sedan. Jag förstår i och för sig syftet: det finns en helvetes massa klichéer om konstaplar med magsår och kvinnor som äter choklad och skvallrar med sina väninnor. Men så ska man återta Berättelsen. Den realistiska. Ja, t.o.m. det "renodlade". Form & språk mot Berättelse. En berättelse är tillgänglig och substantiell och inte ytlig och intern.
I kulturdebatt och t.o.m. i en del moralfilosofi framhävs litteraturen som hisnande existentiell och fin och framför allt framhålls vad vi kan lära oss av den. Jag tror det är en dålig tendens. Man kan förstås säga - och det vill jag också säga - att vi blir något specifikt genom det vi läser och genom de sätt som vi berörs av eller låter oss dras med av litterära verk. Det är en viktig dimension av vad det är att tala om att läsa skönlitterära texter. Men den poängen pekar ju mot att litteraturen själv är varken moralisk eller omoralisk. Det finns inget sånt som litteraturens potentiella kraft att skildra det Existentiella. Det finns ingen "berättelsens form" som skulle baxa upp en sån potential. Åtminstone kan jag inte se det. Därmed inte sagt att litterära verk inte kan ställa oss inför oss själva på ett antal olika sätt. Men väldigt lite handlar om att det skulle röra sig om "berättelser". Perspektivet "vad vi kan lära oss genom litteraturen" finner jag en smula moraliserande. Det blir lätt svulstigt och innehållslöst. Att klä litteraturen i högtidsdräkt.
"Men vad är det för fel med en enkel kärlekshistoria då?"
Svar: allt.
(loggar ut för att ägna sig åt a- och omoralisk, fragmentarisk fulkultur.)
12 November 2009
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
It's 11:37. The office. A rumbling stomach. I want to GO HOME. I am so tired of this shit.
“When people tell us that their families give a wonderful meaning to their lives, we usually refrain from asking them to justify this claim and the attitude expressed thereby …. Asking for justification for such a claim challenges people’s right to find their lives wonderfully meaningful in their own personal ways, even without having any proper justification for their attitudes.”
Yeah, right.
The worst part of this job is that there are several days when I don't have a clue what I am doing or why am doing it. But I guess that's how it is.
“When people tell us that their families give a wonderful meaning to their lives, we usually refrain from asking them to justify this claim and the attitude expressed thereby …. Asking for justification for such a claim challenges people’s right to find their lives wonderfully meaningful in their own personal ways, even without having any proper justification for their attitudes.”
Yeah, right.
The worst part of this job is that there are several days when I don't have a clue what I am doing or why am doing it. But I guess that's how it is.
9 November 2009
Go Sture!
I dagens DN finns en text om en undersökning av textanalysföretaget Saplo som handlar om vad arbetsgivarna söker efter i sina arbetsannonser. Som arbetssökande ska man vara initiativrik och säljinriktad. Och:
Saplos vd Mattias Tyrberg tror att även den som söker arbete måste våga "sälja sig själv".
- Det kan exempelvis handla om att göra en annorlunda typ av CV, kanske en video-CV, föreslår han.
Sture Allén, språkvetare och ledamot i Svenska Akademien, menar att flera av de listade orden för tanken till reseannonsers beskrivningar av "det idealiska resmålet".
- Man får ju ha gott självförtroende om man söker en sådan tjänst, säger professorn med en aning torr ironi i rösten.
Sture är bäst!8 November 2009
The sun (2005)
Aleksandr Sokurov is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting contemporary directors. He made the impressive The Russian Ark (that is a long take!) and he has made the shimmering little film Mother and Son. The Sun (2005) is just as impressive, even though it is a deceivingly simple film without aesthetic pretense. With the exception of one or two surreals breaks, this could be a stage play. The story is equally simple. World war II is drawing to an end. The Japanese Emperor contemplates his future. We see him mostly alone in his chamber: writing poetry, fiddling with biological research, dressing. He meets general MacArthur. They dine. MacArthur offers him a deal. They smoke cigars.
The performance of Issei Ogata, who plays the Emperor, is magnificent. His frailty and his tics are just as important as his lines. This is not a historical drama in the traditional sense. What this is: it's a movie about political bodies stripped down to flesh and bones. The presence of the very few characters are remarkably physical. This is of course something that sets the film apart from almost every film made today (even those who do their best to appear "sensual"). The almost insurmountable tension of every small scene is all the more surprising as the cinematography and color setting are so mundane - no flares, no tricks, no nothing. In this setting, lines that easily turn into predictable clichés actually work (when the Emperor talks about his supposedly divine nature). What makes The Sun such an extraordinary film is that it transcends every conventional concept of what it means to "know" a character. We learn nothing about the Emperor. He is an utterly elusive character - but the film seems to open up for the perspective that it is not very clear what it means to "know" here at all. For this reason, it is slightly misleading to say that the film attempts to present the "human" side of the Emperor. The film explores "viewing somebody as a human being" - that is true - but the disparate images it ends up with are an open-ended affair. No "humanistic message".
The Sun is the third part of a trilogy. I haven't seen the first two films - Moloch and Telets - but I hope I will get a chance to see them soon.
feminism, "the female body", violence.
I listen to a story on Swedish radio ("Radiokorrespondenterna"). A journalist talks about a hospital in eastern (Democratic republic of) Congo. The hospital treats a huge amount of women who have been raped by men; soldiers, ex-soldiers, rebels... Some women's families have been murdered. The journalist talks about how women come there, their lives torn to pieces, and their bodies, too. Some of them have been raped by weapons, one woman shows her leg that was burned with hot knives. When leaving the hospital, many of them are likely to be faced with rejection by their families. Stigmatization.
Over 40 women are raped in Congo - EVERY DAY.
A source from 2007 talks about 12,000 women having been raped during the time span of 6 months.... and: "In 2004–05, the UN and non-governmental organizations estimated that as many as 100,000 women had been raped in the entire eastern DRC." from here.
Some people who are suspicious of "feminism" believe that the only thing feminists fight for is power, that feminists are power-crazed women the only political goal of whom is to humiliate and rob men of power.*
Feminism is about this: all over the world, there are people who are reduced to the potential of being fucked by men, reduced to tools for enhancing male power.
Paradoxically, one aspect of oppression and violence is the image of women as fundamentally frail beings, frail because they have something that can be violated. 'This is part of the CONDITION of the female LIFE.'
Why are women seen as inherently frail beings?
Only in a particular form of world will women and frailty become synonymous; only against a particular background of sexual violence and oppressive practices will this be so.
There is a common view of what a "woman" is.
: A woman is somebody who can be raped. The world is always dangerous for women, be it peace or war - women need always be prepared for violence and abuse because these belong to the set-up of reality. This is just the way it is.
Women & children become the Frail group in need of protection, sometimes military protection.
[I can't articulate this better than this, and I know it is unclear.]
That there is a huge group of Congolese women who get raped is no natural occurance that somehow flows out of their being women in a dangerous world of conflicts and war. Rape & war are sometimes depicted that way. The frailty of women is often implicitly understood to be a "natural expression of war". Noody states it that way perhaps. Violence against women in the context of war is naturalized as a side effect. Women become faceless victims of an anonymous War or Conflict. Rapists are conceived as an anonymous force that can be explained in terms x or y or z (and of course this view of war is just as problematic).
It is important not to naturalize violence - or war, for that matter.
Women's sexuality is used as a weapon in war - but how is this to be understood?
One question is rightly asked by a doctor at the hospital visited by the journalist in the radio program: why is there not a mass movement reacting to violence against women in DRC?
* In the same program, it is noted that Carl Bildt rarely talks about women, sex/gender in his speeches and comments. Carl Bildt's response: he doesn't comment on "these things".
read more here ('I'll be a post feminist in post patriarchy') and here.
Over 40 women are raped in Congo - EVERY DAY.
A source from 2007 talks about 12,000 women having been raped during the time span of 6 months.... and: "In 2004–05, the UN and non-governmental organizations estimated that as many as 100,000 women had been raped in the entire eastern DRC." from here.
Some people who are suspicious of "feminism" believe that the only thing feminists fight for is power, that feminists are power-crazed women the only political goal of whom is to humiliate and rob men of power.*
Feminism is about this: all over the world, there are people who are reduced to the potential of being fucked by men, reduced to tools for enhancing male power.
Paradoxically, one aspect of oppression and violence is the image of women as fundamentally frail beings, frail because they have something that can be violated. 'This is part of the CONDITION of the female LIFE.'
Why are women seen as inherently frail beings?
Only in a particular form of world will women and frailty become synonymous; only against a particular background of sexual violence and oppressive practices will this be so.
There is a common view of what a "woman" is.
: A woman is somebody who can be raped. The world is always dangerous for women, be it peace or war - women need always be prepared for violence and abuse because these belong to the set-up of reality. This is just the way it is.
Women & children become the Frail group in need of protection, sometimes military protection.
[I can't articulate this better than this, and I know it is unclear.]
That there is a huge group of Congolese women who get raped is no natural occurance that somehow flows out of their being women in a dangerous world of conflicts and war. Rape & war are sometimes depicted that way. The frailty of women is often implicitly understood to be a "natural expression of war". Noody states it that way perhaps. Violence against women in the context of war is naturalized as a side effect. Women become faceless victims of an anonymous War or Conflict. Rapists are conceived as an anonymous force that can be explained in terms x or y or z (and of course this view of war is just as problematic).
It is important not to naturalize violence - or war, for that matter.
Women's sexuality is used as a weapon in war - but how is this to be understood?
One question is rightly asked by a doctor at the hospital visited by the journalist in the radio program: why is there not a mass movement reacting to violence against women in DRC?
* In the same program, it is noted that Carl Bildt rarely talks about women, sex/gender in his speeches and comments. Carl Bildt's response: he doesn't comment on "these things".
read more here ('I'll be a post feminist in post patriarchy') and here.
7 November 2009
Harlan County U.S.A. (1976)
I was first acquainted with the documentary Harlan County U.S.A. (1976) when hearing Hazel Dickens singing a song called "Black lung" which is included in the film and on its soundtrack. Watching the film was quite a weird experience. It evokes a world I am not familiar with. Hard, physical work, political struggle, a society in which conflicts and class struggles are openly acknowledged and brought forward. It's a film about a community for which the word "Union" stands for real political hope. I have very limited knowledge about the union movement in the US so this movie taught me many things. Two more interesting things about the film. The director - Barbara Kopple - is a woman, and a quite large part of the staff are women, too (this is interesting because there are few famous female documentary directors). The other interesting thing is that the film won an Oscar. I don't know how it was regarded then, but at least when watching it now, in 2009, the film is obviously political and it accounts for events with a clear political committment. This is not to say that Kopple made an overstated, simplified movie, like Michael Moore's. Kelpe takes her subject seriously and she take seriously the people she chronicles, too. A telling fact revealed in the film is the huge gap between the company's profits & the very modest increase in workers' salaries. A few other telling scenes include footage of corrupt union leaders promising that they will stay in power for a very long time.
Harlan County follows a miner strike against Eastover Mining Company in 1973. Harlan is a community in Kentucky. The strikers fight for safety; better labor conditions, fair salary and fair treatment of workers. Later on, they fight for the right to strike, too (the company threatens to assert a no-strike clause). Kopple bravely follows the action on the picket line and the debates on union meetings. A large part of the movie is dedicated to female activists who apparently were very important in this strike and very outspoken about the injustice that they witnessed (an Eastover company boss complains that is not the sort of behavior he desires from American women). There are also statements by union bosses and power company bosses. The strike drags on and gradually it gets violent; the tension between striking miners, their wives, mothers and daughters, the police and the "scabs" (company representatives, strikebreakers) endend in several violent encounters. One striker was murdered.
Not only is this movie interesting as a testimony of political events and as a very revealing account of union activism in the US. It is also a very well executed project (a project that apparently changed underway) in which people, ordinary people, are allowed to talk. The first part of the film features lots of music (I must admit sometimes too much), often performed by women. A moving moment includes Florence Reese at a meeting. She approaches the microphone, talks about the hardships, then and in the thirties, of "bloody Harlan". In a hoarse and unsteady voice, she sings "Which side are you on?" It's a thrilling moment of the film. The women portrayed in this movies are respected; their accounts and their solidarity seems to have been appreciated.
Aesthetically, the film also has lots that speaks for it (cinematography, a very nice way of using sound, lack of traditional "narrative"). All in all, it's a film well worth watching - for several reasons.
6 November 2009
work and that shit.
My mobile phone rang. It was 2 pm and I sat idly at my desk at work, frustratedly fumbling for some lousy shadow of a thought. My understanding of spoken Finnish is at times not very good, especially not when somebody whom I don't know calls me on the phone. But as soon as I heard the word Sonera (a telecommunication service provider) I brusquely said, in broken Finnish: "Hey, hold on, this is a bad moment. Can you call me at another time instead?" I lied. I didn't want her to call me at any other time. I'm not interested in comparing prices of mobile phone subscriptions. I am completely happy with my expensive Sonera subscription and nothing in the world will change that. I just wanted to hang up, end the conversation that was no conversation. After having ended the call, I was a bit ashamed of my nasty tone of voice. Of course, she was doing her job and I know it is a hard job where you are payed to talk to pissed off people who wish not to be disturbed and who hang up on you. I know that I didn't make her work day any nicer by being grumpy and by treating her as white noise I just want to rid myself of. It just makes me pissed off that there are jobs like this one and that there are plenty of them and that I can't do anything much about that because it is not what is normally seen as a POLITICAL QUESTION. It's just the way it is. There are firms that have customers and that make ends meet and that struggle to survive in the hard competition of the market. If they pay people and if the work conditions are reasonably humane and if you are allowed to take pee breaks reasonably often then there's nothing to argue about, is it?
Any other questions are luxuary questions. The main thing is to earn a living (firms/people).
If you don't agree with that, you are an elitist academic who doesn't care about or understand the way less academic people live.
It's hard to say anything really substantial and knock-down against that even though I know that a thousand things go wrong in this way of speaking.
I get impatient and lose focus of what is important.
(I try to write about these things* and it is immensly embarrassing that I am irritated to be disturbed in the midst of MY GLORIOUS THOUGHTS on work, meaning and alienation when some god damn call centre person calls me on the phone...)
* what things? these things!
Any other questions are luxuary questions. The main thing is to earn a living (firms/people).
If you don't agree with that, you are an elitist academic who doesn't care about or understand the way less academic people live.
It's hard to say anything really substantial and knock-down against that even though I know that a thousand things go wrong in this way of speaking.
I get impatient and lose focus of what is important.
(I try to write about these things* and it is immensly embarrassing that I am irritated to be disturbed in the midst of MY GLORIOUS THOUGHTS on work, meaning and alienation when some god damn call centre person calls me on the phone...)
* what things? these things!
5 November 2009
Natasha (2006)
I am happy that a documentary like Natasha is shown on Finnish telly. Ulrike Gladik talks to a young woman who has left a small former industrial town in Bulgaria for a few weeks of hardships in Graz, Austria. She sits in a wheel-chair, repeating the words "bitte, Herr" and "bitte, Madam". Gladik's documentary is instructive in many ways. She talks to Natasha and her family and her friends. The film doesn't patronize and it is not sentimental either. It deals with hardships and povery in the context of everyday life. By means of interviews, Natasha's situation is explained. The film sheds light on racism and socio-economic changes in post-communist Bulgaria - poverty and unemployment (esp. for Roma people). Natasha talks about what it is like to beg, getting used to it, looking people in the eyes to get any money. Sometimes she gets a few euros and sometimes she doesn't. She talks about humiliation and what it is like to be made fun of, to be looked down on.
Stupid, racist Finnish politicians should watch this documentary and stupid, racist Finnish people should do the same.
Stupid, racist Finnish politicians should watch this documentary and stupid, racist Finnish people should do the same.
The thick of it!
Weird Science har goda nyheter. Jag visste inte att det gjorts en film, In the loop, som grundar sig på den fantastiska brittiska serien The Thick of It. Inte heller visste jag att en ny säsong visas på BBC nu och att det tydligen finns en säsong två också.
Dammit!
Jag har sett en säsong av denna serie och den är fantastisk. The thick of it utspelar sig i ett fiktivt ministerium bland tjänstemän och politiker som befinner sig i ett apokalyptiskt kaos av politiska pseudohändelser och händelseförlopp som ingen begriper sig på men alla är lik förbannat övertygade om att man måste handla och man måste handla snabbt. Någon jävel måste kunna hållas ansvarig för att saker trasslat till sig. Som Malcolm Tucker, premiärministerns "all-seeing eye" beskriver det:
"If some cunt can fuck something up, that cunt will pick the worst possible time to fucking fuck it up cause that cunt's a cunt."
Tempot är högt och dialogerna helt fantastiska.
Som satir fungerar serien utmärkt. Efter att ha sett några episoder av denna briljanta serie ser man begreppet "policy" i ett helt nytt ljus.
Shit, jag måste se resten.
4 November 2009
3 November 2009
Colleen: Les ondes silencieuses (2007)
Colleen, French multi-instrumentalist Celine Shott is an interesting artist. Her music veers between many different atmospheres but a sense of curious searching is always present in her records. Les ondes silencieuses was released in 2007. It's an austere, wintry collection of songs. The instruments are exciting (glass (!), classical guitar, clarinet, lute-like instruments, maybe cello). This is a contemplative record in the best sense of the word (not "meditation music").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
