CORONAVIRUS DIARIES II

“I don’t know how one actually would define obscenity. I’m sure the definition is different according to the age one is living in.” - Jane Alexander 

What is it about the acquisition of hoards of toilet paper – of all things! – that has defined the COVID-19 pandemic? People madly rush to buy up all the rolls they can find, and a frenzied scramble it often turns out to be, not without casualties in the course of the battle for the desirable rolls of triple-ply, pure white, cloud-soft, disposable bliss. If you’re lucky you’ll even be the proud possessor of the luxurious, embossed, floral print rolls… Worth every bit the skirmish and the casualties thereof you sustained in order to grab these trophies and proudly carry them home!

Since our kindergarten days, “poo”, “bum” and “wee” have caused uproarious laughter every time they were uttered by your fellow 5-year-olds. “Fart” was an added bonus and toilet jokes were sure to bring the house down. Some of us manage to outgrow this phase and such jokes that rely on the scatological become obscene. Obscene in this case meaning “in bad taste”, “not suitable for intelligent discussion”, “not witty enough to be considered humorous”. Yet, there is living proof that the scatological provides a ready source of material for countless stand-up comedians (especially the low-lifes that rely on embarrassing individuals of the audience, whom they pick on and make the butt – sorry, pun unintentional – of their “jokes”). Similarly, any number of sit-coms where the punchline invariably depends on the “poo”, “bum”, “wee”  and “fart” tetralogy. Not to mention the “blue” pub jokes, which if not sexual are, more often than not, scatological.

A bodily function that is performed in private is for the majority of people considered to be obscene – obscene in this case meaning not to be exposed to public scrutiny: “Ob scaena” what is not allowed onto the stage, what is supposed to remain behind the scenes and only hinted at, or implied, as in classical tragedy. Hence our numerous euphemisms for the shithouse: Toilet, bathroom, powder room, water closet, john, dunny, privy, lavatory, latrine, convenience, etc, etc… 

Ancient Romans did not consider going to the toilet obscene as is evidenced by the rows of toilet bowls next to each other in public toilets in Ephesus, Pompeii and Herculaneum, where you could sit and do your business, while chatting pleasantly to the people next to you. Interestingly, Europeans were amazed when confronted with traditional Tahitian cultural norms, which considered that eating in public was an obscene act and hence such a bodily function would have to be performed privately and separately.

The packaging and marketing descriptors of toilet paper provide us with the ultimate euphemistic package for an obscene, yet necessary, normal, and healthful bodily function. Shopping for toilet paper becomes a decent and socially acceptable duty because it is so hygienic, so delightfully presented, so beautifully described: Pure, soft, lily-white, downy, angelic, gentle and sanitary. “Sanitary”: Hygienic and clean, contributing to health! If using that paper doesn’t somehow protect you against the Coronavirus, what else can?

Most people don’t normally have large stashes of toilet paper. This day and age where space is at a premium in our increasingly smaller and smaller abodes, bulky toilet rolls take up lots of space. Hence one buys as one needs, small numbers of rolls, enough to avoid embarrassment in one’s private (obscene, if you like) moments. Good taste also dictates that toilet rolls remain out of sight, hence one cannot have them in public view. Normally the few rolls that we buy are put in the bathroom cupboard, out of sight until needed.

Many amongst us are control freaks. We want to be in charge of things, run our affairs as we see fit and desire, be masters of our own destiny and ensure that people around us conform with our course of action, which is the only right way to go about things, isn’t it? It’s all about power and empowerment, being in control and not at the whim of fate’s vicissitudes: “I am in charge of my life and not some God-damned new virus that threatens my comfortable and pleasant routines!” Of course that means that there should be plenty of toilet paper around, doesn’t it? Control freaks are so full of shit!

Think of it also another way: Toilet tissue is a cheap commodity that can be put to other uses, for example it can be used as a tissue and if people have a cold and a runny nose, toilet tissue is a ready substitute for the tissues that you run out of. Interestingly, people are more reluctant to use tissues or paper towels or other disposable wipes in lieu of toilet paper in the toilet… Hence the stockpiling of toilet rolls in the case of a pending epidemic respiratory system disease which amongst other symptoms (in the public mind) includes a runny nose (though not necessarily so in actual case!).

Buy toilet paper, be prepared, be hygienic, be in control! Take an active role in your health management and disease prevention! The more you buy, the more your chances of fending off the disease! Toilet paper has become a powerful apotropaic amulet that will stave off infection with COVID-19, and prevent illness, or an even worse fate! You are right, for toilet paper is a worthy trophy for the modern day warriors of the supermarket aisles. All you, soldiers of the grocery store wars fighting tooth and nail for a few rolls of the prized possession, you the modern day knights errant of this, our sick society, you are the ones who are truly and utterly obscene.

MIDWEEK MOVIES - THE DETAILS

“Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.” - Immanuel Kant 

We watched an interesting film at the weekend, which got us talking about “amoral” versus “immoral” people. Amoral implies ‘not concerned with or affected by morality’, so that something described as amoral cannot appropriately be criticised for failure to conform to accepted moral standards. It is lacking a moral sense and is unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something (for example, “an amoral attitude to sex”; or “the client pays for the amoral expertise of the lawyer”).

Immoral, on the other hand, means ‘not conforming to accepted standards of morality’, and implies condemnation (e.g. “they felt it was immoral to accept a loan that they could not hope to repay”). Our discussion concerned the anti-hero of this quirky movie, which was about all the shades of gray between the blacks and whites of morality. 

The Details (2011) Black Comedy - Directed by Jacob Estes; starring Tobey Maguire, Elizabeth Banks, Laura Linney. - 7/10

In King County, Washington, Dr. Jeff Lang (Maguire) has been married for ten years with Nealy Lang (Banks) and they have a little boy. Their best friends are Rebecca Mazzoni, who studied with Jeff at medical school, and her husband Peter Mazzoni. Jeff decides to lay turf in his backyard, but the lawn rolls come with worms underneath and raccoons destroy his lawn during the night. Jeff wants also build another room in the house for his planned second son, but City Hall blocks the project. Jeff decides to build the room without approval and he gives his mentally unstable next door neighbour Lila (Linney), a beautiful plant, hoping to bribe her into silence. Jeff likes to play basketball with his friend Lincoln, who has kidney failure and needs haemodialysis.

Things begin to go wrong for Jeff, as:

a) His wife refuses to have sex with him;

b) The raccoons are seemingly ineradicable;

c) Rebecca is far too amorous for a good friend;

d) Lila is unpredictably erratic in her dealings with Jeff;

e) Jeff is too irresponsible and prone to amoral and immoral behaviour…

This creates havoc in the lives of Jeff and everyone he associates with, with some bizarre and tragic consequences.

We quite enjoyed the film, but perhaps even more the discussion it generated in its aftermath, which was quite a philosophical one and got us thinking about morality and how people view it and what choices in their lives they make on the basis of their personal concepts of morality. Worth hunting out this film and watching it, not only because it is quite entertaining, but also because it is a film that makes you think.

MOVIE MONDAY - ORPHAN BLACK

“Twins have a special bond. They feel safer with each other than with their peers.” - Jeanne Phillips

We are watching the 2013 TV Series “Orphan Black” created by John Fawcett and Graeme Manson, and starring Tatiana Maslany, Dylan Bruce and Jordan Gavaris. It is a Canadian science fiction thriller and focusses on human cloning. The series raises issues about the moral and ethical implications of human cloning, and its effect on issues of personal identity.

The plot centres on Sarah Manning (Maslany), who is an orphan, an outsider and street-wise grifter. After witnessing the suicide of a woman who seems to be her twin, Sarah assumes the stranger’s identity. Sarah wants to clean out the dead woman’s savings, but instead Sarah is thrust into a deadly mystery as she realises the unbelievable truth: She and the dead woman are clones. Sarah searches for answers that will help her survive, and she discovers that there are plenty more women like her out there – all genetically identical individuals who were planted in unsuspecting birth parents and nurtured in completely different circumstances. With no idea who created the clones, she’ll need to discover the reason in a hurry as an assassin is killing them one by one. Her foster brother Felix Dawkins (Gavaris), an eccentric, gay, over-the-top, artist helps Sarah in her quest for the truth.

After watching the first few episodes we were hooked. The series is well-written, well-produced, with extremely good acting and direction and a perfect blend of mystery, comedy, drama, science fiction and poignancy. Tatiana Maslany is amazing in her depiction of the clones, each of which has her own personality, quirks and mannerisms. Jordan Gavaris does a great job in depicting the unconventional Felix, but so often provides comic relief, making the sometimes “heavy” plot roll along. Maria Doyle Kennedy who plays Sarah’s foster mother does a great job with a character that hides many surprises.

We are up to Season 3 at the moment and still enjoying it immensely. The series received generally favourable reviews, with the first season scoring a 73 out of 100 on Metacritic; season 2 scoring a 79 out of 100; season 3 scoring 70 out of 100; and season 4 has a score of 80 out of 100. The fifth and final season will be aired in 2017 and I look forward to watching this series to the end. I am sure it will not disappoint.

POETS UNITED - NEUTRALITY

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.” - Dante Alighieri

The mid-week motif at Poets United this week is “Neutrality/Objectivity”. The challenge is to: “Create a new poem that explores one instance of neutrality or objectivity. Try NOT to be either neutral or objective.”

Here is mine:

The Sick Planet

No sense in sitting on the fence,

On this issue, nobody should be neutral.

The earth has need of us, now – 

There’s no time left to postpone decisions

That already should have been made.

No point in talking of superficial changes,

Shallow beautification is not the target;

Applying stop-gap measures, blindly

Will only cause problems to escalate.

Rebirth needs effort, pain and many sacrifices.

Let our inspiration be a new world

Rid of its poisons by audacious strategies.

Let the cathartic processes be drastic, let us renew,

Revive nature, rejuvenate the ailing planet,

Let’s give our children back their future.

MOVIE MONDAY - BIR ÇOCUK SEVDIM

“Vulnerability is the essence of romance. It’s the art of being uncalculated, the willingness to look foolish, the courage to say, ‘This is me, and I’m interested in you enough to show you my flaws with the hope that you may embrace me for all that I am but, more important, all that I am not.’ ” Ashton Kutcher

We have finished watching a 2011 Turkish TV series called “Bir Çocuk Sevdim” (literally “A Child I Loved”, but it could be also interpreted “A Girl I Loved” or “A Boy I Loved”). This was a well-produced and well-acted show with a host of talented stars and supporting cast. There were veteran actors like Çetin Tekindor and Bülent Inal, but also new talents like Gulcan Arslan making her TV debut in the starring role and Hakan Kurtas, the young male lead. We particularly enjoyed the performance of Sefika Tolun as the mother, Arzu Gamze Kilinç as the politically active aunt, Onuryay Evrentan as the psychologically challenged sister and the very talented youngster Ilayda Alisan. The series is set in Istanbul and there are many gorgeous external shots of this beautiful city making for some memorable scenes.

The plot is familiar enough for watchers of TV soaps, but there are several interesting subplots, which are developed well. The unfortunate thing about it is that the series finished abruptly (presumably because the plug was pulled) and the last episode finishes with a couple of cliff-hangers that are not resolved. Despite of its good quality of production and acting, the ratings must not have been high enough, or I wonder if the political subplot was one of the reasons that it was stopped…

In a nutshell, this is what it’s about: Turan (Çetin Tekindor) and Esmahan (Sefika Tolun) have three children: Emine the unmarried oldest daughter (Onuryay Evrentan), Erdal, a silly son (Ulas Torun) and Mine, the younger daughter (Gulcan Arslan) who is beautiful, clever and romantic. They seem to have a happy lower middle class family, notwithstanding some issues arising from Emine being jealous of Mine and being unable to get married. Mine is in love with Sinan (Hakan Kurtas), a young man from a rich family. Mine gets pregnant with Sinan’s baby and his parents send him away to the USA before he finds out about it, while Mine thinks he has abandoned her. Although Sinan tries to contact Mine, Emine scuttles this attempt.

Mine’s father is furious with his young daughter and conscious of the family’s reputation confines her to her room. His boss, the successful car dealer Timur (Bülent Inal) falls in love with Mine and proposes marriage, promising to look after her and the baby and telling Mine he does not expect her to share his bed. She accepts and she moves into his house having a separate locked bedroom. Timur has a teenage daughter, Merve (Ilayda Alisan) who resents Mine moving in and who proceeds to make life difficult for her.

The two important subplots centre on Mine’s aunt Sureya (Arzu Gamze Kilinç) who has lost her political insurgent husband after he was arrested for anti-government activities, and Emine the older sister who everyone takes for granted and acts like a spinster. Sureya’s search for her husband (or his grave) raises the issue of political freedom in Turkey and this may not have made the series too popular with government agencies. Emine’s transformation from a “spinster” to a predatory “vamp” is quite interesting to watch, and she plays the psychologically disturbed woman magnificently. A third thread in the plot follows the relationship of Mine’s father and mother and how they fare with the strains of having to deal with Mine’s (and Emine’s!) lapses from “socially acceptable” behaviour.

The Ibsen triangle of Mine, Timur and Sinan is interesting to observe, as is Mine’s transformation from a simple, romantic young girl into a mature, realistic and deeper thinking woman. Sinan, as the victim of a plot to foil his love and separate him from his son, is perhaps the most innocent of all the characters, but he remains relatively immature and perhaps the most devoted to the ideals of romantic first love. Timur as the worldly older man who nevertheless is not only in love, but loves Mine, will stop at nothing to ensure her happiness. He nevertheless does believe in the maxim “all’s fair in love and war”.

We enjoyed watching this series but the last (78th) episode was a little disappointing in that it prepared the ground for a second season that was never made. As I have written here previously, the Turkish TV series industry is fiercely competitive and the rating system is uncompromising as to dictating the fate of the shows that progress to multi-season hits.

MABO

“I think having land and not ruining it is the most beautiful art that anybody could ever want to own.” - Andy Warhol

This morning Australians woke up to see Eddie Mabo's face on a “Google Doodle” on the www.google.com.au home page. Google marks what would have been Mabo's 80th birthday. Eddie Koiki Mabo (c. 29 June 1936 - 21 January 1992) was an Australian man from the Torres Strait Islands known for his role in campaigning for Indigenous land rights and for his role in a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius (“land belonging to nobody”) which characterised Australian law with regard to land and title.

Mabo was born Eddie Koiki Sambo but he changed his surname to Mabo when he was adopted by his uncle, Benny Mabo. He was born on the island of Mer (Murray Island) in the Torres Strait between mainland Australia and Papua New Guinea. Mabo married Bonita Neehow, an Australian South Sea Islander, in 1959. The couple had seven children and adopted three more. One daughter, Gail, is an Aboriginal artist and dancer who works with schools in New South Wales as a cultural advisor and serves as the family's designated spokesperson.

Mabo worked on pearling boats, as a cane cutter, and as a railway fettler before becoming a gardener at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland at the age of 31. The time he spent on the campus had a massive impact on his life. In 1974, this culminated in a discussion he had with JCU historians Noel Loos and Henry Reynolds, who recalled Mabo's reaction:

“We were having lunch one day in Reynolds' office when Koiki was just speaking about his land back on Mer, or Murray Island. Henry and I realised that in his mind he thought he owned that land, so we sort of glanced at each other, and then had the difficult responsibility of telling him that he didn't own that land, and that it was Crown land. Koiki was surprised, shocked and even ... he said and I remember him saying 'No way, it's not theirs, it's ours.' ”

In 1981 a land rights conference was held at James Cook University and Mabo made a speech to the audience where he explained the land inheritance system on Murray Island. The significance of this in terms of Australian common law doctrine was taken note of by one of the attendees, a lawyer, who suggested there should be a test case to claim land rights through the court system. Perth-based solicitor Greg McIntyre was at the conference and agreed to take the case; he then recruited barristers Ron Castan and Bryan Keon-Cohen. McIntyre represented Mabo during the hearings. Of the eventual outcome of that decision a decade later, Henry Reynolds said: “It was a ten year battle and it was a remarkable saga really.”

Mabo relaxed by working on his boat or painting watercolours of his island home; however, after 10 years the strain began to affect his health. On 21 January 1992, he died of cancer at the age of 55. Five months later, on 3 June 1992, the High Court announced its historic decision, namely overturning the legal doctrine of terra nullius - which is a term applied to the attitude of the British towards land ownership on the continent of Australia. Henry Reynolds remarked: “So Justice Moynihan's decision that Mabo wasn't the rightful heir was irrelevant because the decision that came out was that native title existed and it was up to the Aboriginal or Islander people to determine who owned what land.”

That decision is now commonly called “Mabo” in Australia and is recognised for its landmark status. Three years after Mabo died, that being the traditional mourning period for the people of Murray Island, a gathering was held in Townsville for a memorial service. Overnight, Mabo's gravesite was attacked by vandals who spray-painted swastikas and the word “Abo” (a derogatory slang term for an Aboriginal person) on his tombstone and removed a bronze bas-relief portrait of him. His family decided to have his body reburied on Murray Island. On the night of his re-interment, the Islanders performed their traditional ceremony for the burial of a king, a ritual not seen on the island for 80 years.

In 1992, Mabo was posthumously awarded the Australian Human Rights Medal in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Awards, together with the Reverend Dave Passi, Sam Passi (deceased), James Rice (deceased), Celuia Mapo Salee (deceased) and Barbara Hocking. The award was in recognition “of their long and determined battle to gain justice for their people” and the “work over many years to gain legal recognition for indigenous people's rights”.

ART SUNDAY - BOSCH

“Sensuality without love is a sin; love without sensuality is worse than a sin.” - José Bergamín

Hieronymus Bosch (ca 1450–1516) was a European painter of the late Middle Ages. His two most famous works are “The Garden of Earthly Delights” (illustrated above) and “The Temptation of St. Anthony.” His work utilises striking and sometimes seemingly surreal iconography. Bosch painted several large-scale triptychs, as well as smaller panel paintings. Throughout his career, he used his art to portray the sins and follies of humankind and to show the consequences of these actions. He died in ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 1516.

Born in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, Brabant (now in the Netherlands), around 1450, Hieronymus Bosch remains one of the art world’s great enigmas. Little is known about his life, and the only clues have the few traces of him found in local records. Even his name is a bit misleading. He was born Jeroen van Aeken and took his professional name, in part, from the truncated form of his hometown’s name.

Bosch came from an artistic family (his father, uncles and his brother were all painters by trade). It is believed that while he was growing up he was trained by a relative. Around 1480 or 1481, he married Alety Goyaerts den Meervenne. His wife came from a wealthy family, and he enjoyed a comfortable life and improved social status through this union. A Catholic, Bosch joined the Brotherhood of Our Lady, a local religious organisation devoted to the Virgin Mary, around 1486. Some of his first commissions came through the Brotherhood, but, unfortunately, none of those works survived.

Known for his dark and disturbing visions, Bosch took a critical look at the world around in several of his works. With “The Cure of Folly” (ca 1475-1480), he poked fun of the misguided medical practices of the day. Bosch rebuked those who spent their lives seeking earthly pleasures in “The Ship of Fools” (ca 1490-1500).

Throughout his career, Bosch focussed much of his attention to exploring religious themes. “The Haywain” (ca 1500-02), a triptych, first shows Adam and Eve in its interior left panel. The centre panel features both clergy and peasants engaged in sinful behaviour. The right panel provides a gruesome illustration of where that type of behaviour leads: Hell! In 1504, Bosch painted “The Last Judgment”, which illustrated the fall of humanity. He starts the triptych with the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. The remaining two interior panels show the world's descent into sin, violence and chaos.

Bosch painted another triptych, “The Temptation of Saint Anthony” (ca 1505-06), a short time later. He shows the saint resisting the efforts of the devil to make him surrender to evil. There is an attempt to seduce Saint Anthony and then means of force are tried on him, but he shown in the final panel being led away by a group of believers. “The Garden of Earthly Delights” (ca 1510-15) is one of Bosch’s later works. Again depicting the decline of the world through sin, primarily lust, a beautiful garden becomes a dark, fiery nightmare in the last panel of this triptych. This work, like so many of his pieces, serves as a visual lecture on morality.

Bosch died in ‘s-Hertogenbosch in August 1516 (the exact date of his death is unknown, but a funeral mass was held for him on August 9). While he enjoyed some success during his lifetime, he attracted an even grander fan soon after his death. King Philip II of Spain became a serious collector of Bosch’s work, and “The Garden of Earthly Delights” is said to have been hung in his bedroom to remind the Spanish monarch to stay on a righteous path. Today, the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid holds many of Bosch’s works.

MOVIE MONDAY - BIG EYES

“Time will inevitably uncover dishonesty and lies; history has no place for them.” - Norodom Sihanouk

Movie Monday is late this week because I have been extremely busy with work… I have had to present several seminars to a visiting Chinese delegation and today was the last session which was perhaps the most gruelling of all. Of course I speak no Chinese at all, and all of my sessions were being translated by an interpreter. This is quite an amazing thing and takes a little getting used to. There must be a change of pace involved, but as I developed a rapport with the interpreter, the lectures went very well.

Last Sunday we watched the Tim Burton 2014 movie “Big Eyes” starring Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz, Danny Huston, Krysten Ritter and Terence Stamp. The film is based on a true story, set in San Francisco in the 1950s. Amy Adams plays the role of Margaret Keane, an artist responsible for the very popular and characteristic portraits of children with big eyes that were the hallmark of the 1960s.

Margaret is a woman trying to make it on her own after leaving her husband with only her daughter and her paintings. She meets the attractive, gregarious ladies’ man and fellow painter Walter Keane in a park while she is struggling to make an impact with her drawings of children with big eyes. The two quickly become a pair with outgoing Walter selling their paintings and quiet Margaret holed up at home painting even more children with big eyes. But Walter’s actually selling her paintings as his own. A clash of financial success and critical failure soon sends Margaret reeling in her life of lies. With Walter still living the high life, Margaret's going to have to try making it on her own again and re-claiming her name and her paintings.

The film was a rather simple coverage of the life of Margeret Keane, which looks beautiful (a very stunning and authentic view of the 1960s), but somehow one way or another fails to satisfy. Both Amy Admas and Christoph Waltz play very well, but they lack depth and come across as somewhat two-dimensional and cartoonish. A pleasant enough film, with good cast and a story that had the potential to be more that it was. We weren’t bored and the film was entertaining enough, however, it lacked sparks and fire, and certainly there was no signature Tim Burton magic in it…

MOVIE MONDAY - BREAKING BAD

“Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.” - Immanuel Kant

We are currently watching the 2008-2013 TV series “Breaking Bad”, starring Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul, Anna Gunn, Dean Norris, Betsy Brandt and RJ Mitte. Vince Gilligan created the series and a number of talented writers and directors have worked on the five seasons of the highly acclaimed and very popular series. We didn't watch this while it was showing on TV, despite all the acclaim and instead are watching it now on DVD. We are watching the penultimate season at the moment and are still enjoying it very much.

In case you are unaware of the plotline, and the main premise of the show, here is a summary: When chemistry teacher Walter White (Cranston) is diagnosed with Stage III cancer and given only two years to live, he decides he has nothing to lose and embarks on illicit activities to make money. He lives with Walter Jr (Mitte), his teenage son, who has cerebral palsy, and his wife, Skyler (Gunn) in New Mexico. Determined to ensure that his family will have a secure future, Walt embarks on a career of drugs and crime. He proves to be remarkably proficient in this new world as he begins manufacturing and selling methamphetamine with one of his former students, Jesse (Paul). The series tracks the impacts of a fatal diagnosis on a regular, hard working man, and explores how a fatal diagnosis affects his morality and transforms him into a drug trade kingpin. Complicating things is that Hank (Norris) is Walter’s brother-in-law who is married to Skyler’s sister Marie (Brandt), and who is working in the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The success of the series is that it involves characters the viewer can identify with and sympathise with, even though we know that they do is morally reprehensible. One cannot help but feel for Walter who finds himself in such an uncompromising position that he has to resort to illegal activities in order to make ends meet. We know that what Walter does is bad, and we know that Walter makes a conscious decision to leave the path of light and go into the darkness, yet we try and make excuses for him, hoping that he will see the error of his ways and find redemption… Walter’s decision to follow evil is ultimately his choice and we know that ultimately he will pay the price – and perhaps that is how the series maintains our interest. We watch with morbid fascination as Walter commits greater and greater crimes and wince as he quashes his conscience and feel some relief as he begins to suffer the consequences of his evil actions.

A strong theme running through the series is “family”. Nearly every character in the show displays an attachment to their family and it is this excessive devotion that motivates many of their actions (good or bad). Walter’s primary motive for his choices to manufacture drugs is to make money to leave his family when he dies. Even the Mexican drug lords uphold family ties as sacred and the obvious sacrifices that Skyler makes to assure her family’s safety support this view. As the show progresses, we find that family can act as a convenient peg on which to hang all sorts of crimes and at some point, Walter finally admits that while he started to do “bad things” for his family, he continues to do so after he succeeds in overcoming his enemies “because he can and because he has begun to enjoy it…”

Acting is quite amazing. Every single actor in the series plays superbly, and that goes for the supporting cast as well. The writing is great and the scenario makes for some thought provoking viewing and quite a lot of philosophising for the thinking viewer. Production values are excellent and I would recommend this show to all and sundry, even though it is quite gritty and violent and deals with extremely sensitive topics. Watch it, if you haven’t done so already!

POETS UNITED - MERCY

“Cowards are cruel, but the brave love mercy and delight to save.” - John Gay

“Mercy” is this week’s theme challenge for participants of Poets United. We seem to be losing this quality of mercy as our civilisation progresses. Everything can be bought and sold, including people, consciences and allegiances. Mercenaries have always existed, but nowadays they form a readily available fighting force to be had by the highest bidder.
Here is my entry:

Death of a Soldier

Senseless
Killing of innocents without regard
Blind to unending pain:
Mercenary without a heart.

Killing of innocents without regard
Immune to pleas of mercy.
Mercenary without a heart -
His gun spits out death, victims’ bodies lie senseless.

Immune to pleas of mercy
Mercenary hardened to death
His gun spits out death, victims’ bodies lie senseless.
Lying there, still.

Mercenary hardened to death
Blind to unending pain
Lying there, still,
Senseless…

MOVIE MONDAY - THE THIRD MAN

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” - Sun Tzu

“The Third Man” is a 1949 British-American film noir, directed by Carol Reed and starring Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Orson Welles and Trevor Howard. It is considered one of the greatest films of all time, celebrated for its acting, musical score and atmospheric cinematography. Novelist Graham Greene wrote the screenplay and subsequently published the novella of the same name (originally written as preparation for the screenplay). Anton Karas wrote and performed the score, which used only the zither; its title music “The Third Man Theme” topped the international music charts in 1950, bringing the then-unknown performer international fame.

We watched this classic film again last weekend and yet again we were impressed by its merits, making it a film far ahead of its time. The black and white cinematography by Robert Krasker is superb and contributes greatly to the artistic merit of the film. The acting is wonderful, the music perfectly suits the locale, mood and plot, and the direction is great.

Graham Greene’s screenplay concerns an out of work pulp fiction novelist, Holly Martins (Cotten), who arrives in a post war Vienna divided into sectors by the victorious allies, and where a shortage of supplies has lead to a flourishing black market. He arrives at the invitation of an ex-school friend, Harry Lime (Welles), who has offered him a job, only to discover that Lime has recently died in a peculiar traffic accident. From talking to Lime’s friends and associates Martins soon notices that some of the stories are inconsistent, and determines to discover what really happened to Harry Lime.

One of the values of this film, viewed several decades since it was made is as a historical document and a social commentary of post-WWII Europe. The film was set in its own time when made, of course, but now we view it as a piece of history. Viewed superficially, “The Third Man” is a all about betrayal and corruption in a post-war, occupied Vienna; on the other hand, it is giving the audience a glimpse of the mood of Europe after the great war. The uncertainty that the Cold War was to generate is found throughout the film: Holly Martins is constantly trying to figure out whom to trust. Vienna is on the frontier of the new communist bloc. The shadow-filled images of a bombed Vienna are stark, mysterious and create a sense of anxiety and melancholy.

When the film was released in Britain and America, it received overwhelmingly positive reviews. Time magazine said that the film was “crammed with cinematic plums that would do the early Hitchcock proud—ingenious twists and turns of plot, subtle detail, full-bodied bit characters, atmospheric backgrounds that become an intrinsic part of the story, a deft commingling of the sinister with the ludicrous, the casual with the bizarre.” Critics today have hailed the film as a masterpiece. Roger Ebert added the film to his “Great Movies” list and wrote, “Of all the movies that I have seen, this one most completely embodies the romance of going to the movies.”

If you haven't seen this film, where have you been? It is a “must-see” movie for lovers of film noir and a wonderful movie for everyone who likes a meaty, well-made film that doesn’t underestimate the intelligence of the viewer.

POETS UNITED - GRAVITY

“The superior man thinks always of virtue; the common man thinks of comfort.” - Confucius

This week, Poets United is rather ponderous, with its mid-week motif being “gravity”. I went back to basics with this one, especially after being disappointed by the 2013 film “Gravity”… Here is my contribution:


Forgotten Meanings

Gravitas, pietas, dignitas and virtus:

The wise and good Roman held them in high esteem,

And lived his life informed by their good counsel,

Knowing that his house was ordered and his life was balanced.

Gravitas: Decorum and seriousness, where it was apt –

Respect of place and of other people, solemnity of occasion.

Gravity lacked by our bickering politicians, our judges and our lawmakers

Its meaning forgotten as they cachinnate and waste time

In pointless debate over trifles, while matters of import are adjourned…

Pietas: Devotion, respect to country, God and parents,

Deference to the holy, to sacred institutions and beliefs.

Piety lacked by our paedophile priests who make a mockery of their vows;

Defilement of country and heritage by the money grubbing traitors,

Children who turn parricides, repaying love with murder.

Dignitas: Nobility and authority, good reputation

And ability to command the high esteem of others.

Dignity lacked by lacklustre royalty whose scandals shock the world,

Corrupt business people whose lack of ethics harm people and planet,

Academics whose impartiality is sold to the highest bidder.

Virtus: Valour and strength, courage and manliness,

Excellence of character and high moral fibre.

Virtue lacked by the wife-basher and man who abuses women,

The drunk, the calumniator, the envious and the unworthy,

All who live life as dictated by Mammon.

Gravitas, pietas, dignitas and virtus:

Forgotten meanings in our modern world and wondrous civilisation;

Words that are quaint, passé, irrelevant and curiously obsolete…

   "Oh, wonder!
   How many goodly creatures are there here!
   How beauteous mankind is!
   O brave new world,
   That has such people in ’t!"

NEMESIS & NIOBE

“And though circuitous and obscure, The feet of Nemesis how sure!” - William Watson

The ancient Greeks believed that Nemesis, the daughter of Nyx (goddess of Night), represents that power which adjusts the balance of human affairs, by awarding to each individual the fate which his actions deserve. She rewards, humble, unacknowledged merit, punishes crime, deprives the worthless of undeserved good fortune, humiliates the proud and overbearing, and visits all evil on the wrong-doer; thus maintaining that proper balance of things, which the Greeks recognised as a necessary condition of all civilised life.

Although Nemesis, according to her original character attributes, was the distributor of rewards as well as punishments, the world was so full of sin, that she found but little occupation in her first capacity of rewarding good, that she became finally regarded as the avenging goddess exclusively.

A striking instance of the manner in which this divinity punishes the proud and arrogant is demonstrated in the case of Niobe. Niobe, daughter of Tantalus, and wife of Amphion, king of Thebes, was the proud mother of seven sons and seven daughters, and exulting in the number of her children, she, upon one occasion, ridiculed the worship of Leto, because she had but one son and daughter (the gods Apollo and Artemis), and desired the Thebans, for the future, to give to her the honours and sacrifices which they had hitherto offered to the mother of Apollo and Artemis.

The sacrilegious words had scarcely passed her lips before Apollo called upon his sister Artemis to assist him in avenging the insult offered to their mother, and soon their invisible arrows sped through the air. Apollo slew all the sons, and Artemis had already slain all the daughters save one, the youngest and best beloved, whom Niobe clasped in her arms, when the agonised mother implored the enraged deities to leave her, at least, one out of all her beautiful children; but, even as she prayed, the deadly arrow reached the heart of this child also. Meanwhile the unhappy father, unable to bear the loss of his children, had destroyed himself, and his dead body lay beside the lifeless corpse of his favourite son.

Widowed and childless, the heart-broken mother sat among her dead, and the gods, in pity for her unutterable woe, turned her into a stone, which they transferred to Siphylus, her native Phrygian mountain, where it still continues to shed tears. Apollo and Artemis were merely the instruments for avenging the insult offered to their mother; but it was Nemesis who prompted the deed, and presided over its execution.

Homer makes no mention of Nemesis; it is therefore evident that this goddess was a conception of later times, when higher views of morality had prevailed among the Greek nation. Nemesis is represented as a beautiful woman of thoughtful and benign aspect and regal bearing; a diadem crowns her majestic brow, and she bears in her hand a rudder, balance, and cubit; fitting emblems of the manner in which she guides, weighs, and measures all human events. She is also sometimes seen with a wheel, to symbolise the rapidity with which she executes justice. As the avenger of evil she appears winged, bearing in her hand either a scourge or a sword, and seated in a chariot drawn by griffins.

Nemesis is frequently called Adrastia, and also Rhamnusia, from Rhamnus in Attica, the chief seat of her worship, which contained a celebrated statue of the goddess. Nemesis was worshipped by the Romans, (who invoked her on the Capitol), as a divinity who possessed the power of averting the pernicious consequences of envy.

Nemesis in English is used to denote the inescapable agent of someone’s or something’s downfall: “Injury, consistently his nemesis, struck him down during the match.” The word nemesis is derived from the ancient Greek verb ‘nemein’, which means ‘give what is due’. Hence nemesis, means ‘retribution’.

MOVIE MONDAY - A LITTLE CHAOS

“My feminism is humanism, with the weakest being those who I represent, and that includes many beings and life forms, including some men.” - Sandra Cisneros

Docufiction is the cinematographic combination of documentary and fiction. It is a film genre which attempts to capture reality such as it is (as direct cinema or cinéma vérité) and which simultaneously introduces unreal elements or fictional situations in narrative in order to strengthen the representation of reality using some kind of artistic expression. More precisely, it is a documentary contaminated with fictional elements, in real time, filmed when the events take place, and in which someone (the character) plays his own role in real life.

A docudrama is a genre of radio and television programming, feature film, and staged theatre, which features dramatised re-enactments of actual events. On stage, it is sometimes known as documentary theatre. In the core elements of its story a docudrama strives to adhere to known historical facts, while allowing a greater or lesser degree of dramatic license in peripheral details, and where there are gaps in the historical record. Dialogue may include the actual words of real-life persons, as recorded in historical documents. Docudrama producers sometimes choose to film their reconstructed events in the actual locations in which the historical events occurred.

A docudrama, in which historical fidelity is the keynote, is generally distinguished from a film merely “based on true events”, a term which implies a greater degree of dramatic license; and from the concept of “historical drama”, a broader category which may also encompass largely fictionalised action taking place in historical settings or against the backdrop of historical events. As a neologism, the term docudrama is sometimes confused with docufiction. However, unlike docufiction (which is essentially a documentary filmed in real time, incorporating some fictional elements) docudrama is filmed at a time subsequent to the events it portrays.

Hybrid genres such as these raise ethical questions regarding truth, since reality may be manipulated and confused with fiction, or the converse, which may be also quite pernicious: Fiction being regarded as the historical truth.

We watched the 2014 Alan Rickman movie “A Little Chaos” starring  Kate Winslet, Matthias Schoenaerts, Alan Rickman, Stanley Tucci and Steve Waddington. The scenario credits go to Jeremy Brock, Alison Deegan and Alan Rickman, and there is a disclaimer at the very beginning of the movie warning viewers that some of the events are based on historical fact… The problem is that most of the film is fiction, including the historically non-existent female lead and most of the film’s basic premise.

The plot revolves around the King of France Louis XIV (who really existed) and who built an impressive palace in the Paris suburb of Versailles and surrounded it with spectacular gardens which included an outdoor ballroom (all true). Kate Winslet plays a fictional woman gardener named Sabine De Barra, who the movie shows receiving a commission to design and build the outdoor ballroom portion of the gardens at Versailles. She is working for a male landscape artist named André Le Nôtre (the actual historical royal landscaper), played by Matthias Schoenaerts.

My first issue was with the ages of Louis XIV (5 September 1638 – 1 September 1715) and André Le Nôtre (12 March 1613 – 15 September 1700), the King being 25 years younger than Le Nôtre. In the film this age difference is reversed, Le Nôtre being younger. The fictional Madame De Barra is the other major historical no-no, and her existence is central to the film’s plot and its mildly feminist premise. A whole range of other historical inconsistencies and historical solecisms, if you like, pepper the film. But even if we ignore all of this, the plot is thin and the film too long, the empty, pointless silences too many. More film should have been left on the cutting room floor.

The sets, costumes and props were largely acceptable and the music suitably non-descript, but lacking period authenticity (to match the holes in the plot). The acting I was not overly impressed with, Winslet being too earnest while trying to make the most of her lines, while Schoenaerts looked for the most part non-plussed and uncomfortable. Rickman was rather full of himself at times but I guess one should forgive him that as he was playing Louis XIV…

I would not go out of my way to see this film, but it was pleasant enough as "filmzak" (I did end up doing something else halfway through it while watching the remainder of the film). Watch it at your discretion and perhaps you will enjoy it more knowing it’s all balderdash and only amusing as a romantic comedy of a mildly feministic kind where the woman is the heroine and the men around her range from the completely incompetent to the supercilious but mindless male chauvinist pig.

MOVIE MONDAY - NEVERMORE...

“The Sophists’ paradoxical talk pieces and their public debates were entertainment in 5th century Greece. And in that world, Socrates was an entertainer.” - David Antin

I was looking through my archive of digital photos at the weekend and came across some of Pireás (Peiraieus for the classically minded) from several years ago when we had visited Greece. Pireás is the port of Athens, 12 kilometres southwest from the centre of Athens, and lies along the east coast of the Saronic Gulf. It has a population of just under 200,000 people and is a lively, colourful, beautiful municipality. The photos brought back some fond memories and a sense of wanderlust and nostalgia. It has been some years since I have travelled to Greece and I am certainly missing visiting the country of my birth.

Most people would be familiar with Pireás from the 1960 Jules Dassin movie “Never on Sunday”, starring Melina Mercouri, Jules Dassin, Giorgos Foundas, Titos Vandis and Despo Diamantidou. This was a hit movie worldwide and established Melina Mercouri (1920–1994) as a screen legend, but also typecast her a little as an “independent woman of easy morals”…

Mercouri the now legendary Greek actress plays Illia, one of the good-time girls of the port of Pireás. Every day, Illia swims at the pier, entertaining the dockhands and attracting business. On Sundays she never works and has an open house with food, drink and song for all her friends. Homer Thrace (Dassin), an amateur philosopher from Middletown, Connecticut, arrives in Pireás to investigate why Greece has fallen from her ancient greatness. He meets Illia and immediately decides she is a symbol of that fall, so he sets out to study the reasons behind Illia’s decline and to elevate her to her ancient forebears’ greatness. If he can achieve this, he thinks, Greece can do the same and achieve another period of greatness. Unbeknownst to Illia, he gets the money for the books and all else he gives her from Mr. No Face (Alexis Solomos), the local vice boss who wants Illia retired because her independence gives other whores ideas. Whose spirit will prevail? Homer’s classical ideal or Illia’s earthy and hedonistic reality?

The film constitutes a variation of the Pygmalion plus “hooker with a heart of gold” story. The viewer is gently submerged into Greek culture of the 1960s, including dance, music, and language (through the use of subtitles). The signature song and the bouzouki theme of the movie became hits of the 1960s and brought the composer, Manos Hadjidakis, an Academy Award. It won the Academy Award for Best Song (Manos Hadjidakis for “Never on Sunday”). It was nominated for the Academy Awards for, respectively, Best Actress in a Leading Role (Melina Mercouri), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White, Best Director (Jules Dassin) and Best Writing, Story and Screenplay as Written Directly for the Screen (Dassin). Mercouri won the award for Best Actress at the 1960 Cannes Film Festival for her role in this movie.

Having seen this movie again recently, I was amazed at how much Greece has changed since 1960 when the movie was released. Even though I left Greece with my family in 1970, my memories of the place then are vivid and I can say that looking at the film I can recall much of what is depicted as what I left behind when we emigrated. Comparing that to what I saw the last we visited some years ago and what I see now on cable TV, it is definitely chalk and cheese. Some things have changed for the better, but unfortunately much more has changed for the worse. Financial woes notwithstanding, Greece has become less Greek and more foreign – “cosmopolitan” carries a positive meaning (and I would argue that Athens at the very least was very cosmopolitan in the 1970s when we left). I think Greece has become “foreign” in the sense of “globalised”, with every negative aspect of the word “globalisation” you can think of.

Watching the film made me nostalgic for the Greece of my childhood. A place where it was safe to walk the streets at all hours of the night, where neighbours knew one another and cared for each other, where one had many friends, where one could enjoy life while having little, where one’s worldly possessions may have been few, but were certainly of good quality and made locally by craftsmen who had learned their craft from their father or grandfather. Where food was fresh and tasted wonderful because it was brought to the market by the growers themselves, the very morning they had harvested it. A place where national pride was stronger than pressures of global capitalism, and the financial aspirations of the majority of the population were modest. A place where happiness was more widespread…

Much is made in the film of Illia’s sense of morality, which clashes with Homer’s ideal of morality and ethics. In that sense, I can recall my own family’s sense of pride, morality and “filótimo” (sense of honour and social justice). Some things then were never even considered, much less done, because of these cultural and ethical guidelines dictated by “filótimo”. And somehow it was a better, happier society because of that. I think that this Greek “filótimo” is one of the things that is dying a slow and painful death in Greece now, and the country is in a poorer state because of this – economic crisis or not…

TULIPOMANIA

“But the eyes are blind: One must look with the heart…” The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

In the language of flowers, a red tulip, Tulipa gesneriana, symbolises ardent love.  The tulip is an importation into the West from Turkey and Persia, the word tulip being derived from the Turkish word tulband, meaning “turban”.  Young men in Persia would present their love with red tulips, this signifying their heated countenance (red petals) and their heart burnt to a coal (the black base of the petals).  The tulip also stands for eloquence, oratory and fame.

Tulipomania also called Tulip Craze, (Dutch: Tulpenwoede), was a speculative frenzy in 17th-century Holland over the sale of tulip bulbs. The tulip was first introduced into Europe from Turkey shortly after 1550. The delicate, vividly-coloured flowers became a popular but very costly item. The demand for differently coloured varieties of tulips soon exceeded the supply, and prices for individual bulbs of rare types began to rise to unwarranted heights in northern Europe. By about 1610 a single bulb of a new variety was acceptable as dowry for a bride, and a flourishing brewery in France was exchanged for one bulb of the variety “Tulipe Brasserie”.

The craze reached its height in Holland during 1633–37. Before 1633 Holland’s tulip trade had been restricted to professional growers and experts, but the steadily rising prices tempted many ordinary middle-class and poor families to speculate in the tulip market. Homes, estates, and industries were mortgaged so that bulbs could be bought for resale at higher prices. Sales and resales were made many times over without the bulbs ever leaving the ground, and rare varieties of bulbs sold for the equivalent of hundreds of dollars each. The crash came early in 1637, when doubts arose as to whether prices would continue to increase. Almost overnight the price structure for tulips collapsed, sweeping away fortunes and leaving behind financial ruin for many ordinary Dutch families.

Does this sound familiar? Do you invest in stocks and shares? Does it remind you of what happened when the stock market crashed in 1929? The Great Depression? The market collapse of the late 1980s? How frail we humans are. Ready to succumb to our basest desires. Avarice and laziness are ever present in our psyche. We want something for nothing. Easy life and riches obtained without hard work. Why work hard when you can invest your capital (even better if you can borrow it!) so that it magically multiplies. Be it tulips of shares, who cares? As long as we can make a fortune. The billions of dollars spent on lottery tickets is another instance of this attitude…

This attitude of getting “something for nothing” is unfortunately becoming increasingly more common around the world. It is not a feature of Western nations only (the “cargo cult” of New Guinea springs to mind) but it is certainly widespread in countries like ours. The consumer society that we live in contributes to it to a certain extent and the advertising messages that we are inundated with are difficult to resist. Increasing desires for consumer goods and aspirations to a lifestyle suited to the “rich and famous” bring with them desire for ready cash. We have gone beyond what we need to have a “comfortable” life and now desire and greedily want a “luxurious” one.

I grow tulips in our garden and the only profit I get out of it is the beauty of the blooms, a more than ample reward of the hard work I invest in growing my plants. I am not a stock market investor, nor do I actively buy and sell shares. My salary was always earnt through my own labours – I need no parasitic riches. I have forgotten the last time I bought a lottery ticket (well, yes, I admit it I occasionally buy one, I am human too), but should I win, my family and friends would be the ones that would most profit, my winnings spread liberally to those around me.