An update’s in order…

…and will shortly be on its way. Thanks.

Trials of Henry Kissinger (***1/2)

(2002) dir Eugene Jarecki – starring Brian Cox as the Narrator and Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens, Seymour Hersch, William Safire, and a bunch of other people as themselves.

Synopsis: Henry Kissinger: wise elder statesman, or war criminal? Or both? These are the basic questions of this documentary, which combines interviews with historical footage, declassified gov’t documents, etc., to present a case for Henry Kissinger as, well, as a war criminal.

Review: ‘Trials’ offers interviews of an interesting assortment of writers and political figures, running the gamut of the political spectrum from right to left and back again. While every possible point of view is not presented, it’s actually amazing how cohesive a picture Jarecki is able to present with what you’d otherwise assume to be quite disparate views. The film reviews various incidents—from the Vietnam war to a U.S.-backed coup in Chile—in presenting Kissinger’s various involvements in questionable affairs. It offers the examples of various figures, most notably Pinochet, in claiming that Kissinger should be brought to task (ideally to trial) for his actions. It’s captivating and informative and interesting, but there’s something missing from it. For starters, it offers up a veritable laundry-list of atrocities (accompanied by top-secret documents, historical footage, and interviews with people who were involved at the time) that incites the audience to outrage, but doesn’t provide an outlet; it’s more than simply an informative video, but less than a constructive opportunity. And while not every documentary should be expected to provide something for the audience to do, in a documentary where outrage seems to be the goal, inaction is vastly unsatisfying. Also, ‘Trials’ isn’t as direct as it could be (the first sentence of this review notwithstanding); towards the end of the movie, it loses some of its steam, its message becoming bloated and muddled. Put another way, ‘Trials’ presents a clear picture of Henry Kissinger as someone who basically sacrificed lives for political gain, but then loses track of itself and isn’t exactly sure about what should be done about it, much less what can be done about it. In the end, ‘Trials of Henry Kissinger’ remains a pretty solid historical film and covers some interesting points, even if it does suffer in making the transition from past to present.

Rating: [•••½] out of [•••••]

Quotes To Live By

“We ought to call ourselves the Partly Cloudy State instead of the Sunshine State,” Miami-based meteorologist Jim Lushine said.

(AP: “Five States Have More Sun Than Florida” [June 21, 2004])

Photo update

There’s a new photo gallery in town.

Or on this site, at any rate.

Not a lot of new pictures (though some), but a new gallery structure (easy and intuitive) with new features like slideshow, search, and even print, which gives you links to digital-photo-printing services. Admittedly, the print option isn’t something you’re ever likely to want to use, but it’s nice to know it’s there. Isn’t it?

Just FYI.

And there’s more.

Various instances of reportage & commentary on Fahrenheit: 9/11

NYTimes:

Michael Moore’s anti-Bush “Fahrenheit 9/11” became the highest-grossing documentary of all time on its first weekend in release, taking in $21.8 million as it packed theaters across the country this weekend.

(NYT: “The Political ‘Fahrenheit’ Sets Record at Box Office” by Sharon Waxman [June 28, 2004])

Roger Ebert:

Q. In Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is shown performing a song he composed, “Let the Eagle Soar.” Does this mean Ashcroft will earning songwriting royalties and indirectly profit from the film?

Jonathan Young,
Tampa, Fla.

A. Michael Moore tells the Answer Man: “Could be. Warner Records wants to release the soundtrack. I told the lawyers if he wants his fee, we should give it to him.”

(Note: Ebert’s “9/11: Just the facts?” is also an interesting read.)

(Chicago Sun-Times/Movie Answer Man: “Bowling for ‘Fahrenheit’: The 411” by Roger Ebert [May 30, 2004])

Mark A. R. Kleiman:

“I fully intended not to see Fahrenheit 9/11, even though I criticized Disney for refusing to distribute it… [part of entry left out] So I’m completely at a loss when a reviewer for Fox calls Farenheit 9-11

‘a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail … a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.’

(Mark A. R. Kleiman: “WTF? Fox News Likes F9/11?” by Mark Kleiman [June 16, 2004]; the FN article in question is Fox News: “‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Gets Standing Ovation” by Roger Friedman [June 15, 2004])

Time:

“A few years ago, Michael Moore spoke with then-Governor George W. Bush, who told the muckraker: “Behave yourself, will ya? Go find real work.”

“In one sense, Michael Moore took George W. Bush’s advice. He found ‘real work’ deconstructing the President’s Iraq mistakes. ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is Moore’s own War on Error.”

(Above quote drawn from the first and last sentences of the Time article; Time: “A First Look at Fahrenheit 9/11” by Mary Corliss [May 17, 2004])

David Crosby:

“No human being of any political stripe can watch this film and be unmoved. It’s a brilliant film and it disturbed me very deeply.”

(Reuters: “Notable Quotes” [June 25, 2004])

But They’ll Grow Back

It started out as being an incredibly decent thing, what Magahet did for all of us. We were mostly strangers to one another, and it wasn’t like we were about to go out of our ways in making introducciones and what-have-you, getting to know each other or anything like that. It wasn’t that we didn’t care, really, just that we didn’t have an in. We didn’t know where to start. Magahet knew everybody, which is what made it so convenient for him. The dinner was to be a kind of casual thing, “drop by if you want, not if you don’t” was essentially what he told everybody, of course tailoring the invitation to people’s personal tastes and so forth.

The general sense of things was, dinner at 8, entertainment afterwards. It wasn’t clear what kind of entertainment, but no one worried about a pitiful minor detail like that; we figured Magahet’d have something up his sleeve. I won’t say I exactly anticipated the dinner with bated breath, but I didn’t dread it, either. Walking home the night before I calculated in my head the exact sequence of events prior to the dinner, figuring out to the second what moment I’d like to arrive at the manor; figuring that 8:00pm on the nose would be too exactingly precise, as would 7:59:00 and 8:01:00 and even 8:05:00. I eventually settled on 8:02:45 as an ideal entry-time, not too late, not too precise, and probably not too early.

But my whole schedule was thrown into disarray when I got distracted watching a spider spinning a web in the lowlands, only beginning to realize what time it was as the sun set, reddening the capillaries in my face. Intentional lateness I didn’t mind as much as accidental lateness, which, whether anyone knew it or not, was going to be the spirit of my own late entry.

But no sense in not going.

Running and stumbling up the walkway to Magahet’s place, I realized how truly late I was, and how everyone else (doubtless) had already arrived. What was fortunate was that there was one seat left for me. Not the seat I’d had in mind, but an empty seat and so I took it. I was situated across the table from Yserone, whose name I didn’t know was Yserone until picking up on some cross-talk, intersecting conversations that sallied up and down the table.

I apologized for being late (to everyone in general but to Magahet in particular), and then commended Magahet for doing such an incredibly decent thing, having this dinner. Everyone agreed, yes, it was an incredibly decent thing of him to do. We didn’t quite do three cheers or anything, but did probably the equivalent for our group, all of us agreeing how decent it was of Magahet.

My major ulterior motive in this, naturally, was to distract from my lateness by introducing something so ostensibly selfless. My other ulterior motive being to make a positive impression on Yserone, who I’d immediately taken a liking to. She maybe wasn’t anything particularly special as looks went, but had an uncannily lambent expression. I thought: this is a face you can read by; this is a face you can use to look for things under sofas and tables. She was quiet, mostly, but had a deft way of using her fork to point at whomever she happened to be talking to, when she happened to be talking, rotating the utensil without any obvious effort (or even movement on her own part). One time she splattered Oubastet with a bit of sauce, but mostly she kept her indications clean.

What everybody else knew but which took a while for me to realize was that Yserone had no legs. More accurately, she’d had legs at one point in time but lost them, though not in the simple unemotional matter that you might lose, say, a pair of keys. This I didn’t initially know, but as details went it was a relatively minor one in my mind, Yserone’s lack of legs not mattering much to me.

“By the way, Havelock,” Magahet said down the table in my direction, “did you know that Yserone has no legs?”

I admitted that I did not, though I couldn’t see why he’d singled me out in particular.

“Well,” Magahet said, “everyone else was here when Yserone came in. They saw her wheeled in here, disfigured and legless.”

I couldn’t see what the big deal was, I said.

“Well,” Magahet said, maybe well on his way to becoming besotted though who could say, “don’t you think it’s funny?”

Silence broke out like the plague. People set down their silverware and turned uneasily to face Magahet. It was an awkward moment. One person managed a forced laugh, cutting it off when she realize that no one else was going to jump on and make it any less awkward. Which only made things more awkward generally.

“No,” I said, taking issue with Magahet’s treatment of the matter.

All of a sudden—it certainly wasn’t gradual—Magahut’s act of graciousness dissolved away into a cheap spectacle, and for no reason in particular. It was disheartening: the food was without question very good; the company was decent, every one more or less pleased to be making acquaintance with the various strangers around the table; and the table-setting, if not exactly out of this world, was at least competent and, taking the stuffed armadillo into account, at least mildly humorous—all of this and yet Magahet breaks the magic by taking a quick jab at one of his guests, at her expense. The least he could have done, you figured, was refer to Yserone indirectly via a supposedly anonymous anecdote so that everyone could go on pretending it didn’t pertain to anyone present at the table.

And here’s Magahet, saying don’t you think it’s funny that Yserone doesn’t have any legs?

There was simply no salvaging the night. We all left. Because it seemed like the right thing to do—on many different levels—I wheeled Yserone to her house, both of us silent for most of the walk.

“I’m sorry about that back there,” I offered.
“That’s okay,” she shrugged mildly. “There’s something, I feel like maybe I should tell you. Not because it matters, really, but I just feel like it’s something— well, something I should tell you. I don’t even know why.”
“Okay.”
“It’s about my legs.”
“You don’t have to say this now, if you don’t want to.”
“No, I think I should.”
“Okay, then.”
“I lost my legs in an accident,” she said.

“At an amusement park,” she said, looking down at the ground bashfully.
“Really?”
“It’s… It’s not something I tell most people.”

“It was two months ago. But—” she trailed off, giving off a faint but definitely discernible glow from her face, readily apparent under the suffocating blanket of the night sky.
“Yes?”
“It’s not the first time.”
“Not the first time what?”
“It’s not the first time I lost my legs.”

“They grow back, you see.”

“The problem is, I’m forever losing them.”

“I always forget they’re there, when I have them.”

“And I do stupid things with them.”
“I see.”
“So.”
“But…”
“Yes?”
“They’ll grow back?”
“Yes.”
“Does that bother you?”
“For some reason, not as much as it should.”
“Good.”
“Well then.”

…and so I said, who’s going to miss them?

  • Green Rights. A new charter is up for vote in France that would make the right to live in a healthy environment a constitutional issue. By the look of things, it’s one of those deals where compromise has slightly mangled the original intention of both parties—the Green Party saying it’s disappointed with the final charter and others balking at the potential imposition—but at least it’s a start. The most glaring disagreement is over a provision that would give the state permission (essentially) to intervene in an action that’s deemed “to pose a ‘serious and irreversible’ threat to the environment.” Detractors are worried that the courts will become involved in “every little thing” (my words, not theirs) somebody happens to think threatens the the environment. In the world imagined by these people, the global economy would grind to a halt under such an impossible burden. In the real world, interpretation notwithstanding, serious and irreversible threats are kinda important. (Guardian: “French split over green charter” by Kim Willsher [May 27, 2004])
  • Yeah? Well sustain this. An experiment in “sustainable living” is set to go forward near Lisbon (Portugal). The 1 billion euro project (approx $1.2 billion USD) will take 10 years to finish, cover 5,300 hectares (approx 20 mi2), and be home to 30,000 people. It’s an interesting, warm-hearted, feel-good sort of thing they’re doing, reminding everyone how sustainability’s not, you know, impossible. What would be maybe even better, though, would be a project—say, a 10,000 hectare plot of land—to show what the end result of current trends would be. It would be nice (though nice really isn’t the right word) if people could see what’s going to happen if they keep buying things like there’s literally no tomorrow and throwing them away almost as rapidly; nice if they could see what’s gonna happen if they keep blow drying and airconditioning and stereoblasting and tv-watching and lighting ad infinitum. (BBC: “Lisbon to try sustainable living” by Alex Kirby [May 28, 2004])
  • Worried At The Top. In case you haven’t heard, Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, said in an interview that “[n]o one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are at present.” This, from the head of Shell. Go read the interview. (Guardian: “‘I’m really very worried for the planet'” by David Adam [June 17, 2004])

Modern Times, Modern Places… Aborted

Modern Times, Modern PlacesI made a pretty valiant effort to read Peter Conrad’s Modern Times, Modern Places. It seemed like a good idea at the time; a book about all the wonderful things of the 20th Century, what’s not to like? Movies, literature, philosophy, war… seriously, what’s not to like? And plus, it was on sale dirt-cheap at Border’s. Win-win all around, right?

Not exactly.

I’m not going to try a review, since that wouldn’t be fair. After all, I didn’t finish more than 100 pages of the thing (which happens to be numerous hundreds of pages long). Maybe there’s an absolutely brilliant bit on pages 565 through 595, I couldn’t say. What I can say is that the parts I read weren’t any good.

They were well-written, kind of. My guess would be that Conrad’s a fairly proficient technical writer. He touches a million different subjects, linking them superficially together. And the introduction (or prologue or whatever it was called) was halfway decent, actually making me think I’d like reading the book. What Conrad does, however, isn’t so much a synthesis as a survey. A long-winded, short-sighted survey of all the wonderful powerful products of the 20th Century. He links them together, but in highly superficial, basically meaningless ways.

It would be difficult for him to do anything else, given that he rarely dwells on one particular work of art (significant historical figure, architectural structure, etc.) for more than two sentences. This style lets you know that Conrad is very intelligent, but it also gives the reader the impression of being led through a museum by someone with a severe case of ADD (in a very generic sense).

E.g., “Here’s a painting… oh, here’s another one. Look, they’re both red. Here’s a sculpture. Oh… over here’s something else. Now look at that, see the fine detail in the… here’s another painting… here’s… let’s just skip ahead to the dinosaurs… wait a minute, here’s the, see that window? It’s very skilfully crafted… here’s another…”

You cover a large amount of intellectual territory, but don’t really learn anything. And anything you do learn is learned purely by accident.

Which is why I gave up on the book after page 100 (or slightly before; I didn’t pay that much attention).

Maybe you’d like it. I couldn’t say for sure.

But we knew that already

“Wer zweisprachig aufwächst, dessen Gehirn ist bis ins hohe Alter leistungsfähiger. Bei Menschen, die in ihrer frühen Jugend zwei Sprachen gelernt haben, sind viele Gehirnleistungen besser als bei Personen mit nur einer Muttersprache, haben Wissenschaftler der Universität York (Großbritannien) herausgefunden.

“The tests of people who grew up speaking English and either Tamil or French suggested that having to juggle two languages keeps the brain elastic and may help prevent some of the mental slowing caused by age, the researchers said.

“‘Language is always good — more language is always better,’ she said.”

(MSNBC / Reuters: “Being bilingual may keep your mind young” [June 14, 2004] and Wissenschaft.de: “Zweisprachigkeit macht das Hirn fit” by Oliver Schmid [June 14, 2004])

Toononomics

I never really liked or hated Garfield, and I have to say that, yes, I have felt a strange ambivalence towards the lazy cat. Turns out, that’s what Jim Davis was gunning for all along: ambivalence. Interesting to think that a toon success story (in a sense) could be so thoroughly pre-planned.

(Slate: “Garfield: Why we hate the Mouse but not the cartoon copycat.” by Chris Suellentrop [June 11, 2004]; originally via Pandagon)