Monday, March 17, 2003
We have all been listening to speculation on the TV news about whether the "non-combatants" that the US has captured in its war on terrorism are being tortured to make them give out information about plans for terrorism. Some of the captured terrorists (and I call them terrorists assuming that they are guilty -- which some of them may not be -- though the idea of being "guilty" raises its own questions about how to define and judge the crime) have been brought to or kept in foreign countries or perhaps given to foreign governments to interrogate. Torture is a hot issue partly because of the moral implications, but also because of the international agreements preventing the torture of prisoners of war (thus the term, ""non-combatants").
One thing I have not heard any discussion about, and which anyone who has watched a spy movie or read a spy book in the past 20 years knows about, is the use of truth serums to make the prisoners talk. It is virtually inconceivable that the US is not pursuing drugs as a method for getting the prisoners to talk. Yet not a word about it in the media.
Why? The answer is obvious to those who know how censorship works in the US: the media has been asked by the government not to discuss the subject on the grounds of "national security". And the media comply, as they almost always do.
Why do the TV and newspapers go along with the "national security" gag? That I am not too sure about; perhaps the big companies are afraid of losing licenses. Perhaps they want to avoid lawsuits and possible prison time. Perhaps they do not want to appear unpatriotic. Perhaps they really believe that the national security will be threatened by open discussion of using drugs to find information.
Monday, March 17, 2003
Sunday, March 16, 2003
I also had been thinking a bit more about the "Julie Christie" song. It is kind of amazing for a musician to have their work used in a movie. The musician sends out her creation and really has no idea how it might be used if it ever gets into a movie. It could be background music to a scene -- that could be a love scene, a murder scene, a fishing on the pond scene.
In this case the scene was an actual dramtized performance of the song itself. And it transformed the song completely into something that almost no one would have thought of when they first heard it .... or at least it seems that way to me. As T.S. Elliot once said: "I can't get that jingle out of my head."
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Recently I have been doing a little musing on the quantity of water vs. gasoline that I use. Sad to say, I use more gasoline than I do water. (Well, let's include oil in that calculation too). Perhaps that will change as the summer comes and I take longer showers. :)
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Thursday, March 06, 2003
Recently I bought a DVD of "Better than Chocolate", a movie I had liked on HBO (late night). The DVD has a great feature: the director, Anne Wheeler, voiced over the entire movie, making comments as she see the different scenes. She talks about the actors, putting the film together, the props, etc. Of course the DVD also can play the film without the directors comments.
A year or two ago after first seeing the film, I made an effort to find out who write it; I sent her (Peggy Thompson) an email saying how much I liked it and that I looked forward to reading her other works. I have been disappointed that she never wrote back. I wonder about the relationship between the writer and the director. How much did the director change from the writer's script? Apparently a lot. How much of that was not OK with the writer? They often have no say . . . . yet from what I had read in some articles on the web, I had the impression that they were friends.
After listening to the director's comments, I realize that the movie succeeded for me in spite of her. If she had a clue about the poignancy of the relationship between the two young women who fall in love, she seems to have lost it in the years it took to make the movie and the surveys done to find out what is bothering the modern young lesbian. She brought in a friend or two to play the "comic" roles of a trans-sexual and of the young women's mother. While these actors certainly added to the film, the director's comments about the editing make it clear to me that she went over-board to focus on them, while cutting scenes that are more key to the movie's powerful emotional plot. The plot of the girls' coming of age and of the censorship they face as lesbians.
What does come through in this movie for me and why do I like it? First I like how it treats art; especially two of the scenes where the young woman (who I think the story should have focused more on) are creating art -- in the first they paint themselves and use their whole bodies to make two big canvases. In the second they take a barrel, fill it with books, then water, and freeze it. Emptying the barrel they are left with a frozen block of books which starts to melt. Another really artistic point is the sign of Lorraine Bowen's "Julie Christie." The neon faces and boots creates an effect that can't be beat. I emailed her (she replied). And I ordered a fun CD straight from her in England. (send cash). Lastly and perhaps most importantly, every time I see the movie, it makes me cry. Why? I think it is the struggle of finding what you want in life and going for it, in spite of all the adversity and tries to prevent you. Especially if you can do it when you are young.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
|
|
