Lionheart

An aging nobleperson admires his son's generosity and grants him title, hoping the incumbent responsibility will solemnly generate wholesome gains. 

But shortly after, on the field of battle, that very same son flees in righteous terror, and abandons his stately realm, preferring to wander the forlorn countryside.

During his travels he encounters many others who lack general purpose and progressive bearing, an animate group correspondingly forged to engage in upright ethical daring.

He still bears the noble mark and genuinely comports himself meritoriously, but also with a kindly light that isn't concerned with rank and pageantry. 

They make their way to Paris where they discover a band of orphans hidden beneath the city, living an acrobatic freeform life loosely watched over by a former chevalier.

Nerra agrees to take them with him and they form a massive meandering group, not entirely certain of what they seek but sincerely determined to continue venturing.

Unfortunately, they're cruelly stalked by a nefarious slave trader known as the Black Prince. 

Who lost his mind during the crusades.

And turned to wickedness in the distraught aftermath. 

No doubt an absurd story imaginatively accentuating romantic innocence, as congenially collectively applied to hopeful compassionate communal endeavours. 

It's cool to see the courageous group nurturing and caring for one another, how did it ever expand so amorphously so, in an age so concerned with honour and dignity?

Lionheart examines the ethical side of manifest nobility with curious sympathy, as opposed to the austere obsession with grim codes of conduct upholding rank.

It's less concerned with honourable pride and rather realistically attempts to level and exemplify, through the acts of a youthful aristocrat extemporaneously learning to foster and lead.

Society has changed so much since the middle ages no doubt in relation to individual sublimity, not only of the noble variety but others such as Joan of Arc arising amongst the people.

Their deeds and examples resonating with those who would listen eventually forging orphanages and foster care and adoption, culturally upholding new grand social codes which still admirably reverberate with collective passion.

We still have a long way to go but haven't we come so far since then?

Social media chronicles orphan adoptions!

It's always fun to read such posts.  

Black Widow

One of the oddest points I remember from reading Plato's Republic, was the theory that children could be taken away from their parents and raised communally without them.

When I pointed out the egregious error Plato had made by suggesting something so abhorrent (I had grown up with other people and it was clear the majority loved their families), I was reprimanded for not taking the point seriously, perhaps having encountered pedagogical psychosis, or a walking breathing idealogical textbook. 

It's always seemed self-evident that most people want to raise their children, and even develop a special bond with them, known universally, in less extreme times, as love.

When the time is right there are instances when poverty and youth require alternative options, but it's not as if such a decision is easy to make, imagine if the impoverished people who chose to keep their children weren't met with so much hostility, and were treated honourably for the tough decisions they've had to make.

There are still those who can't love, however, their lives a meaningless sterile indignancy, many of them manipulating the feelings of people who do, to achieve solipsistic ends.

Adoption, the creation of new families, is a feature of a truly advanced society.

Monstrously perverted by the villains in the haunting Black Widow.

 

Family without love, conviviality, or amicability. 

Rather, an antiseptic society attempts to cleanse itself of feeling, wherein which formula and calculation attain cultural cohesion as opposed to love.

Wherein which you're terrorized if you truly love things (such a burden to be sensitive), by other people who also love, but don't want to be terrorized by emotionless leaders, who see personal attachment as an inherent threat.

In Black Widow, a tyrant preys on orphans whom he subjects to extreme tests, those who pass eventually becoming spies, those who can't, never heard from again.

He turns the spies into fierce international soldiers spreading malice around the world, their loyalty unyieldingly guaranteed, by advanced psychotic brainwashing.

Unfortunately, such ideas persist and haven't faded into history, the cultivation of family and friendship much less amenable to absolute power (on the left and right).

If people argue loving your family is indeed an extreme position, they're clearly fucked in the head, and it's best to swiftly tell them so.

Families can be composed in so many ways with so much distinct unique variability. 

It's a shame things don't always work out.

But that's no reason for categorical dismissal.  

Predestination

Difficult to say what you would have done differently if you had possessed prescient knowledge way back when, would there simply have been more of an enigmatic emphasis, or would things still have proceeded without grandiose change?

A self-indulgent question to be sure creatively occurring if you've ever had time to consider the past, hypothetical degrees of forlorn or joyous intensities increasing, depending on whether or not temporal interventions could have facilitated alternatives.

But such alternatives would have opened up unforeseen potentialities which may have been more prosperous if not worse, manifold striking unpredictable variables accompanying sundry indefinite outcomes.

Such a perspective almost makes the act of engaging in trivial decision making, seem much more epic in light of the infinite imperceptible comic echoes. 

Would I have wound up teaching in Paris or exploring the bush laidback in Chibougamau, peacefully working away at the Granby Zoo or fishing off the coast of Sept-Îles?

Predestination introduces a time machine and a somewhat invariable interdimensional occupation, wherein which operatives monitor the past to attempt to hinder voltaic malfeasance. 

The rules are quite strict no nonsense the agents are watched with meticulous scrutiny, one attempting to improvise nevertheless after a lifetime of loyal service (Ethan Hawke as the Barkeep).

He befriends a recruit who's alone living a generally solitary existence, having grown up in an orphanage unencumbered by the temptations of bourgeois life (Sarah Snook as the Unmarried Mother).

Could she make a good agent who knows! theory's quite different from work in the field, but at least they have something to talk about over a drink at random one evening.

Even if you had a time machine and could travel back and forth to different ages, how would you ever settle in without standing out like a shocking oddity?

Would you be able to understand the dialect or codes of conduct with enough fluent ease, to do simple things like find lodging or food, and wouldn't the smell be repellent?

I suppose like so many things you'd have to proceed with trial and error, the first jump somewhat overwhelming the second and third perhaps less of a shock (if heading to the same location).

Could a thorough interest in Star Trek help to prepare one for such endeavours, as a kind of theoretical support, perhaps lacking practical value?

Predestination travels time like no other narrative I've seen before, much more concerned with characterized mystery than grandiose spectacle fantastic intrigue.

If you were to meet yourself 25 years ago have you any idea what you'd say?

Predestination has a unique answer.

It's really well done.

A must see for time travel fans.

L'école buissonnière (The School of Life)

A rowdy foul-mouthed Parisian orphan (Jean Scandel as Paul) is taken in by a charitable domestic  (Valérie Karsenti as Célestine) and set loose on a forested estate one mischievous informative Summer.

Her husband's (Eric Elmosnino as Borel) tasked with managing the grounds and is less enamoured with the boy.

Trespassing is forbidden, and the existence of such wilds within a heavily populated realm tempts landless neighbours to secretively venture forth.

Since little Paul is free to scan and survey his new domain he meets a colourful cast of characters, their ingenuity providing him with playful imaginative recourse, cautiously balanced with the legal lay of the land.

Borel haplessly enforces while feisty Totoche (François Cluzet) outwits through innovation, his clever tricks ensuring modest plunder, cheeky testaments to individualistic invention.

Totoche and Paul forge an undefined team of sorts which excels at living freely, the bachelor and the orphan symbiotically coexisting within natural frontiers, amiable enough to avoid suspicion and crafty enough to brew memorable batches, good times generating familial emotions, cascading in hearty arrears.

A magical tale as realistic as it is fancy free.

Like Dickensian Thoreau subtly blended with Disney.

Friendships made.

L'école buissonnière.

Lighthearted and adventurous yet aware of rules and structure, Buissonnière presents mature mischief to cultivate austere lands.

Independent communities matched with age-old traditions, a public slowly materializes on the respectful inclusive horizon.

Some characters have much larger roles than others, and at times I thought it would have benefitted from more integration.

I wanted more gypsy.

But if you're in the mood for a heartwarming look at innocence emancipated, and wildlife left free to roam, L'école buissonnière offers a family friendly escape into vivacious inchoate wonder, toning down the menace, to focus intently on creativity.

Change.

I hope the forest persisted.

Extant forests must be like spiritual diamond mines in Europe, without the pollution.

Whatever Claire Denis.

Whatever!

The Dark Knight Rises

Not feelin' it for The Dark Knight Rises.

Don't get me wrong, the rapid pace and intelligent script make for an entertaining thought-provoking film, packed tight with a judicial balance of solid and cheesy lines/imagery/situations, set within an armageddonesque scenario which exemplifies the apotheosis of campy mainstream political drama basking in subtly sensational ludicrousy.

Note that it's just a movie.

Within however, the villain Bane (Roger Hardy), who works in the sewers and is backed by some of Bruce Wayne's (Christian Bale) excessively wealthy competitors, has been using construction workers and freelance thieves to launch a strategic attack which will incarcerate Gotham City's entire police force, set up a kangaroo court to 'judge' the wealthy, get his hands on a source of limitless energy that can be turned into a catastrophically destructive weapon, the whole time acting like a person of the people.

It's a bit much.

And the ways in which construction unions are depicted is frustrating.

Of course it's just a movie, within which Bane is a fanatical lunatic who employs absurd methods to achieve insane objectives.

I mean, what person of the people would destroy a football stadium?

But making him a 'person of the people' does cunningly vilify genuine persons of the people like Franklin D. Roosevelt (who still had to operate in a political dynamic which encountered expedient matters I'm assuming) which is problematic.

He is financed by the excessively wealthy, as mentioned earlier, which logically states that plutocrats are theoretically capable of using popular tropes to achieve despotic ends, thereby making Bane's adoption of the label 'person of the people' all the more problematic.

But this doesn't mean individuals who come from privileged backgrounds don't care about structural issues relating to poverty, individuals such as Jack Layton, and want to try to do something about them using legitimate political methods (pointing out a social democrat's rich upbringing is a divisive tactic used by the right to discredit them, from what I can tell anyway).

Having a source of limitless environmentally friendly power that can be turned into a weapon of mass destruction is also problematic, inasmuch as it indirectly vilifies alternative energy sources while propping up the nuclear/petroleum-based-product status quo.

Obviously, when your economy is seriously dependent on this status quo (see The End of Suburbia, 2004) and the ways in which its revenues fuel social programs, you can't simply change everything overnight without causing mass unemployment (perhaps I'm wrong here, I don't know, but it seems to me that if your economy is functioning with a significant deficit, large scale structural changes to its infrastructure will be disastrous unless they can definitively generate mass profits in the aftermath [which is a pretty big risk to take if you're not flush with cash]).

But at the same time, not trying to find environmentally friendly alternatives to the petroleum/nuclear power base that can't be turned into WMDs or be inexpensively integrated into the grid is equally disastrous (I suppose while searching for such power sources it's important to hire people to continuously monitor whether or not their construction can lead to the creation of WMDs [obviously enough {perhaps this isn't so obvious: it took a very long time to cap the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 because they weren't prepared}]).

People often call me naive, but, whatever: "It was all the more [troublesome] because by nature I have always been more open to the world of potentiality than to the world of contingent reality"(Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time, vol. 5 [I don't think I'm like Proust, I just love reading In Search of Lost Time]).

Hence, as an escape, I did enjoy The Dark Knight Rises, but I can't support some of its structural issues inasmuch as, according to this viewing, they aren't very progressive.

There is the issue of Selina (Anne Hathaway) however who is trying to change her life around but can't due to the ways in which her criminal record prevents her from finding employment.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Take 'em or leave 'em.