Love, perpetually incapacitated, melodramatically presents itself as stubborn and unyielding, daring and resourceful, maddeningly fleeced, and explosively uncompromising, in Yash Chopra's Jab Tak Hai Jaan, where dedication is ir/reverently consummated, and real emotion, subsists in ironic flux.
Samar Anand's (Shah Rukh Khan) principles cause his nonchalant ingenuity to appear as if it's overcome with resignation, yet, while comparable to Bella Swan in terms of relationships, or in regards to narrative structure, he's clearly intently focused on achieving an interstellar overdrive, as his unrelenting perspicacity diffusively ameliorates.
His subjects of desire represent reserved bourgeois integrity and irrepressible public success.
As usual, I was more interested in the moments leading up to the initial affectionate declarations, after which, although things picked up again following the intermission, things become somewhat overzealous.
However, Mr. Chopra's ability to work bracingly and heartbreakingly within Jab Tak Hai Jaan's socio-religious cross-cultural overzealatanaiety, his unbridled full-throttle unconcerned pluck, did help me to appreciate his film, as he endearingly orchestrates.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Silver Linings Playbook
Adding two cups rehabilitation, a healthy dose of formal sanitization (some forms of behaviour are denominated sane, others are not, the film does a great job of levelling the forms by showing how their contents are socially inextricable), a dash of crisis, familial spices, and communal interstices, David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook cooks up a hearty robust sociopsychological feast, complete with ample servings of dancing, and football.
Could have used the Broncos instead of the Eagles and set the film in Denver but that's off topic.
Silver Linings Playbook is a believable, down to earth, well-scripted multilateral examination of mental illness, romantically busting through many of its stigmas (blame attached regardless of circumstances, . . . ) through the convivial art of cacophonic curtsies.
Honesty is the key.
Pat (Bradley Cooper) and Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) proceed honestly yet lack the clean record that often rationalizes honest offbeat conversations.
Thus, even though their dialogues make sense, it's the self-critical sense making, the acknowledgement of crucial beneficial curative aids, offensively and defensively extracted from their various social interactions, within which interconnected dialogues similarly affect their friends and family, thereby emphasizing without sentimentalizing intergenerational teamwork, that leads to a more gregarious playing field.
In regards to where honesty becomes destructively inappropriate, the film cleverly draws several lines.
Good companion film for Jeff, Who Lives at Home.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Life of Pi
A giant freakin' tiger.
An island of meerkats.
A fluorescent whale.
And a mischievous moon bear.
Members of the animal kingdom make up portions of Life of Pi's supporting cast and fill its fictionally fortuitous filmscape with a carnally introspective constabulary.
Indicative of spiritual tribunals.
Necessity being the lover of retention, and survival, romance's wherewithal, Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) makes the case for creative license, while providing a noteworthy response to Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now.
Pi's religious curiosity leads him from Hinduism to Christ to Allah and his individualistic embrace/mix of the three is openmindedly archetypal (substitutes welcome).
It's difficult to write about Life of Pi's most compelling point without ruining the film, but, as a film, for me, although I was disappointed that more time wasn't spent directly presenting the convincing case Yann Martel makes for the existence of zoos in the novel, its 'make or break' stretch takes place in the lifeboat, where Pi and Richard Parker negotiate a pact which keeps their cross-examinations afloat.
And it works. The stretch seductively elaborates upon while subtly advancing Patel's position, building up to a moving somewhat overdone transubstantive summit, celestially washing up on shore.
I'll have to wait to respond to the rest (I'm not convinced [and can't explain what I'm not convinced about]).
The moon bear doesn't have a big part.
There is a moon bear though.
And he or she looks mischievous.
An island of meerkats.
A fluorescent whale.
And a mischievous moon bear.
Members of the animal kingdom make up portions of Life of Pi's supporting cast and fill its fictionally fortuitous filmscape with a carnally introspective constabulary.
Indicative of spiritual tribunals.
Necessity being the lover of retention, and survival, romance's wherewithal, Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) makes the case for creative license, while providing a noteworthy response to Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now.
Pi's religious curiosity leads him from Hinduism to Christ to Allah and his individualistic embrace/mix of the three is openmindedly archetypal (substitutes welcome).
It's difficult to write about Life of Pi's most compelling point without ruining the film, but, as a film, for me, although I was disappointed that more time wasn't spent directly presenting the convincing case Yann Martel makes for the existence of zoos in the novel, its 'make or break' stretch takes place in the lifeboat, where Pi and Richard Parker negotiate a pact which keeps their cross-examinations afloat.
And it works. The stretch seductively elaborates upon while subtly advancing Patel's position, building up to a moving somewhat overdone transubstantive summit, celestially washing up on shore.
I'll have to wait to respond to the rest (I'm not convinced [and can't explain what I'm not convinced about]).
The moon bear doesn't have a big part.
There is a moon bear though.
And he or she looks mischievous.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Lincoln
Providing an in-depth warm yet demanding account of the overt and back room executive and legislative steps taken to both legally abolish slavery and end the American Civil War, even though the contemporaneous achievement of both goals seemed unattainable, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln avuncularly yet sternly examines a pivotal point in American history and the roles played by many of its leading persons.
It's very practicable.
It lays out the complicated dynamics of the Republican Party as it was structured with Abraham Lincoln at the helm during his 2nd term, and, while often employing an elevated vocabulary, patiently divides the party into collaboratively oppositional groups whose interests each need to be moderately assuaged.
Thus, differing internal ideological commitments and approaches to the same set of principles are coherently represented by sensible counterintuitive arguments.
Expediency and opportunism become necessary factors due to the inextricable contingencies of their political matrix.
I have no idea how closely the actions depicted in this film match generally agreed upon historical realities within prominent objective canonical yet malleable enclaves, but the film did remind me that back when I cared about trivia and avidly watched Jeopardy!, I could rarely knowingly answer its myriad American Civil War questions, and wanted to learn more about it.
Lincoln's (Daniel Day Lewis) exceptional gifts for finding applicable amusing pedagogical anecdotes capable of being pleasantly yet instructively presented to whomever his audience happened to be affably ties things together.
Trying to make the passage of an amendment into a dramatic film was a great idea.
Being able to vote for the people who pass such amendments is a right that was/is vehemently fought for.
If you're jaded about the results of your voting, which everyone is at some point, Spielberg's Lincoln does exemplify how difficult it can be to coordinate the passage of legislation, which will often (probably always) contain cumbersome particulars which are themselves the product of advanced democratic pluralities, who have progressed in varying degrees, over the centuries.
It's very practicable.
It lays out the complicated dynamics of the Republican Party as it was structured with Abraham Lincoln at the helm during his 2nd term, and, while often employing an elevated vocabulary, patiently divides the party into collaboratively oppositional groups whose interests each need to be moderately assuaged.
Thus, differing internal ideological commitments and approaches to the same set of principles are coherently represented by sensible counterintuitive arguments.
Expediency and opportunism become necessary factors due to the inextricable contingencies of their political matrix.
I have no idea how closely the actions depicted in this film match generally agreed upon historical realities within prominent objective canonical yet malleable enclaves, but the film did remind me that back when I cared about trivia and avidly watched Jeopardy!, I could rarely knowingly answer its myriad American Civil War questions, and wanted to learn more about it.
Lincoln's (Daniel Day Lewis) exceptional gifts for finding applicable amusing pedagogical anecdotes capable of being pleasantly yet instructively presented to whomever his audience happened to be affably ties things together.
Trying to make the passage of an amendment into a dramatic film was a great idea.
Being able to vote for the people who pass such amendments is a right that was/is vehemently fought for.
If you're jaded about the results of your voting, which everyone is at some point, Spielberg's Lincoln does exemplify how difficult it can be to coordinate the passage of legislation, which will often (probably always) contain cumbersome particulars which are themselves the product of advanced democratic pluralities, who have progressed in varying degrees, over the centuries.
Here Comes the Broom
In Frank Coraci's new comedy Here Comes the Broom, writers Kevin James, Allan Loeb, and Martin Solibakke seem to be asking the question, "can we unite the domains of high school music teaching and mixed martial arts fighting while wholesomely addressing issues of immigration, dating, professionalism, health care, small business ownership, altruistic risk, male bonding, conjugal relations, etc., in order to create a constructive interdisciplinary framework, overflowing with ebullient feelgoodery, that can function as a precursor to model communal action?"
If this is indeed the question that they at one point asked themselves, I can only respond by saying that, in my opinion, "there is a strong possibility."
The film's a lot of fun.
I've never even really been that into boxing or mixed martial arts fighting but Here Comes the Broom gave me a new found respect for both sports and I'll now be more receptive to viewing 'pugilistic' events in the future.
The film lays it on super thick but I liked its relatable trial-by-fire humbly rebellious we're-goin'-for-it-no-matter-what oddball pragmatism, which offers a welcome break from a lot of the sleaze that's out there.
It also focuses on how prominent integral arts programs can be screwed over by overemphasizing sports while focusing on the ways in which those very same programs are essential to the sports that are sometimes overemphasized.
And points out that even when people have difficulties passing tests, they still often have marketable skills that can be remarkably beneficial to their community.
Liked the synthesis.
All good.
If this is indeed the question that they at one point asked themselves, I can only respond by saying that, in my opinion, "there is a strong possibility."
The film's a lot of fun.
I've never even really been that into boxing or mixed martial arts fighting but Here Comes the Broom gave me a new found respect for both sports and I'll now be more receptive to viewing 'pugilistic' events in the future.
The film lays it on super thick but I liked its relatable trial-by-fire humbly rebellious we're-goin'-for-it-no-matter-what oddball pragmatism, which offers a welcome break from a lot of the sleaze that's out there.
It also focuses on how prominent integral arts programs can be screwed over by overemphasizing sports while focusing on the ways in which those very same programs are essential to the sports that are sometimes overemphasized.
And points out that even when people have difficulties passing tests, they still often have marketable skills that can be remarkably beneficial to their community.
Liked the synthesis.
All good.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Midnight's Children
At the stroke of midnight, as India's independence lights up the sky, several children are born.
An ironic twist of fate, whereby bohemian and bourgeois babies are switched at birth, in an act of amorous solidarity, simultaneously precipitates openminded and hegemonic serializations.
One possesses the remarkable gift of being able to use his mind to create a cerebral in/corporeal clandestine commons where all of Midnight's Children can meet and discuss various subjects.
One's overwrought jealousy upholsters a ballistic desire to dominate, within.
The others, playing by a more reasonable set of hospitable synchronizations, collegially, discern.
That's a rather truncated description of what takes place in Deepa Mehta's film; it's much more complicated than that, narratively deconstructing particular parental preconceptions, touching upon complex interconnected conjugal and familial (and pre- and post-colonial) provocations, illustrating the effects of 'practical' ideological implementations on individual constituencies from jingoistically fraternal (ugh) and resurgently romantic jetties, at a frantic pace, which generally focuses on one character's brittle innocence.
The depth of potential lying within the film's itinerant confluences suggests that Salman Rushdie's novel is worth picking up, and that militaristic conflicts prevent the cultivation of prolonged endearing chill relationships.
At first, I found the film's magically real cloak to be somewhat flippant in relation to the gravity of its historical trajectory, but it's actually this light, dreamy, bewildered and baffling ambience that transcends its unavoidable puritanical devices, evoking an abstract laissez-faire conspicuous caricature.
That isn't that concerned with absolutes.
Covering a lot of interdisciplinary ground while firmly resisting attempts at classification, Midnight's Children sacrifices elaboration for stylization to divine a potential mantra.
More fitting to its humanistic features.
An ironic twist of fate, whereby bohemian and bourgeois babies are switched at birth, in an act of amorous solidarity, simultaneously precipitates openminded and hegemonic serializations.
One possesses the remarkable gift of being able to use his mind to create a cerebral in/corporeal clandestine commons where all of Midnight's Children can meet and discuss various subjects.
One's overwrought jealousy upholsters a ballistic desire to dominate, within.
The others, playing by a more reasonable set of hospitable synchronizations, collegially, discern.
That's a rather truncated description of what takes place in Deepa Mehta's film; it's much more complicated than that, narratively deconstructing particular parental preconceptions, touching upon complex interconnected conjugal and familial (and pre- and post-colonial) provocations, illustrating the effects of 'practical' ideological implementations on individual constituencies from jingoistically fraternal (ugh) and resurgently romantic jetties, at a frantic pace, which generally focuses on one character's brittle innocence.
The depth of potential lying within the film's itinerant confluences suggests that Salman Rushdie's novel is worth picking up, and that militaristic conflicts prevent the cultivation of prolonged endearing chill relationships.
At first, I found the film's magically real cloak to be somewhat flippant in relation to the gravity of its historical trajectory, but it's actually this light, dreamy, bewildered and baffling ambience that transcends its unavoidable puritanical devices, evoking an abstract laissez-faire conspicuous caricature.
That isn't that concerned with absolutes.
Covering a lot of interdisciplinary ground while firmly resisting attempts at classification, Midnight's Children sacrifices elaboration for stylization to divine a potential mantra.
More fitting to its humanistic features.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Skyfall
Really enjoyed Skyfall.
It's a great James Bond film, perhaps ranking in the top 3, although I'd like to rewatch my favourites, Thunder Ball, You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale, to be able to attach a more current and uniform critical perspective (more substance) to my claim. I should likely watch Skyfall again to justify this claim as well because I remember liking Die Another Day after my first viewing (no doubt due to my childhood love of the franchise) only to be seriously disappointed when I saw it again. Undaunted, Skyfall's not only a great James Bond film either, it's a great action spy movie, as opposed to a great intellectual spy flick like Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, and might also impress those who feel they're being dragged to a/nother silly James Bond extravaganza, although fans of the franchise will likely get more out of it.
Impressive points: Daniel Craig. He's become my favourite Bond and I love the ways in which he suavely handles himself with an unconcerned, explosive, gritty, incisive, everyperson's charm, more like a glacier bear than a bulldog, in my opinion. While the emotional displays made prominent in Casino Royale are limited to one brief lamentation, his character still receives more depth structurally as his personal history becomes integral to the plot.
Nice.
Origins. Skyfall sophisticatedly maintains a competent balance/conversation (overtly and covertly) between the old and the new throughout, set up by Bond's introduction to the new Quartermaster (Ben Whishaw), simultaneously seeming as if it's constantly, sigh, moving forward, while never leaving behind or disregarding its foundations. Thus, we have an unambiguously principle gay villain, who, being the villain, reflects certain conservative stereotypes, yet, through his first conversation with Bond, it becomes apparent that Bond himself is not adverse or may have had homosexual relations, an openly unprecedented development, which should not be underestimated.
The brutal lines from the previews that made me not want to see the film are actually alright when placed in context, writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan successfully finding a balance between hackneyed clichés and hardboiled wit, which isn't easy to do.
Rather than focusing on international politics, Skyfall situates much of its action in London, no doubt, the film, if, um, James Bond films are seen as a barometer of British socio-political attitudes of sorts, recognizes, ah, a certain, role, that Britain often didn't play so heroically in 20th century history (see Argo), which functions as a bit of cultural introspection that is both welcome, and appreciated.
Which brings me to the film's most notable scene, wherein Skyfall's various dynamics reach a quasiclimax which hopefully doesn't end there.
So, basically, M (Judi Dench) screws up royal by being in charge when a hard drive containing the names of every MI6 field agent (which never should have been created) is stolen. This leads to an internal review of her leadership which becomes public. Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), an ex-field agent who has taken on a sympathetic yet stubborn bureaucratic role (youth becomes age), diplomatically tones down the irate politician who castigates M during a public inquiry, which ends with M quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Poetry in Bond?
Nice touch!
It doesn't actually end there (don't read if you're not looking for spoilers). It ends with Silva (Javier Bardem), the principal villain, breaking in and trying to kill M whom he blames for accidentally saving his life after he was captured and his hydrocyanide tooth failed to kill him (while ravaging his insides [he vengefully seeks to ravage MI6's insides in turn]).
Silva's prowess in MI6 was comparable to Bond's and M was willing to sacrifice both for the organization's sake.
Bond holds no grudge.
Ergo, as defined by M's rousing speech, which claims that in the age of the internet individuals are becoming a serious threat, thereby covertly supporting attempts to sturdily monitor and police individual interent activities, due to the secretive nature of her operations and the life threatening consequences of details potentially leaked during public inquiries (some governmental documents should remain secret), she's somewhat taken aback by the proceedings, which are applying a similar level of oversight to that which guided her decisions to sacrifice Bond and Silva, which are then interrupted by Silva's rampage.
Obviously the activities of agencies like MI6, due to their necessarily clandestine nature, need to remain generally secret, as long as other countries continue to maintain similar outlets. At the same time, if they operate entirely in secret there's no telling what sort of methods might be utilized, meaning a minimal degree of public scrutiny, though vexatious, within logical parameters, which must take various prickly contexts into consideration, makes sense.
Don't know if that's helpful.
I find the idea of (computer savvy) individuals being some of the greatest threats to the 21st century, however, somewhat misleading, for the following reasons.
It's kind of silly to begin with, scum like Hitler and Stalin being particularly deadly individuals long before the age of the internet, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Yes, computer savvy individuals can cause a lot of damage I'm sure. These exceptions can, I don't know, hack into banks, defence systems, etc. I know someone else has my IP address because I often receive a message on my computer screen that another computer using my IP address is operating on the same network. I don't know what to do about this besides get a new IP address and I don't want to bother because someone will just do it again.
It's annoying.
But if because of these exceptions, legislation is being introduced giving law enforcement agencies the power to monitor everyone's online activity, and the majority of everyone's activity is moving online, it's like law enforcement agencies are being given the power to monitor everyone's activities all the time. What stores they go to, what newspapers they read, and so on. It's kind of totalitarian in my opinion and is at risk of being 'naturalized' for future generations without much mature parliamentary debate in some countries. I mean, shouldn't you have to get a warrant to monitor someone's online activity? Doesn't that make sense?
And, as my computer keeps indicating, someone else has my IP address and is using it online. How would I be able to prove that I'm not that person in a court of law?
Cybercrime is similar to physical crime. If someone wants to rob a bank online, I suppose they hack in. If someone wants to rob a physical bank, I suppose they find a way to go about doing it. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank in the physical world, I suppose you get a warrant and follow them around town. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank online, I think you should have to do the same thing because the principle isn't that different, it's just an alternative environment.
Yes, a Silva may arise, but there will also be a James Bond to stop him or her.
Nevertheless, I did enjoy Skyfall and think it's a great film.
I hope my analysis hasn't been too offhand and that it hasn't engaged in too much puerile speculation.
(My favourite part is Q's scrabble mug.
I'd love to play him.
Would probably end up with multiple u's, c's, and v's at key moments, but, whatevs, I'd keep playing).
Oh, and I've been getting into film noir and hardboiled detective fiction again lately. A Bond film with the edge of a Dashiell Hammet, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, or Patricia Highsmith novel worked into what team Skyfall's already proved they have the creative energy to ameliorate would be amazing.
So amazing.
It's a great James Bond film, perhaps ranking in the top 3, although I'd like to rewatch my favourites, Thunder Ball, You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale, to be able to attach a more current and uniform critical perspective (more substance) to my claim. I should likely watch Skyfall again to justify this claim as well because I remember liking Die Another Day after my first viewing (no doubt due to my childhood love of the franchise) only to be seriously disappointed when I saw it again. Undaunted, Skyfall's not only a great James Bond film either, it's a great action spy movie, as opposed to a great intellectual spy flick like Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, and might also impress those who feel they're being dragged to a/nother silly James Bond extravaganza, although fans of the franchise will likely get more out of it.
Impressive points: Daniel Craig. He's become my favourite Bond and I love the ways in which he suavely handles himself with an unconcerned, explosive, gritty, incisive, everyperson's charm, more like a glacier bear than a bulldog, in my opinion. While the emotional displays made prominent in Casino Royale are limited to one brief lamentation, his character still receives more depth structurally as his personal history becomes integral to the plot.
Nice.
Origins. Skyfall sophisticatedly maintains a competent balance/conversation (overtly and covertly) between the old and the new throughout, set up by Bond's introduction to the new Quartermaster (Ben Whishaw), simultaneously seeming as if it's constantly, sigh, moving forward, while never leaving behind or disregarding its foundations. Thus, we have an unambiguously principle gay villain, who, being the villain, reflects certain conservative stereotypes, yet, through his first conversation with Bond, it becomes apparent that Bond himself is not adverse or may have had homosexual relations, an openly unprecedented development, which should not be underestimated.
The brutal lines from the previews that made me not want to see the film are actually alright when placed in context, writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan successfully finding a balance between hackneyed clichés and hardboiled wit, which isn't easy to do.
Rather than focusing on international politics, Skyfall situates much of its action in London, no doubt, the film, if, um, James Bond films are seen as a barometer of British socio-political attitudes of sorts, recognizes, ah, a certain, role, that Britain often didn't play so heroically in 20th century history (see Argo), which functions as a bit of cultural introspection that is both welcome, and appreciated.
Which brings me to the film's most notable scene, wherein Skyfall's various dynamics reach a quasiclimax which hopefully doesn't end there.
So, basically, M (Judi Dench) screws up royal by being in charge when a hard drive containing the names of every MI6 field agent (which never should have been created) is stolen. This leads to an internal review of her leadership which becomes public. Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), an ex-field agent who has taken on a sympathetic yet stubborn bureaucratic role (youth becomes age), diplomatically tones down the irate politician who castigates M during a public inquiry, which ends with M quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Poetry in Bond?
Nice touch!
It doesn't actually end there (don't read if you're not looking for spoilers). It ends with Silva (Javier Bardem), the principal villain, breaking in and trying to kill M whom he blames for accidentally saving his life after he was captured and his hydrocyanide tooth failed to kill him (while ravaging his insides [he vengefully seeks to ravage MI6's insides in turn]).
Silva's prowess in MI6 was comparable to Bond's and M was willing to sacrifice both for the organization's sake.
Bond holds no grudge.
Ergo, as defined by M's rousing speech, which claims that in the age of the internet individuals are becoming a serious threat, thereby covertly supporting attempts to sturdily monitor and police individual interent activities, due to the secretive nature of her operations and the life threatening consequences of details potentially leaked during public inquiries (some governmental documents should remain secret), she's somewhat taken aback by the proceedings, which are applying a similar level of oversight to that which guided her decisions to sacrifice Bond and Silva, which are then interrupted by Silva's rampage.
Obviously the activities of agencies like MI6, due to their necessarily clandestine nature, need to remain generally secret, as long as other countries continue to maintain similar outlets. At the same time, if they operate entirely in secret there's no telling what sort of methods might be utilized, meaning a minimal degree of public scrutiny, though vexatious, within logical parameters, which must take various prickly contexts into consideration, makes sense.
Don't know if that's helpful.
I find the idea of (computer savvy) individuals being some of the greatest threats to the 21st century, however, somewhat misleading, for the following reasons.
It's kind of silly to begin with, scum like Hitler and Stalin being particularly deadly individuals long before the age of the internet, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Yes, computer savvy individuals can cause a lot of damage I'm sure. These exceptions can, I don't know, hack into banks, defence systems, etc. I know someone else has my IP address because I often receive a message on my computer screen that another computer using my IP address is operating on the same network. I don't know what to do about this besides get a new IP address and I don't want to bother because someone will just do it again.
It's annoying.
But if because of these exceptions, legislation is being introduced giving law enforcement agencies the power to monitor everyone's online activity, and the majority of everyone's activity is moving online, it's like law enforcement agencies are being given the power to monitor everyone's activities all the time. What stores they go to, what newspapers they read, and so on. It's kind of totalitarian in my opinion and is at risk of being 'naturalized' for future generations without much mature parliamentary debate in some countries. I mean, shouldn't you have to get a warrant to monitor someone's online activity? Doesn't that make sense?
And, as my computer keeps indicating, someone else has my IP address and is using it online. How would I be able to prove that I'm not that person in a court of law?
Cybercrime is similar to physical crime. If someone wants to rob a bank online, I suppose they hack in. If someone wants to rob a physical bank, I suppose they find a way to go about doing it. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank in the physical world, I suppose you get a warrant and follow them around town. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank online, I think you should have to do the same thing because the principle isn't that different, it's just an alternative environment.
Yes, a Silva may arise, but there will also be a James Bond to stop him or her.
Nevertheless, I did enjoy Skyfall and think it's a great film.
I hope my analysis hasn't been too offhand and that it hasn't engaged in too much puerile speculation.
(My favourite part is Q's scrabble mug.
I'd love to play him.
Would probably end up with multiple u's, c's, and v's at key moments, but, whatevs, I'd keep playing).
Oh, and I've been getting into film noir and hardboiled detective fiction again lately. A Bond film with the edge of a Dashiell Hammet, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, or Patricia Highsmith novel worked into what team Skyfall's already proved they have the creative energy to ameliorate would be amazing.
So amazing.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Chinese Take-Away (Un cuento chino)
A random gravitational incongruity crushes a soaring romance after which one partner haplessly finds himself mired in a self-inflicted mimesis.
Thus Jun (Ignacio Huang) travels from China to Argentina in search of his uncle where he meets a frigid loner (Ricardo Darín as Roberto) by chance who is firmly set in his ways.
Jun doesn't speak any Spanish and Roberto dislikes house guests but the good samaritan Roberto keeps locked within persuades his finicky craftsmanship.
But as those with whom he must interact to find Jun's uncle ironically do not posses the same level of social reflexivity, things take a lightheartedly combative turn, until fate forecasts its fortuitous frequency.
Decisions made, gut garnished, ethos, codified.
But it's really not that cheesy, I mean, Sebastián Borensztein's Chinese Take-Away (Un cuento chino) does press the curds but if you're interested in seeing a heartwarmingly blunt piece of extroverted reticence, primarily focused on an eccentric small business owner's stubbornly withdrawn principled hardboiled tact, wherein fascists and communists alike take their comeuppances, it's fun to watch.
Sensitive, enumerative, obdurate, and tender, assuredly a go-to-option if dating and seeking to sneak in an alternative cross-cultural b/romantic comedy.
I'm assuming that's what people who date are trying to do.
Regardless of gender.
Thus Jun (Ignacio Huang) travels from China to Argentina in search of his uncle where he meets a frigid loner (Ricardo Darín as Roberto) by chance who is firmly set in his ways.
Jun doesn't speak any Spanish and Roberto dislikes house guests but the good samaritan Roberto keeps locked within persuades his finicky craftsmanship.
But as those with whom he must interact to find Jun's uncle ironically do not posses the same level of social reflexivity, things take a lightheartedly combative turn, until fate forecasts its fortuitous frequency.
Decisions made, gut garnished, ethos, codified.
But it's really not that cheesy, I mean, Sebastián Borensztein's Chinese Take-Away (Un cuento chino) does press the curds but if you're interested in seeing a heartwarmingly blunt piece of extroverted reticence, primarily focused on an eccentric small business owner's stubbornly withdrawn principled hardboiled tact, wherein fascists and communists alike take their comeuppances, it's fun to watch.
Sensitive, enumerative, obdurate, and tender, assuredly a go-to-option if dating and seeking to sneak in an alternative cross-cultural b/romantic comedy.
I'm assuming that's what people who date are trying to do.
Regardless of gender.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Argo
It should be noted that Ben Affleck's Argo takes bold steps to attach the responsibility for the hostile anti-American attitudes presented by some Iranian citizens displayed within to the political activities of American and British authorities of the 1950s, and that it is these same authorities who are in/directly responsible for the subsequent rise of madpersons like Ahmadinejad.
It should also be noted that this may not be the wisest time to be releasing a film which displays passionate anti-American feelings amongst those very same citizens, due to the potentially volatile dynamics of our current historical period, although, perhaps my reluctancy to endorse its timing could be a sign of my own hesitancy in regards to taking great risks, which Mr. Affleck, in creating this film at this particular time, has certainly done.
I myself believe that an incredible secret has been kept in Iran based upon my viewings of Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, Maryam Keshavarz's Circumstance, common sense, and a conversation I had six years ago in passing, that being that many, perhaps even a vast majority of Iranian citizens, don't care whether or not they develop an atomic weapon, have no wish to go to war with Israel, and simply want to peacefully work, live, laugh, love, and travel in a clean environment, like citizens in every other country, without having to be afraid all the time.
Yet I have no idea what you do when a lunatic like Ahmadinejad is in power (or George W. Bush for that matter) or how to go about diffusing the situation.
There are scurrilously ambitious people who seek power and consider everyone else to be like them. They employ reprehensible tactics to achieve this power, and, thinking everyone else to be like them, seek to prevent others who aren't like them from employing the same tactics to usurp them. This attitude is applied nationally and internationally. Seeing conspiracies everywhere and fearing violent reprisals, they conspire violently, thereby creating that which they feared in the first place, vaingloriously spreading misery.
Argo goes a long way to prevent the spread of misery in its best scene by cleverly intermingling different realities facing American and post-revolutionary Iranian citizens, a scene which shows the Americans laying the rhetorical groundwork to 'make' a fake movie while Iranians try to punish the American and British imposed Shah who butchered them for decades and managed to find sanctuary in the States afterwards, a scene which pulls its American audience into the Iranian situation, its frame reminding them to bear in mind that the events depicted took place in 1979, 33 years ago.
In one of Star Trek the Next Generation's best moments Worf (Michael Dorn) commends his son Alexander (James Sloyan/Brian Bonsall) for choosing the path of peace (Firstborn).
Yes, Worf highly honours the path of peace.
By creating a film which exoterically tackles an extremely important contemporary international political phenomenon with the goal of saving lives or preventing a war, which places the situation within a controversial militaristic, governmental, and individual historical context, Ben Affleck's created quite a film, its exoteric qualities capable of entertainingly reaching a wide audience, and perhaps having a lasting affect.
As if to say, if you thought there was anti-American sentiment flowing through Iran 33 years ago during a volatile time of historic change directly caused by the meddling of American and British authorities, imagine how much there will be if an actual war is started, for decades, centuries, to come.
It doesn't have to be like that.
Not at all.
It should also be noted that this may not be the wisest time to be releasing a film which displays passionate anti-American feelings amongst those very same citizens, due to the potentially volatile dynamics of our current historical period, although, perhaps my reluctancy to endorse its timing could be a sign of my own hesitancy in regards to taking great risks, which Mr. Affleck, in creating this film at this particular time, has certainly done.
I myself believe that an incredible secret has been kept in Iran based upon my viewings of Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, Maryam Keshavarz's Circumstance, common sense, and a conversation I had six years ago in passing, that being that many, perhaps even a vast majority of Iranian citizens, don't care whether or not they develop an atomic weapon, have no wish to go to war with Israel, and simply want to peacefully work, live, laugh, love, and travel in a clean environment, like citizens in every other country, without having to be afraid all the time.
Yet I have no idea what you do when a lunatic like Ahmadinejad is in power (or George W. Bush for that matter) or how to go about diffusing the situation.
There are scurrilously ambitious people who seek power and consider everyone else to be like them. They employ reprehensible tactics to achieve this power, and, thinking everyone else to be like them, seek to prevent others who aren't like them from employing the same tactics to usurp them. This attitude is applied nationally and internationally. Seeing conspiracies everywhere and fearing violent reprisals, they conspire violently, thereby creating that which they feared in the first place, vaingloriously spreading misery.
Argo goes a long way to prevent the spread of misery in its best scene by cleverly intermingling different realities facing American and post-revolutionary Iranian citizens, a scene which shows the Americans laying the rhetorical groundwork to 'make' a fake movie while Iranians try to punish the American and British imposed Shah who butchered them for decades and managed to find sanctuary in the States afterwards, a scene which pulls its American audience into the Iranian situation, its frame reminding them to bear in mind that the events depicted took place in 1979, 33 years ago.
In one of Star Trek the Next Generation's best moments Worf (Michael Dorn) commends his son Alexander (James Sloyan/Brian Bonsall) for choosing the path of peace (Firstborn).
Yes, Worf highly honours the path of peace.
By creating a film which exoterically tackles an extremely important contemporary international political phenomenon with the goal of saving lives or preventing a war, which places the situation within a controversial militaristic, governmental, and individual historical context, Ben Affleck's created quite a film, its exoteric qualities capable of entertainingly reaching a wide audience, and perhaps having a lasting affect.
As if to say, if you thought there was anti-American sentiment flowing through Iran 33 years ago during a volatile time of historic change directly caused by the meddling of American and British authorities, imagine how much there will be if an actual war is started, for decades, centuries, to come.
It doesn't have to be like that.
Not at all.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Cloud Atlas
Reincarnating a diverse sense of individualistic multiplicity, wherein manifold acts see their transhistorical countenances ambiently 'serialized,' as circumstances determine varying degrees of personal expedients and collective commitments, the most powerful of which are preconditioned by love eternal, of the other, an ideal, Cloud Atlas draws poetic intertemporal parallels amongst 'distinct' narratives to progressively decentralize teleological discourses without sacrificing their forward thinking critical cores, thereby generating a hardwired interdisciplinary mutlivaliant transistor.
As history comes to life.
It's as if the process of taking forms with myriad malleable landscapes and inter'connected' representational layers and populating them with breathing socio-political contents is itself materially manifested, through a vivacious, ethical engagement.
It doesn't shy away from using science-fiction to situate the cannibalistic nature of shortsighted grossly counterproductive characterizations of workers as one-dimensional subservient automatons being sinisterly force fed their own collectively suicidal divisive tropes in the present, from suggesting that aesthetic realms beyond our current epistemological methods of comprehension can be artistically realized (through music), from attaching an everlasting quality to the bucolic/urban dialectic, from elevating humanistic strategies for combatting the pervasive influence of unfettered capital, or intimating the ways in which capital can profit from events which never had to take place.
At the same time, it's not that serious.
Didn't like the whole inevitability dimension, but still, there's enough diegetic material here to create/continue the development of its own subgenre and it reminded me of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel, Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, and Jeanette Winterson's Sexing the Cherry.
And Keith David's characters have great responses to the role he played in Crash(2004).
As history comes to life.
It's as if the process of taking forms with myriad malleable landscapes and inter'connected' representational layers and populating them with breathing socio-political contents is itself materially manifested, through a vivacious, ethical engagement.
It doesn't shy away from using science-fiction to situate the cannibalistic nature of shortsighted grossly counterproductive characterizations of workers as one-dimensional subservient automatons being sinisterly force fed their own collectively suicidal divisive tropes in the present, from suggesting that aesthetic realms beyond our current epistemological methods of comprehension can be artistically realized (through music), from attaching an everlasting quality to the bucolic/urban dialectic, from elevating humanistic strategies for combatting the pervasive influence of unfettered capital, or intimating the ways in which capital can profit from events which never had to take place.
At the same time, it's not that serious.
Didn't like the whole inevitability dimension, but still, there's enough diegetic material here to create/continue the development of its own subgenre and it reminded me of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel, Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, and Jeanette Winterson's Sexing the Cherry.
And Keith David's characters have great responses to the role he played in Crash(2004).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)