philippos42

Anti-Scottish prejudice in In the Loop? I'm not sure. Apparently the two Scottish characters are from the TV show The Thick of It. So maybe it's anti-
Scottish prejudice in that.

Seriously, I don't usually scream this much about evil Jock gits unless I'm reminded of the existence of Mark Millar. (So, yeah, that's pretty often actually.)

Anyway, the scenes of the junior violent Scotch bastard terrorizing the timid English staff made me want to paste him. This business of using physical violence to force the government to commit fraud so one can commit larger violence with the banner of UN approval merits violent response. I'd push the jerk through a window. But then, that's why I wouldn't have been hired in that office; they want someone who will respond with timid capitulation to over-the-top threats of physical violence.

The parallel asshole in the US government was of a kind more familiar to me, thus more "realistic" in my experience. Will have his way with utter calm propriety, but still a warmongering hateful ass.

I do recommend this movie if you like hearing colorful cussing & lots of it, & want to feel deeply angry about Anglo-American politics. I was at the time I began watching it under the misapprehension that it was based on true events leading up to the Iraq invasion, which makes it more powerful, I think. But it isn't really representing that specific bit of lies & self-delusion so much as the imagined process of lies, self-delusion, & inappropriate careerism in government. "Inspired by," let's say.

Paris, by Cédric Klapisch.

One of those movies that has a whole lot of characters, some of whom intersect in odd ways. I thought I identified one great loop of intersection & a cluster of other characters that don't intersect with the loop, but then I remembered that one of that cluster was neighbor to the main characters & does interact briefly with them.

Fabrice Luchini plays a very Fabrice Luchini character, who is significant in one cluster, & might have been central to another less expansive movie.

Juliette Binoche is perhaps most recognizable to English-speaking audiences, & has a lot of scenes, especially early.

But the real "central/p.o.v. character" seems to a man named Pierre (Romain Duris) who is dying of a heart condition at a rather young age, has quit work due to weakness (he was a dancer, apparently), & stands outside his apartment watching those around him. We then follow them around.

I found the treatment of sexual mores a bit surprising in one bit, but I'm a giant prude & not French.

Last night I finally saw In Her Shoes. I had a fair bit of affection for Toni Collette & Cameron Diaz already. I'm not really familiar with Shirley MacLaine, but she was good in this.

I really like this movie. I like the divergent lines plot structure, the focus on the internal development of the characters, & the ironic sense of protecting someone who's done you wrong from others' anger.

In one of the bonus features, the director (or one of the producers, I forget) was saying how this is the kind of movie that used to be common but now is rare, in how it's about modern realistic people, to whom the audience will react with a, "that's me!" I felt that way about both Rose (Toni Collette) & Maggie (Cameron Diaz) at different points in the course of the movie.

Rose is the "responsible" one, Maggie is the "irresponsible" one. And over the course of the movie, we see them each go through personal progress & reshape their relationship to each other (boy that's vague). It's quite a ride. Not one to watch with your very conservative parents, I would say, but a neat flick.

One strange thing: Why cast Toni Collette in a role that was written for a "fat" woman? I took it as "fatter than her sister"/"self-critical" but she's supposedly a woman with a noticeable weight problem (or former weight problem) in the script. She said she gained 25 pounds for the part, but she comes off as a svelte woman in baggy clothes.

I finally decided to give Jason Aaron & R. M. Guéra's Scalped a try. I'm two issues in, & thinking, wow, what shit.

I like reading works set in unfamiliar cultures; I like learning something about a different place & people. I don't think I've learned anything yet. Granted, that's because I already know more than the average ign'ant Anglo about the Oglala people. But the whole thing feels inauthentic to me; not because I have enough sense of what's authentic to compare it to reality, but because it's piling on the pulp tropes to a ridiculous degree.

We have the angry loner protagonist alienated from his idealistic mother, the corrupt tribal police boss putatively overseen by an effete council, & the boss's stoner daughter who was the sixth-grade girlfriend of the angry loner protagonist. Somehow, in this tiny reservation community, which is acknowledged in text as having a low population, we have massive amounts of violence, & even a "menacingly European" firebug gang of non-Indians. And the Indians never settle for calling each other "Injun" when they can call each other "prairie nigger" or "red nigger." Top this off with the corrupt boss actually literally scalping people.

Yeah, right.

The overall approach seems a bit like someone trying to do Sin City, "now with Injuns!" Or rather, racial consciousness poured into the bastard spawn (necessarily bastard because legitimacy is unknown to these people) of Frank Miller's oeuvre & whatever shit Garth Ennis just crapped out this month, with a dollop of ridiculous racial stereotypes that are really just tough-guy movie stereotypes.

There is a fair bit of globby shadow, but the inks are more like Klaus Janson than the blocky chiaroscuro of Sin City. I mean, really, it's very much like Janson inks over better anatomy.

The characters' dialogue drips with contempt for each other in every balloon. They're constantly insulting each other in language that makes me realize how unimaginative Chris Claremont's cussing was in text. There's no love or fellow feeling in evidence anywhere, only outrageous threats & fear.

I can imagine someone getting something out of it. If you're the sort of person who constantly calls & is called by your peers things like "shitstain," & you really see the world that way--I'm talking to you, white boy--then you might like this excrement; you might even learn something.

I guess I'll finish the trade. Can't say I'm sorry I put it off this long.

Yesterday I watched two movies with very different takes on politics:

The Yankee satire Swing Vote (2008) paints US politics as the domain of somewhat silly but well-meaning people. Sure, they're frauds & flip-floppers, creatures of desperation; but they bend over backwards to make sure the swing voter will like them.

The Mexican suspense film Conejo en la luna (2004) shows us a Mexico where one political party is dominant, totally mobbed up, & murderous. A British national flees to her nation's embassy for protection, & is snatched up just outside the gate & hauled off to confinement by mobsters. The embassy staff don't even notice. A Mexican observes that (I paraphrase) "politics is the same beneath the surface everywhere; in Britain the dirty deeds happen under a cover of gentlemanliness."

Both pretty good movies, if not perfect.

I was amused by the GOP President in Swing Vote quoting T. Roosevelt--in a deleted scene. As if any Bull Moose progressives were nominated by the GOP these days. I wonder if that kind of little scene has any positive influence, puts any chink in the hardline conservatism of the party. I doubt it; the most I expect is that some voters will do what I used to do & mistake the modern "Grand Old Party" for the party of TR & Lincoln. Anyway, I liked Kelsey Grammar as the Prez. Also, disappointingly little Nana Visitor.

The end of Conejo en la luna--well, it's suspense, so maybe I won't spoil it, but I was surprised by one line in the last scene that seemed at odds with everything we'd seen. Brave face?

The United States Constitution: a graphic adaptation
written by Jonathan Hennessey, illo'd by Aaron McConnnell
Hill and Wang, 2008.

Meh. As someone with little familiarity with the US Constitution (despite the fact that I got a copy years ago) I appreciate what I get from this volume, but I sort of feel like I wanted more context. But that's the thing. I never really have sat down & done this kind of study of the Constitution & its historical trappings, so I'm the sort of person to benefit from this kind of work. It's an overview, & a quick read. Well enough.

The conceit of representing states as birds is amusing & not immediately obvious.

One of the best things is the last bit, with the history of later amendments. In all the glorification of the Founding Fathers some us indulge in, it gets lost just how messed up the constitutional system was in this country for most of its history. For a long time the Constitution was about protecting the privileges of state institutions, and not the rights of persons; “Constitution-in-exile” types need to be reminded of that.

Something as simple as prohibiting Congress from voting compensation increases for themselves that benefit the present session, took 203 years. A work in progress, indeed.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

flip us for tea too

(no subject)

Also this week:

(no subject)

(no subject)

the state in film

A review

Profile

October 2023

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags