Saturday, January 16, 2010
Addendum V
Do you suppose the person who first came up with the idea of "reality television" had just seen "Highlander" one too many times?
Addendum III
Ha! Get this! WOS just said, ""You're going to start twittering."
Twittering?!?
Uh, it's called "tweeting," Sweetheart.
WOS says, "You're dead!"
Twittering?!?
Uh, it's called "tweeting," Sweetheart.
WOS says, "You're dead!"
Addendum I
Just got a new mini-laptop that allows us to sit on the couch while we blog. Now, whenever we have a random thought, we can just grab Aloysius (the laptop) and fire off said thoughts without having to shlep all the way to the desk!
This is going to do NOTHING for our weight loss regime.
This is going to do NOTHING for our weight loss regime.
It's a Lousy Hijab, But Somebody's Got to Wear It
Sorry.
We've gotten semi-embroiled in a debate of Facebook. A friend posted a link to a story on Yahoo! News about the French government's proposal to ban the burqa, the head-to-toe veil that some Muslim women choose to wear as an expression of their faith.
Essentially, we are opposed to such legislation, while our interlocutor feels that, if a person chooses to live in a Western society, one should adapt to that society's norms; if one wishes to live under the laws of sharia, she should, similarly, remain in a sharia-oriented society.
We agree with our interlocutor in certain respects: We, too, find the compulsory veiling of Muslim women--or of any women--distasteful and primitive. (Well, unless we're talking about really, really, really ugly women, in which case it's fine.) (Sorry.)
OK, seriously, though--we see the point: We oppose the policies of Islamic governments that force women to remain veiled, and that forbid them to drive or to vote or, essentially, to have anything near the same rights as men. But the point we would emphasize is that, in France, nobody--at least, nobody in the government--is forcing these women to don these robes. Thus, to some extent, it is a matter of personal choice--religious choice--and should be respected, as long as it poses no threat to civic order.
The French government claims that it DOES pose a threat to civic order. Indeed, they mask (pun intended) their objection to the veil with a "public-safety" argument, claiming that the covering of the face in a public setting poses a security risk. We might buy this argument if the French government had previously banned ski masks, but we know of no such legislation.
Indeed, we think that such a ban would create security problems, as it lends credence to the fanatical claims of Muslim militants who complain of a Western "war on Islam."
One of the most loathsome components of totalitarian Islamic societies are organizations like Saudi Arabia's Authority for Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice--the "religious police." These are the folks who run around making sure that women are properly veiled and that other affronts to Allah are quickly snuffed. Does France really want to turn its gendarmerie into a secular version of these bullies?
Remember, France, it was your great countryman Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it."
We've gotten semi-embroiled in a debate of Facebook. A friend posted a link to a story on Yahoo! News about the French government's proposal to ban the burqa, the head-to-toe veil that some Muslim women choose to wear as an expression of their faith.
Essentially, we are opposed to such legislation, while our interlocutor feels that, if a person chooses to live in a Western society, one should adapt to that society's norms; if one wishes to live under the laws of sharia, she should, similarly, remain in a sharia-oriented society.
We agree with our interlocutor in certain respects: We, too, find the compulsory veiling of Muslim women--or of any women--distasteful and primitive. (Well, unless we're talking about really, really, really ugly women, in which case it's fine.) (Sorry.)
OK, seriously, though--we see the point: We oppose the policies of Islamic governments that force women to remain veiled, and that forbid them to drive or to vote or, essentially, to have anything near the same rights as men. But the point we would emphasize is that, in France, nobody--at least, nobody in the government--is forcing these women to don these robes. Thus, to some extent, it is a matter of personal choice--religious choice--and should be respected, as long as it poses no threat to civic order.
The French government claims that it DOES pose a threat to civic order. Indeed, they mask (pun intended) their objection to the veil with a "public-safety" argument, claiming that the covering of the face in a public setting poses a security risk. We might buy this argument if the French government had previously banned ski masks, but we know of no such legislation.
Indeed, we think that such a ban would create security problems, as it lends credence to the fanatical claims of Muslim militants who complain of a Western "war on Islam."
One of the most loathsome components of totalitarian Islamic societies are organizations like Saudi Arabia's Authority for Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice--the "religious police." These are the folks who run around making sure that women are properly veiled and that other affronts to Allah are quickly snuffed. Does France really want to turn its gendarmerie into a secular version of these bullies?
Remember, France, it was your great countryman Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it."
Friday, January 15, 2010
Because No One Demanded It. . .
This morning, the local radio personalities were discussing "The Lovely Bones," Peter Jackson's adaptation of the novel by Alice Sebold. Despite Jackson's noteworthy track record, the folks at KFOG seemed underwhelmed by the film. They're not alone, judging from the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes ("It's stuffed full of Peter Jackson's typically dazzling imagery, but The Lovely Bones suffers from abrupt shifts between horrific violence and cloying sentimentality").
Too bad, really. We haven't read the book, but we've heard from enough people who have to know that many enthusiasts will be disappointed by cinematic shortcomings.
At any rate, this got the DJ's talking about movies adapted from books. What are the best film versions of books? Are movies ever superior to their literary forebears? They invited listeners to call in with their insights. A couple of people mentioned the book/movie pairing of "To Kill a Mockingbird" as the prime example of a great movie made from a great book. Some others mentioned "Gone with the Wind," although we've always been dubious about the literary merits of Margaret Mitchell's opus. Since we were unable to get through to share our own picks--the shortwave in the shed wasn't transmitting properly--we hereby provide our own partial, thoroughly subjective, and liable to change list of the best films made from books.
#1: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) adapted from Thomas Harris' 1988 novel. With all due respect to the societal significance of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and the epic grandeur of "Gone with the Wind," can anyone argue that either of those films was superior to "Silence"? The movie is a terrifyingly faithful adaptation of Harris' terrifying book. It swept the Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay, and it belongs on anyone's list of "movies you can watch over and over again and never really get tired of."
#2: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), based on "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" (1982) by Stephen King. Another extremely faithful adaptation: The director, Frank Darabont, benefited from the fact that the original was a novella, which meant he could basically include everything in the film. The film itself featured every prison-movie cliche in the book (sadistic prisoners, corrupt warden, kindly old coots), but all the actors committed fully to the cliches, and the result is unforgettable. The only major diversion from the novel was the casting of African-American Morgan Freeman in the role of "Red" (so called because he's Irish). But, y'know, MORGAN FREEMAN! 'Nuff said.
#3: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-3). Visually spectacular, this movie probably did more for New Zealand tourism than anything since. . . . well, since anything. Amidst all the current (generally deserved) hoopla over "Avatar," many seem to forget that it was "The Lord of the Rings," with the figure of Gollum, that first took motion-capture filmmaking to its highest level. The only major flaw in the adaptation was the politically-correct decision to introduce a strong, female warrior who had no place in the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien.
4. No Country for Old Men (2007) adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel (2005). The Coen Brothers had never done an adaptation before (we're not counting "O Brother, Where Art Thou," which was "based on" The Odyssey). But if ever a novel was meant to be turned into a Coen Brothers movie, this was it: Intricate plot, vivid characterizations, gothic violence. All this and the Coen's typically beautiful cinematography (courtesy of Roger Deakins) make this another superb adaptation.
We could go on: "The Princess Bride," "The Godfather," "A Clockwork Orange" (yes, we know Kubrick ended the movie too soon), etc., etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list. Happy viewing.
Too bad, really. We haven't read the book, but we've heard from enough people who have to know that many enthusiasts will be disappointed by cinematic shortcomings.
At any rate, this got the DJ's talking about movies adapted from books. What are the best film versions of books? Are movies ever superior to their literary forebears? They invited listeners to call in with their insights. A couple of people mentioned the book/movie pairing of "To Kill a Mockingbird" as the prime example of a great movie made from a great book. Some others mentioned "Gone with the Wind," although we've always been dubious about the literary merits of Margaret Mitchell's opus. Since we were unable to get through to share our own picks--the shortwave in the shed wasn't transmitting properly--we hereby provide our own partial, thoroughly subjective, and liable to change list of the best films made from books.
#1: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) adapted from Thomas Harris' 1988 novel. With all due respect to the societal significance of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and the epic grandeur of "Gone with the Wind," can anyone argue that either of those films was superior to "Silence"? The movie is a terrifyingly faithful adaptation of Harris' terrifying book. It swept the Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay, and it belongs on anyone's list of "movies you can watch over and over again and never really get tired of."
#2: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), based on "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" (1982) by Stephen King. Another extremely faithful adaptation: The director, Frank Darabont, benefited from the fact that the original was a novella, which meant he could basically include everything in the film. The film itself featured every prison-movie cliche in the book (sadistic prisoners, corrupt warden, kindly old coots), but all the actors committed fully to the cliches, and the result is unforgettable. The only major diversion from the novel was the casting of African-American Morgan Freeman in the role of "Red" (so called because he's Irish). But, y'know, MORGAN FREEMAN! 'Nuff said.
#3: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-3). Visually spectacular, this movie probably did more for New Zealand tourism than anything since. . . . well, since anything. Amidst all the current (generally deserved) hoopla over "Avatar," many seem to forget that it was "The Lord of the Rings," with the figure of Gollum, that first took motion-capture filmmaking to its highest level. The only major flaw in the adaptation was the politically-correct decision to introduce a strong, female warrior who had no place in the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien.
4. No Country for Old Men (2007) adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel (2005). The Coen Brothers had never done an adaptation before (we're not counting "O Brother, Where Art Thou," which was "based on" The Odyssey). But if ever a novel was meant to be turned into a Coen Brothers movie, this was it: Intricate plot, vivid characterizations, gothic violence. All this and the Coen's typically beautiful cinematography (courtesy of Roger Deakins) make this another superb adaptation.
We could go on: "The Princess Bride," "The Godfather," "A Clockwork Orange" (yes, we know Kubrick ended the movie too soon), etc., etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list. Happy viewing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)