[nuts and bolts of films] best, worst

The bad

When you see: 'Produced by Philip J. Roth, Directed by Philip J. Roth, Written by Philip J. Roth, you know you're in for trouble.

So it is with Total Reality and The Last Line of Defence. Rather than trash these movies with a thousand adjectives, better to mention a few of his other great works: Boa vs. Python, Locusts: The 8th Plague, Dragon Dynasty, Dragon Storm, Dragon Fighter, Phantom Force, Interceptor Force 2, Interceptors and so on.

The best way to describe these movies is with an analogy. Imagine you were shooting a film about basketball. Now, as every adolescent knows, you're only interested in the slam dunk [the finer details of how the ball made it to the net in the first place inconsequential] but even Philip J Roth knows he can't fill a movie with only that, so he inserts scintillating, connected dialogue like: "Pass me that ball." "Oh yeah, come and get it!" "Listen buddy, do you know who yer talking to?"

The woodenness of the cast in each of these films is a Roth trademark and makes Steven Segal look positively animated. The scenes seem to be ... well, they're difficult to describe. Imagine a clearly minor character who is never going to win the girl [Roth is nothing if not melodramatic]. This character puts his hand inside an erotic bomb which will destroy the universe, becomes all powerful, suddenly obeys stage directions to get angry and does so until told to switch it off and that's how it continues.

Now, some of you will see this as being in the genre of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, in other words, quite watchable in a macabre way and with a modicum of humour.

No, sorry, the Roth films are just plain bad, failing to engage the viewer in any significant way.

Not as bad though as my candidate for Worst Film of All Time: The Hottie and the Nottie, Executive Producer Paris Hilton, starring Paris Hilton. The tagline is "That's hot. That's not."

The plot is that there is a Hottie, Paris Hilton, who gets all the boys. Out of a sense of altruism, she refuses to go out and party unless her ugly ex-school chum, the Nottie, also gets a date but ... surprisingly, all the boys recoil from her.

Slant wrote:

[T]he film's disingenuousness is as transparent as executive producer Hilton's nightie, which she wears with more conviction than dialogue like, "A life without orgasms is like a world without flowers."

That's it.

With it's opening weekend smash takings of $27,696, for an overall outlay of $8 million, one can only surmise that Hilton was trying to undershadow Gigli, which set a record for the biggest second-weekend drop in box office gross of any film in wide release since that statistic was kept.

The good

Maybe we can agree, to an extent, on the most horrendous films but it's probably going to be tough to call the best movies ever. It completely depends, does it not, on what you see as a great movie.

For me it needs a blend of elements, no one element dominating - a bit of action [well, a lot really], believable and intelligent dialogue, wrily humorous moments, a romantic sub-plot which affects the main plot direction, actors who can act and who believe in what they're doing, great production values and with lines and scenes which remain with you ever afterwards, e.g. play it again, Sam.

Of the modern crop, I'd put Casino Royale right up there and from the olden day crop, perhaps The Third Man.

[canada] the governor general is now called in

Very interesting situation shaping up in Canada.

UPDATE: 19:05 - Steven Harper got his 7 weeks prorogue.

Steven Harper, on the back foot because of the alliance between all opposition parties, including the separatists, is tomorrow intending to put to the Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean, a proposal to prorogue parliament.

This sort of thing goes on in banana republics all the time but in one of the major western economies, it attracts more worldwide interest than would otherwise be so.

Michaëlle Jean has three real choices. To:

1. prorogue parliament;
2. let the alliance try to form a government;
3. call for another election.

N2 is quite a possibility, in order to avoid another election so close to the last one.

Against this is the GG's own feeling of what is best for Canada - allowing Quebec separatists into government, a move which would provoke a backlash across the nation, despite grumblings about Harper, may not be wise.

N3 would be deeply unpopular, so soon after Harper was elected. So it comes down to N1, a request from the PM himself and one which would defer the situation so that counsel could be taken, as well as maintaining some semblance of stability.

It is worth looking at Michaelle Jean herself for a clue as to where she comes from. She appears, if not to be particularly socialist, to at least support left liberal causes and at the same time, seems to wish to intervene if it's a social justice cause:

This notion of Jean overstepping conventional boundaries continued into 2007 when contents of her speech given at a ceremony marking the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were seen by some as a thinly veiled criticism of her Cabinet's decision to end the Courts Challenges Program.

She has, in particular, tried to lay the separatist ghost:

Jean's father, Roger Anthony Jean, who moved his family from Haiti to Quebec four decades ago, clearly was offended by earlier suggestions that his daughter had sympathized with Quebec separatists. "That's a lie," he declared. She has never been a separatist. Never. Never. Never."

One comment:

I think Michaëlle Jean is part of that group of the majority of Québeckers who haven’t taken (and don’t want to take) an absolute position on the question. I think that for this reason, and also because she is a pretty well known journalist here, many people in Québec identify themselves with her. To find here at an important federal position, even if it is only honorific, can only help Canada’s cause in Québec.

She connects with the young very well - here is her personal website, Citizen Voices, where you can contact her. Moving on, there's apparently something called the Travers column in Canada which said this:

"Michaëlle Jean once joked that Paul Martin chose her as governor general because she's "hot". It's not so funny now that Stephen Harper has her on ice."

That seems as pratty as John Lennon's quip about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus Christ. The Travers column further debated PM Harper's less than warm relations with the GG:

At most, it suggests that the Conservatives do not respect the GG because she lacks qualifications other than being a good looking woman and an immigrant. The article does emphasize that the GG is treading on thin constitutional ice with her meddling in political affairs.

So, not everyone appears to love her. The Globe & Mail invited reader comments and here is one by Thomas Baxter:

First and foremost, the Governor-General is not the head-of-state of Canada, nor the "queen" of Canada, but only the representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The out-going Governor-General often usurped her role, and also the one she was supposed to represent.

Adrienne Clarkson went on tours masquerading as the head-of-state. She was seen in public, captured on camera, upstaging the Queen, and failing to meet protocol.

When the official papers were prepared for former N.B. premier, Frank McKenna, to report as Canada's Ambassador to the United States, the Queen's name was removed and the papers were sent on behalf of the Governor-General. The government has no such power. The Opposition parties should have screamed loudly. The Governor-General should have sent these papers back to be re-written before she signed them.

I checked out Adrienne Clarkson and she does seem to have been pretty appalling, apart from being a "devout Anglican". She seems to have been a spendthrift to boot.

Here is another comment about Michaëlle Jean:

Another woman, another media person, and another who was not born in Canada. Surely, there must be some Canadian born person that could represent the Queen? [Susan Marsh]

Rideau Hall has today therefore assumed an importance not intended for it and not unlike the exercising of his GG powers by Sir John Kerr in the Australian coup 'etat of 1975:


Kerr had made a study of the reserve powers through his earlier professional relationship with Evatt, the author of the standard work on the reserve powers as they applied to the British Dominions, The King and His Dominion Governors (1936).

Kerr was familiar with this book, and re-read it before accepting Whitlam's offer of the Governor-Generalship. Kerr took an activist and highly unusual view of the role of Governor-General. Neither temperamentally nor politically was he inclined to accept that the Governor-General was a mere cypher, bound always to act on the Prime Minister's advice.

He unwisely saw the office of Governor-General as a central player in Australian political life, and so it proved to be.

Will Michaelle Jean, now someway into her GGship, feel she has the requisite experience to go her own way on this issue; will she go with her left-liberal leanings and her dislike for Harper or will she try to gauge the mood of the average Canadian?

Let's wait till tomorrow to see.

[Here is how the issue arose last year.]

[new sovereignty] obama and the nau

Matt writes:

Unless USSC takes this up in five days time, says yes to hearing oral arguments, and rules favorably setting a precedent that will make Obama ineligible on all the Electoral College's ballots nationwide, we'll have a non-citizen as president.

This is of concern too:

I originally found this via VA again. Now, I don't agree much with what this Russian says but he did mention the amero ... My truthful opinion is most Americans would accept the NAU if it meant they could keep their money (despite the fact it would be in ameros, not dollars).

I commented:

That's most certainly how it will be sold to the public. I'm not convinced they'll "declare" anything beyond what is absolutely necessary and what has to be declared will be sugar coated for the hip pocket.

Ian Parker Joseph states:

The question is: how will the elite, the corporate rulers and the government leaders ‘sell’ this bill of goods to the electorate? Traditionally, instilling a climate of fear and using the tried and true, ‘problem-reaction solution’ method achieves this.

Whether it be a thoughtful, well planned and executed economic crash, or whether some tragic and unforeseen ‘event’ happens, a frightened population will always react to the problem and demand a solution from its government.

A CFR taskforce recommended that by 2010, a North American Union be created, not as a sovereign state but in charge of:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system,

... within the three countries. The NA Advisory Council would oversee this.You'll note that taxation is not mentioned in that and I don't know the current proposals, having not looked at this for some time. It might be good to read the document itself [pdf], plus this one on the genesis of the organization, to get the "feel" of it.

Obama's take on it all?

Under George W. Bush, the United States has not lived up to its historic role as a leader in the Western Hemisphere. As president, I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico.

Our relationship with Mexico should serve as a bridge to greater security and prosperity in North America and to better relations with Latin America.

I don't feel that his remarks, in total, amount to the NAU as such but if it were the plan, it would hardly be conceded in an up front speech like that. Actually, he did say, in answer to a gimme question:

"I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell that's just not something that's happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?"

Not in what way? To concede sovereignty openly? As mentioned above, that has never been the tactic. So all that Americans can do, for now, is watch vigilantly and wait. Obama is obviously au fait with the naughty words he must never say - Amero, SPPNA, NAU, CFR - and he is treading carefully.

[housekeeping] communication channels

There are a few communication problems just now.

Both emails are down or erratic so for my Russian and Australian friends whom I know check this blog – I’ve set up a new email account [not web-based] on another computer and will send a letter to each of you. Expect it from that new address.

For blogfriends, I’m setting up a second email account and will send a message to you. Please don’t provide that address to anyone, as it won’t be listed.

For the blogosphere in general, I’ll need to set up a default email, a third and that will happen some time soon but I need to think that one through and set up security devices which will shut out the unwanted. Much real life action just now is soaking up the time, such as shifting house.

Bloghounds can communicate via regular channels as their business is not affected by all this.

I’m running comment moderation at the moment for posts older than 14 days but as it doesn’t connect with an email any more, I’m having to view Blogger’s dashboard near the blog name, which lists each comment as one line which I can’t get to expand. Sorry but I’m not prepared to approve publication of a comment on that basis, given the spam of late.

So the bottom line is – it will all get sorted soon and sorry for the inconvenience. I’ll post this below my main morning post of the day.

[classic language quiz] five simple questions

1. Hoi polloi means what in Greek?

2. The expression vox populi, the voice of the people, is often followed by which other vox?

3. Paparazzo (played by Walter Santesso) was a character in a film by Federico Fellini. Which film? This is the origin of the term paparazzi.

4. Which Latin adjective is sometimes inserted in mea culpa to emphasize the point, so that it reads, roughly, as "my most grievous fault"?

5. Procrustean means an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced. The name, referring to a character from Greek mythology, means the ________ .


Answers are here.

[canadian roulette] whither integrity

The Canadian situation illustrates that in politics, no blow is too low:

In the Commons, Mr. Dion attacked Mr. Harper for considering a move to prorogue Parliament – ending the session and starting another one in the New Year – portraying him as taking illegitimate steps to dodge defeat in a confidence vote on the economic update the Tories introduced last week.

So, rather than work in with Harper to get over this economic crisis and thrash out some sort of joint policy, Dion resorts to separatists to overthrow a recently elected government which requires stability to achieve anything at all. Is Dion providing Canada with that stability? Can he be trusted? Then again, Harper himself resorting to a tactic he did, say, in 2005, was outrageous.

What it all says to me is that party politics is the worst way to run a country when the chips are down.

[brit girls] are easy

There's been another one of those interminable studies. An Australian travel blog mentions a study saying that British girls are the most promiscuous in the world:

Basically, the Poms are up for one-night stands and casual sex. Far more so than Australians, if the study is to be believed.

Now, this might have come as a surprise to the older set, still pushing the "no sex please, we're British" stereotype. However, as any once-lonely Aussie backpacker will be able to tell you, it's pretty much the opposite that's true. Which is probably why we get on so well.

One commenter agreed with the study's findings:

Yep, found that English (and Irish) girls (outside of their own country) are always fun to meet. When they're back home I've found they can be a bit more conservative, but that's probably the same anywhere right?

I've always observed [in celibate and saintly manner, from a distance, of course] that most nations' ladies are not above a little international cooperation.

[libraries] always a place for the dead tree media

Blogger Xensen has almost finished rebuilding his library and that raises the question, in my mind, of whether we need physical libraries any more. Let me say up front that I feel we do.

Bryan Appleyard took on the might of the digitisphere in early 2007 with his article on the death of the book and replied to the flak thus:

I wrote an article in The Sunday Times about Google's digitisation of the world's libraries. Some - Google included - seemed to think I said this was about to destroy civilisation. This does not fill me with hope about the ability of these people - Google included - to read.

Commenter Mitar is an apostle of the new reading:

I just hope that there will be the day when information will be freely accessible and not limited only to the people who can afford it, which, I believe, will help more developing nations than care for their cultural well-being.

Overall it seems to me that very similar ideas were around when Gutenberg invented movable type. 500 years ago we got books which enabled us to share information and knowledge easier, more rapidly and to regions where this was not possible before.

Now we are at the similar point in our history, we are getting rid of the limits the material nature of the books have and we are going forward. This are steps forward. I think you should enjoy the ride.

I was interested in Mitar's "this are steps forward". Bit more than a typo, methinks. Commenter Jack covered my thoughts about literacy and reading here:

I can say, from the point of view of this librarian at a baccalaureate institution, that it's not the death of the book we should be worried about, it's the death of reading. Like the USA Today newspaper in America that shortened all journalism into two paragraphs, digitising a book gives it to a medium that does not encourage reading, is not designed for reading, and considers reading to be tedious.

It used to be called "sustained reading," a concept teachers promoted to encourage a lifelong appreciation for the written word, and the book was the ultimate device for delving into the understanding of the world. But now Google's push for digital copy will accelerate that death, by moving it to a medium that looks remarkably like a television, and by all accounts acts like one too. Is it any wonder we know so little about our world?

It seems to me that both have a point - the net has certainly freed up information but there are two points which need addressing straight away.

Firstly, commenter Devon said:

You seem to have an overarching assumption that when data is held digitally, it is of a lower form called information. Conversely, when touched by a human mind, this data is risen to a higher form called knowledge. Now, I am likely oversimplifying your views, and I don't wish to be condescending.

Even if we are to simply regard knowledge as either true or useful information, there is absolutely no reason to assume that a human is more likely than an algorithm to reference it until we know more about both the human and the algorithm.

Data held digitally is of no less quality than information on the dead-tree page but there is now a second issue - that the whole aim of the Google digitization, being to make information freely available across the globe, is undercut by the development of the ebook, DRM, the two-tier net and semi-governmental regulatory practices.

About ebooks, L'Ombre says:

Well mostly what we seem to have learned is that there is a demand for ebooks and that if the publisher doesn't meet that demand then others will do so. Furthermore there is probably a continuum. If no ebooks exist then many high quality free versions of popular books will show up, if the publisher sells the ebooks with DRM at high prices then some bootleg copies will occur and if the publisher makes the books available for low cost (and without DRM though it is hard to control for that) then very few if any bootleg copies will be made available.

So we are back to the same old story - that information will again be available for those willing to subscribe to it, i.e. those with the money. The only hope for the less affluent is the public library and for the slightly better off, the slow building of a real library in real space in a real room.

The danger in that, of course, was illustrated in Fahrenheit 451.

In the end, to Mitar's distinction between information and knowledge, can be added a third issue - simple literacy. I hate to say it but the syntactical, grammatical and spelling errors which abound today, even in publications intended for foreign learners of English [and that is mortifying] show how far literacy has slipped in two generations.

UPDATE: You might like to look at Angus Dei's take on the matter.

[macintoshes] why so gleefully attacked by pc users

It doesn't seem too far fetched to compare Macintosh users to the subject two posts ago - the Jews - in some respects. Constituting a minority in the computer community, Mac users have been seen by many as arrogant, feeling they are immune from the vicissitudes of PC users and that their way is superior.

Firstly, there is a distinct difference between Apple Corp itself and Mac users. Having used both systems, I can say that the Mac is more limited in scope, with less add-ons and more prescriptive but you have to look at its target user.

These are reasonably tech savvy people who want a smooth and reliable operating system which makes day to day computing effortless and enjoyable. Mac delivers on that big time - the computer is a delight to operate. I don't need a programming device or a high tech interface - I want to have everything at hand to blog with and to deal with my correspondence whilst enjoying the multi-media.

The way PC users come down on this small minority is surprising in my eyes - it's a large field and we're not threatening anyone. It's just another computer, after all. Do people come down on the Linux Ubuntu way, for example? And as for its supposed invulnerability, it seems to be with glee that the PC world has pounced on Apple's recommendation to install anti-virus software:

Until now, Apple has been telling customers they did not need to have antivirus software installed on their Mac laptops and desktop computers, since it was deemed by the company as an unnecessary measure. Now, it seems that the tide has turned and Apple has even recommended some antivirus options to its users, such as Intego VirusBarrier X5, Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 11, which are both available on Apple Online Store with a commercial license and McAfee VirusScan for Mac.

Well no, actually. For a start, Apple is continually sending upgrades and yes, they want to defend their impregnable reputation and yes, they do think that mulit-antivirus systems can help that, as they stated:

"The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide protection against malicious software and security threats right out of the box," he said. "However, since no system can be 100 percent immune from every threat, running antivirus software may offer additional protection."

For a long time, it was the PCs which were hacked and Macs, being a fairly insignificant portion of the market, were relatively untargetted. Now they are being targetted and Apple is having to pull out all stops.

We live in a world where faith is being increasingly questioned and consumer demands more and more unrealistic. For crying out loud - we're not using some NASA trillion dollar moon-landing technology here. We're using a PC with multi-media on it and the ability to use say, the Microsoft suite.

All computers can be hacked and harbour trojans. Mac is better than many in making life relatively trouble free but it is not G-d. It does what it does, does it reliably and elegantly and it works for a long time. That is all.

[advent] a calendar of sorts

You might like to click, each day up till Christmas, on the day's badge in the sidebar. Hope you enjoy.