Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Monday, October 21, 2019

Good Vs. Evil


Call Me Jen

Reclaiming Beauty has always been about popular culture, as a non-elitist stand which pulls ordinary people, and others, into a world of beauty, culture, and society, that aims to prevail over the nihilism that is (I believe deliberately set-up) part of our contemporary world.

So, let's go into the real pop culture, a world which the Walmart checkout lines display in full view. Where young women scan assiduously as they get ready to buy the next edition of InStyle for the exorbitant price of a book - that's $9 Canadian for me.

One of my favorite actresses, Jennifer Aniston, is back into the real world.

She suffered a lot. Her husband, the handsome Brad Pitt, and by all accounts the love of her life, abandoned her for that evil woman, Angelina Jolie. You don't believe me? Then look at what Jolie is up to these days (image courtesy of the movies), in her new movie Malfecent: Mistress of Evil.


Angelina Jolie in the second edition of the movie Maleficent, with her Devil's horns

Jennifer was engaged to someone else - a second-rate actor, nowhere near the talent of Pitt (at least in his pre-Jolie, pre-global adoption years) - but apparently broke it off.

She is now back on track, looking as young and fresh as Rachel Green, in her Friends days, a show of which I was a great fan, only to see what was the latest outfit that the photogenic and charismatic Rachel (aka Jennifer) wore.



Poor Rachel. She was cast with these wimpy, erratic men, more "female" than her. But she, in her wisdom, never outshone them unless it was in dress or in her ability to get out of their pathetically induced difficult situations. Jennifer ALWAYS came out on top.

Now, Brad Pitt is back in the market. I think he's super handsome, which may have been his Achilles heel. He was in some late night talk show recently, and he did pretty well.



Jennifer can win him back. Cleverly, and with femininity.

She is, after all a Single Woman, and he an eligible (divorced/separated) bachelor.

And Jolie, against whom Aniston never uttered a SINGLE malevolent word, is out making her witching tale, conniving with the Devil and his horns, and a new edition of her film franchise Malefecent.

I hope her Ethiopian adopted daughter turns to Pitt (her adopted father), and to Jennifer, for her salvation.





Friday, May 26, 2017

How to Acquire Style and Substance


Cary Grant, 1957

Below is a correspondence I posted on my style blog in 2013.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A young man recently wrote to me and asked:

Your posts are great and so pertinent to the madhouse we currently live in. I was wondering if you think the slovenly dress habits will be discarded within the next 10 years or so as people get fed up with the general ugliness. Or are they too far gone?

I generally gird myself mentally before I enter the public square these days. I expect to see slobs, hear rude language, be tailgated, walk away from cell phone conversations etc. I'm praying that network news goes the way of dvds.

And the way people let their kids scream and screech!

I think Lawrence Auster called it the age of the "totally liberated self".

Is this anti-culture too far gone? Should we traditionalists run for the hills and try to carve out a little patch of sanity?

George Orwell (a weird kind of socialist) wrote an essay called "Some thoughts on the common toad" and concluded it saying that in spite of the lies spewing out into the world Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it. A little comfort I guess.
I answered him with what I thought would be a practical guideline on how to maneuver the non-aesthetic mentality of our age:
I don’t know. Beauty, beautiful things, like a culture and a country, take years, centuries, generations to build and solidify. Ugliness and destruction occur in very little time. Even consider dressing: It is easier to slap on anything as opposed to wearing clothes that have an aesthetic sense.

I think our era hasn’t constructed, or built, its aesthetic sense. Other eras built theirs, out of what came from their past. Ours hasn’t bothered with that. I think it stopped soon after the late sixties and early seventies. I cannot think of a definitive eighties, nineties or “new millennium” style, but I can immediately recognize sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties, styles, and further into the past.

I’m still trying to figure out why that is, but I think it happened when beauty was “downsized” as I call it, and when people thought it was too elitist. It probably has to do with equality, as I write here. But the problem with “equality” is that it courts the lowest denominator, so everyone becomes equally ugly.

But, the interesting thing about aesthetics is that it doesn’t require “equality” to function in any and all levels of life. The young shop girl can look beautiful (or at least aesthetically pleasing) and can borrow her ideas form the wealthy socialite to form her own pleasant look. Also, when beauty is around, even in limited quantities, everyone benefits. A beautiful statue in park is for everyone to appreciate. A beautiful lady glimpsed at in her car (in a store, a restaurant, etc.) makes people happy, including the lowly shop girl. Beauty does make the world a better place, I’m convinced.

Anyway, back to your question:

I think it is possible to discard slovenly dress habits, and even sooner than within the next 10 years.

1. You can start right away. For example:

A. Rather than wearing sneakers, always wear good shoes.

B. Dress well when going out, even to the corner store.

C. Of course, over-dressing to the corner store can look odd, so try to fit your dress to the occasion. There are great casual clothes around, and you don’t have to slip on a silly t-shirt or a worn out sweat shirt to go out and buy your milk.

D. Have a good hair cut, perhaps copying a style from another period, or using a men’s magazine for ideas (some have surprisingly well-groomed men models).

E. Try to get things to match, in style, color, design etc.

F. Find good accessories like ties, hats, belts, handkerchiefs, jackets. The whole look matters.

G. Avoid jeans at all costs. They look sloppy, and they are boring and unattractive.

H. And behave well, gentlemanly and chivalrously.

2. Avoid these items:

- Sweat shirts or t-shirts
- Sneakers
- Jeans
- Shorts
- Thematic prints like a shirt you bought at your last rock concert, or the tie with Disney motifs.
- Dramatic prints. Stripes and small circles or diamonds on shirts is as far as you should go.
- Baseball hats
- Odd jewelry, or pierced ear/nose
- Tattoos
- Hoodies

3. Try to find different styles for different occasion

A. Office wear

This is still generally more formal. Even if you work in a casual office environment, dress as if you might meet your next new boss, or your big client.

B. “Street” wear

Street wear is less formal. But you are out showing yourself to the whole world. Do you want to be seen in sloppy t-shirt and jeans, or look nice, presentable and attractive? You can add the thematic printed shirt here, perhaps a Hawaiian shirt for summer, and penny loafers are a good substitute for sneakers. As a hat, a panama hat might be a nice touch rather than that ubiquitous, ugly baseball cap.

C. Week-end and home wear

You’d be surprised at how people dress at home, when they think that “no one” is looking. Of course, their own families are looking, observing and often mimicking. If you have young children, they will be influenced at how you present yourself even at home. Get out of the pajamas and dressing gown mode, and actually wear some real clothes that are not for sleeping in. “Pajama mode” dressing includes baggy sweat shirts and sweat pants, and t-shirts, sloppy slippers/flip flops, etc. Leave the t-shirts and sweat shirts for the garden or yard work. You can be comfortable in a loose shirt and pants. Try a Hawaiian shirt, a short-sleeved golf shirt, sweaters, penny loafers, Dockers once in a while.

D. Visitors/Visiting wear

Dress up when visiting friends, and when friends come to visit. Don’t overdue it, of course, if the event is casual, but look good. Rather than a sweat shirt, put on a dress shirt, or a short-sleeved golf shirt. Try different, subdued colors for a change, like pastel lilac or light blue. Don’t pull out the Hawaii shirt for this one. No jeans, of course, and no sweat pants. But tan Dockers are a good, neutral choice. Penny loafers, and more formal shoes like Oxfords, can substitute for sneakers.

E. Visitors and week-end and home wear are somewhat similar

In a way, you should be ready for some event, even if at home. Some-one may decide to pop in for a visit. Mix your “visitors wear” with your casual home wear when you’re at home.

4. Look for good examples and guides

A. Magazines

Look up GQ magazine and other men’s magazines. Many have surprisingly good selections of men’s clothes. But pay more attention to the ads. The articles are often featuring the next “avant-gard” designer, whereas the ads are more conservative.

B. Tailors

Go to a tailor. Try to find a small, modest, old-fashioned one, who has had some formal or “old world” training. Such tailors are often a wealth of information. Ask for their advice. Have a suit custom made.

C. Formal Occasions

Look around during formal occasions. See what people are wearing for weddings, engagement parties, christenings, office formal parties, etc. Formal wear has been downgraded so much that wedding suits might actually fit your every-day life style.

D. Public Figures

Watch what public figures – news anchors, presidential candidates, Donald Trump, etc. - are wearing. Study how they accessorize with their ties, handkerchiefs, shoes, hats, and even their hair styles. We are still a some-what conservative culture when it comes to how our leaders are dressed.

E. Fashion History

Look up the history of fashion. How did people dress ten years ago, fifteen years ago? In the fifties, or forties? In the 19th century? During Medieval times? You’d be surprised to find that men took what they wore very seriously. A knight is identified partly by what he wears. So is a king. As is an early twentieth century gentleman.

F. Fashion Statements and Items

Find distinguishing items of different eras, periods and styles. It could be the walking stick/umbrella of the English Gentleman. Or the colors of a sixteenth century costume which you can incorporate into the colors of your tie and lapel handkerchief. Or the hats worn in the 1950s.

G. Different Cultures

Look at different cultures around the world and study how they differentiate between formal wear and casual wear (e.g is “casual wear” universal?). Did they have specific, attractive wear for men? Were men and women equally well-dressed?

H. Different Classes

How do the rich and the poor dress? You might think that only the wealthy are concerned with looking good. But, all walks of people dress cleanly, respectably, and with some flair. Poor people in Africa, for example, the poorest of the poor in the world, managed to develop a bright and cheerful style, with imaginative tie-dye, block print and batik fabrics, which million-dollar designers copy as their latest runway creations. Even cheap Walmart clothes are often colorful and attractive.

I. T.V. Shows and Movies

If you watch T.V., try to find shows that can give you good style examples. Subscribe to a “Hollywood movies” channel and watch shows and movies from the forties and fifties. We can still relate to those styles, and in fact they’re making a come-back. Study the suit cuts, the colors men wore, the shoes and ties, the hair cuts. Find what you like, and what can fit into your lifestyle, and just copy it!

Cary Grant shows true style and substance with a simple, relaxed pose (see above image). No aggressive expression, no slovenly style. Here is male aesthetics at its best.

J. Vintage Styles

Look for vintage style magazines (including women’s magazines), style history books, etc., and read about the dress and style expectations of those eras. Go to antique and vintage clothing stores and search their racks. As the shop owners for information. Many of them have a fountain of knowledge about style and design.

5. Ignore those who call you "old fashioned"

The MTV DJs or the slovenly week-end sweat shirt wearers have become standard bearers of our contemporary style. They are NOT experts. If your children or younger acquaintances tease you about your style, ignore them, and continue with what you’re doing. They will come around if they see you’re serious. Young people are susceptible to beauty, both boys and girls. We just need to show and teach them. Adults who tease you with subtle jibes are not worth paying attention to, especially if they are the types that wear the droopy sweat shirts and old t-shirts. They might come around, but don’t be too concerned about that.

6. How to approach those annoying loud cell-phone monologues, and jeans hanging down to the knees

Find it in yourself to “confront” slobs, bad language, loud cell phone conversations disclosing intimate details, etc. Don't do this every day, though, and don't stress yourself out. But, try it once in a while to show such people that they’ve passed beyond norms of decorum. This might get risky since people can get really angry, but assess who you can do it to. People need to know that such behavior is unacceptable.

7. How to personally make a difference

I think revolutionary things start with leaders, or those who take a bold step ahead of others, and who are not afraid of confrontations and negativity. But, prepare yourself mentally, intellectually and personally before you embark on your “making a difference” mission. Here are some things you can start with:

A. Start a blog.

B. Write letters to the editor.

C. Find a magazine, a newsletter, a community paper etc. which will accept your articles.

D. Talk to family and friends about your observations, especially if it concerns them.

E. Make suggestions to your retail stores about clothing items to bring into the store.

F. Form a society like "The Society of Sartorially Conscious People," or "The Well Dressed Group" as you develop ideas and plans on how to make the differences you wish to see around you. Many changes in the past occurred because people formed groups of some kind for support and for strength. Fashion is no less serious, and requires as much energy as any other movement.

8. Change your manners and style to fit your message

A. Please, thank you and excuse me go a long way.

B. Decent and polite behavior attracts people to you and your style.

C. Don’t shirk from full-on arguments, and don’t get bullied by bullies. But choose your place and your manner carefully when interacting with such people. Often, abrasive behavior will only alienate you from others, and prevent you from making your influence. Everyone can a potentially be on your boat, but some more than others.

9. Running to the Hills

I haven’t thought about this. I think it is an option, or could be an option. But this place, this whole place and not some cave in the hills, is our world. I think we need to defend it where we are. We can metaphorically run to the hills by building our own community as I have described above. But that should (could?) be the start of us building our defensive/offensive strategies, when we can begin more concrete changes. I think some inevitable confrontation is looming in the future, so we better get ready now.

10. "Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it."

And yes, you are right (or George Orwell is right). There are still many beautiful things around us, natural, cultural, familial, and so on. Enjoy the lovely spring that is already here, and the warm summer months just ahead of us. Read good books, look at good art, take care of yourself physically and spiritually. Start a hobby such as photography, woodwork, marathon running, etc., to enjoy life and to keep you in good spirits. We are not here to destroy, but to create.
And be good to people, even the slothful ones.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

The Grinches Who Stole Christmas


A Photo-op with Jolly Old Santa, Square One Mall, Mississauga

I'm trying to imagine what Larry Auster would have said, this Christmas. Everywhere people are talking about "goodwill" and "peace" and being "merry," but the world is showing very little of that.

I wrote on Christmas Eve about the lecture I attended where Michael Coren presented his book on the massacres of Egyptian, and other Middle Eastern, Christians by Muslims.

Right here in Mississauga, we may have all Christmas decorations up, but the malls are not playing carols much (in fact, in the main areas, where there is no music at all, the silence is palpable), and the stores are all half-hearted about their decorations. I would have thought that malls would go all out, but the effort here is restrained.

Celebration Square, right outside the mall, though, is fully decked with Christmas trees and lights. The prevailing (for now) Christian tradition was behind these Christmas designs. It is pleasant to be around such pretty, twinkling lights and colorful decorations. But it is all generic, with no mention about the real reason for Christmas. There is no nativity, and no mention of, or reference to, the baby Jesus, whose birth is what this whole thing is about after all.

Everyone can participate in this generic Christmas. Everyone can have "goodwill toward men" when their specific ways of life and beliefs are not threatened. And we can all sing "Silent Night" as long as we also have the jingle bells song, and that one about the frosty snowman, which tell us how wonderful the wintery weather is, but say nothing about Mary or Jesus. And that is how we have now structured Christmas, an amalgam of events that are mostly fun, and with a small multicultural nod to the religious aspect. But always full of cheer and goodwill. Then everyone can join in!

Michael Coren, during his lecture when he presented his new book Hatred: Islam's War against Christianity, talked about Middle Eastern Christians, and specifically in the Egyptian Christians.

But he could have talked about the war against Christianity here. So far, it is still somewhat cautious, although there are occasions when it is directly attacked, but when the holy message is continuously, and repeatedly omitted, that is a war that is being waged.

A couple of days ago when I was at the mall, there was a large line-up for Santa. It was an interesting mesh of multicultural kids, and I wondered how many of their families really do believe in the message of Christmas.

Christmas has been translated into a generic, happy period, where people give each other gifts and have a day off to have a nice meal with their families.

This diluted, non-religious Christianity is what will eventually evolve into the lethal, anti-Christ Christianity that is making its way around the world.

As I wrote yesterday, about Coren's presentation:
I think the situation [in Egypt] is as bad as Coren told us last night at his presentation...where Coren said that this is worse than anything he has ever seen, and it has been kept hidden for so long that these people have been indeed forgotten.

It is time now not to betray them. But, not simply for them. We all stand to be in their shoes.

Skating around the bright Christmas lights at Celebration Square, in Mississauga

Here is what Larry wrote, in 2008, about Christmas. I read this after I wrote the above post.
As I type, I’m glancing at some grotesque thing on ABC, about the Grinch and Christmas, in which humans interact in brotherhood with a variety of monstrous looking other species, and a little girl has a tender relationship with an unsettlingly hideous but sensitive and kind-hearted being called the Grinch, and everyone loves each other. This is not our society celebrating the beautiful holiday of Christmas. This is the Liberal Controllers of our society carefully teaching children an unnatural and dangerous lie that they would never believe unless they were carefully taught. How many whites will militate against vitally necessary immigration restrictions in the decades to come...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

New York Just About Any Time

The movie You've Got Mail takes place in a tiny radius of the Upper West Side of New York City, which cleverly fits the film's story of two people interacting through "the internet" using pseudonyms. It is a silly romantic story, but it is earnest, and truthful. I like the perseverence of the main characters, determined to get the best of, or at least some happiness in, life.

But, I like it especially because it is the part of New York I know better than other parts (although it is a little further south then I am accustomed to, although the neighborhood - the shops, coffee houses, parks, newspaper kiosks - look exactly the same).

On my next trip to New York these are the places I will try to visit, as seen in You've Got Mail...

- Verdi Square: Broadway and 72nd St.




-Verdi Square Green Market
West 72nd & Broadway
Sat 8am-5pm
June to December




- 72nd Street Subway


- The Starbucks on 81 and Broadway



- Zabar's on 80th and Broadway


- Cafe Lalo on 83rd and Amsteram


- L'Occitane, somewhere around Broadway and 70th and 80th


- Ocean Grill Restaurant on Columbus Ave and 78th St.


- 91st Garden in Riverside Park



- New York in Christmas

Meg Ryan in her "Shop Around the Conrenr" putting up Christmas Decoarions

And just walking around the city, with each season eliciting "Don't you just love New York in...." (fill in the blank with: Fall, Winter, Summer and Spring). Joe ask Kathleen "Don't you just love New York in the Fall?" While Kathleen seems to like the Spring, or Christmas, or just about any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat


Thursday, June 19, 2014

Tresor



The beautiful Isabella Rossellini (the daughter of the even more beautiful Ingrid Bergman) was the "face" of Lancome's signiature perfume Tresor from 1982-1996.

I've had Tresor for years, and have gone through some bottles (I think three).

This last bottle is at its last stretches, so I went to the mall (The Bay) to find out about prices. A 30ml bottle is around $70. I told the salesman that it was my all time favorite perfume, and that I have about a month's worth left (I showed him my bottle). He got quite emotional, and said his mother used to wear it also. He then went into the back, and brought me a tiny sample bottle, usually given as gifts for other Lancome purchases. "You made my day!" I said, thanking him.

None of the subsequent models for Tresor have Rossellini's beauty.

Tresor has a combination scent of floral/fruity, which I think is perfect for summer.

Here are Tresor's notes:
Top: Pineapple, Lilac, Peach, Apricot Blossom, Lilly-if-the-Valley, Bergamot, Rose
Middle: Iris, Jasmine, Heliotrope, Rose
Base: Apricot, Sandalwood, Amber, Musk, Vanilla, Peach

Thursday, November 7, 2013

From Error to Truth

St. Thomas of Aquinas
Detail from The Demidoff Altarpiece, 1476
By Carlo Crivelli (1430-1494)
The National Gallery of Art, London


Laura Wood, from The Thinking Housewife, writes:
“The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.”
— St. Thomas Aquinas
Contemporary depictions of saints, and other biblical personalities, including Jesus, render them in soft light with benign faces. I think that couldn't be farther from the truth. The guidance from error to truth is a tall order, but also requires the greatest of humility. Those who undertake this, with the saints and Jesus as their guides, must realize the enormity of their task. Jesus knew this. And Saint Thomas of Aquinas shows this burden in his portrait above.

Below, on the left, is Diogo Morgado as the 21st century rendition of Jesus, from The History Channel series The Bible. Even if this Jesus were to get angry (in front of the temple, for example), or he suffers on the cross, he would end up looking like a Ken doll. (Would Mary then be a Barbie? I should work out this "artitist" project and make myself famous at the next Venice Biennial). A feature film is planned for February 2014, "inspired by the success of The Bible," as this site tells us. What epic can a Diogo Morgado, the actor slotted to play Jesus, inspire?

Ken Doll and G.Q. Jesus
The tattoo and the stigma are interchangeable.


Jesus from Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 The King of Kings
Played by H. B. Warner


Hollywood directors and actors of the 1920s and 1930s, and perhaps as late as the early 1960s, who produced the majority of Biblical films (worth watching), gave us the best filmic renditions of Jesus and other Old and New Testament forces. H. B. Warner played Jesus at age fifty-two. Granted that Jesus was a young man of thirty-three in the scriptures, but what contemporary actor that age can convince us of the path from error to truth? Perhaps the serious Leonardo DiCaprio might do so,


But not him, or him, or him, etc., etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Diamonds and Bubblegum: a la Marilyn



One of the TV channels is showing back-to-back movies with Marilyn Monroe.

She is the quintessential bubblegum girl.

But, she was a very good actress, undermined by her light roles. And even those she played well.

Look at her expression in the above movie still, reacting to all those diamonds. She may be role-playing, but who can role-play like that?

I think her life was tragic. She was beautiful, talented and feminine. Everyone wanted her. I don't know what could have saved her. Today's actresses, perhaps having learned from her, are much more restrained.

But then, we have lost the glamour and the excitement, and the beauty, of Marilyn's Hollywood.

Beauty is enchanting and mesmerizing. But it can also be destructive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Crime and Punishment


James Woods as convicted criminal Gregory Ulas Powell
representing himself in the film The Onion Field.
The film is in color, but I think this black and white
photo best captures Woods as Powell
.

I watched the Sun Media's The Arena yesterday, whose host is Michael Coren. Sun Media and Coren purport to be the "conservative" news of Canada. But, I remember Coren saying a while ago that he wasn't a conservative, which explains his many ambiguous positions, and which is why I barely tune into their much-touted program (it's like the National Post, which never lived to its "alternate" message).

I met Coren when with a group from the International Free Press Society invited me to join them. One of the stops we made was to attend an interview by Coren of Lars Hedegaard, the president of the Danish Free Press Society.

Still, Coren, because of his forceful nature, does some of the better interviews (pepperd with disclaimers) of the more controversial issues of our time.

Last night's interview is not yet online. Coren interviewed one of the Sun Media journalists about the abortion doctor Gosnell, who was charged with killing (murdering) one woman and four infants. He is labelled as a serial killer, but the jury's verdict was life imprisonment, although as a serial killer he could have got the death penalty.

Coren, in his forceful and confident way announces: "I'm against the death penalty, myself. Everyone else can believe what they want, but I'm against it."

So much for the intellectual level of our public figures and opinion makers. Judgment is simply a matter of opinion, and we can all believe what we want.

In any case, this reminded me of the strong, well-made movie (based on true events) The Onion Field. When politics fails, go to art for the true answers. Yes, today's films are mostly liberal, made for liberals, and watched by liberals (I haven't been to the movies in at least two years now), but people are still conservative when it comes to their families (who want a daughter to have an abortion? Etc.), so some films and television programs have a sliver of conservatism in their messages. And also, I find that films made prior to the mid-sixties retain a higher level of conservative elements.

The Onion Field is the true story of a cold-blooded murder by two escaped convicts. James woods makes a formidable performance as one of the convicts, Gregory Ulas Powell. They eventually get caught and are convicted of first-degree murder. The judge, at this verdict, makes an impassioned speech saying that these two deserved nothing less than the death penalty, and that these clever men would exploit the judicial system to its fullest.

As the judge predicted, Powell spent years writing appeals for his death sentence, including appearing in court to represent himself. This horrible spectacle, of a convicted murder appearing in a court of law to appeal his situation became too much for one of the lawyers, who resigned. Powell died in 2012, after almost fifty years in prison.

Coren, in his arrogance about what justice constitutes, is allowing for this type of "justice" to flourish in the judicial system. And sure enough, we have the serial killer Gosnell, who will get the best of prison life, as well as unconditional support from a myriad of "abortion" sympathizers, for the rest of his life.

Here is the President of the United Sates making another one of his ambiguous statements.



The part which is difficult to hear is:
"I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

In typical Obama fashion, safe and legal are the important words. Rare is a matter of "judgement." He appears to be strict on abortion, but he is as liberal as they get. When will the American people realize who he really is?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Hoop-La Around the Latest Gatsby Film: But Who Will Pick Up the Book?


Tamara de Lempicka (1898 - 1980)
Jeune fille en vert
(Jeune fille aux gants)
1927 - 1930
Huile sur contreplaqué
Centre Pompidou, Paris
61,5 x 45,5 cm


Tamara de Lempicka's Jeune Fille en Vert (it has a number of other titles including Young Girl with Gloves) is whom I would choose to act in Baz Luhrmanns' The Great Gatsby, which is screening now in theaters. The world-weary, yet sophisticated and glamorous "Girl in green" would fit Gatsby's Daisy, who despite her outward gaiety is a sad and hardened woman.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I started reading The Great Gatsby after I saw all the hoop-la about this latest film version (which I'm not going to watch - see below). I thought I had already read the book (I used to be a fan of Fitzgerald's), but not so. It is a pleasure to read a book of such high writing quality. Here are the first lines of the second chapter (the whole book is online here - pdf file), where we see Gatsby's ominous residence for the first time:
About half way between West Egg and New York the motor-road hastily joins the railroad and runs beside it for a quarter of a mile, so as to shrink away from a certain desolate area of land. This is a valley of ashes—a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens where ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air. Occasionally a line of grey cars crawls along an invisible track, gives out a ghastly creak and comes to rest, and immediately the ash-grey men swarm up with leaden spades and stir up an impenetrable cloud which screens their obscure operations from your sight.
Luhrmann's Gatsby is becoming the rage of fashion designers, musicians, talk show hosts and of course movie critics. It is a film in 3-D, and whose musical director is the black hip-hop/rap star Jay-Z.

Luhrmann has already an eclectic and exuberant musical/theatrical/film blockbuster under his belt: Moulin Rouge! - yes, it deserves the exclamation mark. Moulin Rougeis a film that starts out a dreary black white for a brief glimpse at a poor soul stuck in an artist's garret in the Montmartre region of Paris (which also houses the famous Moulin Rouge cabaret), dreaming of his lost love. It reverts to a happier time of this lost soul's life when he had his lover, by exploding into a colorful kaleidoscope of: a musical; a cabaret; an old-time Hollywood movie; a time-travel fantasy; a spiced-up MTV production replete with a David Bowie and Madonna songs; and Bollywood. And there is not one second of 3-D. It is a movie that tries to capture it all, during a brief two hours, half the length of Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby. And it works fantastically. I've seen it at least three times. It is a work of pure creativity, traveling to all corners of the imagination.

Michael Wilmington, writing at the Daily Camer praises Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge:
The score is eclectic, with songs by Offenbach, The Beatles, Sting, Elton John, and Rodgers and Hammerstein, among others and having the actors sing these songs themselves, without dubbing, lends them unusual power and immediacy.
So what went wrong with The Great Gatsby? I think the first mistake was putting Jay-Z as the musical director. Luhrmann chose him, although he doesn't spell it out in any of the interviews he's given, because The Great Gatsby is supposedly about the Jazz Age, and a black musician like Jay-Z should know all about Jazz.

Wrong. On a couple of counts (at least).

First, the Jazz Age was coined by Scott F. Fitzgerald to describe the flamboyance of 1920s (or the Roaring Twenties as they are known). It did not refer exclusively to music, and it did not refer to the kind of jazz we're familiar with now (John Coltrane and Charlie Parker). In fact, most of the "jazz" musicians of the Jazz Age were white, or were black musicians who were most successful when they played for white audiences, curtailing some of the abandon they showed when playing for black audiences. The music was nothing like the improvised riffs that we know as jazz today, but was carefully crafted with band members knowing exactly what they were playing. The Jazz Age was referring more to the heady optimism the time.

And second, Jay-Z's fame is based around the monotonous rap which he "sings" in a perennial monotone. I haven't heard him sing a single "jazz" number. In The Great Gatsby, Emma Rosenblum writing in Business Week says:
...[Jay-Z is with] a car full of black dandies and flappers. They’re sipping Moët and dancing wildly to Jay-Z’s [H to the] Izzo (the movie, set in 1922, has a modern soundtrack); the camera slows down and lingers lovingly on the champagne bottle labels as Jay-Z raps nonsense like “Fo’ shizzle my nizzle.” Is Luhrmann commenting on the racial politics of the Jazz Age? Is he somehow connecting expensive alcohol to greed? Does he just really like the song?

Turns out he’s not saying anything. Moët & Chandon is an official sponsor of the film, and the French champagne brand is releasing a 1921 vintage to coincide with the movie’s premiere on May 10.
Rap for a Jazz Age soundtrack? I agree with Rosenblum: What's Luhrmann thinking? Nothing apparently, other than some deep-seated desire to bring "class" to the much aligned rap and hip-hop music (there are now fifty-seven rappers in jail, according to this site).

R. Kurt Oselund says something similar at Slate Magazine:
[The rap and hip-hop] may just be a winking "thank you" to [Luhrmann's] mega-mogul collaborator, but the inclusion of Jay-Z's "H to the Izzo" in a scene on the Queensboro Bridge is unforgivably tacky, and the fury with which it yanks you from the moment is a shock to the system.
About the film, Osenlund writes:
Since Fitzgerald's Gatsby prose is so specific, and so indispensably poetic, adaptations of it essentially require Nick Carraway's narration, if only to give the viewer that full, vicarious sensation of being "within" and "without." But the handling of this by Luhrmann and his co-writer Craig Pearce feels a bit like a bastardization, in ways that go beyond a purist's dissatisfaction with changes to the text.
Succinctness is the quality of a clear mind. Luhrmann, with his music/social conscience/black-music-promoting film is trying to say so much, and is unclear about so much, that his best recourse is to keep on going until the forsaken project is done. His proposal to make this film was rejected twice, and was finally picked up by Warner Brothers who gave him the $105 million he was asking for. I am sure the money came with a lot of strings attached. A socially conscience message, for one? Moulin Rouge, with its revolving sets and extravagant dance numbers, cost half the price (still huge for Hollywood) at 53 million dollars.

Previously, The Great Gatsby was cast with Robert Redford, whose charm and good looks exceed Leonardo Dicaprio, the current Gatsby. Dicaprio is too tall and lanky, and his features too youthful. But he looks leaner and harsher than Redford, although he is the same age as Redford was (thirty eight) when he made in the film.

DiCaprio, whom I found talented and engaging in Revolutionary Road, seems to have gone downhill in his choice of films. This became apparent when he starred in the insidiously destabilizing films Inception and Shuter Island, where he seems to be in a reality that is crumbling under his feet. I wrote:
[In] Shuter Island and Inception, DiCaprio's characters enter some abyss (in Shuter Island we find out that he's actually mad) where the laws of reality (including gravity) don't exist, or at least they don't fully and consistently exist.
His latest film Django Unchained, really unchained his demons.

Carey Mulligan was the last of a series of actresses who was interviewed to play Daisy in Lurhmann's Gatsby. She got the role. She lacks the spark to play a woman with a face that:
...was sad and lovely with bright things in it, bright eyes and a bright passionate mouth - but there was an excitement in her voice that men who had cared for her found difficult to forget: a singing compulsion, a whispered ‘Listen,’ a promise that she had done gay, exciting things just a while since and that there were gay, exciting things hovering in the next hour. [From Chapter One of The Great Gatsby, when the narrator meets Daisy for the first time at Gatsby's home]
Mulligan acted recently in Shame as:
Sissy, a deeply troubled girl with an almost incestuous attachment to her brother, a sex addict. Both characters are in search of something—anything—that will make them feel whole. Sissy, who works as a singer, is naked even when she’s clothed. She reveals too much, sleeps with the wrong men, and when she turns up unexpectedly in her brother’s spare, pristine New York City apartment, the effect is like a bomb going off: The siblings ignite each other’s self-destructive ways.
It is hardly surprising that DiCaprio and Mulligan were both willing to take on Luhrmann's Gatsby. As Mulligan says in a recent interview:
...there is "a real weakness and a cowardice to the way she behaves at the end, so there's huge holes in her character."
Why accept such a role? Because, there is "a real weakness and a cowardice to the way she behaves at the end, so there's huge holes in her character," in the perverted logic of young actresses these days. So much for womens's lib. Daisy may be many things, but she is not weak.

About Fitzgerald and his book, David Denby at The New Yorker writes:
The tale of Fitzgerald’s woeful stumbles—no great writer ever hit the skids so publicly—is suffused with varying shades of irony, both forlorn and triumphal. Fitzgerald was an alcoholic, and no doubt his health would have declined, whatever the commercial fate of his masterpiece. But he was a writer who needed recognition and money as much as booze, and if “Gatsby” had sold well it would likely have saved him from the lacerating public confessions of failure that he made in the nineteen-thirties, or, at least, would have kept him away from Hollywood. (He did get a fascinating, half-finished novel, “The Last Tycoon,” out of the place, but his talents as a screenwriter were too fine-grained for M-G-M.) At the same time, the initial failure of “Gatsby” has yielded an astounding coda: the U.S. trade-paperback edition of the book currently sells half a million copies a year. Jay Gatsby “sprang from his Platonic conception of himself,” and his exuberant ambitions and his abrupt tragedy have merged with the story of America, in its self-creation and its failures. The strong, delicate, poetically resonant text has become a kind of national scripture, recited happily or mournfully, as the occasion requires.
A "strong, delicate, poetically resonant text" has become "a bastardization, in ways that go beyond a purist's dissatisfaction with changes to the text" in the hands of a contemporary mega-blockbuster director.

The good thing out of all of this is that book sales for The Great Gatsby have spiked. At least, people will get introduced to good literature. Now it is up to them if they prefer a five hour escape into a dark theater,or if they will finish reading the book.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Robert Redford as Gatsby


Dicaprio, leaner, harsher, but somehow younger looking unlike the relaxed wealth of Redford (Dicaprio is the same age that Redford was when he made the movie: Thirty eight.


Carey Mulligan has a world-weary look in Luhrmann's 2013 production


Mia Farrow as Diasy in 1974


Betty Field as Daisy in 1947, soft but strong

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, May 4, 2013

91st Street Riverside Park Garden, New York, Or How Joe Met Kathy


A walk through Riverside Park, from the movie You've Got Mail,
with Somewhere Over the Rainbow as the accompanying music.


Sometimes a silly movie shows us unexpectedly beautiful places, while telling us a little more about ourselves. In You've Got Mail, Kathleen Kelly (played by Meg Ryan who is actually a better actress than the roles given to her) and Joe Fox (Tom Hanks) are communicating online using pseudonyms. Kathleen is "ShopGirl" - she owns a bookstore, and Joe is "NY152" - "the number of people who think I look like Clark Gable." Both Kathleen and Joe know each other. Joe is the big-box-bookstore owner of Fox Books who is putting Kathleen's small, neighborhood Shop Around the Corner bookstore out of business. Through their online communication, they decide to meet in a coffee shop. Joe sees her sitting and waiting in the coffee shop, and realizes the that she is the owner of Shop Around the Corner. He does not reveal to her that he is "NY152," and lets her thinks that he is simply the big-box bookstore owner patronizing the coffee shop. Later, through an online message, Joe asks Kathleen to meet him in Riverside Park, where finally tells her that he is "NY152."

What was interesting about the story was the male/female interaction. Kathleen acts like a ditzy, New-Agey woman, although she appears to be independent, and is surely a "feminist." She kind of goes with the flow of things. Joe is more ruthless, or at least he programs his actions to reach his goals, including having no remorse about removing a small bookstore to create his own. He doesn't do this because he is a mean-spirited, but because he thinks his ideas and plans are better. In fact, Kathleen has to concede, and later on accepts his job offer to run the children's department. Joe plans his second meeting with Kathleen in a similar, planned fashion, after he realizes that he knows her identity (from seeing her in the coffee shop), while she doesn't know his. Through a series of maneuvers, including arriving with his dog Brinkley at Riverside Park meeting, which his online persona talks about and Kathleen knows, Joe is the one who reveals to Kathleen what's going on. The only thing that Kathleen could say at the final revelation was, "I was hoping it was you." Rather than find a way to untangle this mystery as Joe did, all Kathleen could do was resort to wishful thinking, which would have remained so hadn't Joe intervened.


Riverside Park, 91st Street Garden
[Image source: A View on Cities
]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, April 8, 2013

Beauty Cannot Redeem Horror


Bridge on a canal in Bruges

In Bruges, a horrible, nihilistic movie, was on T.V. the other night. I watched it solely because of the title. Belgium, and the Flemish region which contains Bruges, is often neglected and ignored (the Dutch get more attention than the Belgians). But it has beautiful Flemish art, the lovely Flemish lace, and extraordinary, lace-like architecture as seen here in Burg Square.

The film is about hit-men killing innocent by-standers (a child in a church!), who continue with their hit-jobs. One of them summons up some guilt for having shot an innocent child, and his expiation is to shoot and kill those he thinks have killed innocent children.

Yes, convoluted, but it all really was a permit for gun shots, blood spurting out of bodies, and creepy atmosphere (a dwarf who keeps re-appearing).

I watched it twice.

The first time, I missed the beautiful shots of Bruges because of the disgusting violence. I stopped watching about two-thirds of the way.

The second time, I wanted to see if the beautiful Bruges architecture in any way redeemed the film, which the clever and devious director and cinematographer as a backdrop for the film.

It doesn't. It desecrates the city.

We cannot reclaim beauty by putting it along-side horror, expecting it to be the winner. We cannot redeem horror by placing beauty along-side it.

We have to remove ourselves completely from the horror, the ugliness and the desecration, and let it devour itself, because otherwise, it will devour beauty along with itself.

We have reached a vicious (and new) impasse. Horror and ugliness are winning, unless we arm ourselves against their its assaults. We have to fight to the core to reclaim beauty. It is no longer enough to separate ourselves from horror, since it has also reached our own door-steps.

Bruges is an exceptionally beautiful, northern European city. It is in the northern part of Belgium where Dutch (or Flemish ) is spoken. Some call it the Venice of the North, because of the intricate canals and bridges, and the lovely architecture which surround these canals.

Can Bruges be re-captured and reclaimed?


Belgian Lace from Bruges

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Nasty Gals Do It Better, But In a Pretty Way


Nasty Gal in Awesome Shredded Jeans

My yahoo email page spouts out ads which at the moment I can't be bother to block. The most recent said this:

"Nasty Gal," with a subheading "Awesome shredded jeans."

When I returned to the main page to click on the ad, it had changed to something else. I googled "Nasty Gal" (nothing else, and with no quotes) and the first link I found said:
Nasty Gal.com - Nasty Gals Do It Better
Under the website's "About" page, this is who the nasty gal is:
Who is a Nasty Gal? We like to think of her as the coolest girl in the room‚ pulling off whatever wildly unique piece that suits the mood. At Nasty Gal, we are our customer. Because of this, our job is an easy one: inspire and be inspired by cool girls the world over.
And who is the inspiration?
The name was inspired by the song and album “Nasty Gal.” Betty Davis [NOT Bette Davis, who another kind of gal who could run circles around this crude and crass one], the patron saint of badass women, was known for her unapologetically sexy funk music which comprises our vision of femininity - complete with lamé platform thigh-high boots.
And of course, the perennial disclaimer:
“Nasty Gal is inclusive, but also cool. A lot of companies make the mistake of being one or the other.” - Brett, Producer
Nasty Gal makes insipidly pretty clothes (my theory has always been that all girls want to look pretty, and all women want to look beautiful, except the rabidly angry ones like the singer). A name like "nasty" gets turned around to mean "cool" which is the quintessential claim to fitting in with the crowd these days. Nasty means cool, cool means fitting in, fitting in means looking pretty, since, as I wrote here in Camera Lucida, even sluts at Slut Walks want to look pretty.


Nasty Gals Trio: Betty Davis, Girl in the Ad, and the Real Bette Davis

Here is the quintessential pretty gal (via Mark Richardson's Oz Conservative blog), who has a website to showcase her pretty items. Well, it actually is all about her. Almost every post has a photo of her, in various poses of happiness at discovering all the pretty things around her which make her look so pretty. This is where it ends, the narcissistic desire of girl-women. The Aussie Pretty Gal is not really a gal. She looks like she is in her mid-thirties. Can't she find something serious to do, like start a charity, or better yet, have children?

Her poor husband pops up in some of her photos, but he's probably quite content to have a prancing girl-woman around without the responsibilities of raising a family. I bet she works too, and the reason why she acquires these relatively, cumulatively, expensive items for herself. (My intuition was right about this. Here's an interview where she talks about having a day job.) I tried to find the meaning of her blog's name Esme and the Laneway. Laneway is a British variation on Lane.

But Esme is more obscure (it's not her real name, which is Marianne). Wikipedia lists Esme Cullen as one of the vampires from the latest series of vampire books The Twilight Series. I've written before that young women these days have a fascination for vampires. This youth-worshiping Esme surely is into that as well. Her literary activity is limited, though. Her list of books are either beauty instructional ones (what else) or she uses books as accessories for her photos. So I doubt she's read the vampire books, but the culture now is so infused with vampirism, she must be aware of them.

Below are photos of Esme (Marianne). It looks like she has someone taking some of the photos  (the outdoor ones, for example), but she can make clever adjustments by shooting her reflection in a mirror.


Ecstasy


Pretty frock for a pretty gal, posing under a sunlight spotlight


The Mirror of Naracissus


Exhibitionism, that's what it all amounts to


Thirty-something year-old pretty gal who is almost middle-aged

The fact that her hsuband allows his wife to parade herself says a lot about modern men. He could rein her in, tell her to get a hobby like cooking, or decorating their house. Or, he could insist that they start a family.

But, perhaps it is for the best that children don't have a mother such as this. She would turn up to be one of those "artist" moms who photograph their children naked for all to see.

Friday, February 22, 2013

The Life of a Lesbian

I like Camille Paglia. I have three of her books:

- Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson
- Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays
- Vamps & Tramps: New Essays


The titles are provocative, but the essays are sound. Paglia clearly loves Western culture, and is willing to take its highs and lows.

I think Paglia started off writing interesting and provocative essays on our modern world, its art and its personalities. But, as time wore on, I began to realize that she wasn't offering us anything better. Her writing, and her views became a repetitive "we have to put sex back into our culture" mantra. Perhaps that is what atheistic aesthetes finally evolve (devolve) into: pure sensualists. There is nothing higher than man for them, so they start to idolize something of man: his mind, his body, and even his spirit. But when the humanness of man becomes apparent, they have to sensualize him, and their reaction to him. What better aspect to grasp on to than sex?

There is no areligious person. Everyone eventually succumbs to some kind of higher order. If it is not God, then it could just a well be a tree. But sophisticates like Paglia go for the most God-like creature in the universe, and elevate him to an undeserved pedestal. Man becomes their god. Or better yet, woman becomes their goddess.

Below is Paglia's eulogy for Elizabeth Taylor, where she elevates her into a goddess.

From the Chapter: "Elizabeth Taylor: Hollywood's Pagan Queen" (pp14-19 in Sex, Art, and American Culture):
In 1958, Elizabeth Taylor, raven-haired vixen and temptress, took Eddie Fisher away from Debbie Reynolds and became a pariah of the American press. I cheered. What a joy to see Elizabeth rattle Debbie's braids, and bring a scowl to that smooth, girlish forehead. As an Italian, , I saw that a battle of cultures was underway: antiseptic American blondness was being swamped by a rising tide of sensuality, a new force that would sweep my sixties generation into full force.

Paglia groups Debbie Reynolds with "that trinity of blond oppressors!" of Doris Day and Sandra Dee in her latest article Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are Ruining Women.

These chirpy, young white women become the Debbie Reynods (though nothing as innocent as the young Debbie Reynolds) of our modern world, while the black pop star Rihanna is the Elizabeth Taylor.

Paglia writes about Rihanna in Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are Ruining Women - which of course implies that Rihanna is saving women:
Rihanna...was born and raised on Barbados, and her music...has an elemental eroticintensity,a sensuality inspired by the beauty of the Caribbean sun and sea. The stylish Rihanna’s enigmatic dominatrix pose has thrown some critics off. Anyone who follows tabloids like the Daily Mail online, however, has vicariously enjoyed Rihanna’s indolent vacations, where she lustily imbibes, gambols in the waves and lolls with friends of all available genders.
I've written about Rihanna's nihilistic performances under the title: Rihanna Sings to the Anti-Christ:
Rihanna, the pop star, was sporting some kind of leather jacket with crosses printed on it at a recent event. That's nothing unusual in pop fashion. Madonna made the cross into some kind of pop fashion statement, and many follow her example.

But Rihanna's cross is a new evolution. I can only see two imprinted on her jacket. One is right-side-up, the other is upside-down...

This...is a new development, at least in the mainstream pop world. It is one thing to "ironically" wear an exaggerated cross as part of a fashion statement. That still leaves some room for true belief. But it is another to unashamedly display an inverted cross, because its meaning is nothing but demonic.

The original meaning of the inverted cross is related to St. Peter's humility. But, it has been appropriated by Satanists. Here is a brief explanation:
An inverted cross is the cross of St. Peter, who, according to tradition, was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to die the same way as Christ. As Catholics believe the pope to be a successor of St. Peter, the inverted cross is frequently used in connection with the papacy, such as on the papal throne and in papal tombs [photo]. It also symbolizes humility because of the story of Peter. The inverted cross has more recently been appropriated by Satanists as a symbol meant to oppose or invert Christianity. [Source: Religionfacts.com]
I doubt the perverse Rihanna is thinking of her salvation when she sports this symbol, Her intentions are much more nefarious.

It is the dark Elizabeth Taylor who snatched blonde Debby Reynolds' husband from her. But Reynolds, forgave her and became friendly with her in later years? Would the volatile Taylor have accepted such a relationship if she had been the aggrieved party?


Elizabeth Taylor, in 2007, three years before her death at age seventy-six.
She was in a wheelchair, unable to walk. But like true divas, managed to

Reynolds today, with her chirpiness and unwrinkled forehead, continues unabated with her persona, and her life. She appears on television shows and films, performs in one-woman comedy shows and in Broadway musicals, and is cast as a formidable (former-blonde, now dyed blonde) mother on various sitcoms. Wiping off scowls and other dark expressions has made her into a survivor. Taylor, inflated by her memories of the dark vixen, reverted to reviving the persona of her younger days, but ended up looking weak and pitiful. No-one pities Reynolds. We admire her instead.


Debbie Reynolds at the Beverly Hills Hotel
100th Anniversary Weekend in 2012 (age, 80 years)

Finally, below is Paglia in 2013. A washed out beauty-chaser, who ends up looking like the drag queens she eulogizes so much in her writings. What happens to a lesbian as she ages? I think the guilt and emptiness fills itself up with something else.


Paglia on the cover of Vamps and Tramps in 1994 (she's no Debbie Reynolds)
and in 2013, over-rouged like Elizabeth Taylor