 |
from The Apocalypse, 1498
Babylon, the domain that embodies evil on earth, burns with huge explosions of flame and smoke in the distance, and from the upper left come the armies of heaven, led by the knight Faithful-and-True.“Babylon: Myth and Truth” - in Berlin: Maybe it is the sign of the times that the once most decadent city of Europe is now exhibiting a show called " Babylon: Myth and Truth." 1920s Berlin, which gave us the German cabaret and the self-absorbed German Expressionists, was a conundrum of creativity and debauchery. As close to Babylon as we can get, or so we thought. Can the modern soothsayers predict for us where Berlin is headed now? Perhaps it is not so difficult, what with the omnipotent EU, encroaching Islam, and school playgrounds where German is edging its way out in place of, say, Turkish. No debauchery here, in the carefree 1920s way, but in its archaic definition, debauchery means a seduction from duty, allegiance, or virtue. And there is plenty of that going on.
The exhibition will travel to yet another exemplary locale, the British Museum.
The New Face of China:
 |
While watching the women's synchronized diving, I was struck by this face. I call it "The New Face of China." She is China's star diver, having won two gold medals in Athens. Her stars have certainly aligned themselves for her in Beijing. A moment when China is imperiously proclaiming world ascendancy, where even George Bush dare not be too reprimanding.
Her's is no longer the face of the docile Chinese maiden, which I always found to be deceptive anyway. Instead, that docility has replaced (or revealed) an androgynous insolence. A face put on not for her countrymen, but for those foreigners who deign to counter her country's prowess. But, winning gold medals, and taking the stage as a world leader, are two very different things.
The problem with freedom of expression: It is well and good to declare that in the West, we are free to write, say, do, behave however we wish. In a literal sense, yes that is true. In a practical, and realistic world, that just doesn't happen.
It is a shame that in order to get at Mohammed, we are allowing ourselves to defend this. Now, I don't care one iota what Mohammed's followers think about it, but I do care what our literary ancestor's would have said. If we debase our standards to the lowest (or yet even lower) possible denominator, in an attempt to fight our enemies, when will we have the energy, inspiration and discipline to write in the manner of Dickens, Austen or Hemingway? One false word (or a few), and Hemingway's freedom of expression wouldn't be sitting on our shelves today.
Shery Jones' novel was scrapped not because it offended literary standards, but that Muslims would have none of it. If only non-Muslims could make their stance as clearly and decisively.
Canadian Idol, without Simon, is rolling on but with a few glitches:
The lovely Amberly Thiessen made it to the next round, but so did he (forward to the 45s spot.) Now, they're touting him as the next big rock star to hit the Canadian plains (the Canadian Shield?), so I started to wonder why all the judges are backing a singer who only sings in an embellished monotone - albeit well.
It is the Canadian niceness to strangers (and exotica). Although I think that was a learned behavior, and one that occurred much later than we think. And Mookie Morris (yes, Mookie) does look exotic. And that often puts a blind spot, and a deaf ear, on modern, hip Canadians. Every single standing contestant, including the departed Mark Day, can sing an arpeggio of a full octave or more. Except Mookie. That alone is grounds for disqualification from a singing contest.
Brideshead, the book:
 |
Evelyn Waugh was sombre in this book. Although there are moments of hilarity, usually when it concerns Sebastian, or Julia's husband-to-be the "colonial" Canadian Rex, the mood was serious through much of the book. I suspect it is because of Waugh's own Catholicism, which he converted to as an adult, and whose difficult position in English society he must have studied closely.
The film did good service to the book, except for a few odd moments:
- Rex was an American in the film, not the slightly ridiculed "colonial" Canadian that entered the Flyte family via Julia.
- Charles Ryder never says he's an atheist in the book, but rather an agnostic. In the film, he makes a point of correcting an agnostic label to that of an atheist.
- When Charles goes with Sebastian into the Brideshead chapel, he mimics Sebastian's kneeling. When Sebastian asks why he did it, in the film he says "to fit in." In the book his reason is for good manners.
I think there is more significance to these changes than their smallness suggests. Why "fit in", why an all out atheist, why lose out on the colonial references by having an American? I think it is the modern, 21st century mentality of the filmmaker - but that will be for another blog.
One other important thing we never really got from the film is that in the book, Charles manages to see (or articulate) Julia's beauty only when she was humiliated and had suffered. He never once used "beautiful" to describe her until their final meeting. Then, he no longer used artistic references to describe her looks as he did in the beginning, but the actual word "beautiful" instead.