Critiquing the Critics of the Immigration Movie Crossing Over
Crossing Over received an incredibly low 13% approval from the internet movie-rating site Rotten Tomatoes, and another dismal 38% from Metacritic – both sites post an aggregate of mainstream media movie critics’ reviews. This truly baffled me at first, since I thought the movie captured many of the nuanced problems of immigration, and was generally was quite sympathetic toward its array of characters.
Upon reading the low-scoring critics complain about the movie, it almost seems as though one of them set the stage, wrote the initial report, and all the others just read his example and followed suit. Their complaints are surprisingly similar, ranging from a crammed plot to badly developed characters. One of the biggest criticisms by these relentless judges was that Wayne Kramer, the director of the movie, lacked focus, or more precisely, he lacked a definite position. Which in their view means a clear, uncompromised, pro-immigration stance.
Kramer, in his own holistic way, does indeed try to include every story and angle into his film. A Muslim teen-age girl, who participates in Islamic and possibly Jihadist internet forums, appears alongside a self-proclaimed atheist Jew who works illegally in a Jewish school. A wealthy Iranian family is presented on equal footing as a Mexican single mother. Working class Koreans and an aspiring Australian actress from an obviously middle-class background harbor the same desire of becoming Americans. But Kramer, in keeping with his artistic integrity, allows us a peep into the dark side: the immigrant-smuggling “coyote” with death on his hands, the Muslim teenager who sympathizes with the 9/11 killers, the Korean gang that robs and murders store owners, the Muslim Iranians honor killing their too-Americanized sister, the Mexican who counterfeits green cards in his print shop, and the list goes on.
Yet, Kramer clearly believes that America is a nation for everyone. He reveals this passionately and even poetically through Hamid, the naturalized American-Iranian Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officer. Hamid displays his version of American identity to a young Korean (Justin), whom he confronts during a bloody convenience store robbery as Justin holds the storeowner hostage with a gun at her head. In tearful bursts of accented English, Justin tells Hamid that he and his family will be part of the naturalization ceremony the next day. To convince Justin to drop his gun and to go to the ceremony unscathed, Hamid describes his own acceptance of American citizenship as the "most spiritual moment of my life." He says to Justin, “Look around tomorrow at the faces, and understand the sublime promise of the moment.”
Hamid’s passionate eulogy on becoming an American ignites the critics’ harshest ridicule. Dana Stevens from Slate.com describes this scene as “the movie's glorious nadir, the moment when its leaden self-seriousness transmutes into comedy gold.” Stephanie Zacharek wrote at Salon.com that s he “blanched when I heard those words -- they're overwrought, and some people around me in the screening room tittered.” Blanching and tittering, glorious nadir; those are the reactions to an immigrant poeticizing and celebrating the feeling he had upon receiving his American citizenship.
Perhaps this is what earned Crossing Over an 87% disapproval rating from the movie critics at Rotten Tomatoes. How can anyone describe America, and being an American, in such glowing terms? Especially an America that sends a poor, illegal Mexican single mother back to Mexico without her young son? And one that refuses to sympathize with a teen-aged Muslim girl and deports her to an alien Bangladesh? Still, in the eyes of these seemingly equal opportunity immigration advocates/film critics, the deportation of the Muslim potential Jihadist is far worse than that of the white Australian aspiring actress who grants sexual favors to an immigration bureaucrat in “a bizarre sexual quid-pro-quo deal” to get her green card. Even Kramer has no sympathy for this Australian girl, portraying her as a callous opportunist, whereas her Muslim and Mexican counterparts receive ample empathy. Whites, after all, don’t need the kind of saving that Third World immigrants coming from broken governments and fundamental religions require.
Immigration advocates and defenders will never be content until there is unequivocal support for immigrants, and specifically the Third World kind. No need to show the cheating coyotes and the counterfeit card printers. Muslims killing their sisters should never be talked about; it is their culture after all. And it is best to sweep the rising problem of Asian gangs under the carpet. There are so many success stories to document, why go for the bad apples?
The citizenship judge at the ceremony that Justin finally attends describes America as a welcoming country. America is for the taking, not for the giving (discriminately, if at all). Anyone who suggests otherwise will incur the wrath, or hopefully just the ridicule, of these immigration advocates/film critics. Kramer tried to keep to his artistic integrity by providing us with as much truth as possible, despite his clear sympathy for immigration and immigrants. This earned him a contemptuous 13%. But that’s better than an outright zero.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
La Foule
An artistic depiction
"La Foule", 1998, by Olivier Suire-Verley
This painting was posted at the ever-informative site of GalliaWatch, maintained by Tiberge, which gives us an almost daily detailed account of the happenings over in France.
In this post, Tiberge writes about the number of legal immigrants that are allowed into France, and used this most-appropriate image as the header. She didn't say much about the painting except that it came from another site.
Well, I went to the site from which she got her information, and tried to find out more about the image by right-clicking on it. I was lucky enough to find the file name, "la_foule_1998.jpg". Typing in "La Foule 1998" in Google, I managed to find the painting and many replicas of the image on the internet. It seems to be somewhat famous.
The painting, called La Foule (The Crowd), is by Olivier Suire-Verley, who paints in a mixed expressionistic/impressionistic style. I think his most striking painting is actually La Foule, which captures some of the energy of a large crowd trying to get to (and through) a narrow exit.
Is that how immigrants feel. As though they are running out of some claustrophobic "interior" to the golden light of an "exterior"?
Why do the feel like this? Are they reacting to reality? Or to dreams and chimeras? I personally think it is the latter, since many who actually make it through that golden opening, and into the world beyond, are often bitterly disillusioned.
They go from such powerful, shining chimera, to the grayness of reality. Looking for jobs, learning a language, having their children turn away from them, wondering if every glance is loaded with antagonism or even hatred, missing their own bright sun and warm earth.
I think immigrants have been duped. Many believed that they would find some kind of paradise beyond that glowing doorway. The Moroccan in Paris, the Turk in Berlin, the Pakistani in England, the Jamaican in Brooklyn, the Haitian in Montreal, all thought that they would partake of the land of milk and honey, and streets paved with gold.
Instead, they live in ghettoes, feeling like aliens even into the second and third generations. They can see the milk and honey, but it is hard to get at. And even those who have prospered somewhat never cease to talk about the sun and the warmth of their former (now chimeric) lands.
The shining light in the painting should be directed back at them, instead of outward into this unknown.
 |
This painting was posted at the ever-informative site of GalliaWatch, maintained by Tiberge, which gives us an almost daily detailed account of the happenings over in France.
In this post, Tiberge writes about the number of legal immigrants that are allowed into France, and used this most-appropriate image as the header. She didn't say much about the painting except that it came from another site.
Well, I went to the site from which she got her information, and tried to find out more about the image by right-clicking on it. I was lucky enough to find the file name, "la_foule_1998.jpg". Typing in "La Foule 1998" in Google, I managed to find the painting and many replicas of the image on the internet. It seems to be somewhat famous.
The painting, called La Foule (The Crowd), is by Olivier Suire-Verley, who paints in a mixed expressionistic/impressionistic style. I think his most striking painting is actually La Foule, which captures some of the energy of a large crowd trying to get to (and through) a narrow exit.
Is that how immigrants feel. As though they are running out of some claustrophobic "interior" to the golden light of an "exterior"?
Why do the feel like this? Are they reacting to reality? Or to dreams and chimeras? I personally think it is the latter, since many who actually make it through that golden opening, and into the world beyond, are often bitterly disillusioned.
They go from such powerful, shining chimera, to the grayness of reality. Looking for jobs, learning a language, having their children turn away from them, wondering if every glance is loaded with antagonism or even hatred, missing their own bright sun and warm earth.
I think immigrants have been duped. Many believed that they would find some kind of paradise beyond that glowing doorway. The Moroccan in Paris, the Turk in Berlin, the Pakistani in England, the Jamaican in Brooklyn, the Haitian in Montreal, all thought that they would partake of the land of milk and honey, and streets paved with gold.
Instead, they live in ghettoes, feeling like aliens even into the second and third generations. They can see the milk and honey, but it is hard to get at. And even those who have prospered somewhat never cease to talk about the sun and the warmth of their former (now chimeric) lands.
The shining light in the painting should be directed back at them, instead of outward into this unknown.
It Took a Westerner and a Jew
To get the ball rolling on the Human Rights Commissions
Ezra Levant on the Michael Coren show on March 24, 2009
Ezra Levant, hailing from the Western city of Calgary and founder of the Western Standard, which now exists only as a online magazine, was on the Michael Coren Show a couple of nights ago to talk about his new book Shake-down. The whole hour-long show is available on Youtube. I highly recommended it since Michael Coren, usually a mild microphone-hogger, gives Levant free rein to present example after example of cases he describes in his book.
Levant gained fame (or infamy) when his print magazine was the only one to publish the Mohammed cartoons, which resulted with him having to appear before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Levant says this case cost him in the $100,000 range and three years to resolve, and he is a relatively famous Canadian, with all kinds of contacts and associations who helped him. Imagine, he says, the full-time-working, five-figure-earning person with no famous contacts on his Rolodex. In fact, these are just the type of people the Commission "gets".
I'm not sure what other method Levant has to tackle the problem other than to talk about it nationwide, and now to shock the country into realizing the callousness and immorality of the Commission from the accounts in his new book. I think that is his primary strategy so far. But just by the force of his book, his personality and the stories, this strategy might work to get some of the Commission's mandates amended, if not scrapped.
I think it is apt, and maybe providential, that a Westerner is the one to fight so vocally for Western standards. And that a Jew is dismantling what his antecedents set up several decades ago to combat what they believed was potential Nazi-type hate directed at them.
Providential, but also a profound learning lesson. Be careful how you rearrange a country's laws, is what I say, especially if you're "visitors" here. By that I mean, however much Jews try to assimilate as Canadians, they, by their own volition, will always remain Jews. Therefore, their efforts to change things in this country will primarily be for their benefit, and not for the country as a whole. If they go down the route of dismantling or rearranging existing laws and regulations, they have to think hard about the consequences.
Thus, ironically, the Human Rights Commission, established to protect Jews, ended up being harmful to them, and of course to the rest of the country also. It has become a hotbed for Muslim complaints, who are one of the most anti-Semitic groups there are.
 |
Ezra Levant, hailing from the Western city of Calgary and founder of the Western Standard, which now exists only as a online magazine, was on the Michael Coren Show a couple of nights ago to talk about his new book Shake-down. The whole hour-long show is available on Youtube. I highly recommended it since Michael Coren, usually a mild microphone-hogger, gives Levant free rein to present example after example of cases he describes in his book.
Levant gained fame (or infamy) when his print magazine was the only one to publish the Mohammed cartoons, which resulted with him having to appear before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Levant says this case cost him in the $100,000 range and three years to resolve, and he is a relatively famous Canadian, with all kinds of contacts and associations who helped him. Imagine, he says, the full-time-working, five-figure-earning person with no famous contacts on his Rolodex. In fact, these are just the type of people the Commission "gets".
I'm not sure what other method Levant has to tackle the problem other than to talk about it nationwide, and now to shock the country into realizing the callousness and immorality of the Commission from the accounts in his new book. I think that is his primary strategy so far. But just by the force of his book, his personality and the stories, this strategy might work to get some of the Commission's mandates amended, if not scrapped.
I think it is apt, and maybe providential, that a Westerner is the one to fight so vocally for Western standards. And that a Jew is dismantling what his antecedents set up several decades ago to combat what they believed was potential Nazi-type hate directed at them.
Providential, but also a profound learning lesson. Be careful how you rearrange a country's laws, is what I say, especially if you're "visitors" here. By that I mean, however much Jews try to assimilate as Canadians, they, by their own volition, will always remain Jews. Therefore, their efforts to change things in this country will primarily be for their benefit, and not for the country as a whole. If they go down the route of dismantling or rearranging existing laws and regulations, they have to think hard about the consequences.
Thus, ironically, the Human Rights Commission, established to protect Jews, ended up being harmful to them, and of course to the rest of the country also. It has become a hotbed for Muslim complaints, who are one of the most anti-Semitic groups there are.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Article on the Immigration Movie "Crossing Over"
Critiquing the Critics
This is an article on the recent immigration movie Crossing Over that I wrote and submitted to American Thinker. They didn't accept it. I also didn't send it to ChronWatch, since they haven't yet published whatever American Thinker hasn't accepted. I am filing it in my article archives instead.
***********************
Critiquing the Critics of the Immigration Movie Crossing Over
Crossing Over received an incredibly low 13% approval from the internet movie-rating site Rotten Tomatoes, and another dismal 38% from Metacritic – both sites post an aggregate of mainstream media movie critics’ reviews. This truly baffled me at first, since I thought the movie captured many of the nuanced problems of immigration, and was generally was quite sympathetic toward its array of characters.
Upon reading the low-scoring critics complain about the movie, it almost seems as though one of them set the stage, wrote the initial report, and all the others just read his example and followed suit. Their complaints are surprisingly similar, ranging from a crammed plot to badly developed characters. One of the biggest criticisms by these relentless judges was that Wayne Kramer, the director of the movie, lacked focus, or more precisely, he lacked a definite position. Which in their view means a clear, uncompromised, pro-immigration stance.
Kramer, in his own holistic way, does indeed try to include every story and angle into his film. A Muslim teen-age girl, who participates in Islamic and possibly Jihadist internet forums, appears alongside a self-proclaimed atheist Jew who works illegally in a Jewish school. A wealthy Iranian family is presented on equal footing as a Mexican single mother. Working class Koreans and an aspiring Australian actress from an obviously middle-class background harbor the same desire of becoming Americans. But Kramer, in keeping with his artistic integrity, allows us a peep into the dark side: the immigrant-smuggling “coyote” with death on his hands, the Muslim teenager who sympathizes with the 9/11 killers, the Korean gang that robs and murders store owners, the Muslim Iranians honor killing their too-Americanized sister, the Mexican who counterfeits green cards in his print shop, and the list goes on.
Yet, Kramer clearly believes that America is a nation for everyone. He reveals this passionately and even poetically through Hamid, the naturalized American-Iranian Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officer. Hamid displays his version of American identity to a young Korean (Justin), whom he confronts during a bloody convenience store robbery as Justin holds the storeowner hostage with a gun at her head. In tearful bursts of accented English, Justin tells Hamid that he and his family will be part of the naturalization ceremony the next day. To convince Justin to drop his gun and to go to the ceremony unscathed, Hamid describes his own acceptance of American citizenship as the "most spiritual moment of my life." He says to Justin, “Look around tomorrow at the faces, and understand the sublime promise of the moment.”
Hamid’s passionate eulogy on becoming an American ignites the critics’ harshest ridicule. Dana Stevens from Slate.com describes this scene as “the movie's glorious nadir, the moment when its leaden self-seriousness transmutes into comedy gold.” Stephanie Zacharek wrote at Salon.com that she “blanched when I heard those words -- they're overwrought, and some people around me in the screening room tittered.” Blanching and tittering, glorious nadir; those are the reactions to an immigrant poeticizing and celebrating the feeling he had upon receiving his American citizenship.
Perhaps this is what earned Crossing Over an 87% disapproval rating from the movie critics at Rotten Tomatoes. How can anyone describe America, and being an American, in such glowing terms? Especially an America that sends a poor, illegal Mexican single mother back to Mexico without her young son? And one that refuses to sympathize with a teen-aged Muslim girl and deports her to an alien Bangladesh? Still, in the eyes of these seemingly equal opportunity immigration advocates/film critics, the deportation of the Muslim potential Jihadist is far worse than that of the white Australian aspiring actress who grants sexual favors to an immigration bureaucrat in “a bizarre sexual quid-pro-quo deal” to get her green card. Even Kramer has no sympathy for this Australian girl, portraying her as a callous opportunist, whereas her Muslim and Mexican counterparts receive ample empathy. Whites, after all, don’t need the kind of saving that Third World immigrants coming from broken governments and fundamental religions require.
Immigration advocates and defenders will never be content until there is unequivocal support for immigrants, and specifically the Third World kind. No need to show the cheating coyotes and the counterfeit card printers. Muslims killing their sisters should never be talked about; it is their culture after all. And it is best to sweep the rising problem of Asian gangs under the carpet. There are so many success stories to document, why go for the bad apples?
The citizenship judge at the ceremony that Justin finally attends describes America as a welcoming country. America is for the taking, not for the (discriminate) giving. Anyone who suggests otherwise will incur the wrath, or hopefully just the ridicule, of these immigration advocates/film critics. Kramer tried to keep to his artistic integrity by providing us with as much truth as possible, despite his clear sympathy for immigration and immigrants. This earned him a contemptuous 13%. But that’s better than an outright zero.
 |
This is an article on the recent immigration movie Crossing Over that I wrote and submitted to American Thinker. They didn't accept it. I also didn't send it to ChronWatch, since they haven't yet published whatever American Thinker hasn't accepted. I am filing it in my article archives instead.
Critiquing the Critics of the Immigration Movie Crossing Over
Crossing Over received an incredibly low 13% approval from the internet movie-rating site Rotten Tomatoes, and another dismal 38% from Metacritic – both sites post an aggregate of mainstream media movie critics’ reviews. This truly baffled me at first, since I thought the movie captured many of the nuanced problems of immigration, and was generally was quite sympathetic toward its array of characters.
Upon reading the low-scoring critics complain about the movie, it almost seems as though one of them set the stage, wrote the initial report, and all the others just read his example and followed suit. Their complaints are surprisingly similar, ranging from a crammed plot to badly developed characters. One of the biggest criticisms by these relentless judges was that Wayne Kramer, the director of the movie, lacked focus, or more precisely, he lacked a definite position. Which in their view means a clear, uncompromised, pro-immigration stance.
Kramer, in his own holistic way, does indeed try to include every story and angle into his film. A Muslim teen-age girl, who participates in Islamic and possibly Jihadist internet forums, appears alongside a self-proclaimed atheist Jew who works illegally in a Jewish school. A wealthy Iranian family is presented on equal footing as a Mexican single mother. Working class Koreans and an aspiring Australian actress from an obviously middle-class background harbor the same desire of becoming Americans. But Kramer, in keeping with his artistic integrity, allows us a peep into the dark side: the immigrant-smuggling “coyote” with death on his hands, the Muslim teenager who sympathizes with the 9/11 killers, the Korean gang that robs and murders store owners, the Muslim Iranians honor killing their too-Americanized sister, the Mexican who counterfeits green cards in his print shop, and the list goes on.
Yet, Kramer clearly believes that America is a nation for everyone. He reveals this passionately and even poetically through Hamid, the naturalized American-Iranian Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officer. Hamid displays his version of American identity to a young Korean (Justin), whom he confronts during a bloody convenience store robbery as Justin holds the storeowner hostage with a gun at her head. In tearful bursts of accented English, Justin tells Hamid that he and his family will be part of the naturalization ceremony the next day. To convince Justin to drop his gun and to go to the ceremony unscathed, Hamid describes his own acceptance of American citizenship as the "most spiritual moment of my life." He says to Justin, “Look around tomorrow at the faces, and understand the sublime promise of the moment.”
Hamid’s passionate eulogy on becoming an American ignites the critics’ harshest ridicule. Dana Stevens from Slate.com describes this scene as “the movie's glorious nadir, the moment when its leaden self-seriousness transmutes into comedy gold.” Stephanie Zacharek wrote at Salon.com that she “blanched when I heard those words -- they're overwrought, and some people around me in the screening room tittered.” Blanching and tittering, glorious nadir; those are the reactions to an immigrant poeticizing and celebrating the feeling he had upon receiving his American citizenship.
Perhaps this is what earned Crossing Over an 87% disapproval rating from the movie critics at Rotten Tomatoes. How can anyone describe America, and being an American, in such glowing terms? Especially an America that sends a poor, illegal Mexican single mother back to Mexico without her young son? And one that refuses to sympathize with a teen-aged Muslim girl and deports her to an alien Bangladesh? Still, in the eyes of these seemingly equal opportunity immigration advocates/film critics, the deportation of the Muslim potential Jihadist is far worse than that of the white Australian aspiring actress who grants sexual favors to an immigration bureaucrat in “a bizarre sexual quid-pro-quo deal” to get her green card. Even Kramer has no sympathy for this Australian girl, portraying her as a callous opportunist, whereas her Muslim and Mexican counterparts receive ample empathy. Whites, after all, don’t need the kind of saving that Third World immigrants coming from broken governments and fundamental religions require.
Immigration advocates and defenders will never be content until there is unequivocal support for immigrants, and specifically the Third World kind. No need to show the cheating coyotes and the counterfeit card printers. Muslims killing their sisters should never be talked about; it is their culture after all. And it is best to sweep the rising problem of Asian gangs under the carpet. There are so many success stories to document, why go for the bad apples?
The citizenship judge at the ceremony that Justin finally attends describes America as a welcoming country. America is for the taking, not for the (discriminate) giving. Anyone who suggests otherwise will incur the wrath, or hopefully just the ridicule, of these immigration advocates/film critics. Kramer tried to keep to his artistic integrity by providing us with as much truth as possible, despite his clear sympathy for immigration and immigrants. This earned him a contemptuous 13%. But that’s better than an outright zero.
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
And its existential search
CarsonMcCullers in 1959
Carson McCullers was a Southern writer. She relocated to the north, and then lived mostly in Paris in the latter part of her life. Her most famous work is The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, which she wrote when she was just twenty three. About ten years later, she published another successful body of work, a novella and short stories, called The Ballad of the Sad Cafe.
I had read both these books many years ago, and found her works enigmatic and poetic. I just saw a film version of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, with a very intelligent performance by Allan Arkin as the deaf-mute John Singer, which explained many things.
The ending in the film and in the book are slightly different - by this I mean that the reasons for these disparate endings are slightly different. In the book, one gets the impression that Singer had an existential fallout, which was brewing for a long time. In the film, the director made it seem as though Singer was reacting to a visit gone wrong with his deaf-mute friend Spiros Antonapoulos, who had to be transferred to a mental institution after years of living with Singer.
I think people in general are afraid to confront existential fallouts. They want to give concrete "reasons" for drastic choices.
The young girl in the story, Mick, discovers classical music while listening to her rich friend practice the piano. Singer, who rents a room in Mick's family house, learns of this new-found interest, and buys several classical records so that Mick could come and listen to them.
This is how Singer made sense out of his life. He bought things for others, or got them out of trouble, or saved relationships by helping the various parties see their stubborn ways. It seemed, though, that no-one really listened to Singer, but all depended on his seemingly solid presence and kind "ear".
Mick said at one point that her loneliness goes away when she listens to music, and even when she remembers music. She says that Singer ought to find something like that to take his loneliness away.
Of course, that was ultimately Singer's problem. He couldn't find that thing to ease his emptiness, so he depended on people to make himself feel better: by giving them gifts, or his sympathetic ear, or just his time. But, they always disappoint him. Despite the many problems they come to him with, their lives return to normal after a little while, and they don't need him any more - for a while.
I think what Mick was telling him was to find something outside of himself. Because for all his generosity, he was quite stubborn about it. It is as though he had put himself on a pedestal, and expected his generosity to bear fruits - of friendship, of the defeat of loneliness, of gaining happiness. This generosity was part of his ego.
Mick, without realizing it, was telling Singer to let go of himself, and surrender to something bigger than himself, bigger than his ego. For her, it was music. Perhaps for Singer, it could have been God.
I think the book was more correct about Singer's final, drastic choice. The movie, probably having to deal with a fickle audience, gave a more "cause and effect" explanation for Singer's behavior. He treated his deaf-mute mentally deficient friend badly (only marginally so), the friend got sick (heartbroken?) and dies. Therefore Singer thought it was his fault.
Still, the film is closer to the truth than I give it credit for. How pompous of Singer to think that life (and death) revolved around him, so much so that he thought a friend died because of him?
 |
Carson McCullers was a Southern writer. She relocated to the north, and then lived mostly in Paris in the latter part of her life. Her most famous work is The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, which she wrote when she was just twenty three. About ten years later, she published another successful body of work, a novella and short stories, called The Ballad of the Sad Cafe.
I had read both these books many years ago, and found her works enigmatic and poetic. I just saw a film version of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, with a very intelligent performance by Allan Arkin as the deaf-mute John Singer, which explained many things.
The ending in the film and in the book are slightly different - by this I mean that the reasons for these disparate endings are slightly different. In the book, one gets the impression that Singer had an existential fallout, which was brewing for a long time. In the film, the director made it seem as though Singer was reacting to a visit gone wrong with his deaf-mute friend Spiros Antonapoulos, who had to be transferred to a mental institution after years of living with Singer.
I think people in general are afraid to confront existential fallouts. They want to give concrete "reasons" for drastic choices.
The young girl in the story, Mick, discovers classical music while listening to her rich friend practice the piano. Singer, who rents a room in Mick's family house, learns of this new-found interest, and buys several classical records so that Mick could come and listen to them.
This is how Singer made sense out of his life. He bought things for others, or got them out of trouble, or saved relationships by helping the various parties see their stubborn ways. It seemed, though, that no-one really listened to Singer, but all depended on his seemingly solid presence and kind "ear".
Mick said at one point that her loneliness goes away when she listens to music, and even when she remembers music. She says that Singer ought to find something like that to take his loneliness away.
Of course, that was ultimately Singer's problem. He couldn't find that thing to ease his emptiness, so he depended on people to make himself feel better: by giving them gifts, or his sympathetic ear, or just his time. But, they always disappoint him. Despite the many problems they come to him with, their lives return to normal after a little while, and they don't need him any more - for a while.
I think what Mick was telling him was to find something outside of himself. Because for all his generosity, he was quite stubborn about it. It is as though he had put himself on a pedestal, and expected his generosity to bear fruits - of friendship, of the defeat of loneliness, of gaining happiness. This generosity was part of his ego.
Mick, without realizing it, was telling Singer to let go of himself, and surrender to something bigger than himself, bigger than his ego. For her, it was music. Perhaps for Singer, it could have been God.
I think the book was more correct about Singer's final, drastic choice. The movie, probably having to deal with a fickle audience, gave a more "cause and effect" explanation for Singer's behavior. He treated his deaf-mute mentally deficient friend badly (only marginally so), the friend got sick (heartbroken?) and dies. Therefore Singer thought it was his fault.
Still, the film is closer to the truth than I give it credit for. How pompous of Singer to think that life (and death) revolved around him, so much so that he thought a friend died because of him?
Organ Pipes at St. James Cathedral
Both loud and soft
Organ recital program at St. James' weekday "Midday Series"
St. James Cathedral has twice-weekly recitals (mostly organ).
Two pieces struck me in today's "Midday Series" recital, performed by organist John Gardham:
1. I didn't know Elgar's orchestral Enigma Variations (Variation 9, known as Nimrod) was also arranged for organ. It has a less tranquil feel in the organ version. Somehow the pipes from the single (grand) instrument have a louder and stronger sound than the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
You can listen to the two variations below:
Daniel Barenboim with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra
in 1997 season at Carnegie Hall
Organist Diane Bish at the Second Baptist Church in Houston, TX
2. Healey Willan's delicate pieces. Willan was a Canadian organist who composed both liturgical and non-liturgical music.
I cannot find a Youtube version of the recital pieces, but you can listen to short excerpts of the three pieces (about 30 seconds each) to get an idea of how they sound at the Amazon MP3 list - just scroll down to the middle of the page.)
The pieces are: Ecce Jam Noctis, Ave Maris Stella and Aeterna Christi Munera from Preludes on Plainchant Melodies - #s 8, 10 and 11 in the list.
 |
St. James Cathedral has twice-weekly recitals (mostly organ).
Two pieces struck me in today's "Midday Series" recital, performed by organist John Gardham:
1. I didn't know Elgar's orchestral Enigma Variations (Variation 9, known as Nimrod) was also arranged for organ. It has a less tranquil feel in the organ version. Somehow the pipes from the single (grand) instrument have a louder and stronger sound than the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
You can listen to the two variations below:
in 1997 season at Carnegie Hall
2. Healey Willan's delicate pieces. Willan was a Canadian organist who composed both liturgical and non-liturgical music.
I cannot find a Youtube version of the recital pieces, but you can listen to short excerpts of the three pieces (about 30 seconds each) to get an idea of how they sound at the Amazon MP3 list - just scroll down to the middle of the page.)
The pieces are: Ecce Jam Noctis, Ave Maris Stella and Aeterna Christi Munera from Preludes on Plainchant Melodies - #s 8, 10 and 11 in the list.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Our Changing Landscape
An update on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, my speculations on her low profile, and her new book deal with Knopf Canada, which is an autobiography from a Muslim feminist perspective.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Ethnic Jokes
Not a matter of freedoms (of speech and expression)
"Slumdog Millionaire", the movie
that is becoming a source for
Indian-themed jokes
The folks over at VDare are having quite a field day with their Indian-themed posts. They even got into a bit of trouble with a letter from a reader mildly admonishing them for talking about slumdogs and curry smells when writing about Indian immigrants. They also got pretty creative describing the tip of the iceberg of Obama's Chief Technology Officer Vivek Kundra's troubles (I won't spell it out here, since the whole blog post is quite funny and worth reading. Hint: the metaphor deals once again with one of India's scrumptious dishes.)
Patrick Cleburne responded to the polite, but clearly hurt Indian reader that he doesn't plan any time soon on changing this kind of innocuous humor.
This is exactly what I said to the brouhaha that occurred after "Canada's most irritating lefty got himself into trouble" when he wrote about "kick[ing] things off with BBQ cat and rice at the Yang Sheng."
These are harmless, standard jokes. It doesn't really have much to do with political correctness, as Kathy Shaidle maintains, but with a shared tradition of jokes and pleasantries.
There's not much fun to making ethnic jokes because we have rules and laws that protect our freedoms of speech and expression. The point of such jokes is that they do make a jab at the "other", and while doing so, give us a sense of solidarity and cohesiveness, as in "Us vs. Them". But with the onslaught of multiculturalism, ethnic jokes are verboten, as the conservatives who descended on the Lefty Kinsella showed.
Of course, the solution to all this is to minimize the differences - the fewer the Chinese, the more we can make harmless jokes about them, and the less they will make a national and international furor out of these harmless jokes.
Having said that, Kathy certainly does her share of humorously (and more often pugnaciously) putting the "other" in his place. From wikipedia, she is a native of Hamilton, Ontario. Now, I have great respect for Hamiltonians. Perhaps it is the no-nonsense life of a steeltown, but I've always liked their direct approach to things. Now if only Torontonians would take example.
 |
that is becoming a source for
Indian-themed jokes
The folks over at VDare are having quite a field day with their Indian-themed posts. They even got into a bit of trouble with a letter from a reader mildly admonishing them for talking about slumdogs and curry smells when writing about Indian immigrants. They also got pretty creative describing the tip of the iceberg of Obama's Chief Technology Officer Vivek Kundra's troubles (I won't spell it out here, since the whole blog post is quite funny and worth reading. Hint: the metaphor deals once again with one of India's scrumptious dishes.)
Patrick Cleburne responded to the polite, but clearly hurt Indian reader that he doesn't plan any time soon on changing this kind of innocuous humor.
This is exactly what I said to the brouhaha that occurred after "Canada's most irritating lefty got himself into trouble" when he wrote about "kick[ing] things off with BBQ cat and rice at the Yang Sheng."
These are harmless, standard jokes. It doesn't really have much to do with political correctness, as Kathy Shaidle maintains, but with a shared tradition of jokes and pleasantries.
There's not much fun to making ethnic jokes because we have rules and laws that protect our freedoms of speech and expression. The point of such jokes is that they do make a jab at the "other", and while doing so, give us a sense of solidarity and cohesiveness, as in "Us vs. Them". But with the onslaught of multiculturalism, ethnic jokes are verboten, as the conservatives who descended on the Lefty Kinsella showed.
Of course, the solution to all this is to minimize the differences - the fewer the Chinese, the more we can make harmless jokes about them, and the less they will make a national and international furor out of these harmless jokes.
Having said that, Kathy certainly does her share of humorously (and more often pugnaciously) putting the "other" in his place. From wikipedia, she is a native of Hamilton, Ontario. Now, I have great respect for Hamiltonians. Perhaps it is the no-nonsense life of a steeltown, but I've always liked their direct approach to things. Now if only Torontonians would take example.
Monday, March 16, 2009
More Jewelry
Joan Rivers' style
Joan Rivers Jewelry broadcast on QVC or on their online store.
L-R: $22.94 and $29.75
For all of Joan Rivers' strangeness - her endless plastic surgeries, her off-color jokes, her lack of dignity at her advanced age of 75 (although her self-deprecating humor might be her saving grace) - she designs quite beautiful, affordable jewelry which she sells online and on QVC.
I think this should have been her outlet from the beginning. Instead of entering the difficult and fickle world of show business, she should have just designed jewelry. She's one of the few "celebrity" designers who actually makes good stuff. Charo is another artist/entertainer who spent years in the limelight as some kind of bimbo, who really was an accomplished classical guitar player.
I think these kinds of women enter show business hoping to promote (or discover) their artistic nature but they end up in the exhausting world of entertainment, having to sing and dance for their dinner. Probably it is fear (of failure) that kept them at it for so long. Lucky for us that they finally found their true vocations.
 |  |
L-R: $22.94 and $29.75
For all of Joan Rivers' strangeness - her endless plastic surgeries, her off-color jokes, her lack of dignity at her advanced age of 75 (although her self-deprecating humor might be her saving grace) - she designs quite beautiful, affordable jewelry which she sells online and on QVC.
I think this should have been her outlet from the beginning. Instead of entering the difficult and fickle world of show business, she should have just designed jewelry. She's one of the few "celebrity" designers who actually makes good stuff. Charo is another artist/entertainer who spent years in the limelight as some kind of bimbo, who really was an accomplished classical guitar player.
I think these kinds of women enter show business hoping to promote (or discover) their artistic nature but they end up in the exhausting world of entertainment, having to sing and dance for their dinner. Probably it is fear (of failure) that kept them at it for so long. Lucky for us that they finally found their true vocations.
The Clichés of the Heart
Egyptian jeweler designs for Valentine's
Left: Heart with a key necklace
Right: From Azza Fahmy's Valentine collection of a padlock bracelet
The Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. just wrapped up a giant festival of three weeks called Arabesque: Art of the Arab World. The festival took five years to prepare, and involved twenty two Arab countries. According to a Washington Post article, the festival was meant to:
But, more interesting is her Valentine's collection. There is not a single heart (for love) in her designs. Instead, they are full of keys and padlocks. Many Valentine's designs for keys and locks almost always depict the lock in the shape of a heart, but Fahmy doesn't do this even once.
I understand that she trying to give a visual reference to the cliché "the key to my heart", given the title of her collection. But her designs seem to be referring to "the prisoner of my desires" instead.
I always think that at a fundamental level artists (and designers) cannot lie, and if they are forced to, they dry up and can no longer produce their works. I think it is the same with Fahmy. Since she cannot incorporate the heart (for love) into her works, she has to forfeit the heart shape for a generic padlock in order to continue with her Valentine's theme.
This of course brings on more sinister meanings of Arab (or more precisely Muslim) women shackled (to use a word in the program notes) in the homes and lives of their men. These women are locked behind the hijab as they are prisoners in their homes and victims of their husbands' beatings. The Koran says:
Fahmy has said that she likes to put Koranic verses in her jewelry. She is obviously "consciously" mesmerized by the more poetic and gentle verses. But her art exposes the more violent ones, in this case showing us the jailer rather than the lover. This is the fate of artists. They are forced, in one way or another, to reveal the truth.
 |  |
Right: From Azza Fahmy's Valentine collection of a padlock bracelet
The Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. just wrapped up a giant festival of three weeks called Arabesque: Art of the Arab World. The festival took five years to prepare, and involved twenty two Arab countries. According to a Washington Post article, the festival was meant to:
[Unshackle] ourselves from blurry stereotypes and half-formed conceits, [where] we will step into their world without leaving the borders of our city.One exhibition that caught my attention is the work of Egyptian jeweler Azza Fahmy. She has many categories for her designs, including one called Rumuz which means symbols, and which is really a collection of the ancient Middle Eastern or Islamic symbols that she incorrectly (or deliberately?) tries to pass off as universal.
But, more interesting is her Valentine's collection. There is not a single heart (for love) in her designs. Instead, they are full of keys and padlocks. Many Valentine's designs for keys and locks almost always depict the lock in the shape of a heart, but Fahmy doesn't do this even once.
I understand that she trying to give a visual reference to the cliché "the key to my heart", given the title of her collection. But her designs seem to be referring to "the prisoner of my desires" instead.
I always think that at a fundamental level artists (and designers) cannot lie, and if they are forced to, they dry up and can no longer produce their works. I think it is the same with Fahmy. Since she cannot incorporate the heart (for love) into her works, she has to forfeit the heart shape for a generic padlock in order to continue with her Valentine's theme.
This of course brings on more sinister meanings of Arab (or more precisely Muslim) women shackled (to use a word in the program notes) in the homes and lives of their men. These women are locked behind the hijab as they are prisoners in their homes and victims of their husbands' beatings. The Koran says:
Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them… (4:34)There is a tenderness to the first part of this Koranic verse, but as it progresses, and as it describes the potential rebellion of a wife, it gets more violent to the point of allowing the husband to beat his disobedient wife.
Fahmy has said that she likes to put Koranic verses in her jewelry. She is obviously "consciously" mesmerized by the more poetic and gentle verses. But her art exposes the more violent ones, in this case showing us the jailer rather than the lover. This is the fate of artists. They are forced, in one way or another, to reveal the truth.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Refining the Immigration Debate
Over at the View From the Right
Lawrence Auster, over at the View From the Right (VFR), has added a subtle but important refinement to the immigration debate. The truth of the matter is that there is no debate for conservatives. We are just following the whims, feelings and rationales that the opposite side decides to present for the day (or week, or year).
Read the full entry here, at VFR.
The important point is: immigration should be debated on the position that it benefits the nation. It is irrelevant that Third Worlders come here to reap the benefits of the generous and advanced societies; that people try to maintain the emotional memories of past generations of immigrants who came and "made it"; that those from south of the border (i.e. Mexicans) provide cheap labor for California's farmers.
Whenever such arguments are put across to promote immigration, the first question should be:
How do they benefit the nation as a whole?
Of course, this benefit to the nation is an intricate problem in itself. It could mean many things ranging from how immigration is changing the demographics of the nation to how immigrants are taking away the jobs of the natives through cheaper wages, and so on.
The point is, an immigrant-centered argument dominates the debate, and Mr. Auster is saying that it "needs to be exposed and refuted, and not just refuted, but delegitimized." In fact, he even goes further and says, "[P]ersons who are conspicuously compelled by their immigrant background to take pro-open borders positions should be recused from participating in the immigration debate."And the focus should turn toward national benefits, away from the needs of the immigrants to the needs of the nation.
Like I said, it is a subtle point, but it changes the focus of the debate considerably, from immigrant-centered arguments to those which focus on the nation, its needs and requirements. It also allows conservatives to take the lead in the argument.
For more of Lawrence Auster's writing on immigration, of course visit VFR (and simply make use of the search engine), but also read his critical works:
- "The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism" - revised version, February 2007 (available in pdf and html format)
- Huddled Clichés: Exposing the Fraudulent Arguments That Have Opened America’s Borders to the World - original publication in 1997 (available in html)
Lawrence Auster, over at the View From the Right (VFR), has added a subtle but important refinement to the immigration debate. The truth of the matter is that there is no debate for conservatives. We are just following the whims, feelings and rationales that the opposite side decides to present for the day (or week, or year).
Read the full entry here, at VFR.
The important point is: immigration should be debated on the position that it benefits the nation. It is irrelevant that Third Worlders come here to reap the benefits of the generous and advanced societies; that people try to maintain the emotional memories of past generations of immigrants who came and "made it"; that those from south of the border (i.e. Mexicans) provide cheap labor for California's farmers.
Whenever such arguments are put across to promote immigration, the first question should be:
How do they benefit the nation as a whole?
Of course, this benefit to the nation is an intricate problem in itself. It could mean many things ranging from how immigration is changing the demographics of the nation to how immigrants are taking away the jobs of the natives through cheaper wages, and so on.
The point is, an immigrant-centered argument dominates the debate, and Mr. Auster is saying that it "needs to be exposed and refuted, and not just refuted, but delegitimized." In fact, he even goes further and says, "[P]ersons who are conspicuously compelled by their immigrant background to take pro-open borders positions should be recused from participating in the immigration debate."And the focus should turn toward national benefits, away from the needs of the immigrants to the needs of the nation.
Like I said, it is a subtle point, but it changes the focus of the debate considerably, from immigrant-centered arguments to those which focus on the nation, its needs and requirements. It also allows conservatives to take the lead in the argument.
For more of Lawrence Auster's writing on immigration, of course visit VFR (and simply make use of the search engine), but also read his critical works:
- "The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism" - revised version, February 2007 (available in pdf and html format)
- Huddled Clichés: Exposing the Fraudulent Arguments That Have Opened America’s Borders to the World - original publication in 1997 (available in html)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
French Fund Un-Christian Cathedral
Despite Laïcité laws
Évry Cathedral
GalliaWatch writes about Évry Cathedral (scroll to near the end of the post) in France which received government funds for its construction. This is contrary to the Laïcité laws of the land separating Church and state. But, this has become a common occurrence with mosque-building, as documented regularly by GalliaWatch.
Looking at the building that passes for the Évry Cathedral, supposedly a Roman Catholic cathedral, I am amazed at how un-Christian it looks. The architect explains that he tried to follow the circular architecture of Byzantine churches, but this building looks more spiral than circular, and it also has a rectangular section which resembles nothing Roman or Byzantine. Wikipedia suggests that there might be some Masonic influences, as well as pagan references to the four elements of earth, water, air and fire. I also think the the imagination of the architect is at play, who decided to do his own thing. This is happening more and more frequently in architecture, where atrocious and bizarre buildings are cropping up everywhere (see the ROM extension in Toronto).
I don't think, therefore, that it is surprising that the French government had decided to fund the construction of this cathedral. Firstly, it is not very Christian-looking, and secondly the architect admits to non-Christian influences.
Modern liberal societies are trying to get rid of Christianity these days. Supporting buildings which resemble none of the traditional, soaring cathedrals is one way to suppress and diminish Christianity. Évry Cathedral fullfils all those criteria. As do mosques.
 |
GalliaWatch writes about Évry Cathedral (scroll to near the end of the post) in France which received government funds for its construction. This is contrary to the Laïcité laws of the land separating Church and state. But, this has become a common occurrence with mosque-building, as documented regularly by GalliaWatch.
Looking at the building that passes for the Évry Cathedral, supposedly a Roman Catholic cathedral, I am amazed at how un-Christian it looks. The architect explains that he tried to follow the circular architecture of Byzantine churches, but this building looks more spiral than circular, and it also has a rectangular section which resembles nothing Roman or Byzantine. Wikipedia suggests that there might be some Masonic influences, as well as pagan references to the four elements of earth, water, air and fire. I also think the the imagination of the architect is at play, who decided to do his own thing. This is happening more and more frequently in architecture, where atrocious and bizarre buildings are cropping up everywhere (see the ROM extension in Toronto).
I don't think, therefore, that it is surprising that the French government had decided to fund the construction of this cathedral. Firstly, it is not very Christian-looking, and secondly the architect admits to non-Christian influences.
Modern liberal societies are trying to get rid of Christianity these days. Supporting buildings which resemble none of the traditional, soaring cathedrals is one way to suppress and diminish Christianity. Évry Cathedral fullfils all those criteria. As do mosques.
Canadian Conservative Spokesman, or is it Spokeswoman?
And it's Kathy Shaidle!
I know it is difficult for conservatives to criticize each other. One of the problems is that liberals (and the Liberal Party) are so obviously alien to us, that it simply becomes an "us vs. them" thing. But, I will try to provide constructive criticism here.
Kathy Shaidle's pugnacious activism can be a good thing - she managed to write a book because she got into trouble for her very freely expressed opinions (and loose adjectives).
Still, I suppose this is nothing new with conservative (especially women) writers. There is Girl on the Right who has a similar style to Shaidle's, and the rather cryptic Small Dead Animals. In the U.S. there is the abrasive style of Michelle Malkin, the bizarre blog that Debbie Schlussel maintains which is part rants part movie reviews, and the much more sophisticated but equally harsh Ann Coulter.
Maybe this kind of style is necessary, and we do need activist-style national attack dogs (or cats - no Warren Kinsella has no bearing here), but in the process of attacking, these messengers either distort, or fail to convey their messages.
Back to Shaidle, now a vocal spokesman for Canadian conservatives. How did she react in the following situations?
- As a retaliation to the Human Rights Commission's attempt to stifle freedoms of expression, she co-wrote a book to detail the many incidents that have already occurred under this Commission. But she stopped there. Wouldn't the next logical step be to try and disband this Commission altogether, or at least support and write about groups who do? She has nothing more on this besides publicity for her book on her blog.
- She got into an internet "fight" with the rather pathetic Liberal adviser Warren Kinsella over an invitation to be a guest on a panel at TV Ontario. She was supposed to talk about atheism in Canada. But it was clear she hadn't researched the subject, as revealed by her inability to answer one of Steve Paikin's simplest questions: "Have secular humanists have already won the war?" She gave an ill-thought out, generic answer of "fifty-fifty", without any explanation as to how she got to that answer, and I was left thinking, "she hasn't even prepared for this panel." (You can listen to it around the 51:46 point in the downloadable podcast).
So much for the fight with Kinsella. He might have been right after all to contest her presence on that panel. Unfortunately, this is how she appears on many other panels, including the Michael Coren show, and Behind the Story.
- Despite her aggressive, and at time bellicose, vocabulary she is surprisingly lenient towards these very groups she attacks. The famous "BBQ cats in Chinese restaurants" joke by her Liberal rival Warren Kinsella resulted with an almost apologetic reaction from Shaidle towards the Chinese. In fact, this whole silly episode just strengthened the Chinese community which demanded an apology for this harmless comment from the Liberal Party.
- In an interview with Robert Spencer about Muslims, she never put him to task about what to do with the Muslims that seem to bring out so much of her ire. I got the impression that she was more concerned with not ruffling Spencer's feathers than finding solutions to the Muslim problem.
And this is exactly her problem. What are the solutions? Constant vitriol reaches its limit after a while. But then, that is the problem with conservatives in general. They are obsessed with reacting to liberal follies, writing about them ad nauseam, jeering along with their fellow-conservatives about liberals’ stupid ways. But when put to task to discuss the real dangers of atheism, or who exactly are these Muslims, or what to do when ethnic minorities start asking for special interventions, they are at a loss. Simply because they haven’t studied the problems deep enough, and are just happy to skim the surfaces and let their indignations flow. A lazy form of journalism.
This is no way to be a conservative. Nor is it any way to make any changes. Their sources simply becomes another illegible blog or newspaper article. And the danger is that these conservatives begin to ignore or abandoned true conservative values, having by-passed the deep-seated issues. They then start to behave like their liberal nemeses.
I know it is difficult for conservatives to criticize each other. One of the problems is that liberals (and the Liberal Party) are so obviously alien to us, that it simply becomes an "us vs. them" thing. But, I will try to provide constructive criticism here.
Kathy Shaidle's pugnacious activism can be a good thing - she managed to write a book because she got into trouble for her very freely expressed opinions (and loose adjectives).
Still, I suppose this is nothing new with conservative (especially women) writers. There is Girl on the Right who has a similar style to Shaidle's, and the rather cryptic Small Dead Animals. In the U.S. there is the abrasive style of Michelle Malkin, the bizarre blog that Debbie Schlussel maintains which is part rants part movie reviews, and the much more sophisticated but equally harsh Ann Coulter.
Maybe this kind of style is necessary, and we do need activist-style national attack dogs (or cats - no Warren Kinsella has no bearing here), but in the process of attacking, these messengers either distort, or fail to convey their messages.
Back to Shaidle, now a vocal spokesman for Canadian conservatives. How did she react in the following situations?
- As a retaliation to the Human Rights Commission's attempt to stifle freedoms of expression, she co-wrote a book to detail the many incidents that have already occurred under this Commission. But she stopped there. Wouldn't the next logical step be to try and disband this Commission altogether, or at least support and write about groups who do? She has nothing more on this besides publicity for her book on her blog.
- She got into an internet "fight" with the rather pathetic Liberal adviser Warren Kinsella over an invitation to be a guest on a panel at TV Ontario. She was supposed to talk about atheism in Canada. But it was clear she hadn't researched the subject, as revealed by her inability to answer one of Steve Paikin's simplest questions: "Have secular humanists have already won the war?" She gave an ill-thought out, generic answer of "fifty-fifty", without any explanation as to how she got to that answer, and I was left thinking, "she hasn't even prepared for this panel." (You can listen to it around the 51:46 point in the downloadable podcast).
So much for the fight with Kinsella. He might have been right after all to contest her presence on that panel. Unfortunately, this is how she appears on many other panels, including the Michael Coren show, and Behind the Story.
- Despite her aggressive, and at time bellicose, vocabulary she is surprisingly lenient towards these very groups she attacks. The famous "BBQ cats in Chinese restaurants" joke by her Liberal rival Warren Kinsella resulted with an almost apologetic reaction from Shaidle towards the Chinese. In fact, this whole silly episode just strengthened the Chinese community which demanded an apology for this harmless comment from the Liberal Party.
- In an interview with Robert Spencer about Muslims, she never put him to task about what to do with the Muslims that seem to bring out so much of her ire. I got the impression that she was more concerned with not ruffling Spencer's feathers than finding solutions to the Muslim problem.
And this is exactly her problem. What are the solutions? Constant vitriol reaches its limit after a while. But then, that is the problem with conservatives in general. They are obsessed with reacting to liberal follies, writing about them ad nauseam, jeering along with their fellow-conservatives about liberals’ stupid ways. But when put to task to discuss the real dangers of atheism, or who exactly are these Muslims, or what to do when ethnic minorities start asking for special interventions, they are at a loss. Simply because they haven’t studied the problems deep enough, and are just happy to skim the surfaces and let their indignations flow. A lazy form of journalism.
This is no way to be a conservative. Nor is it any way to make any changes. Their sources simply becomes another illegible blog or newspaper article. And the danger is that these conservatives begin to ignore or abandoned true conservative values, having by-passed the deep-seated issues. They then start to behave like their liberal nemeses.
Update on "Black Friends and the Obamas"
More anecdotes
In my previous post, which was more an anecdotal account of a black friend's constant insistence on tainting everything "black", it seems that I was basing my conclusions about the Obamas' gift-giving behavior on only that one person.
No, there are several incidents, and several people, and it might be interesting to post them.
1. An anthropology Ph.D. candidate and black former friend (again from Jamaica) wrote his thesis about sickle-cell anemia and how it has been targeted as a black disease. His convoluted point was that sickle-cell anemia became a way to divide the races, and to determine white hegemony.
There was an incident where this friend was talking about a recent visit to the hospital, and he was immediately asked to have a sickle-cell anemia test. His point on telling this story was how racist this was. Mine was, " How strange, if blacks have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, then what is wrong with screening for it as a preventative method?".
Needless to say, I didn't say this, since a previous argument about the "blackness" of Cleopatra, which I disagreed with, was met with disdain and suspicion. Already, people of Ethiopian background are "suspect" with Caribbean, Canadian and American blacks.
2. An acquaintance was always extremely sensitive about the police. He felt that he would be inevitably singled out by the police, although he confessed that he had never been stopped by them. I found his fears very strange since he drove a very smart Volvo, which is an unconventional car for a black man to drive. And the cops obviously thought so too, since they stopped him zero times. Also, his whining and fearful behavior disappointed me.
3. A black friend who married a white woman would constantly talk about colonization, white discrimination, racism etc. I used to wonder how his wife could stand it. I heard recently that they had divorced.
4. Black filmmakers, artists and designers always, always, turn to black issues and black themes when doing their work. "Issues" doesn't mean black culture (however that's defined), but black grievances against whites. I have, to date, not met a single black filmmaker, artist or designer who hasn't worked in this manner. Maybe I should look more, but I doubt it will change much.
And the list goes on.
Blackness is a way of life. As I wrote in my previous post, it consists of surrounding one's whole life around this racial premise, usually with negative connotations towards whites, and disinterest in anything else. It also means that anything to do with whites, the nemeses of blacks, is suspect or even harmful. Black culture thus insulates itself from mainstream, white culture, making interactions with whites difficult or strained. Usually the onus for positive interaction lies on the whites.
In my previous post, which was more an anecdotal account of a black friend's constant insistence on tainting everything "black", it seems that I was basing my conclusions about the Obamas' gift-giving behavior on only that one person.
No, there are several incidents, and several people, and it might be interesting to post them.
1. An anthropology Ph.D. candidate and black former friend (again from Jamaica) wrote his thesis about sickle-cell anemia and how it has been targeted as a black disease. His convoluted point was that sickle-cell anemia became a way to divide the races, and to determine white hegemony.
There was an incident where this friend was talking about a recent visit to the hospital, and he was immediately asked to have a sickle-cell anemia test. His point on telling this story was how racist this was. Mine was, " How strange, if blacks have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, then what is wrong with screening for it as a preventative method?".
Needless to say, I didn't say this, since a previous argument about the "blackness" of Cleopatra, which I disagreed with, was met with disdain and suspicion. Already, people of Ethiopian background are "suspect" with Caribbean, Canadian and American blacks.
2. An acquaintance was always extremely sensitive about the police. He felt that he would be inevitably singled out by the police, although he confessed that he had never been stopped by them. I found his fears very strange since he drove a very smart Volvo, which is an unconventional car for a black man to drive. And the cops obviously thought so too, since they stopped him zero times. Also, his whining and fearful behavior disappointed me.
3. A black friend who married a white woman would constantly talk about colonization, white discrimination, racism etc. I used to wonder how his wife could stand it. I heard recently that they had divorced.
4. Black filmmakers, artists and designers always, always, turn to black issues and black themes when doing their work. "Issues" doesn't mean black culture (however that's defined), but black grievances against whites. I have, to date, not met a single black filmmaker, artist or designer who hasn't worked in this manner. Maybe I should look more, but I doubt it will change much.
And the list goes on.
Blackness is a way of life. As I wrote in my previous post, it consists of surrounding one's whole life around this racial premise, usually with negative connotations towards whites, and disinterest in anything else. It also means that anything to do with whites, the nemeses of blacks, is suspect or even harmful. Black culture thus insulates itself from mainstream, white culture, making interactions with whites difficult or strained. Usually the onus for positive interaction lies on the whites.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
New Songs
And talented singer-songwriters
Hey There Delilah by Plain White T's
I am always relieved and surprised to find that pop tunes are being made with passable or even superior lyrics and tunes. Hey There Delilah has a really folksy, lovely melody, which reminds me of that age-old song Are You Going to Scarborough Fair. The band name Plain White T's is a bit of a disappointment, though.
I've never liked Simon and Garfunkel's breathy version of Are You Going to Scarborough Fair. I have below a version of Scarborough Fair sung by someone called "Anglo Saxon". I don't know who Anglo Saxon is, I found his rendition through an internet search, but his website says: "Anglo Saxon intends to write, record and release songs with a distinctly patriotic feel and a celebration of English/British culture."
I think he sings Scarborough Fair way better than than the Simon and Garfunkel duo. He puts force and energy behind the song, and crisp vocals. I also really like the arrangement. It sounds electronic, but he kept the gentle mood of the song with what sounds like a dulcimer accompaniment, and the later base guitar and violins give the song a full sound.
More songs by Anglo Saxon here, including one called This is England.
Just one sad note. Why does he have to qualify his name "Anglo Saxon" with this:
Are You Going to Scarborough Fair by Anglo Saxon
I am always relieved and surprised to find that pop tunes are being made with passable or even superior lyrics and tunes. Hey There Delilah has a really folksy, lovely melody, which reminds me of that age-old song Are You Going to Scarborough Fair. The band name Plain White T's is a bit of a disappointment, though.
I've never liked Simon and Garfunkel's breathy version of Are You Going to Scarborough Fair. I have below a version of Scarborough Fair sung by someone called "Anglo Saxon". I don't know who Anglo Saxon is, I found his rendition through an internet search, but his website says: "Anglo Saxon intends to write, record and release songs with a distinctly patriotic feel and a celebration of English/British culture."
I think he sings Scarborough Fair way better than than the Simon and Garfunkel duo. He puts force and energy behind the song, and crisp vocals. I also really like the arrangement. It sounds electronic, but he kept the gentle mood of the song with what sounds like a dulcimer accompaniment, and the later base guitar and violins give the song a full sound.
More songs by Anglo Saxon here, including one called This is England.
Just one sad note. Why does he have to qualify his name "Anglo Saxon" with this:
We are not remotely racist…. just extremely proud of our race (the Northern European mix) who’s ancestors built Stonehenge, Hadrian’s Wall, York Minster, signed the magna carta and are the major contributor to today’s western culture.I know of no other race which says "we are proud of our race, but we're not racist". Obama doesn't do it. Michelle certainly not. And look at what the Chinese are doing in Calgary.
Cat Jokes and Sino-Canadian Relations
Not the best of times (if they ever were)
$60M South Asian-themed mall to be built in Markham, On
Recently, the Liberal Party spokesman, Warren Kinsella, received a lot of flack from .... conservative writers for making a simple, standard joke about Chinese restaurants and cat meat. I have blogged about it here, where I wrote:
Now, we have the Chinese in Calgary, Alberta, making demands on city policies which do not cater to their specific ethnic group. Actually, this is nothing new from the Chinese, who have quietly been making inroads into Canadian culture for several decades now.
This latest altercation involves a report by the City Hall of Calgary which advised that Calgary:
The Chinese are as ethnocentric as the Muslims, the Somali or the Indians. The happy family of diverse and integrated groups does not exist. And above all, each group will try to infiltrate whatever government or political body it can to advance various ethnocentric agenda.
This is what the Chinese really think, despite so many Canadian bloggers' heartfelt embarrassment at Kinsella's probably one funny moment. They don't really want to be Canadian, and they will go as far as they can to maintain their ethnic difference.
 |
Recently, the Liberal Party spokesman, Warren Kinsella, received a lot of flack from .... conservative writers for making a simple, standard joke about Chinese restaurants and cat meat. I have blogged about it here, where I wrote:
Canada's most irritating lefty has gotten himself into trouble, which has all the conservatives [1, 2, 3, 4, and yes, even the aptly named Blazing Cat Fur] rubbing their hands with glee.Of course, partisan politics is often bitter, and if the other side gets caught, there is room for amusement, and even elbow prodding. But, the fallout from all this was that the Chinese community got more cocky, and started demanding apologies from the Liberal Party for this innocuous joke. About fifty years ago, would any Canadian party have bothered with apologies, let alone weeks of inter-party acrimony?
Now, we have the Chinese in Calgary, Alberta, making demands on city policies which do not cater to their specific ethnic group. Actually, this is nothing new from the Chinese, who have quietly been making inroads into Canadian culture for several decades now.
This latest altercation involves a report by the City Hall of Calgary which advised that Calgary:
should avoid the development of 'Asian' malls that cater only to a specific ethnic group...An effort must be made to avoid 'exclusive' cultural-specific retail developments, as they lead to marginalized ethnic enclaves which can diminish overall community cohesiveness.This of course is a reaction to the multicultural policy and wishful thinking of the Canadian government. If ethnic enclaves, via malls, shopping centers, neighborhoods, etc., are allowed, how can we all live in the ecstatic harmony of multiculturalism?
The Chinese are as ethnocentric as the Muslims, the Somali or the Indians. The happy family of diverse and integrated groups does not exist. And above all, each group will try to infiltrate whatever government or political body it can to advance various ethnocentric agenda.
This is what the Chinese really think, despite so many Canadian bloggers' heartfelt embarrassment at Kinsella's probably one funny moment. They don't really want to be Canadian, and they will go as far as they can to maintain their ethnic difference.
My Black Friend's Similarities with the Obamas
Or, how blacks lack culture
Plastic helicopters for the Brown boys
The internet is abuzz with the gifts that Barack and Michelle Obama gave to Gordon and Sarah Brown. People are talking about how cheap they are (The Wizard of Oz DVD can go for as little as $2 online, for example). Many are also saying that these gifts were haphazard and thoughtless. Apparently Michelle's gift to Sarah's two sons was plastic models of the helicopter her husband flies. The Browns, on the other hand, look like they spent time (and money) on their gifts, including taking into consideration the personalities of the Presidential couple and their children. Here is a comprehensive list of their gifts, with some explanations.
I think part of the problem with this gift-giving faux pas (pl.) (LOL) is that the Obamas cannot fit into the mainstream, Western culture, which is still the culture of America and Britain. I used to have a good friend in university who was black (from Jamaica). Almost everything we planned together related to "black" things (I was accommodating, partly because I am genuinely interested in a wide variety of things), from plays to music and including the gifts she would give me. One gift I remember well was the biography of Langston Hughes. We had previously attended a lecture by the biographer, at her request. I was always more interested in giving her things related to her character, like ear-rings or scarves.
"Let's go and see that modern dance group" I would say. Or a classical choir group. In fact, I was a member of a choir, and she never attended our public performances (my singing in a Brahms Requiem concert was a big deal, which family members duly attended, mainly to keep me happy, I think! But friends? Well, they can give any excuse.) I eventually started going alone to campus "foreign" films - French, Japanese, even Brazilian (lots of blacks there).
So, the point of my story is that the point of reference for the Obamas is "blackness". I've experienced this with black friends and acquaintances. Not only is their point of reference "blackness", it often is associated with a deep-seated grievance against whites. As my anecdotal experience with my black friend might show, I don't think they are really curious about the rest of the world, which is mostly a white and Western world. Not only are they not curious, they are antagonistic towards it. Therefore, since they have not studied it, are not curious about it, and even harbor negative feelings towards it, when placed in the middle of this white world, they don't know how to react.
Like my black friend, the Obamas have no way of knowing how to interact, in a personal, friendly way, to their white counterparts. In public meetings and conferences, Obama can be trained or prodded to act in a certain way. In a genuine personal setting, it looks like he and his wife are at a loss.
 |
The internet is abuzz with the gifts that Barack and Michelle Obama gave to Gordon and Sarah Brown. People are talking about how cheap they are (The Wizard of Oz DVD can go for as little as $2 online, for example). Many are also saying that these gifts were haphazard and thoughtless. Apparently Michelle's gift to Sarah's two sons was plastic models of the helicopter her husband flies. The Browns, on the other hand, look like they spent time (and money) on their gifts, including taking into consideration the personalities of the Presidential couple and their children. Here is a comprehensive list of their gifts, with some explanations.
I think part of the problem with this gift-giving faux pas (pl.) (LOL) is that the Obamas cannot fit into the mainstream, Western culture, which is still the culture of America and Britain. I used to have a good friend in university who was black (from Jamaica). Almost everything we planned together related to "black" things (I was accommodating, partly because I am genuinely interested in a wide variety of things), from plays to music and including the gifts she would give me. One gift I remember well was the biography of Langston Hughes. We had previously attended a lecture by the biographer, at her request. I was always more interested in giving her things related to her character, like ear-rings or scarves.
"Let's go and see that modern dance group" I would say. Or a classical choir group. In fact, I was a member of a choir, and she never attended our public performances (my singing in a Brahms Requiem concert was a big deal, which family members duly attended, mainly to keep me happy, I think! But friends? Well, they can give any excuse.) I eventually started going alone to campus "foreign" films - French, Japanese, even Brazilian (lots of blacks there).
So, the point of my story is that the point of reference for the Obamas is "blackness". I've experienced this with black friends and acquaintances. Not only is their point of reference "blackness", it often is associated with a deep-seated grievance against whites. As my anecdotal experience with my black friend might show, I don't think they are really curious about the rest of the world, which is mostly a white and Western world. Not only are they not curious, they are antagonistic towards it. Therefore, since they have not studied it, are not curious about it, and even harbor negative feelings towards it, when placed in the middle of this white world, they don't know how to react.
Like my black friend, the Obamas have no way of knowing how to interact, in a personal, friendly way, to their white counterparts. In public meetings and conferences, Obama can be trained or prodded to act in a certain way. In a genuine personal setting, it looks like he and his wife are at a loss.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Pretty Paintings
By the French giants
Left: The Dream, Rousseau, 1910
Center:Red Interior, Still Life on
a Blue Table, Matisse, 1947
Right: Ballerina in Green, Degas, 1880
[Click on images to see larger versions]
James Kalb over at the quiet and thoughtful Turnabout asks "Do pretty flowers mean that the French are totally immoral?"
His whole post is a rumination on aesthetics for aesthetics' sake - or merely prettiness for prettiness' sake.
Then he'd have to wonder about Degas' ballerina series and think of Matisses' textiled interiors. These are two artists who have stood out, to me, for their focus on looking at something pleasurable. Sure enough, Degas' ballerinas could convey the hard, physical, work of these tiny girls, who may suffer for their art (or just to earn a sou), and many of Matisses' interiors do seem to have a story behind them.
But, when I first started looking at them, all I thought was how pretty they were. In fact, I disdained Matisse, because he ultimately seemed to want to paint just wallpapers - flat images with an all over effect.
It was later that I realized all the influences Degas had to go through to get his style behind these ballerinas, including Japanese painting. And how Matisse traveled to North Africa to study precisely the decorative aspects of their art (or craft) which led him to more spiritual explorations.
The same with the flowers that stood out for Mr. Kalb. Has he not noticed the perspective - the foggy distance behind the carefully arranged "gate" of leaves which is reminiscent of Leonardo's dark background landscapes? And how the flowers alarmingly loom into the foreground, almost plunging into our space leaving the painting? And the strange bird-like foliage on the right and left which look a little like the foreboding imaginary jungles of Henri Rousseau?
I've long learned that there are no pretty paintings (at least by the classical painters). They are all trying to investigate some ideology, spirituality, imaginative landscape, exotic styles, art concepts, and the list goes on. Painting is the most deceptive of all arts. It looks decorative, but it is intensely philosophical. Which means that it is not immoral at all, i.e. it is not there purely for pleasure.
Perhaps French perfume could fall under that category.
 |  |  |
Center:Red Interior, Still Life on
a Blue Table, Matisse, 1947
Right: Ballerina in Green, Degas, 1880
[Click on images to see larger versions]
James Kalb over at the quiet and thoughtful Turnabout asks "Do pretty flowers mean that the French are totally immoral?"
His whole post is a rumination on aesthetics for aesthetics' sake - or merely prettiness for prettiness' sake.
Then he'd have to wonder about Degas' ballerina series and think of Matisses' textiled interiors. These are two artists who have stood out, to me, for their focus on looking at something pleasurable. Sure enough, Degas' ballerinas could convey the hard, physical, work of these tiny girls, who may suffer for their art (or just to earn a sou), and many of Matisses' interiors do seem to have a story behind them.
But, when I first started looking at them, all I thought was how pretty they were. In fact, I disdained Matisse, because he ultimately seemed to want to paint just wallpapers - flat images with an all over effect.
It was later that I realized all the influences Degas had to go through to get his style behind these ballerinas, including Japanese painting. And how Matisse traveled to North Africa to study precisely the decorative aspects of their art (or craft) which led him to more spiritual explorations.
The same with the flowers that stood out for Mr. Kalb. Has he not noticed the perspective - the foggy distance behind the carefully arranged "gate" of leaves which is reminiscent of Leonardo's dark background landscapes? And how the flowers alarmingly loom into the foreground, almost plunging into our space leaving the painting? And the strange bird-like foliage on the right and left which look a little like the foreboding imaginary jungles of Henri Rousseau?
I've long learned that there are no pretty paintings (at least by the classical painters). They are all trying to investigate some ideology, spirituality, imaginative landscape, exotic styles, art concepts, and the list goes on. Painting is the most deceptive of all arts. It looks decorative, but it is intensely philosophical. Which means that it is not immoral at all, i.e. it is not there purely for pleasure.
Perhaps French perfume could fall under that category.
Our Changing Landscape
A new post up entitled How to run for office:
Muslims rally together to have an airtight, all-Muslim executive team to run for the 2009 Ryerson University Student Union.
Now, this is clearly a perfect model for the real world of politics. Surely, with a little more time, such boldness will not be noticed, or be considered out of the norm. After all, we will have had ample practice at our universities and high schools.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Search for Camera Lucida
I've added a "search" function for my blog. It works pretty well. Of course, I also have divided the posts into "topics" to make it easier to access previous posts.
The Lord Is My Shepherd
Psalm 23
Take the time to read every line of this short, lovely psalm.
Take the time to read every line of this short, lovely psalm.
| 1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. |
A Thousand Clowns
A whacky film from NYC
Murray and Nick sing "Yes, sir, that's my baby" to the social worker
I've always thought that there is something about black and white film that somehow makes for beautiful imagery. I think it is the glittering contrast of the light and dark, the shimmering grays, the lines (like a black and white drawing) which allows us to focus on the images than when the film is so cluttered with color.
Anyway, this funny, at times sad, film A thousand clowns made in 1965 is about the maturation of a middle-aged man who has to follow conventions in order to keep his twelve-year-old nephew with him, and not have him whisked away by do-gooders from the child welfare agency.
The film was also a lovely opportunity to see the sights of the city: the rivers and harbors, Central Park, Lincoln Center (as it was being built!), Brooklyn Bridge, brownstone buildings and the solid, stately apartment buildings whose beautiful architecture always surprises me.
There was a scene where Murray (the eccentric uncle) was sitting by the glittering river, head in hand, gulls flying around him, when he had to decide that his behavior had to change in order to keep his beloved nephew Nick. There was no sound, but the flurry of gulls' wings around him, which reflected his state of mind. The director filmed it just slightly slow-motion giving a touch of heaviness to the scene (imagine gulls taking off in "slightly slow-motion"), indicating once again Murray's burdened mind. There were many editing and filmic devices such as this that the director used to make similar symbolic or metaphoric statements.
For all his clowning around, Murray (Jason Robards) has a great voice, a little of which you can listen to in the above YouTube, where he sings the film's signature "Yes, Sir, that's my baby".
I've always thought that there is something about black and white film that somehow makes for beautiful imagery. I think it is the glittering contrast of the light and dark, the shimmering grays, the lines (like a black and white drawing) which allows us to focus on the images than when the film is so cluttered with color.
Anyway, this funny, at times sad, film A thousand clowns made in 1965 is about the maturation of a middle-aged man who has to follow conventions in order to keep his twelve-year-old nephew with him, and not have him whisked away by do-gooders from the child welfare agency.
The film was also a lovely opportunity to see the sights of the city: the rivers and harbors, Central Park, Lincoln Center (as it was being built!), Brooklyn Bridge, brownstone buildings and the solid, stately apartment buildings whose beautiful architecture always surprises me.
There was a scene where Murray (the eccentric uncle) was sitting by the glittering river, head in hand, gulls flying around him, when he had to decide that his behavior had to change in order to keep his beloved nephew Nick. There was no sound, but the flurry of gulls' wings around him, which reflected his state of mind. The director filmed it just slightly slow-motion giving a touch of heaviness to the scene (imagine gulls taking off in "slightly slow-motion"), indicating once again Murray's burdened mind. There were many editing and filmic devices such as this that the director used to make similar symbolic or metaphoric statements.
For all his clowning around, Murray (Jason Robards) has a great voice, a little of which you can listen to in the above YouTube, where he sings the film's signature "Yes, Sir, that's my baby".
Geert Wilders, Fitna and Beauty
Almost a year ago, I wrote an article about Fitna entitled: License for Asthetics in Wilders' "Fitna". It was published in ChronWatch, which you can read here. (It is also available in my articles archive, here.)
Now, a year later, Wilders is making his rounds - in the U.S. at the moment - showing the film and making presentations. He was denied entry into England. I wonder what happened with Canada - just across the border? Could no-one book him, or was it too much of a risk (or potential humiliation, a la the British?)
Here is my blog entry for Fitna from last year. I've copied the whole (short) piece below:
In an era when gratuitous violence, extreme, incredible violence, is coated malignantly with the pill of aesthetics, Geert Wilders’ Fitna has struck the right chord.I still feel very strongly about this. Islam has given us horrible imagery. Decapitations, bludgeonings of young girls by their brothers and fathers, exploding buildings, young children with bombs attached to them blowing themselves up.
Wilders decides to go for the aesthetic effect. He places the translations of the Koranic verses on sepia toned pages of the Koran itself with its beautiful script and gilded borders. His images of newspaper, film and photographic footage are placed within diffused frames in soft-focus, once again on the sepia-colored background. Even the harsh scenes of the soldier’s beheading, whose final horror Wilders spares us by substituting the images with the muffled, still bone-chilling, sounds of the gagged soldier’s last screams, are presented within blurred frames on a softened background. The music is two classical pieces by Tchaikovsky and Grieg.
The ever-intelligent Wilders must have realized the horror, the pitiful sordidness of this, and made his film with a "license for asthetics".
In my article, I write about traditional artists (not modern artists, who seem to relish in ugliness) who made aesthetics a high priority. Even the crucified Jesus, with blood coming out of his body, is painted to encourage our contemplation rather than our repulsion.
Perhaps that is the fundamental problem of Islam. It has no beauty to contemplate - at least not for long. Mohamed's Koran, for those who are beguiled by it, does contain seductive and beautiful parts, but for the astute readers, horror and ugliness soon start taking precedence, dominating everything else.