Friday 16 December 2005
Fictional characters...
I have just added Tuco from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to my Biographical Dictionary of Fictional Characters [link removed]. That brings to five, the number of real entries. I'll try and add a few more characters from the film in the next couple of days.
UPDATE: I have taken down the Biographical Dictionary of Fictional Characters website due to lack of interest; both the wider community's and my own.
UPDATE: I have taken down the Biographical Dictionary of Fictional Characters website due to lack of interest; both the wider community's and my own.
Tuesday 13 December 2005
Interpreting violence...
There was a very ugly 'race riot' at Cronulla on Sunday, followed by two evenings of sporadic retaliation in a number of other suburbs around Sydney and we're promised more of the same tonight. The blogs, papers and (actually this is only a guess because I haven't bothered to turn on commercial radio) talk back radio are full of discussions about what it means. Both the right and the extreme left seem to have come to similar conclusions; it's the inevitable result of a conservative ideology. Of course they're not blaming the same conservative ideology, the right blames 'certain strains' of Islam while the radical left blame the inherent racism of 'white culture'. Read beyond the links I've provided and you'll find plenty of other opinions about what's behind it all.
It's inevitable that such incidents will be used as evidence of the truth of this or that position, just as it is inevitable that attempts to contain such incidents within narrow political outlooks will fail. Not that there isn't some truth in both positions mentioned above along with many of the others circulating.
To start with the weaker position; that 'certain strains' of Islam are the problem, I would suggest that the violent youth sub culture that motivates the 'Middle Eastern' youth involved in the recent violence has little to do with any strain of Islam. They are primarily interested in night-clubs, cars, women and drugs (cannabis and amphetamines). Their Islam - which does not seem to extend beyond wearing silver swords around their necks - is purely a token of membership. A neat way of distinguishing themselves from other groups that share similar interests. The violence associated with this particular group has many causes, journalist Nadia Jamal explores some of these in an opinion piece in the SMH. I would argue that while Jihadist strains of Islam are somewhere in the mix they are far from the most important.
It is true that certain 'racist' (or culturally chauvinistic) elements of Australian society have played a significant part in the recent violence, but to label Australian culture as 'white' and 'inherently racist' is to indulge in exactly the same kind of generalisations that racists do. And it is counterproductive if your goal is to fix these problems. By framing Australian culture in that way you prevent people from trying to find a place within it. But if your aim was to further isolate certain sections of the community - to radicalise them perhaps - you'd be on the right track.
The violence was really the next stage in an ongoing clash between two Sydney 'tribes' vying for the same limited beach space. It was fuelled by a media too interested in making money - racial tension sells papers and considered analysis does not - and some very ugly, racist political opportunists.
The risk is that it will grow into a full blown 'race' war. Just because I don't think any form of Islam is a significant motivator on the 'middle eastern' side of this thing, doesn't mean that Jihadist ideologues aren't loitering on the periphery of mainstream Islam waiting for alienated and misguided youth to show an interest. And the various 'white supremacist' groups have all ready demonstrated an ability to manipulate a problem to their advantage.
Despite all this I am not that pessimistic about the future. I think that if police can interrupt the thugs on both sides, the media can expose the tactics of the racist political opportunists and the broader community can make its condemnation of violent behaviour plain, then there is no chance of a 'race war'. Even without these things I still doubt it will come; I've lived in Sydney's south west all my life and have seen too many positive instances of cultural diversity to think it will all collapse anytime soon.
It's inevitable that such incidents will be used as evidence of the truth of this or that position, just as it is inevitable that attempts to contain such incidents within narrow political outlooks will fail. Not that there isn't some truth in both positions mentioned above along with many of the others circulating.
To start with the weaker position; that 'certain strains' of Islam are the problem, I would suggest that the violent youth sub culture that motivates the 'Middle Eastern' youth involved in the recent violence has little to do with any strain of Islam. They are primarily interested in night-clubs, cars, women and drugs (cannabis and amphetamines). Their Islam - which does not seem to extend beyond wearing silver swords around their necks - is purely a token of membership. A neat way of distinguishing themselves from other groups that share similar interests. The violence associated with this particular group has many causes, journalist Nadia Jamal explores some of these in an opinion piece in the SMH. I would argue that while Jihadist strains of Islam are somewhere in the mix they are far from the most important.
It is true that certain 'racist' (or culturally chauvinistic) elements of Australian society have played a significant part in the recent violence, but to label Australian culture as 'white' and 'inherently racist' is to indulge in exactly the same kind of generalisations that racists do. And it is counterproductive if your goal is to fix these problems. By framing Australian culture in that way you prevent people from trying to find a place within it. But if your aim was to further isolate certain sections of the community - to radicalise them perhaps - you'd be on the right track.
The violence was really the next stage in an ongoing clash between two Sydney 'tribes' vying for the same limited beach space. It was fuelled by a media too interested in making money - racial tension sells papers and considered analysis does not - and some very ugly, racist political opportunists.
The risk is that it will grow into a full blown 'race' war. Just because I don't think any form of Islam is a significant motivator on the 'middle eastern' side of this thing, doesn't mean that Jihadist ideologues aren't loitering on the periphery of mainstream Islam waiting for alienated and misguided youth to show an interest. And the various 'white supremacist' groups have all ready demonstrated an ability to manipulate a problem to their advantage.
Despite all this I am not that pessimistic about the future. I think that if police can interrupt the thugs on both sides, the media can expose the tactics of the racist political opportunists and the broader community can make its condemnation of violent behaviour plain, then there is no chance of a 'race war'. Even without these things I still doubt it will come; I've lived in Sydney's south west all my life and have seen too many positive instances of cultural diversity to think it will all collapse anytime soon.
Sunday 11 December 2005
The politics of division...
I recently responded to a piece by Andrew Montin on Populism at Hold That Thought. There I outlined my reasons for being generally suspicious of populist politics. After reading the latest piece by Mark at Interbreeding I wanted to address the issue further.
Right wing politics is rife with those who seek to further their goals by highlighting divisions and exploiting them. Their ultimate goal is to create a universally accepted "them against us" paradigm. This flawed belief system has it that 'you and I' are members of a cultural group that has led a blameless existence, while 'they' have been plotting to destroy us. Of course the only thing 'you' can do about it is support 'me' against 'them'. This is how militias are raised in countries where there is collapsing social order and how right wing political parties gain a majority in countries where there is a working democratic system. Needless to say this type of politics can become a self fulfilling prophecy and doesn't take much to become a full blown cycle of violence.
The answer is to break the paradigm. Governments, Peace groups, NGOs, Intellectuals and ordinary people are working to that end in some very troubled places around the world right now.
Left wing or progressive political movements have staked themselves some substantial moral high ground on these issues for several decades now. However, some (largely unpopular) left wing movements, particularly those that see societies' salvation in revolution, employ divisive politics as well. Mark provides some excellent examples of what I'm talking about. Here's two from his recent posts on the violence at Cronulla:
"Ethnicity in Sydney
...a bunch of Lebanese guys allegedly beat the living shit out of a couple of white lifeguards. This sparked an alleged text message campaign for every white (or 'Aussie') man in the Shire to go down there and see them off for good, which then prompted white officialdom to brand them vigilantes and say that while their aims were laudible, they should leave the job up to the police.
Jesus fucking Christ. These people aren't vigilantes. They're not looking for criminals. They are a fucking pogrom. And the all-white Shire cops are presumably going to see the Lebs off by themselves..."
and
"Racially Exclusive
... this totally belies the reality of white Australia, but still that's what you see growing up in Fairfield is how white people are happy, smiling, athletic fucks with disposable income. And of course you want to bash and rape them. Maybe I should add the SMH's proviso, "This does not excuse their behaviour", but I really think the moral culpability game is a crock of shit. Fine, lock them up. That certainly demonstrates how wrong they are about Australian society... "
There is a lot in these quotes and plenty more in the rest of both pieces, it all amounts to a pretty tidy stitch up of 'white officialdom', the 'all-white Shire cops' and 'Australian society'. Worthy of our best 'shock jocks'. That the first two don't exist and the latter is a term too broad to be useful doesn't seem to worry Mark; apparently he's on a mission to foster racial hatred in order to usher in the revolution after which all such problems will be over.
To reject this type of politics is not to say that there aren't problems with the Australian Government, the NSW Police and Australian society. The current Government has famously used the politics of division (Tampa etc) and many people recognised it for what it was. The police are a blunt instrument used to deal with some pretty complex social issues, but even they know that and are devoting a slowly growing proportion of their resources to community liaison and advocacy. As for Australian Society, well the whole Cronulla thing is very ugly. But as Mark himself pointed out elsewhere, there is a precedent for gang violence on Sydney's beaches and it might have more to do with overcrowding than deep seated racial animosity.
In a comment attached to another piece Mark pointed to what he sees as the ghettoisation of various cultural communities that choose to isolate themselves. To the extent that such things are happening I would suggest it has more to do with convenience (ie living near people who speak their language and services that cater to their needs) than overwhelming cultural chauvinism. And to focus on that is to ignore the friendly interaction that takes place all over Sydney - particularly in the oft maligned south west - everyday, and is steadily becoming the 'Australian way'.
Politics that exploits perceived racial tension is racist; convincing others to be the vanguard of the revolution - presumably to face the worst of the violence - based on their race is hardly fair.
I'll conclude with a mild ad hominem; am I the only person who detected a trace of personal insecurity in the quotes provided above.
Right wing politics is rife with those who seek to further their goals by highlighting divisions and exploiting them. Their ultimate goal is to create a universally accepted "them against us" paradigm. This flawed belief system has it that 'you and I' are members of a cultural group that has led a blameless existence, while 'they' have been plotting to destroy us. Of course the only thing 'you' can do about it is support 'me' against 'them'. This is how militias are raised in countries where there is collapsing social order and how right wing political parties gain a majority in countries where there is a working democratic system. Needless to say this type of politics can become a self fulfilling prophecy and doesn't take much to become a full blown cycle of violence.
The answer is to break the paradigm. Governments, Peace groups, NGOs, Intellectuals and ordinary people are working to that end in some very troubled places around the world right now.
Left wing or progressive political movements have staked themselves some substantial moral high ground on these issues for several decades now. However, some (largely unpopular) left wing movements, particularly those that see societies' salvation in revolution, employ divisive politics as well. Mark provides some excellent examples of what I'm talking about. Here's two from his recent posts on the violence at Cronulla:
"Ethnicity in Sydney
...a bunch of Lebanese guys allegedly beat the living shit out of a couple of white lifeguards. This sparked an alleged text message campaign for every white (or 'Aussie') man in the Shire to go down there and see them off for good, which then prompted white officialdom to brand them vigilantes and say that while their aims were laudible, they should leave the job up to the police.
Jesus fucking Christ. These people aren't vigilantes. They're not looking for criminals. They are a fucking pogrom. And the all-white Shire cops are presumably going to see the Lebs off by themselves..."
and
"Racially Exclusive
... this totally belies the reality of white Australia, but still that's what you see growing up in Fairfield is how white people are happy, smiling, athletic fucks with disposable income. And of course you want to bash and rape them. Maybe I should add the SMH's proviso, "This does not excuse their behaviour", but I really think the moral culpability game is a crock of shit. Fine, lock them up. That certainly demonstrates how wrong they are about Australian society... "
There is a lot in these quotes and plenty more in the rest of both pieces, it all amounts to a pretty tidy stitch up of 'white officialdom', the 'all-white Shire cops' and 'Australian society'. Worthy of our best 'shock jocks'. That the first two don't exist and the latter is a term too broad to be useful doesn't seem to worry Mark; apparently he's on a mission to foster racial hatred in order to usher in the revolution after which all such problems will be over.
To reject this type of politics is not to say that there aren't problems with the Australian Government, the NSW Police and Australian society. The current Government has famously used the politics of division (Tampa etc) and many people recognised it for what it was. The police are a blunt instrument used to deal with some pretty complex social issues, but even they know that and are devoting a slowly growing proportion of their resources to community liaison and advocacy. As for Australian Society, well the whole Cronulla thing is very ugly. But as Mark himself pointed out elsewhere, there is a precedent for gang violence on Sydney's beaches and it might have more to do with overcrowding than deep seated racial animosity.
In a comment attached to another piece Mark pointed to what he sees as the ghettoisation of various cultural communities that choose to isolate themselves. To the extent that such things are happening I would suggest it has more to do with convenience (ie living near people who speak their language and services that cater to their needs) than overwhelming cultural chauvinism. And to focus on that is to ignore the friendly interaction that takes place all over Sydney - particularly in the oft maligned south west - everyday, and is steadily becoming the 'Australian way'.
Politics that exploits perceived racial tension is racist; convincing others to be the vanguard of the revolution - presumably to face the worst of the violence - based on their race is hardly fair.
I'll conclude with a mild ad hominem; am I the only person who detected a trace of personal insecurity in the quotes provided above.
Wednesday 7 December 2005
Now it's personal...
Thanks to the latest issue of Ansible for this piece of sad news:
"R.I.P. Moustapha Akkad (1935-2005), Syrian-born executive producer of Halloween (1978) and its seven sequels, died as a result of the 9 November suicide bombings in Jordan."
Please forgive me for this momentary step to the right.
It's bad enough that the Jihadists hate non Moslems, women, Jews, homosexuals, Moslems who don't agree with them, alcohol, immodest behaviour, fun, Jews, shaving, science, liberal pluralism, etc. and are willing to kill indiscriminately to prove it. But did they have to go and kill the man behind arguably the most patchy - though always enjoyable - horror series ever? For crying out loud he single-handedly kept Donald Pleasance in rum and restaurant dinners during his twilight years; if that isn't charity at its best, I don't know what is!
Man I hope I live to see the day when Jihadism is just another expired ideology on the heap of violent ideologies that have been revealed for what they truly are: vile, nasty, chauvinistic justifications for narrow-minded, losers to take it out on the world. Fucking cat kickers, the lot of them.
I'll stop here, I don't want to spend too long in Alan Jones territory because I know it isn't good for me.
"R.I.P. Moustapha Akkad (1935-2005), Syrian-born executive producer of Halloween (1978) and its seven sequels, died as a result of the 9 November suicide bombings in Jordan."
Please forgive me for this momentary step to the right.
It's bad enough that the Jihadists hate non Moslems, women, Jews, homosexuals, Moslems who don't agree with them, alcohol, immodest behaviour, fun, Jews, shaving, science, liberal pluralism, etc. and are willing to kill indiscriminately to prove it. But did they have to go and kill the man behind arguably the most patchy - though always enjoyable - horror series ever? For crying out loud he single-handedly kept Donald Pleasance in rum and restaurant dinners during his twilight years; if that isn't charity at its best, I don't know what is!
Man I hope I live to see the day when Jihadism is just another expired ideology on the heap of violent ideologies that have been revealed for what they truly are: vile, nasty, chauvinistic justifications for narrow-minded, losers to take it out on the world. Fucking cat kickers, the lot of them.
I'll stop here, I don't want to spend too long in Alan Jones territory because I know it isn't good for me.
Tuesday 6 December 2005
Today's top ten...
Adam asked for my list, and upon reflection I have to admit that it was remiss of me not to include it in my previous post. Hoping this redresses that omission:
1. Badlands
2. Once Upon a Time in America
3. Rushmore
4. Miller's Crossing
5. The Third Man
6. Downfall
7. Withnail and I
8. The Exorcist
9. Alien
10. Dirty Harry
Except for 1. and 10. the rankings are more or less interchangeable.
I have long thought 'Badlands' (1973) a near perfect film. I fist saw it in about 1989 as a 'late night' movie on one of the commercial channels. Despite the limitations of the small screen and the regular interruptions for ads, I knew then I was watching something special. I have seen it a number of times since and it has lost none of its impact.
Among other pleasures the film contains a wonderfully understated performance from Warren Oates, as Holly's father. He is a widower emotionally removed from his daughter by the absence of his wife who, alive, might have provided a conduit between them. Later, when Holly takes up with Kit, she attempts to create a type of 'domestic' life around him - possibly to make up for what she was never able to achieve with her father.
Kit of course is not interested in ersatz domesticity. As a member of a mid-western underclass he is alienated from such things, seeing himself as an 'outlaw' in the American tradition instead. Like Holly he to fails. It is clear that his only access to American tradition has been Hollywood and its brutal oversimplifications.
In answer to the only criticism of the film that I feel holds any weight - that it is 'pitched' over the heads of the people it is about, I would suggest that the film's concerns are broader than they might first appear.
Just ordering my thoughts about the film for this brief comment makes me want to see it again.
If there is such thing as a 'perfect' film then there might also be a 'perfect' genre film and if so that film would be 'Dirty Harry' (1971). With it Don Siegel, Clint Eastwood and Lalo Shifrin create an 'entertainment' so relentless that the audience is unable to get off the ride until it's over.
The film contains cinema's most intense 'ticking time bomb' scene ever [a similar scenario to the one that has re-emerged, as a red herring, in the recent political debate over torture]. And the audience, like 'Dirty Harry', don't pause to consider the moral or legal implications of what they are doing, instead they stand on the suspect's shattered knee - courtesy of a cunningly deployed point-of-view shot - and enjoy every second of it. I've been told that Pauline Kael, while admiring 'Dirty Harry's technical prowess, called it an evil film (or something along those lines) and if she was referring to the ease with which the film makes some very questionable morality/politics seem okay, then I guess she was right.
To see what I mean, click on the image below:
Unquestionably repugnant, but I defy anyone with an ounce of 'cinema' in them to resist the adrenaline rush of the film.
That's the genius of 'Dirty Harry'.
[NOTE: Because we're talking about 'Dirty Harry' I have to mention the sequels; steer clear of them, not only are they dreadful, they're irrelevant to the original.]
1. Badlands
2. Once Upon a Time in America
3. Rushmore
4. Miller's Crossing
5. The Third Man
6. Downfall
7. Withnail and I
8. The Exorcist
9. Alien
10. Dirty Harry
Except for 1. and 10. the rankings are more or less interchangeable.
I have long thought 'Badlands' (1973) a near perfect film. I fist saw it in about 1989 as a 'late night' movie on one of the commercial channels. Despite the limitations of the small screen and the regular interruptions for ads, I knew then I was watching something special. I have seen it a number of times since and it has lost none of its impact.
Among other pleasures the film contains a wonderfully understated performance from Warren Oates, as Holly's father. He is a widower emotionally removed from his daughter by the absence of his wife who, alive, might have provided a conduit between them. Later, when Holly takes up with Kit, she attempts to create a type of 'domestic' life around him - possibly to make up for what she was never able to achieve with her father.
Kit of course is not interested in ersatz domesticity. As a member of a mid-western underclass he is alienated from such things, seeing himself as an 'outlaw' in the American tradition instead. Like Holly he to fails. It is clear that his only access to American tradition has been Hollywood and its brutal oversimplifications.
In answer to the only criticism of the film that I feel holds any weight - that it is 'pitched' over the heads of the people it is about, I would suggest that the film's concerns are broader than they might first appear.
Just ordering my thoughts about the film for this brief comment makes me want to see it again.
If there is such thing as a 'perfect' film then there might also be a 'perfect' genre film and if so that film would be 'Dirty Harry' (1971). With it Don Siegel, Clint Eastwood and Lalo Shifrin create an 'entertainment' so relentless that the audience is unable to get off the ride until it's over.
The film contains cinema's most intense 'ticking time bomb' scene ever [a similar scenario to the one that has re-emerged, as a red herring, in the recent political debate over torture]. And the audience, like 'Dirty Harry', don't pause to consider the moral or legal implications of what they are doing, instead they stand on the suspect's shattered knee - courtesy of a cunningly deployed point-of-view shot - and enjoy every second of it. I've been told that Pauline Kael, while admiring 'Dirty Harry's technical prowess, called it an evil film (or something along those lines) and if she was referring to the ease with which the film makes some very questionable morality/politics seem okay, then I guess she was right.
To see what I mean, click on the image below:
Unquestionably repugnant, but I defy anyone with an ounce of 'cinema' in them to resist the adrenaline rush of the film.
That's the genius of 'Dirty Harry'.
[NOTE: Because we're talking about 'Dirty Harry' I have to mention the sequels; steer clear of them, not only are they dreadful, they're irrelevant to the original.]
Sunday 4 December 2005
Pointless exercises...
The ABC's My Favourite Film survey results came in. It is, as these things invariably are, a very strange list.
Plenty of my favourite films made it, along with a few dozen more that I really like. Was very pleased to see 'Withnail and I', 'The Third Man' and 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly' on the list. And was also satisfied with the Coen brothers' and Monty Python's level of representation.
'Aliens' managed to come in at 65 and 89 which is quite an achievement for a film that I consider to be highly overrated. Hopefully number 65 is a typo and should read 'Alien'. There is the horrible possibility that it is 'Aliens' that came in at 65 or worse, 'Alien' missed out entirely and it's meant to be one of the other dreadful sequels. [Error subsequently corrected and it was 'Aliens' in position 65; people have bizarre tatses.]
Can't help but feel that 'Donnie Darko' climbed higher on the list than it otherwise should have due to the advantage of being a recent release. And surely 'Lost in Translation' and 'Garden State' only made the list at all because of that same advantage. But of course the biggest error due to recentness of release would have to be 'The Lord of the Rings Trilogy'. Does anyone seriously think that 'The Lord of the Rings Trilogy' will even make the list, let alone occupy first place, five years from now?
The most glaring omissions for me would have to be Terrence Malick's 'Badlands' (1973) - I actually just rechecked the list to make sure I wasn't mistaken, because after thinking about it I find it unbelievable that 'Badlands' missed out altogether - and Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America' (1984), which though flawed should have been able to make a top 100.
Why am I dismayed about the films that should have made it but didn't, when I knew all along what a pointless exercise such lists are? Probably for the same reasons that I logged on to read the list as soon as it was available; whatever they were. I'll just have to console myself with the possibility that we'll get it right next time. As I pointed out there are more than a few places that should fall vacant next time.
Plenty of my favourite films made it, along with a few dozen more that I really like. Was very pleased to see 'Withnail and I', 'The Third Man' and 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly' on the list. And was also satisfied with the Coen brothers' and Monty Python's level of representation.
'Aliens' managed to come in at 65 and 89 which is quite an achievement for a film that I consider to be highly overrated. Hopefully number 65 is a typo and should read 'Alien'. There is the horrible possibility that it is 'Aliens' that came in at 65 or worse, 'Alien' missed out entirely and it's meant to be one of the other dreadful sequels. [Error subsequently corrected and it was 'Aliens' in position 65; people have bizarre tatses.]
Can't help but feel that 'Donnie Darko' climbed higher on the list than it otherwise should have due to the advantage of being a recent release. And surely 'Lost in Translation' and 'Garden State' only made the list at all because of that same advantage. But of course the biggest error due to recentness of release would have to be 'The Lord of the Rings Trilogy'. Does anyone seriously think that 'The Lord of the Rings Trilogy' will even make the list, let alone occupy first place, five years from now?
The most glaring omissions for me would have to be Terrence Malick's 'Badlands' (1973) - I actually just rechecked the list to make sure I wasn't mistaken, because after thinking about it I find it unbelievable that 'Badlands' missed out altogether - and Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America' (1984), which though flawed should have been able to make a top 100.
Why am I dismayed about the films that should have made it but didn't, when I knew all along what a pointless exercise such lists are? Probably for the same reasons that I logged on to read the list as soon as it was available; whatever they were. I'll just have to console myself with the possibility that we'll get it right next time. As I pointed out there are more than a few places that should fall vacant next time.
