The REVIEWS are in!... 3 out of 4 critics agree: TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE is one funny f***ing movie!
I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard at the cinema. This is a repugnant, reprehensible nasty little bastard of a puppet flick. If you are a Michael Moore dupe, you will probably be deeply offended. If you are a chest-thumping neo-con, you will be outraged. If you are a sceptical observer who unapologetically appreciates clever satire laced with liberal doses of obscenity and juvenile potty-humour like me, you will love every minute.
Kudos to Matt Stone and Trey Parker for delivering a sorely needed kick to the nuts to moronic celebrity blowhards, brain-dead profiteers of patriotism, and cliche Hollywood action flicks.
PAUL WELLS of Macleans says: Team America: World Police is certainly the most insightful political movie of 2004. I could not agree more.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Once in a while, reading STEYN is like having the veil of ignorance, stupidity and complacency lifted from my eyes. Why accept the status quo? Why accept political ideology as gospel? Here is an excerpt from one of his latest articles, from The Western Standard:
(...) what’s fascinating to me is that, no matter how inept the nanny state is, no matter how bad the health care system gets in reality, Canadians are still unwilling to give up on its utopian virtues – universal lack of access, equality of non-care. We believe it’s more moral to take poor government health care than to make arrangements for our own.
The Canadian system is supposedly designed for the weakest in society - the unfortunate person who needs medical treatment but, without the state, would have difficulty gaining access to it. But, by treating all of us as the weakest in society, the state softens us – and softens itself. When health care is the government’s responsibility, it becomes its principal responsibility. Imagine if we had as many high-profile conferences on national security as we do on health. But we don’t. Because the minute you make government the provider of health care, you ensure that, come election time, the electorate identifies health as its number one concern. Thus, in a democracy, the very fact of socialized health care seduces government away from its prime responsibility – the defence of the realm. In the Canadian cabinet, the Health portfolio is more prestigious than Defence. Think Donald Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health?
You may not agree with his view... but it certainly makes you think....
(...) what’s fascinating to me is that, no matter how inept the nanny state is, no matter how bad the health care system gets in reality, Canadians are still unwilling to give up on its utopian virtues – universal lack of access, equality of non-care. We believe it’s more moral to take poor government health care than to make arrangements for our own.
The Canadian system is supposedly designed for the weakest in society - the unfortunate person who needs medical treatment but, without the state, would have difficulty gaining access to it. But, by treating all of us as the weakest in society, the state softens us – and softens itself. When health care is the government’s responsibility, it becomes its principal responsibility. Imagine if we had as many high-profile conferences on national security as we do on health. But we don’t. Because the minute you make government the provider of health care, you ensure that, come election time, the electorate identifies health as its number one concern. Thus, in a democracy, the very fact of socialized health care seduces government away from its prime responsibility – the defence of the realm. In the Canadian cabinet, the Health portfolio is more prestigious than Defence. Think Donald Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health?
You may not agree with his view... but it certainly makes you think....
I watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind last night --alone and exhausted from a crazy week of picket-line duty and 10-hour days. The Public Service Alliance of Canada was on STRIKE this week, and I ain't a member... I'm considered part of the excluded "management" category right now. That means I had to do employee liaison duty --basically stand outside my building with a bright orange panel vest from 6 am to 10 am, and stop people from sneaking into the building. Anyway, after the week I had, perhaps I wasn't in the right frame of mind to watch a movie like Eternal Sunshine, because I can't say I enjoyed it. Incidentally, I also rented The Punisher. It brought back fond memories of reading the nihilistic comics as an angry teen and it was right up my alley.
The bizarre cinematography and quirky style of Eternal Sunshine got on my nerves after a while, but more annoyingly, I couldn't figure out why Joel, Jim Carey's character, became so desperate to hold on to his memories of the character played by Kate Winslet. I guess it was the sentimentality of the character, and the realization that he really didn't want to forget his "Tangerine" after all, once he recovered from the sudden trauma of the breakup... but Clementine, as portrayed by the usually lovely miss Winslet, seemed to me to be an insufferably obnoxious, selfish and pretentious hippy slob with a real mean streak, not at all worthy of the male lead's heartfelt devotion. There must have been something special about her, but I think that the filmmaker failed to show enough of her sweet side to make her seem like someone worth hanging onto. Maybe I'm just a cynical bastard (OK, I admit it, I AM a cynical bastard), but, having taken the extreme step of decided to erase memories of his ex-girlfriend from his head (OUCH!), and seeing how most of the memories seemed pretty bad anyway, I couldn't figure out why the despondent Joel changed his mind halfway through the memory-erasing procedure, particularly since Clementine had had the procedure done first! --In the movie this cruel decision on her part is supposed to be excused because she is "impulsive"... excuse me? Jetting off to New York City for the weekend is impulsive... deliberately erasing someone from your brain is... well, something else entirely.
More to the point, and I speak from personal experience now, a person may indeed have many good memories of someone after a breakup, but sometimes, if there are enough bad memories, the bad ones can colour the whole experience, even taint the good memories enough so that in hindsight, the entire relationship may come to be viewed with some degree of ambivalence. That isn't to say you end up despising the person for all time... just that you can be philosophical about the whole thing and say "Well, on balance, that was a pretty lousy experience..." In time, you may come see the benefits of having had the experience, because you learn from it, don't you? And it makes you the person you are today. Still... what you don't do is look back and say "Wow, I'm really glad I have all these memories of this person!"...at least I don't-- you just try to salvage something good and do your best not to dwell on the bad. By that measure, the idea of rapid memory-erasing in order to accelerate the healing process, which is the central conceit of the story, isn't an entirely illogical one... although it is probably grossly unethical to tamper with peoples' brains the way they do in the movie.
I have had people ask me if I have any bitterness or rancor towards an ex girlfriend that treated me particularly shabbily some time ago... and I can say with some degree of pride that I do not. You see, I underwent some memory-erasing of my own. Not through some unnatural procedure... just by the slow passage of time. I lost contact with that person completely and somehow, whether it happened by design or by accident, both good and bad memories of that time in my life, so raw and painful for some time after the break-up, have faded to the point that I scarcely remember our relationship. Viewing the period now with the clinical detachment of hindsight, am I sad that I can't really remember much? Not really. I guess that is just the way my brain works. I have a vague sense that I may be depriving myself of something by either having repressed the memories or having lost them quite by accident, but then again, my head is always full of other good memories, because I try to make them every day.
The bizarre cinematography and quirky style of Eternal Sunshine got on my nerves after a while, but more annoyingly, I couldn't figure out why Joel, Jim Carey's character, became so desperate to hold on to his memories of the character played by Kate Winslet. I guess it was the sentimentality of the character, and the realization that he really didn't want to forget his "Tangerine" after all, once he recovered from the sudden trauma of the breakup... but Clementine, as portrayed by the usually lovely miss Winslet, seemed to me to be an insufferably obnoxious, selfish and pretentious hippy slob with a real mean streak, not at all worthy of the male lead's heartfelt devotion. There must have been something special about her, but I think that the filmmaker failed to show enough of her sweet side to make her seem like someone worth hanging onto. Maybe I'm just a cynical bastard (OK, I admit it, I AM a cynical bastard), but, having taken the extreme step of decided to erase memories of his ex-girlfriend from his head (OUCH!), and seeing how most of the memories seemed pretty bad anyway, I couldn't figure out why the despondent Joel changed his mind halfway through the memory-erasing procedure, particularly since Clementine had had the procedure done first! --In the movie this cruel decision on her part is supposed to be excused because she is "impulsive"... excuse me? Jetting off to New York City for the weekend is impulsive... deliberately erasing someone from your brain is... well, something else entirely.
More to the point, and I speak from personal experience now, a person may indeed have many good memories of someone after a breakup, but sometimes, if there are enough bad memories, the bad ones can colour the whole experience, even taint the good memories enough so that in hindsight, the entire relationship may come to be viewed with some degree of ambivalence. That isn't to say you end up despising the person for all time... just that you can be philosophical about the whole thing and say "Well, on balance, that was a pretty lousy experience..." In time, you may come see the benefits of having had the experience, because you learn from it, don't you? And it makes you the person you are today. Still... what you don't do is look back and say "Wow, I'm really glad I have all these memories of this person!"...at least I don't-- you just try to salvage something good and do your best not to dwell on the bad. By that measure, the idea of rapid memory-erasing in order to accelerate the healing process, which is the central conceit of the story, isn't an entirely illogical one... although it is probably grossly unethical to tamper with peoples' brains the way they do in the movie.
I have had people ask me if I have any bitterness or rancor towards an ex girlfriend that treated me particularly shabbily some time ago... and I can say with some degree of pride that I do not. You see, I underwent some memory-erasing of my own. Not through some unnatural procedure... just by the slow passage of time. I lost contact with that person completely and somehow, whether it happened by design or by accident, both good and bad memories of that time in my life, so raw and painful for some time after the break-up, have faded to the point that I scarcely remember our relationship. Viewing the period now with the clinical detachment of hindsight, am I sad that I can't really remember much? Not really. I guess that is just the way my brain works. I have a vague sense that I may be depriving myself of something by either having repressed the memories or having lost them quite by accident, but then again, my head is always full of other good memories, because I try to make them every day.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Watching George and John in matching suits and ties rounding out the trilogy of debates. Will this be "Return of the Jedi"; the crappiest installment of the three and a letdown to the fans?... or will it be "Return of the King", a fitting climax to an epic conflict? (end of cheesy analogy) Since I missed the second installment (the townhall, widely seen as a draw), I am really struck by the different tone of this one... Bush has his face under control, for one... no more grimaces on the split screen. He also seems less angry, almost subdued. Johnny-boy is still doing the smug grin. He has the look of someone who has this thing in the bag, and who knows it... not so fast, Jack... polls have the race at a dead heat... and we know that the Republicans traditionally poll low compared to their election night numbers.
At one point, George talks about the importance of religion in his life. It is a poignant moment... but I suppose the sneering intelligentsia will gobble this up as one more example of his irrationality. But wait, Kerry is talking about religion too? Oh, OK, now he is talking about schools... he had me confused for a second there! Nice segue.
George and John seem a bit more relaxed... Bush even makes a crack about his scowling and slouching ... Kerry jokes about "marrying up" and taking himself too seriously. They have played it safe and sober.
Some may have found the debate dull, but I was impressed by some of the thoughtful comments I heard tonight... it is almost enough to make you renew your faith in the inherent goodness and rightness of the Great Republic, as Churchill called the U.S. Sure, some of it might be just be campaign trail boilerplate, but I'm impressed by the rhetoric all the same. More than ever, I fail to understand some of the instinctive anti-americanism to which I am constantly exposed. Canadian politicians, who seem to wallow in the petty brinksmanship of their profession, and seldom show true leadership, could take a page from the yankee book.
We'll see what happens with the undecideds. After tonight, I must admit I am optimistic. I am also convinced that whichever of these two guys wins the election, America will be in pretty good hands. In a sense, from my point of view, John Kerry has won a major victory... he may just have convinced people who think like me that he wouldn't make such a bad commander-in-chief.
But lets just see how this thing plays out...
At one point, George talks about the importance of religion in his life. It is a poignant moment... but I suppose the sneering intelligentsia will gobble this up as one more example of his irrationality. But wait, Kerry is talking about religion too? Oh, OK, now he is talking about schools... he had me confused for a second there! Nice segue.
George and John seem a bit more relaxed... Bush even makes a crack about his scowling and slouching ... Kerry jokes about "marrying up" and taking himself too seriously. They have played it safe and sober.
Some may have found the debate dull, but I was impressed by some of the thoughtful comments I heard tonight... it is almost enough to make you renew your faith in the inherent goodness and rightness of the Great Republic, as Churchill called the U.S. Sure, some of it might be just be campaign trail boilerplate, but I'm impressed by the rhetoric all the same. More than ever, I fail to understand some of the instinctive anti-americanism to which I am constantly exposed. Canadian politicians, who seem to wallow in the petty brinksmanship of their profession, and seldom show true leadership, could take a page from the yankee book.
We'll see what happens with the undecideds. After tonight, I must admit I am optimistic. I am also convinced that whichever of these two guys wins the election, America will be in pretty good hands. In a sense, from my point of view, John Kerry has won a major victory... he may just have convinced people who think like me that he wouldn't make such a bad commander-in-chief.
But lets just see how this thing plays out...
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The UK sold us JUNK, critics have been saying for some time. In the wake of THIS tragedy, I expect the Government to come under fire like never before... The Chief of Defence Staff said "absolutely" when asked if he still believed that we should have bought the defective subs...
How many of us agree with him?
How many of us agree with him?
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Presidential debate night... I'm gonna kinda provide something of a running commentary, without getting carried away with the details... just the general impressions of a reactionary right-winger... so now that you know about my political leanings:
JFK starts the off by kissing Jim Lehrer's ass... GWB starts off looking very sombre, on his first point he sounds like he's trying to level with the American public on Iraq... On the split screen, Kerry looks bemused by George, who starts to a do a little head-bob whenever he is being particularly emphatic. Kerry makes it clear in his rebuttle to GWB's first point that he is gonna through down the military card tonight.
Kerry is getting in some good early shots. He is all over Bush's handling of the War On Terror (WOT). Bush is being clever, say "I" did this, and "I believe"... swatting away the insinuation that he has been manipulated by people around him, a central tennet of the Bush-hater's creed. Turning the tables on the dems who accuse him of being simplistic in his conduct of the WOT, Bush is telling us that it is a multi-front war. Kerry counters by saying that Iraq is not even close to the centre of the WOT.
Kerry talking about body armour? Wasn't this the guy that voted against the 87 billion for appropriations? Iraq is getting worse, he says. Whap! Bush nails him with voting against the use of force. Bush keeps harping on steadfast, resolved... Kerry says he can succeed but Bush can't. both of these guys have been well coached and they are staying on message.
JFK is looking more expressive than I've ever seen him! He must have given up the botox. Was that an eyebrow twitch I just saw? Now he's getting a bit pendantic, as is his tendency. Bush addresses homeland security with what I have come realize is a central point of his philosophy: Stay on the offense. Fight the enemy abroad so that we don't have to fight them here. Bush looks a bit petulant during portions of the debate, and nowhere near as comfortable as he did during the Republican National Convention in NY last month.
A free Iraq will... a free Iraq will.... vs. "help is on the way"... once again, both bangin' home those messages. On the famous 87 billion, Kerry scores a bullseye: I made a mistake saying I voted for it before I voted against it... my opponent made a mistake going to war. Ouch.
Bush says the coallition is strong, Kerry continues to shit on it, cynically holding the line because Brits Australians and Poles don't vote in American elections... plans to do some fence-mending next February when he an Ter-ray-sa move into the White House, I guess.
Everyone kept describing both of these men as formidable debaters but neither of them seems particularly on their game tonight. Both seem halting, unsure at times. Maybe when they start speaking to each other a bit more they will go for each other's throats.
On his long term plans for Iraq, Kerry sounds sure, confident... he knows where he is going... he may be terribly wrong in his approach, but I don't think anyone can say he doesn't have a plan. Bush takes him to task for his comments on Alawi (the "puppet" PM) after Kerry's statement about changing the "dynamics on the ground". I love it when Bush talks about "enforcing doctrine" like some policy wonk... kinda puts paid to the Bush is a moron assertion.
Why does Kerry keep crapping on allies? "Outsourcing" the war on terror? "coallition of the bribed and coerced?" Is this his nuanced approach to foreign policy we keep hearing about? Bush looks genuinely puzzled about the statement that "pre-emptive action must pass the global test"... The look on his face is "Global test? WTF is this guy talking about?" You and me both, George...
GWB seems strongest when he talks about beliefs... and that is where he and Kerry differ. You may not agree with Bush but you know where he stands. He is categorical. He is certain. Kerry takes issue with Bush's certainy "You can be certain and wrong". What bothers Bush about Kerry is precisely the opposite: In Bush's opinion, Kerry changes positions because of politics and pressure --and in his mind, you just can't do that when you are president. You must be steadfast. Bush believes Kerry will wilt under pressure because he is unsure of his core values.
The comments on weapons of mass destruction, each man's approach to North Korea and Russia and particularly, their closing comments reveal a central truth: Americans are faced with the starkest choice between presidential candidates in half a century. Few men differ so fundamentally on so many issues. I think that the United States is in a unique historical position. At the present moment, it is perhaps the most dominant nation to ever exist... and now the world awaits the choice of its citizens.
JFK starts the off by kissing Jim Lehrer's ass... GWB starts off looking very sombre, on his first point he sounds like he's trying to level with the American public on Iraq... On the split screen, Kerry looks bemused by George, who starts to a do a little head-bob whenever he is being particularly emphatic. Kerry makes it clear in his rebuttle to GWB's first point that he is gonna through down the military card tonight.
Kerry is getting in some good early shots. He is all over Bush's handling of the War On Terror (WOT). Bush is being clever, say "I" did this, and "I believe"... swatting away the insinuation that he has been manipulated by people around him, a central tennet of the Bush-hater's creed. Turning the tables on the dems who accuse him of being simplistic in his conduct of the WOT, Bush is telling us that it is a multi-front war. Kerry counters by saying that Iraq is not even close to the centre of the WOT.
Kerry talking about body armour? Wasn't this the guy that voted against the 87 billion for appropriations? Iraq is getting worse, he says. Whap! Bush nails him with voting against the use of force. Bush keeps harping on steadfast, resolved... Kerry says he can succeed but Bush can't. both of these guys have been well coached and they are staying on message.
JFK is looking more expressive than I've ever seen him! He must have given up the botox. Was that an eyebrow twitch I just saw? Now he's getting a bit pendantic, as is his tendency. Bush addresses homeland security with what I have come realize is a central point of his philosophy: Stay on the offense. Fight the enemy abroad so that we don't have to fight them here. Bush looks a bit petulant during portions of the debate, and nowhere near as comfortable as he did during the Republican National Convention in NY last month.
A free Iraq will... a free Iraq will.... vs. "help is on the way"... once again, both bangin' home those messages. On the famous 87 billion, Kerry scores a bullseye: I made a mistake saying I voted for it before I voted against it... my opponent made a mistake going to war. Ouch.
Bush says the coallition is strong, Kerry continues to shit on it, cynically holding the line because Brits Australians and Poles don't vote in American elections... plans to do some fence-mending next February when he an Ter-ray-sa move into the White House, I guess.
Everyone kept describing both of these men as formidable debaters but neither of them seems particularly on their game tonight. Both seem halting, unsure at times. Maybe when they start speaking to each other a bit more they will go for each other's throats.
On his long term plans for Iraq, Kerry sounds sure, confident... he knows where he is going... he may be terribly wrong in his approach, but I don't think anyone can say he doesn't have a plan. Bush takes him to task for his comments on Alawi (the "puppet" PM) after Kerry's statement about changing the "dynamics on the ground". I love it when Bush talks about "enforcing doctrine" like some policy wonk... kinda puts paid to the Bush is a moron assertion.
Why does Kerry keep crapping on allies? "Outsourcing" the war on terror? "coallition of the bribed and coerced?" Is this his nuanced approach to foreign policy we keep hearing about? Bush looks genuinely puzzled about the statement that "pre-emptive action must pass the global test"... The look on his face is "Global test? WTF is this guy talking about?" You and me both, George...
GWB seems strongest when he talks about beliefs... and that is where he and Kerry differ. You may not agree with Bush but you know where he stands. He is categorical. He is certain. Kerry takes issue with Bush's certainy "You can be certain and wrong". What bothers Bush about Kerry is precisely the opposite: In Bush's opinion, Kerry changes positions because of politics and pressure --and in his mind, you just can't do that when you are president. You must be steadfast. Bush believes Kerry will wilt under pressure because he is unsure of his core values.
The comments on weapons of mass destruction, each man's approach to North Korea and Russia and particularly, their closing comments reveal a central truth: Americans are faced with the starkest choice between presidential candidates in half a century. Few men differ so fundamentally on so many issues. I think that the United States is in a unique historical position. At the present moment, it is perhaps the most dominant nation to ever exist... and now the world awaits the choice of its citizens.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Going home for Thanksgiving this year...
I'm looking forward to seeing the familia. This picture is from the last time I visited Windsor this summer. I'm looking very cheerful in this photo... which is a bit peculiar, considering my lungs were filling with fluid at that very moment because of the toxic fumes that waft over the Detroit River during the height of summer.
I'm looking forward to seeing the familia. This picture is from the last time I visited Windsor this summer. I'm looking very cheerful in this photo... which is a bit peculiar, considering my lungs were filling with fluid at that very moment because of the toxic fumes that waft over the Detroit River during the height of summer.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Believe the hype.
Just saw a fantastic flick that was a big hit in the UK last year... no, not that saccharine mess Love Actually (I agree with Mark Steyn who wrote Love Actually is crap, actually)
The movie I am talking about is Shawn of the Dead (see the trailer HERE) described as "RomZomCom" or romantic zombie comedy. Believe it or not, that is a pretty accurate description. Not only is it a wickedly funny film, it has some great gore, if you are into that sort of thing, and well-crafted characters that you actually care about. Set against the backdrop of an outbreak of zombieism in North London , SOTD (as movie geeks have already christened it) tells the story of the disintegration of a thirty-year old electronics salesman's relationship with his long-suffering girlfriend and his efforts to win her back, aided and hindered in turns by family and friends. What is truly hilarious about this movie is that none of the characters seem to notice what is going on around them for the first third of the film. When they finally do, the payoff is really worth the price of admission.
Some critics claim the movie is pointing out that in today's urban society, we humans are half-zombie already, or at least, that we frequently engage in zombie-like behaviour. Now, there is some validity to that, but I prefer to think that what the filmmakers are really saying is that we can all be a bit self-obsessed or disconnected from the ugly reality of our everyday lives at times, and when we are going through a particularly bad emotional experience, it is entirely possible that we become completely oblivious to what is going on around us... Lord knows, I've been guilty of that little sin more than once.
This is the kind of movie you will want to watch again and again, and you'll probably be rewarded as you pick up some of the more subtle jokes or references (and you finally wrap your ear around the english accents of the protagonists) on repeat viewings. If you don't end up enjoying SOTD, check your pulse... you may be a zombie yourself.
Just saw a fantastic flick that was a big hit in the UK last year... no, not that saccharine mess Love Actually (I agree with Mark Steyn who wrote Love Actually is crap, actually)
The movie I am talking about is Shawn of the Dead (see the trailer HERE) described as "RomZomCom" or romantic zombie comedy. Believe it or not, that is a pretty accurate description. Not only is it a wickedly funny film, it has some great gore, if you are into that sort of thing, and well-crafted characters that you actually care about. Set against the backdrop of an outbreak of zombieism in North London , SOTD (as movie geeks have already christened it) tells the story of the disintegration of a thirty-year old electronics salesman's relationship with his long-suffering girlfriend and his efforts to win her back, aided and hindered in turns by family and friends. What is truly hilarious about this movie is that none of the characters seem to notice what is going on around them for the first third of the film. When they finally do, the payoff is really worth the price of admission.
Some critics claim the movie is pointing out that in today's urban society, we humans are half-zombie already, or at least, that we frequently engage in zombie-like behaviour. Now, there is some validity to that, but I prefer to think that what the filmmakers are really saying is that we can all be a bit self-obsessed or disconnected from the ugly reality of our everyday lives at times, and when we are going through a particularly bad emotional experience, it is entirely possible that we become completely oblivious to what is going on around us... Lord knows, I've been guilty of that little sin more than once.
This is the kind of movie you will want to watch again and again, and you'll probably be rewarded as you pick up some of the more subtle jokes or references (and you finally wrap your ear around the english accents of the protagonists) on repeat viewings. If you don't end up enjoying SOTD, check your pulse... you may be a zombie yourself.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Sunday, July 11, 2004
I have rather consciously neglected my blog of late. It's been pretty tough to keep up the writing with work being what it is. I have been exceptionally busy. Today, however, I am prompted to write. I have been watching a TV special on Mordechai Richler, who is probably, by critical consensus, Canada's most talented author of the late twentieth century (although some would give that title to Atwood) and the quintessential unrepentant Montreal anglo. He is known not only for his fantastic novels, which so eloquently captured the soul of the city he loved, but for his forays into polemic writing. Richler fought the nationalists in Quebec relentlessly, dragooning his formidable talents into service to ridicule their pretensions and point out the inherent contradictions of their credo. In the late eighties and early nineties, while the Feds were flirting and unwisely pandering to the separatists, Richler railed against the injustices he saw around him. He saw beneath the surface of "civic nationalism" and exposed the "siege mentality" and the paranoid and obsessive nature of the sovereignty movement, which sought to limit the rights of others in order to safeguard their own way of life. As a French-speaking Anglophone with many nationalist friends who has lived in Montreal, I have my own perspective on the "Quebec question". Simply put, you can dress it up in the garb of "civic nationalism", but the heart of the sovereignty movement is ethnic identity and the duty of minorities to conform to the wishes of the ethnic francophone majority. It is an attitude that proclaims "You may live here, and you may associate with us, but unless you adhere to our philosophy, unless you adopt our language and our ways, you will never be one of us". This is a view entirely at odds with the fundamental beliefs of most Canadians, and it manifests itself in many noxious forms: separatism, anti-semitism, xenophobia. I recall Parizeau and Landry post-referendum eructations on the eve of their defeat ("Money and the ethnic vote"?)and more recent indiscrete remarks, glimpses into their dark hearts. When one reads
Oh Canada! Oh Quebec, one sees that Richler, as so few others did, understood the nature of the fight for the soul of his Province in the late twentieth century.
Oh Canada! Oh Quebec, one sees that Richler, as so few others did, understood the nature of the fight for the soul of his Province in the late twentieth century.
Monday, July 05, 2004
OK, I'm off my politics kick. The system is broke. First past the post excacerbates regional cleavages. Canadians don't reject the West, but our system sure makes it look like we do. We need to fix it. End of story.
Onto lighter fare. Saw Spidey 2. Loved the heck out of it. I was never a big fanboy as a teenager. I read maybe a two dozen Spider-man comics as a teen, mostly during the McFarlane craze. The Spider-man I am more familiar with is the cartoon from the seventies with the cheesy animation and a very old-sounding Peter Parker.
I loved the first movie because it wasn't the story of a superhero who occasionally adopted an alter-ego to walk among us, but the story of a young man who occasionally had to put on some red and blue tights and fight the bad guys between college classes. It was as much the story of Peter Parker making his way in this big scary world as it was a "superhero flick".
I figured that the one way that Sam Raimi (one of my favourite directors) could botch his second crack at Marvel's flagship franchise would be to focus too much on the spider and not enough on the man this time around. Thankfully, Spiderman 2 is as squarely focused on the trials and tribulations of young Peter as its predecessor. So much more than a summer popcorn flick, it is the compelling story of a kid coming to terms with the life he has chosen, and the price he must pay because of this choice.
One of the best things about this movie is the cast. The performances are universally strong across the board. In his second outing as Spidey, Tobey MacGuire hits his stride. his performance is note perfect. Although Kirstin Dunst would not have been my first choice as MJ, she is growing on me in the role. James Franco: I like the guy alot, but his brooding Harry Osborne is in a holding pattern in SM2, There is, however, a promise of great things in future installments, if this franchise steams along for a couple more movies --as I'm sure it will. Alfred Molina does a kickass job as Doc Ock. Smart and scary and bad, but without being really evil, if that makes any sense. Great supporting turns from Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons, and of course a fantastic cameo by Bruce Campbell, my personal messiah!
Because I hate it when people give away the plot of movies, I will say no more. The effects are light years ahead of what we saw last time around. The plot, unburdened with the task of all that exposition that usually hampers any first film in a series, is a big improvement on that of first flick. The dialogue is comic-bookish without being ridiculous, and Sam Raimi, using his trademark whip-pans and funky innovative camera moves, directs with all the gusto he mustered in his classic Evil Dead films... only now, 20 years later, people are giving him bags of money to do his thing. Watch this flick, and I guarantee you'll leave the cinema with a smile on your face, looking forward to the next visit from your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman!
Onto lighter fare. Saw Spidey 2. Loved the heck out of it. I was never a big fanboy as a teenager. I read maybe a two dozen Spider-man comics as a teen, mostly during the McFarlane craze. The Spider-man I am more familiar with is the cartoon from the seventies with the cheesy animation and a very old-sounding Peter Parker.
I loved the first movie because it wasn't the story of a superhero who occasionally adopted an alter-ego to walk among us, but the story of a young man who occasionally had to put on some red and blue tights and fight the bad guys between college classes. It was as much the story of Peter Parker making his way in this big scary world as it was a "superhero flick".
I figured that the one way that Sam Raimi (one of my favourite directors) could botch his second crack at Marvel's flagship franchise would be to focus too much on the spider and not enough on the man this time around. Thankfully, Spiderman 2 is as squarely focused on the trials and tribulations of young Peter as its predecessor. So much more than a summer popcorn flick, it is the compelling story of a kid coming to terms with the life he has chosen, and the price he must pay because of this choice.
One of the best things about this movie is the cast. The performances are universally strong across the board. In his second outing as Spidey, Tobey MacGuire hits his stride. his performance is note perfect. Although Kirstin Dunst would not have been my first choice as MJ, she is growing on me in the role. James Franco: I like the guy alot, but his brooding Harry Osborne is in a holding pattern in SM2, There is, however, a promise of great things in future installments, if this franchise steams along for a couple more movies --as I'm sure it will. Alfred Molina does a kickass job as Doc Ock. Smart and scary and bad, but without being really evil, if that makes any sense. Great supporting turns from Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons, and of course a fantastic cameo by Bruce Campbell, my personal messiah!
Because I hate it when people give away the plot of movies, I will say no more. The effects are light years ahead of what we saw last time around. The plot, unburdened with the task of all that exposition that usually hampers any first film in a series, is a big improvement on that of first flick. The dialogue is comic-bookish without being ridiculous, and Sam Raimi, using his trademark whip-pans and funky innovative camera moves, directs with all the gusto he mustered in his classic Evil Dead films... only now, 20 years later, people are giving him bags of money to do his thing. Watch this flick, and I guarantee you'll leave the cinema with a smile on your face, looking forward to the next visit from your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
