Archive for May 20, 2008

Name that actor: Whoosh, that was fast!

Fun!

» Read more..

Another Name That Actor Tuesday Trivia

Name the actor based on the roles (I sincerely hope I avoid using an actor from a previous entry, but I don’t keep a database of these things).

1. The captain of a downed plane, Wyatt Earp, an engaged man in love with his neighbor.
Solved (eventually) by Hazel (comment #9).

2. A nurse in a mental institution, a scriptwriter on a soap opera, a bank worker who receives a strange message.
Solved by Melville (comment #2).

3. An ex-con short-order cook, a real estate salesman, a diabolical law firm owner.
Solved by Melville (comment #2).

4. A charity worker in Africa (now traveling through Europe), a saint, a stage star in love with a married man.
Solved by George (comment #11) and by Hazel (comment #12).

5. A petty criminal with a bad limp, a serial killer, a pop singer.
Solved by Hazel (comment #1).

6. A cross-dresser, a nanny, the queen of a magical land.
Solved by Tom Hilton (comment #6).

7. A gay painter, a motivational speaker, a sitcom star.
Solved by fiona (comment #4).

Monday Movie Review: Rashômon

Rashômon (1950) 9/10
In feudal Japan, the story of a rape and murder is told from four different points of view: The bandit (Toshirô Mifune), who came upon a husband and wife, raped the wife, and perhaps murdered the husband, the wife, the husband (through a medium), and an eyewitness. The stories all contradict one another, and all the storytellers may have reason to lie. Directed by Akira Kurasawa.

This is my second Kurasawa, and I liked it better than Seven Samurai. While Seven Samurai has sweep and adventure, Rashômon is a human story, full of sorrow and dread, while still being thoughtful and contemplative.

The wrap story for telling these tales is this: A woodcutter and a priest were both witnesses in court; the priest saw the couple on the road shortly before the crime, and the woodcutter was the one who found the body. They are both deeply disturbed at the lies they have heard; for the priest, it is a crisis of faith.

Caught in the rain and sheltering in the ruined temple Rashômon, a stranger approaches and they tell what they have heard. The stranger listens with amusement; he is cynical and unperturbed by lying; after all, everyone is motivated to lie, that’s human nature. While a philosophical battle plays out in this downpour in this visually arresting ruin, the story itself is told. Again and again we see the bandit attack, we see the woman weep in despair while her husband, tied to a tree, is forced to watch. What happens next?

The story each tells is self-serving. It is an idealized version of the events; what each would have wished to happen. The bandit’s version is amoral but heroic, while the husband and wife each reach for dignity for themselves, while blaming the other. The movie focuses more on the unknowability of the truth, but to me, the rewriting of history to make oneself seem good is more compelling. Additionally, the woman’s story is full of dignity and pain. Her position in her culture is so low, so helpless, that virtually any action she takes is hopeless. Does she desire the bandit? Some versions would have us believe so, but is it desire, or turning to a man to escape shame, which is all she can do anyway? A loyal wife is expected to commit suicide for the “crime” of being raped, is it surprising she’s interested in alternatives? But then, is she interested? And what of the dead husband? Did he hate his wife for being “soiled,” or hate himself for being unable to save her? Or did he truly wish to fight for her honor?

The part that doesn’t work for me is that this story drives the two witnesses into such dreadful despair. Is this case really, as the priest says, worse than famine and plague? Is his faith as ruined as the temple in which they shelter? It is moving but perhaps a bit too much.

I’m just not upgrading WordPress

Seriously, if you want to come to my house and upgrade it for me, I’ll let you. I fucking give up.

Misogyny affects Obama as well

I went to eat, and CNN was on in the lunch room. Obama was in the middle of atown hall meeting in South Dakota, which I found fascinating. He was asking ranchers and farmers what their issues were, and discussing fuel costs and health insurance with fourth- and fifth-generation family farmers.

When the anchorwoman cut away to discuss what Obama had said earlier at that event about Bush’s foul Knesset remarks, she (I think it was Naamua Delaney, but I’m not sure), described the conversations as “Oprahesque.”

That’s right, talking to people makes Obama a big ol’ woman.

The radio news kind of makes it up to me

While I was out getting a sandwich, I heard the best news I’ve heard in ages. The California Supreme Court has overturned the ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. I’m choking up just typing this.

Look, this is a turned tide. Just is. The bans on same sex marriage in other states are the thrashings of a dying dinosaur. This is how it is going to go. There will be setbacks. There will even be violence (like there hasn’t already?), but this is a done deal. In my lifetime, marriage equality will be the law of the land.

Okay, now I am choking up.

another wipeout

I wiped out my own blog. My entire blog. Trying to upgrade WordPress. Nice Joe restored me as of last night. I restored “Not entertaining it” from the cross-post at If I Ran the Zoo, but I didn’t cross-post the thing about California gay marriage, nor can I find it cached. Ah, well.

Sorry about your comments.

Not entertaining it

I listen to CBS all-news radio when I wake up. Weather every ten minutes and annoying voices is exactly what I need before coffee. And it also ends up being my toe-dip into the mainstream media (which I otherwise avoid).

So Hillary Clinton was apparently interviewed by Katie Couric last night, and they talk about Clinton maybe dropping out of the race, and said she said absolutely not. They then play a clip of Clinton saying, “Well, I’m not entertaining it. It’s just not even anything I’m entertaining right now.”

I get in the shower. I do my hair. I come out of the bathroom, and now the radio is talking about Edwards’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Someone asks Obama if he would consider Edwards as a running mate, and they quote his answer (something like “He’d be on anyone’s short list”). Then they get back to the Couric/Clinton interview, and say they asked Clinton if she was considering running mates, and they say it’s not on the table yet, and play a clip of her saying, “Well, I’m not entertaining it. It’s just not even anything I’m entertaining right now.”

The same clip.

The same clip in response to two different questions. Which is…now we know for a fact they’re just making shit up. It was the most trust-destroying thing I’ve ever heard on the news, worse than an outright lie, it was so transparently, lazily deceptive. I nearly choked.

And it turns out that the quote was in response to neither question. What Clinton was actually responding to was whether she would consider being Obama’s running mate should he win the nomination.

There’s really…there’s no excuse of any kind for that kind of crap.

Solutions to Shrink Trivia

All solved. I thought #2 was going to hang around another day, but Amy swept in and batted clean up.

» Read more..

Odd religions

Shakesville has a series called “How Odd!”, highlighting the way in which the Reuters Oddly Enough page presents violence against women and misogyny as “odd;” the articles may be deadly serious, but the headlines tend to be smirky and coy.

Not that sexism doesn’t burn my toast, but today they crossed the line into religious bigotry. How odd!

Nepal king makes animal sacrifices to power goddess

This was a perfectly serious article, about a solemn, and meaningful (and not at all unusual, which is to say, “odd”) religious rite to goddess Kali. It also mentioned that animal rights groups in Nepal protest animal sacrifice, and details some of the political troubles of the king who made the sacrifice.

The only thing “odd” about this is that it’s not monotheistic. It’s purely prejudice, with no window-dressing of being anything else. Would an “Oddly Enough” headline read “American Leader offers prayers to god of peace”? Or perhaps “American Senator offers lamb shank to desert deity”? Is an offering to Kali somehow more “odd” than that?