Booksmart

I'm against it

2010-09-08T14:39:00.024+12:00

Over the next few months I'm trying an experiment of sorts. I am attending the Wellington Film Society screenings on Monday nights, and would like to comment on the movies I see. However, I don't have the time to post a lengthy critique every week, so I've set myself the humble task of reviewing each week's screening in 15 minutes. The 15 minutes is for the main content, and does not include a little time afterwards for adding in links, tags and images, and proofreading for typos. I will post the comment after work on the day after the screening, so it should be up by around 6.30pm Tuesdays.

This first attempt is an exception: No Man's Land actually screened last week (30 August, I didn't go to this week's showing), and this review took longer than 15 minutes. It's a trail run...

No Man's Land (2001)

I went into the screening of No Man's Land (written and directed by Danis Tanovic) not knowing much about it. I'd heard of it, mostly because of the coverage it got from its 2001 Oscar win for Best Foreign Language Film, but had little idea of the story other than that it was set in the Bosnian war (1992 to 1995). It's one of those films where this lack of knowledge helps, as its story telling makes effective moments from the unexpected. For example, we open, literally, in the fog of war, with a Bosnian patrol lost at night, about to hunker down. We seem to be getting to know the gang - this film's dirty dozen, or inglorious bastards - as they talk and joke with each other. Then with daybreak the gang finds that they're much too close to the Serbian lines and suddenly virtually everyone in the Bosnian group is brutally killed.

Eventually, we settle on two or three main characters in a predicament together in a trench in no man's land. The relationship of the Serb and Bosnian characters in the trench is fairly realistically drawn, and appropriately frustrating. It is here, and in the character of the head of the French UN unit trying to intervene, that the humanity of the story is at the fore. The wider shenanigans involving the UN peacekeepers, the British command, the two sides' respective leadership in the area, and the media is more satirical, at times even perhaps a touch over the top, and gives the film a strong parable feel.

I'm generally wary of actors turned directors when it comes to the visual aspect, and this is a good example. No Man's Land has fairly bland cinematography (the shot above is one of the more interesting). Apart from the effective opening scenes, Tanovic relies largely on a few establishing shots and a lot of "Um, I know, let's point the camera at the actors".

Despite that, No Man's Land does a competent job blending different genres and styles: effective as war movie, situation comedy, tragedy, satire, farce, and even thriller.

Criticism of the film includes that it seems to have little to say other than 'war is hell', and I agree to a point - but then I've thought that about most war films. I've never been a big fan of war satires. The likes of Dr Strangelove and the movie version of Catch 22, supposed classics of the genre, are just okay, but not hugely impressive. Maybe it's a 'shooting fish in a barrel' thing - war seems easy to satirize. No Man's Land is one of the best I've seen so far. Even so, the absurdities and violence on display still seem only an indication of the complexity and brutality in the real conflict.

War: what is it good for?

The occasional reasonable movie.

Lost on yer merry way

2010-09-05T15:12:00.008+12:00

Ahem. I'm... a little late with this one. Lost's season finale was screened 30 May 2010.

(Spoilers)

So how about I cop out and refer to what others have written - after all, my thoughts are summed up nicely by much earlier comments and reviews, and, like the characters from Lost, I really need to move on. (In their case to the afterlife, in my case to reviewing No Man's Land and Inception.)

In regards to the finale itself, Charles Reece's Amoeblog commentary pretty well covers all the stuff I disliked, and the few aspects I liked, about The End.

I was particularly disappointed with the sentimentality (not to mention illogicality) of the 'Sideways Timeline' resolution, juxtaposed with the otherwise excellent final few 'real world' scenes on the Island.

I still feel the series overall was worth my time: often an almost perfect blend of the elements that make good science fiction/fantasy television drama. The flashbacks were well used early on (but not so much in season 2, where they were often wasted on characters who would turn out to have little real significance to the ongoing events), and the switch to flashforwards in season 3 was clever. The show was at its best during seasons 3 to 5.

Wellington's Dominion Post tv reviewer, Jane Bowron sums up:

What the show did do was throw action, science, myth, and retribution into the soup as it made acute observations on human nature in intriguingly drawn characters.

Above all, the show made us feel our loneliness, that we are all isolated in spite of Charlie's words at the very beginning when he assured Sayid: "They'll find us. They have satellites in space that can take pictures of your licence plates."

To which Sayid sarcastically replied: "If only we were all wearing licence plates."

Adios, Perdidos.

Off on a merry way, Often in a lotta days, Lost on yer merry way
Cause unrevealed and never known.

Want to sing along

2010-06-12T01:23:00.010+12:00

I woke from a dream in a terrible realm.
All my sails were ablaze, I was chained to the helm
And now I am overwhelmed, I'm overwhelmed
And I thought if I towed the right lines...

I was watching the Grant Lee Buffalo video for Mockingbirds and recalled this moment.

I was a student, with other student friends from an environment group, in a Wellington bar that no longer exists. The woman speaking was an attractive law student, telling me about the concert she went to in Auckland. Crowded House opened, and then it was the turn of Granted Lee Phillips' band, then megaband REM, at the height of their powers.

She explained how much she was surprised at the Grant Lee Buffalo performance. She had no expectations for them, and high hopes for Crowded House and REM. Crowded House were fine, she said, but it was Grant Lee Buffalo that rivalled REM, and shook her world.

They now seem to be a "whatever happened to?" band.

But for a moment, at least, they were world changing.

Lost for words

2010-05-30T16:13:00.012+12:00

Nope, I'm not about to review the final of Lost - not yet. I have to watch it first. We had to record the final episode, shown in NZ on Saturday, as we had a social engagement and I decided that my friend was (narrowly) more important than watching Lost as broadcast. In the meantime I've been giving some consideration to the title I'll give the the blog wherein I do comment on Lost, which I'll be watching tonight. There's the above, and...

Making up for Lost time

The Island of the day before and after

The Lost Boys and Girls

Hurley burley

One Lost chance (I came up with it independently, but Gene Phillips beat me to it. I also like his next post, 'The Last Lost Chance Saloon'.)

Lost in translation

You Lost me

Lost in spaces

Jack shit

Get Lost.

Thank you Garielle McKone

2010-03-17T20:22:00.008+13:00

The top 20 keyword searches that led people to Booksmart, so far this year.

I knew there had to be at least one porn searcher, but "booksmart porno"? And what's with "primetime live pizza hut"?

-------

1. "gabrielle mckone"

2. follatio

3. nz comic name suppression

4. political spectrum results

5. "2010 oscar nominations"

6. "book smart on both"

7. "courtenay place park"

8. "left social libertarian"

9. book smart positive points

10. book smart positive views

11. booksmart porno

12. booksmart.net reputation

13. everyman and his blog

14. gabrielle mckone

15. gabrielle mckone courtenay place exhibition

16. primetime live pizza hut

17. rehmat khan squash natasha

18. good things about book smart

19. hello laziness hypertext

20. not book smart

Laughing at fate

2010-02-25T20:58:00.030+13:00

I know one shouldn't take the annual Academy Awards seriously. It has absurdities such as Avatar even being nominated for "Best Picture", let alone that it is more likely to win than, say, Inglourious Basterds. But come Oscar time I just can't help myself. Call it a guilty displeasure.

That said, the best picture nominee list this year is not bad. Had the Academy stuck to the usual five pictures for this category, and had they been Up in the Air, District 9, Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, and Up I would have been very impressed. Every one of those films is recommended from me. (The Hurt Locker and The Blind Side have not yet been released in cinemas in NZ, and I missed An Education as it finished its cinema run before I found out it was one of the chosen few. I hope to catch Precious this weekend.)

Of the six nominated films I have seen so far, only Avatar has disappointed. However, initially I was also a little disappointed with A Serious Man.

[WARNING: This commentary is best read after viewing the movies discussed, A Serious Man and Up in the Air. Partly because it contains some spoilers (albeit vague ones), but mostly because I can't be bothered to summarise the plots.]

You could almost justify going to A Serious Man just to see the scene which gave us the brilliant still above. As is often the case with good films set in what are usually considered drab or uninteresting environments (rambler home studded bland suburbia in this case) the visuals are surprisingly engaging.

However, although it has largely been reviewed positively, I have sympathy with some of the criticism of the Coen brother's latest effort. I quite liked Joe Morgenstern's sly take on the question posed in the film: what does God want of us? "What do the Coen brothers want of us?" he wonders.

Sometimes I feel as if the Coen's use the "black comedy" label as an excuse to portray the sort of "repellent ... grotesque" caricatures Morgenstern has concerns with in his review. With the exception of the protagonist, physics teacher Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), no one is really likeable, and almost everyone is infuriatingly selfish. Characters like Gopnik's nemesis Sy Ableman are not evil in a straightforward Ming the Merciless way, but they aren't far off, being very nearly as flat and clichéd. They all serve largely as cogs in the plot machine for the Job-like journey of the protagonist (almost the opposite of the previous Coen film, No Country for Old Men).

Gopnik seems to maintain his faith throughout the trials of the story, such as his wife leaving him for the aforementioned Ableman, an absolutely repugnant fake of a human being. Yet his faith, honesty, and a portion of dignity remain, while he understandably questions what all that means.

But Gopnik rarely seems to give serious thought to anything else, other than asking "what does it all mean", or "why does this happen to me" and similar questions when things go wrong (which happens a lot).

As Morgenstern mentioned, Gopnik describes Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by explaining that it "means we can never know what's going on." When explaining to a desperate student why he has failed a term test, Gopnik says he failed the maths. The student responds by claiming to have understood the theory in the story of the cat (in reference to Schrodinger's cat). Gopnik brushes this off as mere metaphor - it's really just about the maths. "I mean, even I don't understand the dead cat. The math is how it really works."

In the end, Gopnik's maths washes over him like a Tsunami, as in the image above, perhaps representing his tenuous grasp on the domestic reality that is rapidly untangling around him. At the very end of the story, when things seem like they might be about to look up for Gopnik, he is presented with a moral dilemma - and lo, he is weak. In the context of all that has happened to him many will find his weakness here understandable. But not his God, it seems.

No, not me - I'm an island of such great complexity.
(Pavement - "Shady Lane".)

Another film from the Oscar list this year that could broadly be categorised in the same genre is Up in the Air, my favourite movie of those nominated. Another comedy, this is a sort of 'romantic comedy' rather than a 'black comedy'. However, at times its humour is equally dry.

George Clooney plays frequent flyer extraordinaire Ryan Bingham, who has the job of crossing flyover country in order to assist people in their transitional phase of life - that is, he tells people they no longer have a job. In the process he finally seems to meet that special someone. Also, his own job (at least as he thinks it should be done) may well be under threat.

The depiction of the lone traveller 'man-is-an-island' lifestyle that is practiced and preached by Bingham is done perfectly. The acting is excellent (nominations for Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick), the script is about as good as mainstream Hollywood romance gets, and the politics is fairly evenhandedly dealt with by libertarian Jason Reitman (director and co-scriptwriter, along with Sheldon Turner).

But it is myopic to see this film too much in terms of politics or even romance per se. As cheesy as it may sound, this film is a rare instance of Hollywood living up to its own promotion: it is about a man trying to make a connection, in a world increasingly built around superficial connectedness.

Both A Serious Man and Up in the Air are funny movies. Neither film gives us a particularly happy ending, but the former is, ironically, trapped by its own genre nature - forced to buy into its black-comedic biblical twist. Despite the bitter pill delivered at the climax of Up in the Air, it still offers at least the possibility of hope and change, even with its downbeat ending.

There are fewer flaws and problems with tone and intent in Up in the Air than in A Serious Man. They have in common protagonists that try to maintain a certain sense of dignity in the face of what happens around them (albeit more cynically so in the former). Both protagonists have some idea of a faith or philosophy of life that they hold on to, rightly or wrongly, for most of their story. Both betray that philosophy at a crucial point, and in both cases, be it though fate or contingency, they pay a price for that decision.

Stephen to Academy: You Basterds

2010-02-03T23:35:00.014+13:00

A couple of years ago I made a commitment to myself to watch every Oscar 'Best Picture' nominated film. It was an easy year to do so, with There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Juno, Micheal Clayton, and Atonement on the "Best" list. In the end, second best No Country won the Oscar.*

I failed to meet my commitment the following year, but I am determined to get back to the cinema to judge Oscar choices this year.

So fuck you, Academy.

Why? Because the 2010 Oscar nominations are out, and this year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has changed back to ten nominations for the Best Picture category.

Ten films in a short space of time. Okay, it's not so tough as that, because I've already seen four of them. Three of those were pretty darn good: Up, District 9, and Inglourious Basterds.

One, Avatar, was pretty darn crap.

And given the Academy's record of highly questionable taste, I'd be surprised if more than half of the remainder will be worth seeing.

Well, we'll see - I have until 7 March (US).

--------

* There Will Be Blood was the best movie, but No Country for Old Men was also excellent. Juno and Atonement were not bad and had aspects of interest, and Micheal Clayton was somewhere in between.

Celebrity justice, broken clocks & hidden Tigers

2009-12-25T02:33:00.012+13:00

I'm a bit late in writing a substantial comment on the celebrity name suppression issue regarding a musician's sexual antics in Wellington earlier this year. I just have a couple of thoughts I want to get down, and will not be breaking the court order. However, as most people probably realise, it seems anyone who really wants to know can find out the suppressed name anyway.

This brings up the first issue. I wonder of this incident has been the death knell for that kind of name suppression. It seems to me that, rightly or not, people just do not respect this use of name suppression. I'm referring to when the suppression is for the benefit of the perpetrator, as opposed to the victim, and when the intent is to protect a reputation, as opposed to allowing for the completion of a fair trail. Given the way modern communication technology operates, I just can't see any other similar decision holding any more authority than this one.

Secondly, it's very rare that I have any sympathy or find much agreement with right-wing blogger Whaleoil (Cameron Slater), but I do broadly support his stance on this issue. Slater is in some trouble with the authorities after allegedly giving out enough clues to identify the entertainer and another celebrity who also has name suppression. I do not know so much about the latter case and the circumstances are different, so for the purposes of this post I'll be addressing the first case only.

I see this matter as basically being a question of whether the courts should concern themselves with protecting the reputation of an offender. The reason given for the discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression is that otherwise the consequences for the offender would supposedly have been out of proportion to the offence committed. Finlay Macdonald touched on this in a Sunday Star Times article (quoted from this Hard News column):

Yet the media are the very ones who create such a special class in the first place, and there's something a little disingenuous about stoking society's celebrity obsession on the one hand while demanding celebrities receive no special treatment on the other. One might even call it hypocritical.

You can call it the price of fame, but surely the price should be relative to the alleged crime.

Well, I don't like the way the media encourages the public's inane celebrity obsession either, but that is a separate issue. It is not hypocritical for some, including some in the mainstream media, to maintain that celebrities should be treated the same as "regular" citizens when it comes to conviction and sentencing for their criminal behaviour. As for the price being relative to the crime, it seems to me that the court's role is to ensure the sentence it applies is fair for the crime committed, taking reasonable account of the circumstances in which the criminal act took place. It is not its role to protect the accused from the wider repercussions of their own behaviour. That is what is happing here that Macdonald and Russell Brown et al don't seem to appreciate: the perpetrator of a crime is being given special protection from the consequences of his asinine actions simply because those actions brought him to the attention of the courts.

Consider another recent example of a misbehaving celebrity: the Tiger Woods affair (well, affairs). I've found much of the reaction to his transgressions somewhat sanctimonious. I don't condone what he did, but is it really that bad in the scheme of things? Should we even be so precious when we find out that many of these sports superstars are not (shock horror) the ideal role models we seem to want them to be? Macdonald again, on the NZ celebrity case:

The offence wasn't trivial, but in the context of the horrors the courts routinely deal with, it's hard to argue it merited more coverage than a far more serious assault by a nonentity.

Wouldn't this sentiment apply to Woods? Does he deserve more scrutiny and media coverage than any number of other people who have engaged in similarly dodgy conduct? The NZ celebrity, by comparison, has benefited from his conduct being regarded as actually criminal - putting it before the court and thus providing the option of name suppression at the conclusion of the process. As I suggested on Public Address [see comments for my original typo], the way for a celebrity to protect his reputation from the damage that can come from behaving like a fuckwit is to avoid behaving like a fuckwit. His reputation is his to look after, not the courts. Had the judge decided not to suppress the identification of the offender, any price this celebrity paid in terms of his reputation should be seen as the result of his own actions, not as a punishment of the court.

Back to Russell Brown from his blog:

Ironically, had he actually been named, the man would have been guaranteed a sympathetic run from the same media organisations who have been pursuing him -- in exchange for an interview. The Sunday Star Times was, for example, only too happy to softball Clint Rickards in exchange for pictures with his daughter. Such is the trade of celebrity value. The moral line can easily be moved to suit.

Yes yes, the media can be pretty shit. A capricious, shallow, hypocritical lot - well, much of the time. But the 'pro-suppression' arguments seem to be more about a distrust and (understandable) dislike of the way some aspects of the media work in regards to this sort of thing, rather than actual philosophical objections in terms of the broader justice issue. A more legitimate concern would be with why is the media and society in general so ridiculously celebrity obsessed, and relatedly, why does society naively persist in treating celebrities as role models or paragons of human conduct?

Shoot from the hip

2009-12-18T18:10:00.015+13:00

First, a quick note from the Admin part of my brain. I have been especially slack lately in blogging, exacerbated by now being back in full time employment. Nevertheless, I hope to get in at least one, maybe two more blog posts on Booksmart before going away on Boxing Day for two weeks for my first trip to the South Island of the country I have lived in for virtually my whole life.

Second, another brief plug for Photospace (no, I don't get paid for this!). It's been done before, but I quite like the look of the upcoming "from the hip"-style photography show from Gabrielle McKone. (I thought August 09 was a particularly good month.)

Three Stories Up opens Monday, 21 December outside Jimmy Cafe on Courtenay Place. The show is curated by Photospace's James Gilberd, and will be the next light box exhibition at Courtenay Place Park.

Some links to optimism

2009-10-07T10:26:00.012+13:00

I was cleaning up round the place and found this here blog. Better give it some exercise, I guess.

I had reason to link to a presentation from a TED conference during a debate I had on on morality over at Public Address. It's a good talk by Steven Pinker about the the perception many seem to have that the world is a more violent and brutal place than ever. Pinker mentions the "non-zero sum" theory by Robert Wright, and I have since noticed that this is expanded on by Wright in an earlier TED talk in 2006.

I don't entirely agree with everything Wright proposes, but no doubt there's something to it, and it makes for useful viewing before the Pinker talk from 2007. Pinker argues that (contrary to common views) we have in fact become a lot less violent over the centuries, and we are living in the most peaceful time in our history. He suggests reasons why things have improved and makes some very interesting points about the way we often perceive violence, the media's role in this, and how we should be a lot more positive, in some ways, about what humanity has achieved.

Robert Wright on optimism

Steven Pinker on the myth of violence

TED talks are covered by Creative Commons license.

Follatio bread

2009-07-21T09:57:00.017+12:00

It was the big news of last week: Bread.

Not the shitty band, the food product. In what was probably one of the biggest news stories in the nation during the latter part of Wednesday afteroon, the debate raged as to whether folate should be added to bread (a process known by the technical name "folation").

It looks like the Government may eventually arrange for the addition of folate to bread. However, it won't be compulsory, according to the Timaru Herald: "While the Government says it will seek feedback on the moratorium and other options before a final decision is made, by signaling that a moratorium is its preferred option, Mr Key has effectively called a halt to the compulsory regime."

I think this is a good thing - I don't think bread should be folated against its will.

I don't usually do polls, mostly because I don't have any readers to answer them, but this is important. Should we be folating bread?

The polls are now open.

UPDATE: Polls closed. The overwhelming majority (75%) agree: It's hard to believe people voted for that dick Tony Ryall.
A quarter believe we should not add folate, and no one is in favour of folating bread.

Bat for Bowie

2009-07-03T17:00:00.063+12:00

Aging and death - fun topics, right? Well, they seem especially prominent to me at the moment. Publicly, there was Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson et al. Privately, my dad is not in good health. And I don't know about you, but I keep getting older. So I've decided to make two brief recommendations for your music collection that deal, to some degree, with such matters.

Firstly, the sublime Two Suns by Bat for Lashes.

Now don't be fooled, Bat for Lashes is a band only in the sense that Nine Inch Nails is a band. Bat for Lashes is really Natasha Khan, an England-based artist. This is from her website bio:

Born in 1979, yet combining influences that span decades, Natasha’s work dwells in the elemental, emerging in timeless forms.

But just ignore that Earth-child shit, her music is actually really good. The latest album is apparently largely inspired by "a coming together and journeying apart of two suns, two half hearts... a King and a Queen...". Thank God for relationships. If it wasn't for them not only may we not have been born, but no one would have anything to sing about.

Anyway, the last track on the album, 'The Big Sleep', addresses death pretty bluntly... but hey, you can make it your ringtone if you like!

Enough with the cynicism - Two Suns is a fantastic, dreamy and yet soaring collection of songs. Its gorgeous, delicate soundscape has a lullaby-like quality at times, and yet also features surprisingly funky beats. (The beat programming and bass was partly courtesy of Brooklyn psychedelic experimental band Yeasayer). As the music reviewer cliche goes, it's an album that rewards repeat listening.

Here's the first single off the album, "Daniel", mashed up on You Tube to go with the Karate Kid. [Edit: Sometimes that link works and sometimes not, but you can probably google the You Tube vid.]

(Update: I have just read this interesting article from The Telegraph (which coincidantly used the same photo as I did). It points out Natasha is the cousin of the famous squash player Jahangir Khan, whom her father, Rehmat Khan, coached for several years. This period included his exceptional five year unbeaten run that lasted more than 500 games, and was ended by New Zealand's Ross Norman.)

Along with Two Suns, I happen to be listening to a lot to the excellent David Bowie album Reality. In many ways Bowie is at the opposite end of the spectrum to Khan. He ain't young, he's not new on the music scene, and he's not a cute chick. But he is British and he is talented. Reality is generally accepted to be arguably Bowie's best album since Scary Monsters. (I've heard it argued that Let's Dance or Heathen are better.)

I think Reality is massive fun, and one of the great albums of this century. It does somewhat dwell on those issues of old age, death, isolation and so forth. At least half the tracks are overtly orientated to issues of old age, loneliness and approaching death. But it's sincere, thoughtful and good pop music all at the same time.

Not every song is ostensibly about such morbid matters. For example, there's the enigmatic lead single 'New Killer Star', with what seems to me to be quite humourous lyrics:

See my life in a comic
Like the way they did the Bible
With the bubbles and action
The little details in colour
First a horseback bomber
Just a small thin chance
Like seeing Jesus on Dateline
Let's face the music and dance.

Nevertheless, even on such tracks, death seems always on his mind. After all, the album's first line is a 9/11 reference: "See the great white scar over Battery Park". In light of this, the ambiguous but catchy chorus of 'New Killer Star' seems somehow poignant:

All the corners of the buildings,
Who but we remember these,
The sidewalks and trees...

Now, there's your earth child.

Product placement

2009-06-29T13:22:00.007+12:00

I haven't forgotten my commitment to review the latest Star Trek feature. I said I would, and I will; later this week will be the least topical review of Abrams' film likely to be published.

In the meantime, here are a couple of things to look at (and listen to, in the latter case).

First, the image below from unaesthetic, which was brought to my attention on Giovanni Tiso's blog. As noted on unaesthetic's flickr comments, and happily accepted by unaesthetic, it is very reminiscent of work by Andreas Gursky. It's a great image.

That photo in turn reminded me of this Radiohead video.

So take a moment, ... look, watch, listen, and enjoy.

[EDIT: Okay, the Star Trek review wasn't "later this week", as I said. Still, I WILL post it eventually.]

My political spectrum results

2009-06-08T10:33:00.022+12:00

I am apparently a left social libertarian
Left: 4.43, Libertarian: 5.95

Not nearly social libertarian enough for my liking. I'll have to work on that.

Further results:

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: -1.74

My 'Culture War' Stance
Score: -7.23

To try it out for yourself, visit the Political Spectrum quiz. Let me know how you do. (Hat tip: brought to my attention on Dave Crampton's blog, Big News.)

Oh, and finally, here's me (red) compared to the rest of New Zealand respondents (appropriately, blue).

Enterprising

2009-05-06T16:51:00.011+12:00

I try to avoid the straight out nerd-boy gush. (No, not as in this sort of gush... sigh, your filthy mind.) I am, however, highly anticipating the new Star Trek film, directed by JJ Abrams.

I'm not particularly a Star Trek nerd - certainly not enough of one to care which dinky epithet I was given. (I think I'll just call them Trekkites.) I did enjoy the original Star Trek tv series, and have seen a few okay episodes of The Next Generation. I don't really think much of the feature films so far, but I suspect this one will be of a different order.

In regards to Abrams' previous work, I'm not familiar with Felicity and never got into Alias. On the other hand, Lost is one of the best shows on tv, and I really liked Cloverfield, a film he produced and that was largely his idea. (I'm not reviewing Cloverfield, but you can read this one instead.) Mission: Impossible 3 was only okay, but it was still easily the best of an otherwise lame movie series.

Abrams has again joined with M:I3 screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who came up with the idea for the Star Trek reboot. Kurtzman and Orci are interviewed by Mr Beaks at Ain't It Cool News about the process here.

The reviews so far for Star Trek (2009) have been surprisingly positive for a "pop-corn" blockbuster. According to Rotten Tomatoes, at the time of writing there have been 33 reviews based on preview screenings, and 100% have had an overall positive tenor.

A couple of sample comments: Dark Horizons' Garth Franklin wrote that the film "Reintroduces critical elements the franchise has not seen in years - cultural relevance, suspense, and a fresh sense of wonder", and The Australian's Ian Cuthbertson observed "The result is a triumph, certain to be regarded as not just one Trek's better moments, but one of the finest films made in the sci-fi genre".

As a non-Trekkite, I'm mostly just looking forward to an imaginative, well crafted science fiction action-adventure. That's what I'm hoping Abrams and co will deliver. I'll check out the movie this weekend, and review here.

------

UPDATE: One day after my post, Rotten Tomatoes had recorded 67 reviews, with 63 positive (96% fresh rating).

Get your towels ready...

2009-04-23T13:03:00.015+12:00

...'cause I'm celebrating a new addition to Booksmart: My new pic.

I'm on a boat, motherfucker.

Song lyrics du jour

2009-04-19T13:54:00.004+12:00

--------------

My art is called egocentric-soft-porno
Or maybe it's just narcissism...
My one and only subject
Goes from something like anything but
Me-ism

Wouldn't it be easier for beardsley?
He could drop the paintings,
And photograph his penis.
Or take pixxx of the chicks...
Yeah, you know what I mean...
Wouldn't it be better for Escher?
He could drop the math
And make it happen on his mattress
2 girls and a cam!
3 girls and a cam!
You put a dog there and you got polaroid scat

I ain't no artist
I am an artbitch
I sell my paintings to the men I eat
I have no portfolio
and I only show
Where there's free alcohol

I am so hardcore
I sell my crap and people ask for more...
Call me revolutionary
I poo on a plate and get it published on visionaire
What I do, is called art-shit
And don't you dare make fun of me
Cuz everything I do was featured on the pages of i-d!

I ain't no artist
I am an art-bitch
I sell my paintings to the men I eat
I have no portfolio
and I only show
Where there's free alcohol

I ain't no artist
I am an artbitch
I sell my paintings to the men I eat
I have no portfolio
and I only show
Where there's free alcohol

Lick lick lick my art-tit
Suck suck suck my art-hole

--------------

Lyrics from the song "Art Bitch", by CSS.

Relatively wrong

2009-01-05T02:36:00.015+13:00

I was sparked by a discussion I’ve been having over at The Philosophers' Magazine website to explain why I don't accept moral relativism. I speak of “relativism” in the sense of the notion of morality being relative to each society or culture. I'm not addressing my criticisms here to the notion of morality being relative in other senses, such as between all individuals.

There is a lot of commentary on the subject, but here is a good book review from George Crowder that covers some of the issues.

In that review, Crowder mentions the ‘Liberal dilemma’. You can read about it in the article, but in a day-to-day sense it can be seen in a common liberal quandary: the average liberal deplores sexism (tsk tsk, men and their chauvinism), and they deplore being culturally judgmental (tsk tsk, the west and its cultural imperialism). So what do they say about the culture that’s sexist?

However, other positions also have their dilemmas. In the case of absolutism, it’s easiest explained with reference to Bible literalists. How do they know the Bible contains absolute moral truths? Because God says so, they will respond. Okay, but how do they know that’s what God says? Oh easy, they say: Because the Bible tells me so!

The thing is, there are at least two problems for the cultural relativists.

1) All culture’s values are equally valid; but what if one of the values of another culture is precisely the opposite of that notion? In other words, what if a society holds as a value that other society’s values are inferior? Does the relativist (intellectually, if not in practice) tell that culture that they are naughty for trying to impose their values on other societies? But if so, are they not doing exactly what moral relativists say we should not do: namely, judge another society by our standards?

Take the Taliban as an example. They hold morally absolutist views. They will impose their very strict, conservative moral views on anyone, including Muslims who hold different interpretations of the Koran. On the one hand, the relativist says the Taliban are right by their own standards, and there is no outside/objective position to judge them by otherwise. On the other hand, surely the very point of being a relativist is to say that moral absolutism is categorically wrong - and the Taliban are about as absolutist as a culture can be. How is it really possible to hold that there is nothing objectively wrong with the Taliban’s views, while being committed to a moral relativist position?

2) How does the relativist decide where the lines are between one society or culture, and another, without referring to non-societal based, objective norms? I knew an animal rights supporter who was against Spanish bullfighting. I was surprised to learn he was also against people criticizing Japanese whale hunting. Why? Because the Japanese are another culture, whereas (apparently) the Spanish are not.

The reasoning being that Spain was part of “western society”. It was valid to criticise their practices, because they could be seen within "our" moral worldview. Not so the Japanese, according to his assessment. So, was it up to this person (a New Zealander) to make the judgment that Spain was part of “our” culture? Or is it up to the Spanish to say whether they are the same culture, or a different one, for these purposes?

It’s impossible to make the judgment, or even say who should make the judgment, without referring to some non culture-based standard. Where is the line drawn; when does a person count as part of this or that culture or society; can there even be a line? If morality is reduced to a society’s view, you have to be able to judge what qualifies as a ‘society' without recourse to standards that are derived from your own society or culture. If you do use standards derived from your own society to define what counts as the other, you are effectively imposing your worldview, which is what you want to avoid. If you use standards or norms derived from a neutral standpoint you're not really a relativist.

This type of cultural relativism is nonsensical. However, that doesn’t mean I am a moral absolutist, in the sense that is usually implied by the term. As I said over on TPM, I actually fall somewhere between the moral relativist stance and the objectivists. Morality is objective in that moral truths can come from objective reality: our physical, biological, sociological and psychological interactions. It’s relative in that moral principles are contingent on changeable factors (including, but not limited to, social situations and cultural context). Morals are real, but not absolute; relative, but not arbitrary.

Happy birthday Photospace!

2008-12-08T09:23:00.013+13:00

-

Photospace gallery had its tenth anniversary celebration last Friday, with a non-themed group show. Also, a new venture began with the opening of Gilberd Marriott Gallery. Basically, James Gilberd and Mark Marriott are expanding the gallery to other art media, although photography will also be featured. The opening exhibition is series of paintings by Shane Hammond, Spirit of Now.

Highlights of the group exhibition for the anniversary included Siren Deluxe's latest work, which gave me a chuckle.

Question for John Campbell

2008-11-27T00:11:00.012+13:00

I emailed Campbell Live a variation of the following:
...

The lead story in Campbell Live tonight was about the annoying, unpleasant, but essentially obvious and uninteresting fact that sometimes dodgy stuff gets in our food.

Someone found some pre-maggot stage fly eggs in their Tegal chicken. The expert the show spoke to all but acknowledged it was virtually impossible to stop the occasional fly egg from getting where it shouldn't, and in this case the eggs were harmless even had they not been detected. There was no suggestion of a systemic problem.

The next person found a blow fly on his Pizza Hut hot and spicy. Again, it was acknowledged that this would have been difficult to prevent, and it wasn't the fault of Pizza Hut that the fly got in to the oven just at the moment it must have. It was a poor job it wasn't picked up, but Pizza Hut apologised and attempted to make amends.

Both situations would have been very unpleasant for me too, and I don't blame the people concerned for being put off those foods for a while at least. But you'd be kidding yourself if you think that this doesn't happen occasionally, including with other brands.

This is my question to John Campbell: Why was this lead story material? This shouldn't have been a lead story on Fair Go, a show which specialises in this kind of thing. There's nothing about these particular instances that warranted that treatment on a supposedly leading, prime time current affairs show. Is this even 'current affairs' at all? Is the so called 'silly season' coming early? Or has Campbell Live always been this inane, and I just haven't noticed?
...

To date, I have not received a reply. Quelle surprise.

The Venus you

2008-09-06T18:31:00.027+12:00

Say it’s the same taste taking down the same kiss
Say it’s the same you
Say it’s the same you and it’s always been like this
Say it’s the same you
-- The Cure Labyrinth (from "The Cure" 2004)

It is often perceived that philosophy provides no answers, only more questions. One reason for this perception is covered by Nicholas Fearn in his excellent book Philosophy: The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions.

Bertrand Russell once compared the branches of human knowledge to a filing cabinet, in which the material discussed by philosophers was found in the department marked 'Don't Know'. [...] Sir Isaac Newton wrote the Principia and Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations as philosophers, but they are now remembered respectively as a physicist and an economist. The contemporary thinker Noam Chomsky is described as a philosopher as well as the founder of linguistics, but the former half of his title will one day be dropped from encyclopedias.

In other words, once an area under philosophical discussion becomes sufficiently resolved or systematised, it gets categorised as another discipline.

Another reason is that, due to philosophy’s concern with the why and how questions, it’s almost always possible for someone to add a further “but why” or “but how” to an issue under discussion. This can go too far. A friend once observed (in regard to some art students' approach to art theory) that this one-upsmanship is reminiscent of the perpetually unsatisfied child questioning all the received wisdom of their parents: “But why, mummy?” … “But why?”

Fearn’s take on this is once again worth quoting. Writing on the problem of free will, Fearn covers the compatibilist response to the problem many see posed by determinism. Determinists believe that human activity and the human mind is subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the universe - subject to cause and effect - and therefore any sense of free will is an illusion. Compatibilists say that free will is campatible with a "cause and effect" universe run according to scientific laws. In his conclusion to this topic, Fearn writes:

...most philosophers who work on the question of free will are incompatibilists, while most of those who do not are compatibilists. The former camp often ridicules the latter for their unfamiliarity with the latest arguments and texts on the subject. But perhaps compatibilist philosophers have better things to do than reoccupy secured ground. [...] We might also ask how non-theologians can regard the matter of Mary's virginity as settled, or how people who are not UFO fanatics can consider the alien abduction question settled. The answer, of course, is very easily. The last twenty years of free-will debate have produced a strong line of anti-compatibilist thinking. This, however, is what one would expect in a field that has been vacated by philosophy's regular armies and left to partisans who refuse to accept defeat.

I would say the free will problem is one area in which philosophy has delivered what counts, as near as matters, to a resolution. I may discuss this more in another post, but basically the time has come to wrap the debate: either accept compatibilism as the solution to the problem of free will; or admit you think free will is an illusion; or admit you hold to some tenuous mystical explanation that satisfies you but is hard to place within a rational framework. (I’m basically in the first camp.)

Another issue I think has been resolved is one that is often put as a thought experiment. It is the future, and practical matter teleportation has been invented. We have the technology to ‘beam’ you from Earth to a newly terraformed Venus. The transporter chamber on Earth will scan your body and deconstruct it totally, atom by atom, leaving you completely disintegrated but perfectly recorded in terms of everything that went into your form. It then transmits this information to a counterpart on Venus. This chamber reconstructs the exact form of you that was just disintegrated, down to every last detail at an atomic level. You reappear, functional and feeling yourself. You are now on Venus. Or are you?

The Venus you has been perfectly recreated, to the point of having the same personality, same memories, and same body. ‘You’ sure feel like you, and you remember stepping into the Earth transport chamber. You are confident you are the same person, and with a continued psychological identity and completely identical physical form, it may be hard to see why not. But consider: if you were zapped by a ‘disintegration ray’ (a form of weapon not uncommon in science fiction stories) you would be dead. Not temporarily dead, or ‘pending’ dead, but dead as in dead. In the case of the matter transporter, are you not still killed? Is the new Venus version of you not exactly that: a new version of you, but not the same you?

My answer to this thought experiment is another thought experiment: say the matter transporter on Earth could scan you without needing to deconstruct you. Now say it malfunctioned and transmitted the scanned snapshot of you to Venus without disintegrating you at all. The Venus chamber doesn’t know any better, it just recreates the structure it was sent. And hey presto… You Live!
But, umm… You also live. The real you, back on Earth.
The new you is a real being, no doubt; a real self-aware person that honestly believes it is you, and really does have all your memories. But it isn’t the ‘you’ that is standing back on earth. The Venus version of you is more akin to a clone - it's no more “actually” you than a clone is, anyway. The person that walks into the transmitter on Earth is not the same person (the same continuous identity) as the Venus-you that gets created in the receiving transport chamber, as evidenced by the fact that you are still standing on Earth wondering why the heck the transporter didn’t work.

I’ve not heard a convincing argument - indeed, any argument at all - why this would not be true even if the transporter successfully disintegrated you on Earth before transmitting the replication signal. The Venus you doesn’t become you in terms of continued identity any more so just because the real you is killed by disintegration. The two phenomena are independent, as my version of the thought experiment shows.

Of course, we’re a long way off having an actual matter transporter anything like that portrayed in Star Trek. But the thought experiment and its resolution raises questions around what constitutes our identity, in the most intrinsic sense, and the matter of our sense of identity remains a puzzle for philosophy and science. (Maybe more on this another in another post.)

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan is infamous for killing the fan-beloved character of Mr Spock in a sacrificial act at the end. But truth be told, all the Star Trek characters were effectively killed the first time, and each time, they were beamed anywhere. New versions of them were created; versions that had all the same abilities, strengths and weaknesses, and the same memories, as the originals. Versions that honestly thought they were the same person. But they were copies. By the time of Khan’s wrath, Spock was already dead.

As far as we can ascertain, getting into a matter transport device (at least one that functions in the way they are generally portrayed as functioning) would be nothing short of suicide, however painless.

The taste is dry - the kiss is thirst
And it’s not the same you
It’s not the same you

Laziness without Fear

2008-08-10T11:51:00.009+12:00

Well, I haven't posted for some time. I was distracted by a move from one Wellington suburb to another, and those moves sure take a lot out of me. I'm pretty much allergic to moving. Then there was a small matter of becoming employed full-time again. I love not working (in a regular job, that is), but eventually my savings would have run out, so I took the opportunity that came up, and now at least my ongoing income is one thing I don't have to worry about.

But I really, really liked not working. My new favourite book is Hello Laziness by Corinne Maier. You can't go wrong with a book that has chapter titles like: "The idiot on your left", and "Laziness without fear". Yes! Them's some inspiring words.

Anyway, I should be posting a bit more regularly now.

In the meantime, I'm trying one of those polls that Blogger offers [poll now closed]. I always thought it was generally better to have hypertext links open in a new window, so you can keep reading and just refer to the new article as suits. But some argue for links navigating to the new page, seeming to believe that having your links open a new window is, well, a bit rude. I find that notion baffling. (Anyone feel disrespected when they clicked on that link?)

Blogger's default is not to open a new window, so I have to add a bit of code every time I want to make the hyperlinks act how I prefer. It's annoying, and virtually all websites I frequent go with the 'new window' option. Is blogger just behind the times in this regard?

A blog by any other name

2008-05-24T18:03:00.012+12:00

Just for the record, this is not particularly a book review site.

So why the name "Booksmart" I hear you ask. (Hear/made up in my head - same thing.)

I didn't want to dwell too long on what to call the blog, so I just went with a phrase that had been stuck in my head since I heard it used on the NBC television show Scrubs. I was aware of the phrase "booksmart" (or "book smart", or "book-smart" as you please) before hand, but it got in my head after a Scrubs episode which featured the following dialogue:

Elliot: What's wrong?
Carla: It's personal.
Elliot: Why won't you ever open up to me? I came to you when I thought I had a broken tailbone and it was just a really bad pimple!
Carla: It's a sex thing, okay?
Elliot: You mean like a gender issue or like intercourse? Because I'm book-smart on both!

Anyway, I like the sound and look of the phrase, both aesthetically and thematically and it just stuck with me - so there it is.

Exit wounds

2008-05-04T21:33:00.014+12:00

OPERATION FILMMAKER was the last film I caught in the recent short film festival. It's an odd documentary that I’m not sure what to make of. Muthana Mohmed is an Iraqi wannabe filmmaker who was seen on MTV by actor/filmmaker Liev Schreiber. Liev, who was anti the Iraq war, apparently feels guilty about Muthana’s situation and offers him a job as an assistant on the Prague set of Liev’s movie Everything is Illuminated.

Nina Davenport is given the task of documenting the endeavour, which is presumably meant to be a nice inspiring little story about a deprived victim getting a foot in the door and making good. Muthana is less than impressed by some of what is expected of him, seeing it as too menial. When he is given some greater responsibility and the chance to learn some editing, he blows it because he gets distracted by his friends, and ends up going out partying. He undermines one of the film’s producers (I think he is) when the producer makes it clear he’s anti the Iraq war, and Muthana says that he is in favour of it and then proceeds to praise George Bush. (Muthana seems to change his attitude to the US invasion later in the film.)

A lot is made of this sort of thing: any comparison or reference possible to the wider situation in Iraq has much made of it. Muthana turns out to be less passionate about filmmaking as it was thought, or maybe he’s just less grateful to the western helping hand he was extended than was it was assumed he would be. Things don’t really work out on the set of that film, but he manages to get further work on DOOM, and Nina keeps making her documentary.

He eventually gets into a London film school (he desperately wants to avoid going back to Iraq), but he can only afford to go to because of the generosity, and perhaps naivety, of DOOM lead actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnston (also from SOUTHLAND TALES, see previous post).

Muthana is needy and demanding; he borrows money from Davenport and others, and in London he pretty much refuses to get a job (even though he’s still asking for money). He has a falling out with Davenport when he starts blaming her for things not going so well - even though it's likely the documentary is responsible for the decision of Johnston to fund his studies. To be fair, partly he was probably sick of being tailed by a woman with a camera for so long, and it must have seemed like nagging to him. But, as is often the case, it seems mostly to come down to someone realising they are to some extent dependant on another, and becoming resentful of that fact.

The film is really about the relationship between filmmaker and subject. The parallels with the Iraq venture are weak, though. Davenport says in the end, with an inter-title: "I started out looking for a happy ending. Now I’m just looking for an exit strategy."

Sure, this comes after yet more snotty demands from Muthana, even though he had previously told her to piss off. But as she made clear herself earlier, she really was able to exit beforehand, but she wanted to wait for an opportune moment: She felt the need to keep making the documentary until something good happened to finish on.

Muthana can be charming, likeable and smart. And he can be needy, petulant, selfish and naïve about what the world owes him. In another words, he’s much like many other people his age and demographic. (He and his friends and family back in Iraq all spoke English well, which my friend told me was an indication that they were middle to upper-middle class.) The message of this film may be no more than teenagers are alike, no matter where they’re from.

The film is interesting as a look at the relationship between filmmaker and subject, and how documentary makers try to construct a satisfying narrative around their "real life observations". I’m not sure that it is anything more than that, though. Although, considering how much I’ve just written, that was obviously enough.

I'm There!

2008-03-30T17:53:00.022+13:00

The World Cinema Showcase is usually the more minor of the two general film festivals in Wellington. It's the warm-up to the International Film Festival, which gives us something to do in the depths of winter. However, this year's line up is stronger than usual, in terms of having films with a lot of cinema-world hype or notoriety. Films include: I'm Not There; The Diving Bell & the Butterfly; 4 Months, Three Weeks & 2 Days; Across the Universe; Margot at the Wedding; El Topo; Redacted; Tell No One; Helvetica, and Southland Tales.

I went to the opening night showing of The Diving Bell & The Butterfly, directed by Julian Schnabel and scripted by The Pianist writer Ronald Harwood. It cost $20 ($6 more than any other evening session), so a mate and I decided that we had to drink more than the difference in the free wine and beer that was on offer for us cinephiles. We succeeded admirably, but unfortunately the last 20 minutes of the film were less than comfortable, for reasons unrelated to the movie. Still, it was worth it - an excellent movie. Diving Bell is about Jean-Dominique Bauby, the Elle editor who suffered a stroke which paralysed virtually his entire body. Adapted from his memoir, it's a hypnotic and visually arresting film - and it certainly doesn't hurt that you spend a lot of time looking, from Bauby's viewpoint, at attractive French women hovering over him, listening to them talk in a sexy accent. (My friend said the French accent isn't particularly sexy when spoken by men, but she agreed it works from women.)

There was no sense of being guilt tripped into feeling bad for the "successful go getter" who had everything taken away from him. Not that it wasn't tragic for him and his family, or that the movie has no sense of this tragedy or sadness, but it wasn't just an artful tearjerker (which is pretty much how I felt about Oscar-nom Atonement). It’s ironic that a film about such a devastating event, and such a limiting ("locked-in syndrome"!), disconnecting condition, should end up being a fairly rich and human experience.

That's pretty much the opposite of Richard Kelly's satirical epic Southland Tales. Well, it looked warm, set as it is in sunny California (it never rains, but man it pours). Actually, it looked fantastic. Kelly and cinematographer Steven Poster made “Southland” look sumptuous. The movie is not exactly a success, but it sure isn’t boring. There’s always something pleasing to look at or listen to, or often both; and while its craziness comes across as a bit manufactured, it can be damn funny. The car advert, the redundant blood-squibs, much of the dialogue (“Who am I?” “That’s none of your business”) are great stuff. And there’s something oddly cool about watching Justin Timberlake, with the cheeky look of Bam Margera, burst into a drug-induced sing-along of The Killers’ “All These Things That I’ve Done”. (Plus there’s a Pixies song in the soundtrack; more films should use Pixies songs – there oughta be a law.)

Does it work overall? Not really. It’s derivative, forced, peopled with characters that only superficially hold your interest, and sometimes a little embarrassing (however much the awkwardness is supposed to be deliberate). As a good few commentators have said, it’s a train wreak. And as a good few have probably gone on to say: It’s as fascinating as watching a large scale automotive collision in progress, in slow motion, knowing that no people were harmed during the making of this mess.

Like Natural Born Killers before it, Southland Tales tries to tap into and comment on the ‘MTV Generation’, CNN, E! channel zeitgeist by at once mimicking, referencing and satirising it. In this, Killers was slightly more successful, in a limited kind of way, for its time. However, there's less reason to get past its triteness and stylistic clumseiness. Southland Tales is the more interesting, ambitious venture, and it doesn’t get tired nearly as quickly. In fact, it gets more enjoyable as it goes along - a bit like a musical where, once you get used to its artifice, the ride is more fun.