Posts in Uncategorized
Best Bollywood Action Scene EVAAAH

Possibly the most bonkers action scenes in existence, all taken from a Bollywood film called Robot or Enthiran*. I particularly like the fact that in the early scene when all the soldiers get gunned down on the motorway, the director must have just shouted; "okay now everyone SHIMMY, we'll add the bullets in later. Aaaaaand...ACTION!!"

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svOlz2ei4Yk&feature=player_embedded]

*actually, it's technically not Bollywood, it's Kollywood, because rather than being made in Bombay this was produced in the Kodambakkam district located in Chennai.

Here's the trailer, in which they dance:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGCqTdPjrE&feature=player_embedded]

Horoscoped

Information is Beautiful has trawled 22,000 of horoscopes to come up with this visualisation of those words most commonly used. What does it tell us? Well that each zodiac sign has pretty much the same vocabulary. The RED words are ones that occur uniquely as the top 50 words for that sign. My red words (Virgo) are "totally" and "prefect". Hmmm..... Click the image to go to the full version.

They used it to make this 'meta-horoscope' from the most common words in 4,000 predictions:

"Ready? Sure? Whatever the situation or secret moment, enjoy everything a lot. Feel able to absolutely care. Expect nothing else. Keep making love. Family and friends matter. The world is life, fun and energy. Maybe hard. Or easy. Taking exactly enough is best. Help and talk to others. Change your mind and a better mood comes along..."

Never a truer word said!

ps - feeling geeky? Here's a link to the raw data.

Stanley Fish's five favourite sentences

In his new book, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One, literary critic, legal scholar, and New York Times online columnist Stanley Fish offers readers a guided tour through some of the most beautiful, arresting sentences in the English language. As an introduction to both sentence craft and sentence appreciation, it is—in novelist Adam Haslett's words—"both deeper and more democratic" than Strunk & White's Elements of Style, celebrating everything from brief epigrams to twisty, rambling digressions. Fish describes how he carries sentences with him "as others might carry a precious gem or a fine Swiss watch." Accordingly, Brow Beat asked Professor Fish for some of his favorite accoutrements, and he offered five from across three centuries:

John Bunyan (from The Pilgrim's Progress, 1678): "Now he had not run far from his own door, but his wife and children perceiving it, began crying after him to return, but the man put his fingers in his ears, and ran on, crying, Life! Life! eternal life."

Bunyan makes us feel the cost paid by someone (anyone) who turns his back on the human ties that bind and surrenders to the pull of a glory he cannot even see.

Jonathan Swift (from A Tale of a Tub, 1704): "Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how  much it altered her appearance for the worse."

Swift forces us into a momentary fellowship ("you will hardly believe") with a moral blindness we must finally reject.

Walter Pater (from The Renaissance, 1873): "To such a tremulous wisp constantly re-forming itself on the stream, to a single sharp impression, with a sense in it, a relic more or less fleeting, of such moments gone by, what is real in our lives fines itself down."

The prose enacts Pater's lesson, teasing us repeatedly with the promise of clarity and stability of perception before depositing us on a last word ("down") that points to further dissolution and fragmentation.

Ford Madox Ford (from The Good Soldier, 1915): "And I shall go on talking in a low voice while the sea sounds in the distance and overhead the great black flood of wind polishes the bright stars."

In this sentence, the personal voice of the narrator is absorbed by the sea sounds (a deliberate pun) that began as background and end by taking over the scene of writing.

Gertrude Stein (from Lectures in America, 1935): "When I first began writing I felt that writing should go on I still do feel that it should go on but when I first began writing I was completely possessed by the necessity that writing should go on and if writing should go on what had commas and semi-colons to do with it what had commas to do with it what had periods to do with it what had small letters and capitals to do with writing going on which was at the time the most profound need I had in connection with writing."

Stein manages to defeat linear time by a circular pattern of repetition that arrests movement even as it moves forward.

 

DISCLAIMER - I'm not sure I like/agree with the summaries at the end of those sentences. They're a bit wordy and tend to the obfuscatory. And that last one misses the point entirely, I mean, "defeat linear time"? Humbuggery.

ps - if I had to pick a favourite from those, it would be the one by Ford Madox Ford. (Via Slate)

Isaac Salazar - beautiful book art

Isaac Salazar uses simple techniques - a tuck here, a fold there - to turn second-hand books into works of art. It's ingenious and beautiful. I want to try it. Be sure to look at his Flickr stream. “I see my work as a way to display a meaningful piece of art onto a book that would otherwise sit on a shelf and collect dust; it’s also my way of recycling a book that might otherwise end up in a landfill. The words or symbols I use are drawn from anything that invokes inspiration or encouragement, such as “Read”, “Dream” and the Recycle symbol. If my work also makes people look at a book and even art in a new light then the piece has done its job“.

(another one from BOOOOOOOM, but it did blow my socks off)

Want!

Fight for Your Right - Revisited

Too excited by this to rewrite or research any more, spotted on the excellent BOOOOOOOM (my favourite art blog) and lifted the following: “Fight For Your Right Revisited” is like my wildest fantasy come to life. The short film, written and directed by Adam Yauch, is showing at Sundance and has the most insane cast EVER. For starters Mike D, Ad-Rock, and MCA will be played by two sets of actors: Seth Rogen, Elijah Wood, and Danny McBride as one set, and John C Reilly, Will Ferrell, and Jack Black as another.

The rest of the cast list just might give you a heart attack! I uploaded the Fight For Your Right (demo version) for you to play really loud while you look up and down this cast list and your mind explodes. Grab it before it disappears.

From what I understand it is a continuation of the original Fight For Your Right music video so it might only be the length of a music video who knows, either way I am dying to see it.

Fight For Your Right Revisited

Cast list (IMDB):

Elijah Wood Ad-Rock (B-Boys 1)
Danny McBride MCA (B-Boys 1)
Seth Rogen Mike D (B-Boys 1)
Susan Sarandon Mother
Stanley Tucci Father
Rashida Jones Skirt Suit
Will Arnett Biz Man
Adam Scott Cab Driver
Mike Mills Sir Stewart Wallace
Rainn Wilson Church Goer
Arabella Field Church Goer
Ted Danson Maitre D’
Roman Coppola Café Patron
Shannyn Sossamon Café Patron
Steve Buscemi Waiter
Amy Poehler Café Patron
Mary Steenburgen Café Patron
Alicia Silverstone Café Patron
Laura Dern Café Patron
Arthur Scipio Africano Café Patron
Alfredo Ortiz Café Patron
Milo Ventimiglia Café Patron
Jody Hill Café Patron
Silvia Suvadova Café Patron
Jason Schwartzman Vincent Van Gogh
Losel Yauch Skateboarder
Chloë Sevigny Metal Chick
Kirsten Dunst Metal Chick
Maya Rudolph Metal Chick
Clint Caluory George Drakoulias
David Cross Nathanial Hornblower
Orlando Bloom Johnny Ryall
Will Ferrell Ad-Rock (B-Boys 2)
John C. Reilly Mike D (B-Boys 2)
Jack Black MCA (B-Boys 2)
Adam Horovitz Cop #1
Mike D Cop #2
Adam Yauch Cop #3
Martin Starr Paddy Wagon Driver
Nicole Randall Cafe Ted Patron

 

Roger Ebert on loneliness

Roger Ebert is quite an amazing man. He was the first film critic to win a Pullitzer prize, he has written more than 15 books and his film reviews are syndicated to hundreds of newspapers. Five years ago he lost his lower jaw to cancer (read about it here, in this Esquire article, or here at Wikipedia - which I found quite upsetting as it's quite detailed).

Since then, he hasn't been able to speak. That hasn't stopped him writing though, and I read his blog on the Chicago Times website more for the bits in between than for the film reviews themselves.

As someone without the ability to talk, he's perhaps uniquely qualified to discuss loneliness. Read the whole piece here, and be sure to check the comments too.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs&feature=player_embedded]

All the lonely people

Lonely people have a natural affinity for the internet. It's always there waiting, patient, flexible, suitable for every mood. But there are times when the net reminds me of the definition of a bore by Meyer the hairy economist, best friend of Travis McGee: "You know what a bore is, Travis. Someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with companionship."

What do lonely people desire? Companionship. Love. Recognition. Entertainment. Camaraderie. Distraction.

Encouragement. Change. Feedback. Someone once said the fundamental reason we get married is because have a universal human need for a witness. All of these are possibilities. But what all lonely people share is a desire not to be -- or at least not to feel -- alone.

You are there in the interstices of the web. I sense you. I know some of you. I have read more than 78,000 comments on this blog, and many of them have been from you. I know two readers who if possible would never leave their homes. I know more who cannot easily leave, because of illness or responsibilities. I don't know of any agoraphobics, but there probably are some. Just because you're afraid to go outside doesn't mean you're happy being inside.

On a blog people confess and reveal. Some don't sign their names, but what does a name mean on the internet anyway? They write to me, they write to each other, they link to blogs, and I read. They feel stranded within themselves. Some can't find romantic partners to interest them. Some have lost a great love and feel they will never love again. Others say they have a lot of sex but still feel empty. Some fear no one will ever be interested in them.

Reading these comments, looking through these blogs, I sometimes feel like Miss Lonelyhearts. That's the hero of Nathanael West's novel about a man who is given the job of writing a newspaper advice column under a pseudonym. Every day he receives messages from those in need, and has no help to offer them. He feels he would have to be Jesus to perform his job. He is powerless over the pain and loneliness in his own life.

I'm not setting myself above the fray. I'm right here in the middle, reading comments as if listening in on a national party line (I experience a slight dislocation when I realize how few of you have ever listened in on a party line, or even know what one is). There are comments here are on all sorts of things: Politics, literature, movies, art, health, God, the universe. Most of the comments are useful and literate, and many are elegantly written. "The best comments you are likely to find anywhere on the web," I've heard it said.

But why are you writing them? Don't you have anything else to do? Every day there are untold millions of comments, texts, and online interactions. Millions. And each one says, I am here and I extend my consciousness to there. There might have been a time when humans were content to sit and simply be, like the goat I saw yesterday sitting contently in a patch of sunshine at the Lincoln Park Zoo. That time was long ago. We want the news. We want to chatter and gossip. We want to say "I am alive" in a billion billion different ways. And now here is internet, providing such an easy, easy way to do that.

When I was a child the mailman came once a day. Now the mail arrives every moment. I used to believe it was preposterous that people could fall in love online. Now I see that all relationships are virtual, even those that take place in person. Whether we use our bodies or a keyboard, it all comes down to two minds crying out from their solitude.

The biological reason we fall in love may be to encourage reproduction. Yet why did nature provide homosexuality if that is the only purpose? Why do people marry with no prospects of children? Babies are not the only thing two people can create together. They can create a safe private world. They can create a reality that affirms their values. They can stand for something. They can find someone to laugh with, and confide in. Someone to hold them when they need to be held. A danger of the internet would be if we begin to meet those needs without feeling there has to be another person in the room.

I speak now about those who have a choice. Some people reading this don't have a choice. One woman who posted wonderful comments later revealed she was almost completely paralyzed. I think of her often, and think of her as reading. Others have disabling diseases. You already know how I'm screwed up. So, you get on with it, and you do what you can. The internet is a godsend.

But that doesn't describe most of you, who are lonely for what might be a matrix of psychological, social and situational reasons. I don't know you and can't explain you. I have no advice to offer. I'm assuming you are indeed lonely, but not medically depressed. Depression can be treated with medications and therapy. It also might help to find something -- anything -- to do that you can feel is useful.

But back to loneliness. I have to reveal a truth about myself: I've never felt particularly lonely. I was an only child. I came from a happy, stable home. The school bus dropped me off at 3, and my parents weren't home until after 5, but those two hours alone were treasure to me. I was a curious little boy. I always had something going.

If I yearned for something in those early years, it was a delicious yearning by proxy. I listened to the radio. I found how nostalgic I was for Old Cape Cod, how much I missed Mona Lisa, Mona Lisa, oh my darling. The notes of "Twilight Time" to this moment make it late dusk on a chilly autumn afternoon, and I am on the floor caressing my dog and feeling we are together...at last...at twilight time. But it must be the instrumental version by The Three Suns.

When I spent a year in Cape Town, half a world away from everyone and everything I knew, I wasn't lonely for a moment. I was enveloped in the pleasure of exile. I've always enjoyed fiction about exile; give me a novel that starts with someone alone in a room in a strange city, and I perk up. I identify with the meaning given to "nostalgia" by Tarkovsky, which in one Russian sense means a longing for one's home so sweet and sharp one might almost leave home in order to feel it.

I've never understood this bittersweet narcissism within myself. I love to wander lonely streets in unknown cities. To find a cafe and order a coffee and think to myself -- here I am, known to no one, drinking my coffee and reading my paper. To sit somewhere just barely out of the rain, and declare that my fortress. I think of myself in the third person: Who is he? What is his mystery? I have explained before how I'm attracted to anonymous formica restaurants where I can read my book and look forward to rice pudding for desert. To leave that warm place and enter the dark city is a strange pleasure. Nostalgia perhaps.

For many years I was an alcoholic, and I never felt lonely then. I could feel sick, I could feel despair, but I could never feel lonely. A drink would lift me up. I was never a morose drunk. Alcohol makes you feel better and then makes you feel worse and then remorselessly very bad indeed, but then alcohol will make you feel better again. It is the cure for the dog that bit you, and how easily you forget it is also the dog. Good Doctor Schlichter told me, "It is the one relationship you have learned to count on, with the bottle."

Thank God I found sobriety. I could sustain myself with my work, my reading, the movies, my friends. And walking, walking, walking. Of all the purposes of education, I think the most useful is this: It prepares you to keep yourself entertained. It gives you a better chance of an interesting job. Those who stare at the TV for hours might as well be sitting on a stone under a tree in a primeval village; indeed, that might offer more interest and variety. I can't remember the last time I felt bored. I can't eat, drink or talk, and yet I have so many other resources to keep myself entertained. I think I must be a case study.

For nearly 20 years I have been happily married to Chaz, and before that there were other kind women in my life. But I don't believe I ever dated to fight off loneliness. I thought of myself as self-contained. I was one-stop shopping. I was happy one summer to rent a car and drive alone from the Lake District up through Scotland, finding my way from one bed and breakfast to another. I always had a good book going, I sketched, I talked to strangers, I wandered, but not lonely as a cloud.

A few weeks ago, something happened. Chaz needed emergency surgery. There were two nights when I was alone and she was in the hospital, just as there were months when she was alone and I was in the hospital. And in the middle of the night a great fear enveloped me. If "anything happened" (as they say), I would be so terribly, terribly alone, and sad. I would miss her so much. This feeling came over me in a wave. I pulled the covers tighter around me. Then I would know what loneliness was.

An illumination came into my mind, and with it the words of a song that has haunted me: Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got, till it's gone? Perhaps I wasn't lonely before because I didn't have it, so it couldn't be gone.

Tact, manners and WikiLeaks

Extract from a thought-provoking article by Slavoj Zizek in the London Review of Books. Click here to read the full article. Well worth it. I've written a few other things about yer man Slavoj. Click here to find 'em.

...The conspiratorial mode is supplemented by its apparent opposite, the liberal appropriation of WikiLeaks as another chapter in the glorious history of the struggle for the ‘free flow of information’ and the ‘citizens’ right to know’. This view reduces WikiLeaks to a radical case of ‘investigative journalism’. Here, we are only a small step away from the ideology of such Hollywood blockbusters as All the President’s Men and The Pelican Brief, in which a couple of ordinary guys discover a scandal which reaches up to the president, forcing him to step down. Corruption is shown to reach the very top, yet the ideology of such works resides in their upbeat final message: what a great country ours must be, when a couple of ordinary guys like you and me can bring down the president, the mightiest man on Earth!

The ultimate show of power on the part of the ruling ideology is to allow what appears to be powerful criticism. There is no lack of anti-capitalism today. We are overloaded with critiques of the horrors of capitalism: books, in-depth investigative journalism and TV documentaries expose the companies that are ruthlessly polluting our environment, the corrupt bankers who continue to receive fat bonuses while their banks are rescued by public money, the sweatshops in which children work as slaves etc. However, there is a catch: what isn’t questioned in these critiques is the democratic-liberal framing of the fight against these excesses. The (explicit or implied) goal is to democratise capitalism, to extend democratic control to the economy by means of media pressure, parliamentary inquiries, harsher laws, honest police investigations and so on. But the institutional set-up of the (bourgeois) democratic state is never questioned. This remains sacrosanct even to the most radical forms of ‘ethical anti-capitalism’ (the Porto Allegre forum, the Seattle movement etc).

WikiLeaks cannot be seen in the same way. There has been, from the outset, something about its activities that goes way beyond liberal conceptions of the free flow of information. We shouldn’t look for this excess at the level of content. The only surprising thing about the WikiLeaks revelations is that they contain no surprises. Didn’t we learn exactly what we expected to learn? The real disturbance was at the level of appearances: we can no longer pretend we don’t know what everyone knows we know. This is the paradox of public space: even if everyone knows an unpleasant fact, saying it in public changes everything. One of the first measures taken by the new Bolshevik government in 1918 was to make public the entire corpus of tsarist secret diplomacy, all the secret agreements, the secret clauses of public agreements etc. There too the target was the entire functioning of the state apparatuses of power.

What WikiLeaks threatens is the formal functioning of power. The true targets here weren’t the dirty details and the individuals responsible for them; not those in power, in other words, so much as power itself, its structure. We shouldn’t forget that power comprises not only institutions and their rules, but also legitimate (‘normal’) ways of challenging it (an independent press, NGOs etc) – as the Indian academic Saroj Giri put it, WikiLeaks ‘challenged power by challenging the normal channels of challenging power and revealing the truth’. The aim of the WikiLeaks revelations was not just to embarrass those in power but to lead us to mobilise ourselves to bring about a different functioning of power that might reach beyond the limits of representative democracy.

However, it is a mistake to assume that revealing the entirety of what has been secret will liberate us. The premise is wrong. Truth liberates, yes, but not this truth. Of course one cannot trust the façade, the official documents, but neither do we find truth in the gossip shared behind that façade. Appearance, the public face, is never a simple hypocrisy. E.L. Doctorow once remarked that appearances are all we have, so we should treat them with great care. We are often told that privacy is disappearing, that the most intimate secrets are open to public probing. But the reality is the opposite: what is effectively disappearing is public space, with its attendant dignity. Cases abound in our daily lives in which not telling all is the proper thing to do. In Baisers volés, Delphine Seyrig explains to her young lover the difference between politeness and tact: ‘Imagine you inadvertently enter a bathroom where a woman is standing naked under the shower. Politeness requires that you quickly close the door and say, “Pardon, Madame!”, whereas tact would be to quickly close the door and say: “Pardon, Monsieur!”’ It is only in the second case, by pretending not to have seen enough even to make out the sex of the person under the shower, that one displays true tact...

Click here to read the full article.

Would be interesting to know how/whether/if the Tunisian situation - brought about directly through revelations from WikiLeaks - affects this.

Music break: Sandy Denny (Who Knows Where The Time Goes)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2xODjbfYw8&w=700] Rather stupidly I just listened to this three times in a row and then had to go for a walk. SUCH a beautiful song. NOT something to listen to more than once. DEFINITELY a little bit of magic in there for all of us.

It was originally recorded by Sandy Denny privately in 1967, and again, only accompanied by herself on guitar (and a string section, both versions, with and without strings, were released by now), for the All Our Own Work recordings (with the Strawbs). It is best known in the version sung by Denny on the Fairport Convention album Unhalfbricking.

The guy who posted this version on YouTube says: "Fairport Convention were one of the most innovative and influential British bands of the late 1960's and are still recording and touring today. The lead singer during their greatest period was Sandy Denny who was in my opinion the greatest female vocalist of that or any era. The enormous emotional range of her voice has been unsurpassed by any other singer. Sandy died tragically in 1978 of a cerebral haemorrhage after falling down a flight of stairs."

===

ps - I just stumbled on this demo version, which is lovely:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpURBJA4uA&w=700]

Music break: Bob Dylan (Just Like a Woman)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZcikThHtAY] Highlights from Wikipedia entry: Dylan wrote "Just Like a Woman" on November 25, 1965 (Thanksgiving Day) in Kansas City while on tour. It was allegedly inspired by New York socialite Edie Sedgwick, who frequented Andy Warhol's Factory at around the same time that Dylan was introduced to Warhol. Sedgewick had a tendency to catch the attention of musicians; The Velvet Underground's Lou Reed wrote "Femme Fatale", released on 1967's The Velvet Underground & Nico album, about Sedgwick at roughly the same time.

"Just Like a Woman" has also been rumored to have been written about Dylan's relationship with fellow folk singer Joan Baez. In particular, the lines "Please don't let on that you knew me when/I was hungry and it was your world" seem to refer to the early days of their relationship, when Baez was more famous than Dylan.

The song has been criticized for supposed misogyny in its lyrics. Alan Rinzler, in his book Bob Dylan: The Illustrated Record, describes the song as "a devastating character assassination...the most sardonic, nastiest of all Dylan's putdowns of former lovers." In 1971, New York Times writer Marion Meade wrote that "there's no more complete catalogue of sexist slurs," and went on to note that in the song Dylan "defines women's natural traits as greed, hypocrisy, whining and hysteria." However, music critic Paul Williams, in his book Bob Dylan: Performing Artist, Book One 1960 - 1973, has countered by pointing out that the song is sung in an affectionate tone from beginning to end. He further comments on Dylan's singing by saying that "there's never a moment in the song, despite the little digs and the confessions of pain, when you can't hear the love in his voice.