Lunatic Writer's Blog

MOVIE REVIEW: The Woman in Gold

4/30/2015

The Woman in Gold is a little-guy-takes-on-the-establishment story. It is based on true events, and follows the fortunes of Maria Altmann and her lawyer Randy Schoenberg as they sue the Austrian government in their attempt to have a world famous painting returned to its rightful owner.

The painting in question is Gustav Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I which, like many works of fine art, was stolen by the Nazis during World War II. Since that time this painting has become world-renowned and a virtual icon of Austrian culture. The odds of having the Austrian government willingly part with this painting (valued at 100 million dollars) seem slim; nevertheless, one neophyte Californian lawyer and his elderly Austrian client decide to try.

I am intrinsically a sucker for such movies. In today's world of corporate greed, international cartels and government corruption, who doesn't thirst for justice for the "little guy" or "little old Austrian lady" in this case.

What stands out in this movie is the quality of the production. Oscar winner Helen Mirren (The Queen 2006) turns in another flawless performance; her accent is perfect, her elderly gait, her fiery temperament, all just hitting the right tone. Maria is a complex character. There are several moments in the movie when she must make a decision, one way or the other, about how she will proceed with the court case. On almost every occasion I am surprised by her decision. I am never left feeling, 'oh yes, this is how the story must now unfold.' I can think of few actors who handle complex characters better than Helen Mirren.

The movie, quite necessarily, involves many flashbacks to Maria's time in Vienna and the Nazi occupation. Never have I seen flashbacks handled with such grace, with such a lack of intrusion. Never do they seem to interrupt the flow of the movie. In director Simon Curtis's hands they seem as faithful a rendering of one woman's memory as it is possible to portray on screen.

Finally it is worth commenting on the sound quality of the movie. Every word of dialogue is crystal clear. Never does music or background sound interfere; it is perfectly balanced, enhancing, rather than competing with the actors' words. This is not as common an experience as one would expect in today's movies.

The Woman in Gold is a very rewarding cinematic experience: an exciting, complex, satisfying, (yet not overly-predictable) story. The acting is first-class, the direction strong and understated. I will be quite surprised if Helen Mirren's performance does not win her another Oscar nomination for Best Actress.

very strong 8/10 www.youtube.com/watch?v=geJeX6iIlO0

0 Comments

Fundamental Questions (and Answers)

4/25/2015

0 Comments

As a young boy I asked the following questions (and, as an amateur cosmologist, still do):

What is the universe made of?

How did it get this way?

How big is it?

Where did it come from, and where is it going?

Are we alone it?

At one time in our lives, most of us did ask such questions But then we 'grew up', grew to realize that things like job creation, economics, financial investment, politics, gas mileage and the study of neolithic fertility rites--or whatever narrow field of study you chose to dedicate yourself to-- were much more relevant, and what life was really about.

In their book, View from the Center of the Universe, authors Primack and Abrams suggest that these fundamental questions are not childish, that they remain profound and to the list should be added one more: "What difference does this all make to me?" (10)

We so easily dismiss these timeless questions. As adults we can see no practical way in which they can benefit us. Our powerlessness in addressing them can only frustrate and disappoint. As Primack and Abrams say, modern people "no longer think such knowledge is possible." (19) The pursuit of a new, unifying, and true cosmology can only be a fruitless endeavour. And, after all, isn't all 'truth' just relative?

Such a conclusion is wrong. Today we do have answers to all these questions which is an amazing thing. It is a gift from the universe, and a triumph of scientific endeavour. The results of this work are not widely known. And knowing the answers to these questions does in fact make a profound difference to our understanding of our place in the universe and our ability to solve the 'practical' problems of everyday human existence.

More to follow...

0 Comments

Pascal's Malaise

4/19/2015

0 Comments

How many of us have felt like Calvin, staring out at the vast universe on a clear night? Or worse still, how many of us have avoided the question of our significance by refusing even to look? Fearing what we might see? Fearing its implications? In their book, "View from the Center of the Universe" authors Primack and Abrams tackle this modern angst head-on.

"In their hearts, most people are still living in an imagined universe, where space is simply emptiness, stars are scattered randomly, and common sense is a reliable guide. In this imagined universe, we humans have no special place and often feel insignificant." (3)

But Primack and Abrams refuse to accept this point of view. In ways that are bound to surprise many readers, Primack and Abrams show that human beings are, in fact, extremely 'significant' in the universe.

"Most of us have grown up thinking that there is no basis for our feeling central or even important to the cosmos. But with the new evidence it turns out that this perspective is nothing but a prejudice. There is on geographic center to an expanding universe, but we are central in several unexpected ways that derive directly from physics and cosmology--for example, we are in the center of all possible sizes in the universe, we are made of the rarest material, and we are living at the midpoint of time for both the universe and the earth. These and other forms of centrality have each been a scientific discovery, not an anthropocentric way of reading the data." (7)

But what is the prevailing view in our 21st century culture? I'm afraid it hasn't changed much. It was expressed vividly in thoughts of a 17th century French philosopher and, I would wager, even in the works of William Shakespeare, especially in his King Lear.

"I feel engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces whereof I know nothing and which know nothing of me. I am terrified..." Blaise Pascal 1623

Blaise Pascal

King Lear

“When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools.”

0 Comments

What a Piece of Work is Man... a Green Manifesto

4/14/2015

1 Comment

Last Saturday, along with a thousand other people, I attended a talk given by the environmental activist Naomi Klein. It was an inspiring talk, yet controlled, rational, and elegant; it has prompted me to formally “come out” as a “greenie” and declare my allegiances clearly and unreservedly.

I should start by saying I instinctively distrust large gatherings. People in large groups (such as assembled at the Mir Peace Centre last Saturday) behave differently than small groups. They can become rabid, emotional, unreasoning, and prone to initiating action they would never consider otherwise. While this can sometimes be an important boost to progressive movements, its dangers are all too apparent (just think back to Nazi youth rallies; history is full of such examples).

So it was reassuring to me when Naomi Klein, when asked to comment on the role of nuclear power in the climate change question, pointed out that she didn’t really understand the new nuclear technologies being discussed (e.g. the small thorium-based reactors). She could only comment on the present technologies being used which she regarded as unequivocally harmful. This little exchange reassured me because Klein was not dismissing the nuclear option entirely, realizing that she did not have all the facts and that any final decision must be science-based.

“Science-based”—this would the first essential part of my Green Manifesto. Everything I believe about climate change and the means to combat it, must be based our best scientific understanding. When our understanding changes (and usually this means it becomes deeper and more sophisticated, not repudiated), our climate change strategy must change with it.

It stabs at my heart to hear of people who in our 21st century world distrust science. It is an irrational, self-destructive stance. It physically distresses me in the same way as watching a bully kick at and destroy a sand-castle carefully constructed on the beach.

Our species builds things. We build things according to beautiful mathematical rules which we have uncovered gradually and painstakingly over time. Over history our increasing understanding of the universe has allowed our species to invent the cell phone, travel to the Moon, fly in airplanes, Skype to our family from the other side of the world--things which are absolutely a fundamental part of every modern person's life. Even Jihadist terrorists depend on cell phones. Even our prime minister. And such technologies simply could not be if we did not know about the world of quantum physics. So how am I supposed to interpret this? We can accept the existence of quarks and virtual particles which we cannot see, but deny the rapid melting of glaciers which is happening before our very eyes?

As much as anything, I believe science is what defines humankind. I am also a committed Christian who believes the single most appropriate word to describe God, the Creator, is Love. I believe that God loves humankind and loves the Universe. God loves matter; he loves physical things. He has created a universe which is knowable, he allows us to unravel its secrets and encourages of us to learn and share in the mystery. On the other side of this equation is personal responsibility: as a member of homo sapiens,(although I must admit, many times we behave as if we were homo stultus.) I am expected to love in return: love God, love humankind, love the universe at large. I am to become a responsible steward, keep a neat and tidy house, and prepare my garden for countless generations to follow.

I overheard an interview on CBC radio a few days ago. I'm not sure who was talking, but he seemed to be defending the Canadian government's "jobs first" policy. And when a particular question was put to him about the consequences of his policy, he replied that he didn't think he needed to be concerned about the economic situation two or three centuries in the future. No, no, no, no, no! That's exactly what every government official, every scientist, every human being needs to be concerned about: the long term implications of our actions today!

It is likely true: evolution has designed us to be creatures who think most effectively about our immediate futures: what we must do to trap that mammoth, where we should look for the migrating caribou, when we should plant our crops and maybe--among the most far-seeing among us--imagine how big a cave we will need for our grandchildren. But we are capable of so much more! We are capable of building cathedrals and pyramids and just societies we personally will never to live to see completed. This is the mind set we need to recapture. To imagine and prepare for the world of 2500. In the meantime, of course, in the here-and-now, we can enjoy our work together, saving and building a better planet.

In her talk, Naomi Klein linked the problem of climate change to the problem of capitalism. If a solution to climate change is to be found, so simultaneously must a solution be found to a broken economic system. This she envisioned not so much as a double-barrelled curse but as a double-barrelled opportunity. Good on you, Naomi!

I know not very much about economics. I know its workings are complex and it is dangerous to make sweeping and simple statements about complex systems. Nevertheless this much seems clear to me:

            1. Our present economic system has produced an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. This may not have been deliberate but it is a reality. Such an imbalance is not sustainable. People have reached the breaking point of what they will tolerate. The dream of upward economic mobility appears to be dead, even in so-called "rich" countries.

            2. A world economy based on making more consumer items (and mostly items that are not needed) is destructive and unsustainable. There are not enough physical resources on the planet to satisfy every person's craving for a materialistic, fantasy-based, Hollywood lifestyle. Moreover the means for extracting what resources remain continue to pollute the planet and accelerate climate change.

            3. Jobs vs the Environment is a false dichotomy. Sacrifice the environment and you reach a point where no jobs will exist at all. Most new job growth needs to be directed towards saving and sustaining the environment.

I am no seer. I do not know what a new, post-Capitalistic economy will look like. I am convinced however, that if we do not find one, our civilization is doomed. We may, in some fashion, still survive as a species, but only, I think, as a species thrust into a true Dark Age. A major population crash is certain if we do not change our vision. Along with our own self-destruction we will take with us countless species of flora and fauna. Our world will become much less diverse. Mind you, Nature can be resilient--in the quarantined area around the Chernobyl nuclear site, animal and plant species are currently thriving, so maybe the rest of Nature is simply waiting for humankind to get out of the way. This is a dystopia which may give comfort to some, but I'm hoping for something more.

The example of Chernobyl aside, I think the future of the entire planet is now inextricably tied to the future of humankind. As we go, so the planet goes. As a species we have single-handedly changed the planet beyond recognition. Without any long-range plan, without any universal ethic, we are exponentially changing the face of the planet: its landforms, its vegetation, its climate, everything.

It may seem presumptuous to think we are at a unique point in the history of humankind, but some generation has to be and, I think, ours is. In the next generation we will solve the climate change issue or we will not, and the consequences will be dire. As a species we will acquire a universal sense of planetary stewardship and long-range thinking, or we will not, and plunge into a new Dark Age. We will transform our idea of growth from one of material consumption to one of intellectual and cultural development, or we will not, and future generations will read about us--if surviving technologies permit--and shake their heads. Homo stultus.

A politician today who does not think long term, who does not think about his grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and many centuries down the road, is a dinosaur, as transitory and illusory as the fossil-fuels he relies on. Who has time for dinosaurs?

The era of caveman thinking has passed. Now is a time for building new cathedrals of the mind and soul, for each of us to do our share, to commit to a common vision of prosperity that does not depend on "things". It is time to love the universe, love our planet, and love the unique creations we are, gifted with the power to raise our consciousnesses and truly deserve the moniker of homo sapiens.

1 Comment

BOOK REVIEW: The View from the Center of the Universe

4/11/2015

0 Comments

This book by Joel Primack, physics professor, and his wife Nancy Abrams, is the most important book I have read in the last decade, maybe the last several decades. Last month I finished reading it for the fourth time, this time liberally marking up the text with yellow highlighter.

In this work, Primack and Abrams attempt a remarkable thing: to synthesize all our current understanding of cosmology into a new world culture myth about the universe and humankind's place in it.

The authors do not use the word 'myth' in the sense of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or something that is patently juvenile and untrue. Myth is at the heart of human spirituality. Myth is the story we make for ourselves that explains our relationship to the universe.

All the world's great civilizations have had great myths whose principle purpose was to explain existence and give purpose to each person's life. Our modern age is without such a myth--we are perhaps suspicious of myths and think ourselves too sophisticated to need them. But the lack of such a unifying (and yes 'reassuring') myth goes a large way in explaining our modern angst.

the largest unit in the universe: a galaxy cluster.

Most of us, in some cases on an unconscious level, think of the universe as vast, empty, expanse, and regard our own personal existence to be without meaning or significance.

The View from the Center of the Universe argues that this lonely, existential view is based on an outdated cosmology, that it is does not at all reflect a vision of the universe as it 'actually is'.

The universe as it 'actually' is, filled with virtual particles popping in and out of existence, filled with dark matter that we can't even see, and with the very fabric of space expanding exponentially, is a strange and wondrous place.

What is even more strange and wondrous is that mankind seems to have a central and pivotal place in all this. What an exciting idea! And how brilliantly the authors expound it.

Stay tuned for future excerpts from this remarkable work.
In the meantime, you way wish to check the authors' website: viewfromthecenter.com

0 Comments

MOVIE REVIEW: Two Days, One Night

4/3/2015

0 Comments

The premise of this fine Belgian film is simple: a woman suffering from depression is on sick-leave from work. During her absence, her boss has given her fellow workers an ultimatum: welcome your co-worker back to the plant or declare her redundant and keep your year-end bonus of 1000 Euros, but not both. In a non-secret ballot, the workers choose overwhelmingly to keep their bonuses.

One outraged co-worker insists there be another vote, a secret one, outside the influence of the plant's boss. The boss agrees to the concession, confident, it seems, that the outcome will not change. The new vote will take place Monday.

All that weekend (two days and one night), Sandra and her husband drive about town, looking to speak to each of Sandra's sixteen co-workers; she urges those who voted to keep their bonus to reconsider. In these confrontations lie the heart of the film: how each worker justifies his or her decision, greed over compassion, security over solidarity. Don't get me wrong; the question is never painted in black and white. Many of Sandra's co-workers give--if not compelling, at least understandable-- reasons for choosing the bonus. Even Sandra's boss is no simple villain. At every stage, as a viewer, I am forced to ask myself, how would I have chosen. If I was struggling financially, if I feared repercussions from my boss? The film never lets up, tugging at your moral conscience, looking at the question subtly from all angles and insisting that you choose. All this drama is compounded by the personal struggle Sandra has with her depression, her difficulty, at moments, even to get out of bed, let alone having to meet face-to-face with workers who she fears resent her.

Marion Cotillard's performance as Sandra is very strong, a "tour de nuance" as one Rotten Tomatoes contributor describes it. The performances from many of the supporting actors are almost as good.

Two Days, One Night feels like a thriller, yet is something much more profound: a movie that challenges both heart and intellect, a movie whose impact will linger, a "mature" movie in the very best sense of that word.

9/10

www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BNjqSsGqo

0 Comments

MOVIE REVIEW: The Woman in Gold

Fundamental Questions (and Answers)

Pascal's Malaise

What a Piece of Work is Man... a Green Manifesto

BOOK REVIEW: The View from the Center of the Universe

MOVIE REVIEW: Two Days, One Night

www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BNjqSsGqo

Author

Categories

Archives