text:
Friday, July 27, 2012

Pinnilavu - dipping my toe into Malayalam waters..

There are moments when you realise how overwhelmingly vast this simple thing called "Indian film industry" is. I've seen around 50 Tamil films and consider myself a fan of them, but those 50 films are not enough to cover any sort of range where I'd recognise all the key players - in those relative terms, I'm still very much a newbie. Hindi films are a ground which I've mastered walking on by now; I know stars both past and present and even though I've got gaps in my knowledge, I'm relatively well-versed by now.

To jump into Malayalam films, which I mostly know through the Hindi remakes, was not scary, though. I considered it more a great opportunity, and I am eternally grateful that I know somebody in my own home town who can borrow me some of her DVD's. Sadly, this friend (let's call her Stimpy by her online pseudonym) was still going through a move and didn't yet have her DVD collection in order, so I ended up taking home a rather random selection of Malayalam films, rather than just films she would've recommended.

So it happened that my first 'commercial' Malayalam film was Pinnilavu (1983), a family drama starring Mammootty as the wayward son of Madhu.

To see Mallu films' biggest star in his young, still fit-looking avatar, was quite interesting. However, I subsequently discovered that the Golden Age of Malayalam cinema only began in 1984 or so - clearly this film was not a classic, and it showed. The role Mammootty plays is rather simplistic. The son, Unni, enters medical school and starts hanging out with the wrong crowd, who use their money to get alcohol, lounge around reading dirty books and magazines, and playing cards. The father obviously disapproves of this, as does Unni's beloved, played by Poornima Jayaram. That's about the extent of the plot.

The problem I found with the film was precisely the simplicity of this central dilemma. The actions of Unni and the disapproval from his father are so downright understandable - they're not just your typical generational misunderstandings. Unni neglects his studies, rather than just having fun in the way that university students normally have fun amongst themselves, and behaves very disrespectfully in all accounts. The lack of greys here really does the story a disservice.

Mohanlal's role as the leader of this gang of young men living irresponsibly is smaller, and not too important; I suppose this was from his period of playing mostly negative characters. He gets to dance in a song sequence, with immoral drinking! Terrible!

There aren't too many songs in the film, but the first one is a legend in and of itself; it is the only song where Mammootty dances! And oh dear oh dear, what moves he possesses:

The elbow dance!

This is the gif you'll want to save, and savour. (You're welcome.)

This is perfection.

(Note: I do not post these to mock the man. He's obviously a popular actor well worth his reputation. I can understand why he chose not to dance in later movies .. and obviously most of the blame lies with the choreographer. Sometimes all dance, no matter how lacking in skill, can be enjoyable. So I absolutely cherish this number!)

Pinnilavu certainly ended up an underwhelming film experience, but of course, I'm going to keep watching Malayalam films. I want to see a decent amount - maybe something will catch my interest further than just this academic interest in discovering a regional industry, its tropes, styles and stories. I believe my taste is pretty similar to that of my friend's, so when I get to see some of her favourites, I'll probably know whether I am into Mallu films on the whole or whether Tamil remains my favourite Southie industry.

One thing I did notice was the relative smallness of this industry. It's clear that it's not big in terms of budgets or even story - Pinnilavu was a small story about family, no sweeping epic. The locations were also limited and seemed very ordinary, in a sense.

And yes, while Mammootty and Mohanlal do conform to the stereotype of Southie heroes being older and pudgy, unlike the handsome, often physically fit Hindi heroes, I am over this prejudice. In the end, what matters is the acting, and whether they impress me with that. Hopefully, in the future, they or other Malayalam actors do!

I'm not sure why I uploaded this screencap of a shirtless Mammootty but I suppose it's as good as any a note to end on.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Mr & Mrs '55 - should have come with a warning..

Apparently tons of people were perfectly aware that Mr & Mrs '55, the Guru Dutt-directed romantic comedy that is neither very romantic nor all that comedic, had a plot more or less composed of aggravating anti-feminist/misogynist ideology drivel. Well, I sadly wasn't, so I actually bought the DVD and was fully anticipating a good time.

The plot should have been a warning sign, but I knew nothing of it, going in. Madhubala plays Anita, a rich girl who will inherit her father's riches after marriage. Her aunt, Sitadevi, is the film's unfortunate "Straw Feminist" (this link is to a great video that explains the term and the use of the stereotype in Hollywood films), who is partly responsible for the new divorce law, which makes divorcing easier. She hatches a plan to get Anita married to poor cartoonist Preetam (Guru Dutt), but he only agrees to this plan because he's met and fallen in love with Anita.

There's a way to be not all that feminist a film, but still not annoying. Where this story falls down is the fact that not only is Sitadevi a gross, exaggerated stereotype of a manhating feminist (and it is annoyingly underlined that she has "learned" feminism from her Western counterparts, because naturally there are no Indian feminists whatsoever!), she's also the sole villain. While in Hollywood, the "Straw Feminist" may be used to discredit feminism to say "everybody's already equal", in here her ridiculous, self-serving ideology is labelled feminist to prop up conservative ideology of women's natural place being in the home, doing chores and looking after children. Unlike most real life feminists, who advocate women having the choice to marry and work, or marry and work inside the home, or not marry at all, for that matter, Sitadevi naturally wants to dictate this choice herself.

I'll be honest: this film nearly ruined Guru Dutt for me.

The sad thing, this is not a terrible film. It would have been fine without the blatant ideology - they could have portrayed Sitadevi as a terrible woman (still not a feminist thing!) but that her feminism and her awful behaviour are not necessarily directly related. But because the film wants to push the idea that feminists are evil beasts who describe being a housewife as slavery and are against women making any choices that aren't "for the cause", it casts a real shadow over everything I enjoyed about the film - the Madhubala-Guru Dutt chemistry, the nicely frequent OP Nayar songs, the Johnny Walker comedy bits. There are numerous cute moments that could make up a good film, if I could ignore the ideological dialogues that pop up every now and then.

There was one particular terrible bit of dialogue, where Preetam's sister-in-law tells Anita, after she asks about the woman's husband and whether he beats her, "You sometimes get rocks in the rice, but you don't stop eating the rice." While I fully recognise that a lot may have been lost in the translation of this particular bit of dialogue, this bit was just downright offensive to me.

I should also point out, there are a great number of highly credible critiques of Western mainstream feminism from the Indian perspective - but this film and the ideas it presents are not some of them. There have been discussions of how the feminism of English women propped up colonialist and orientalist ideas that further subjugated Indian women, as well as how more modern white women "spoke for" women in poorer countries, rather than allowing them a voice of their own. (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Chandra Talpade Mohanty are just some of the people presenting the critiques I'm talking about.) But that's my Gender Studies minor talking, so let's get back to the film..

Johnny Walker and this actress, Yasmeen, who bears a vague resemblance to Rani Mukherji were probably my favourite thing when it comes down to it. They also were in my favourite song from the film, "Jaane kahan mera jigar gaya ji".

If you're at all like me in this department, just skip this film. As you can see from the screencaps, my SKY label DVD was also terrible in terms of picture quality, so that's definitely, definitely not worth the purchase, either.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

A solid list of solidly okay films: Paiyaa, Bodyguard.

Paiyaa (2010) is your standard Tamil action entertainer with a bit of a twist: the story begins with Shiva (Karthi ie Surya's brother) pretending to be a driver to the girl of his dreams (Tamanna). Pretty soon it turns out she's in in a spot of trouble, and he offers to drive her wherever she needs to go. During the road trip, they learn things about one another, fall in love, and she discovers that - surprise surprise! - he's also got some goons coming after her.

It's a fun little film, but it's nothing amazing. I like Tamanna, and didn't dislike Karthi (this film introduced me to him) and the songs were quite sweet, but after the recommendation by the DVD store clerk, I think I expected something a bit more than an okay film. Regardless, it's a fine effort and probably one I'd have liked more, had my expectations been more reasonable. I think the interesting premise made me want the film to be better than it was, or maybe it was just that this one didn't quite click with me the right way.

The expression "made more money than God" always struck me as peculiar, as surely God's not that big into human capitalist pursuits? Isn't the whole point of religion to rise above materialist desires? Regardless of these logical flaws it's safe to say that Bodyguard made more money than God (if God was to make money .. yeah, I'll just drop this here). I watched it last December and of course completely forgot to review it.

True to Salman's new renaissance as the Southie hero who just happens to be making films in Hindi, this one is actually a remake of a 2010 Malayalam film of the same name. The plot is fairly simple - Lovely B. Singh (Salman) gets hired as bodyguard to protect Divya (Kareena Kapoor). Divya is annoyed by Lovely constantly tailing her, so she starts calling him to distract him from his duties, and pretends to be a girl called Chhaya. Through this little riff, the two fall in love - the film is essentially a romantic comedy wrapped in an action film shell, because there's no way Salman can *not* release a can of whoopass on some bad guys in his films these days.

But what really makes the film worth watching are the last twenty-thirty minutes or so..

I think it's curious that Bodyguard became such an unbelievably huge hit in all accounts. It's a solid film, no doubt, but to me it's not really as good as other similar recent Salman films, like Dabangg or Wanted, both of which I loved, and have rewatched many times. Maybe it's more that the success of the aforementioned films (alongside stuff like Ready which I wasn't a fan of) lead to this super-heightened moment of absolute Salman paagalpan across India. Regardless, it's certainly good enough for one viewing occasion - if only to try and see what made it such an absolute phenomenon.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Run, and how semi-nostalgia bites.

The weirdest thing about watching a film from 2002 in 2012 is precisely that - when you're so used to thinking of early 2000s films as "current", "recent", even "modern", and then there's a very sudden realisation that no, actually a lot of these movies are getting rather old. Of course, old doesn't necessarily mean dated. In some instances, however, it does, at least in some aspects.

Run (2002) is a Tamil action romantic comedy about a guy (R. Madhavan at his absolute most adorable) who meets a girl (Meera Jasmine - ditto!), pursues her, and then gets into trouble for loving her. At the heart of this conflict is the girl's brother (Atul Kulkarni, who is awesome), who is a bit of a rowdy, and there is a cute b-plot where the boy doesn't like his brother-in-law. It was re-made in Hindi two years later starring Bhumika Chawla (remember her?) and Abhishek Bachchan.

Run is far from being a really good film, or even a good film. It's saved by the cuteness of its leads, and the strength of the Vidyasagar soundtrack, but that's about it - the story is unremarkable, the action is not the most engaging (whoever thought that Madhavan would make a convincing badass?) and overall it just has the feel of a very run-of-the-mill early 00's Tamil actioner.

Oh, and there's Vivek, playing Madhavan's friend in his own comedy b-plot, who is unsuccessful in locating his friend in the massive city of Chennai, but is very successful in getting himself into a world of trouble by behaving irresponsibly and carelessly.

The Vivek comedy in this was not incredibly but reminded me of why the guy is a favourite: his character is a terrible, selfish person, but his comeuppance for his bad behaviour is both hilarious and socially critical, as it points out the multiple ways in which people rip off, abuse and exploit other people. You feel bad for him, in some ways, but on the other hand, his misfortunes are caused by his own behaviour - if he just behaved like a decent human being, he might not land in so much trouble.

One aspect of the film is the relentless pursue of Meera Jasmine's character by Madhavan's character. Sadly this feature of the love story is not as dated as it should be - her no's (brought on by her knowledge of her brother's behaviour) go unheard by him, and eventually he is vindicated when she confesses she likes him, but would still rather they not see each other, because of her brother's anger.

I do like some Indian films where stalking sadly gets vindication like here, but in Run, the love story is just kind of bland, and so it irked me that they included this. Of course, the story does also have the couple continuously running into each other, unintended, suggesting fate has its hand in their love, but the stalking does still feature.

So why did I still enjoy this film, despite its unremarkableness and some unlikable aspects of the story? It had its charm, particularly in the interactions between the leads, and the songs. The film goes out to have songs and picturizations that feel very much "of its time". We get not just on but two Swiss picturizations, which are so beautifully shot you suddenly remember why these song picturizations in a foreign country became a thing. Despite questionable fashion (those fake leather trousers, please never return to us!) the songs are just a delight - beautiful locations, fun dancing, very catchy, poppy tunes.

For a good example, check out this song - and for a challenge, try not to hum the "duhh dooh duhh" tune afterwards.

What else? Well, Madhavan is really cute in this.

So cute!

Of course, not to be outdone by Meera Jasmine.

Precious! It's interesting that the only other film with these two that I've seen was Ayitha Ezhuthu (ie Tamil Yuva with the Best Cast Ever: Surya, Siddharth, Madhavan), where they play the characters Rani and Abhishek played in the Hindi version. If you know either film, you'll know those parts are a far cry from romantic fluff.

Other things I enjoyed...

Raghuvaran as Madhavan's brother-in-law. There is awkwardness between them, because the marriage took the sister Madhavan's character loved so much away from him. However, the two find common ground as the film goes along, and the subdued character Raghuvaran plays is just fantastic.

And Atul Kulkarni, who I'd gladly see more of, stole the scene whenever possible as the resident baddie. There's a certain subtle, razor-sharp edge to his acting that makes for really good villains, even if the writing doesn't give his character the complete badness that would make it a truly legendary villain.

And so there you go - a middle-of-the-road film that feels very much of its time, in both good and bad.

GRATEFUL NOTE: The DVD I have of this comes from Nina, who years and years ago sent me a bunch of DVD's she no longer had the need for. It's taking me a small forever to get through the films - I think I've still got at least three films to sit through, but I still appreciate her sending me movies, and will hold onto this DVD for whenever I feel like watching some young Madhavan in catchy songs. Thanks, Nina! (Assuming you're still following this blog!)

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Vicky Donor: one swimmer short of good..

It doesn't get much more simple than this: Vicky Donor is a drama-comedy about a guy named Vicky, who becomes a sperm donor. The title pretty much tells you all you need to know, and of course anybody can guess that there are complications, there are laughs, and there is, naturally, even a love story woven into the mix.

I'll keep my review simple as well. Here's what I congratulate the film makers and cast for doing: creating a simple story about a topic not really explored by Hindi films before this, portraying it in a progressive manner while also dealing well with all the false assumptions and prejudices that people might have about sperm donations and artificial insemination. There's also a fun b-plot about the coming together of two cultures, Bengali and Punjabi, in form of the love story where Vicky (Ayushman Khurrana) falls for Bengali girl Ashima (Yami Gautam).

The cast is mostly fresh-faced, plucked out from TV, and perform well. Yami Gautam especially makes me believe in the character's emotions even when the script doesn't quite convince me, and I can't get over Ayushman Khurrana's dimples. Annu Kapoor plays the doctor who convinces Vicky to become a donor, and he's funny, whilst being just a tad too silly.

What about the bad, then? Well, for all the good that the script contains, it's far from perfect. First off, the beginning is unnecessarily prolonged and stretches the limits of credulity a little - why is Vicky the guy the doctor wants as a donor, surely there are other good ones out there if enticed with some money? Second of all, I never felt like I truly liked the character of Vicky. He's a confusing combination of the workshy guy who thinks he's too good for work, yet seems to lead a lifestyle that isn't exactly free, and yet accepts the "job" of a sperm donor even though he's quite against the idea as being beneath him. There's nothing that really endears me to the character; he doesn't treat anybody particularly well and for all of the actor's cuteness, even the romance leaves me a little cold.

Then there's Ashima - my annoyances with her character only come about towards the end of the film, so I won't get into them as to not spoil anything. Let's just say the things they make her do and feel to create dramatic tension seem a little too contrived.

So there's the good and the bad. I'm glad I saw it, if only for the new stars it gives us - I certainly hope they continue to do good work in the business. However, I'm not sure my recommendation would be anything more than a lukewarm one and I'm not dying to rewatch this film.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

A: a film.

Kannada director-actor Upendra's A is a disjointed film full of bold choices, creative execution and merging serious points with more masala elements. It's a story about a director, and an actress he makes a star out of, and it's a story about love - however, to call it a love story would give you a rather weird idea of love throughout most of the movie. A bit of the underbelly of the film industry is exposed, but it's not an exposé.

It's almost impossible to clearly define what A truly is; all I really know is, I can't really discuss it properly without spoiling it. It did confirm something for me: Upendra seems to be a film maker whose choices I do not agree with quite often, but I still appreciate what he's doing, if not how he's doing it. A lot of these niggles have to do with how he treats his female characters, but I'll explain my thinking further in the spoileriffic part of this write-up.

So either rush to watch it, or stop reading this.

From here on there will be SPOILERS. Including the very end of the film.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Baava - sweet but modest.

When watching this film, I suddenly realised it's been a damned long time since the last time I saw one of my favourites, Siddharth, in a film. Admittedly, last year was my least active film-watching (or blogging!) year since I got into Indian films, so it hasn't been anything particular about his recent films (all of which I will probably get to eventually) that's made sure I've stayed away. Still, this begs the question - what's happening with Siddharth these days?

In all honesty, the usual - the actor is dipping a toe into production, working with new directors in Telugu and Tamil cinemas, and typically putting out films that are not necessarily awe-inspiring but solid work. I get the sense he's not actively going out of his way not to star in Hindi films, or away from "alternative" roles, and his future releases promise some variety, but so far it seems that while I was occupied elsewhere, he's mainly done romantic entertainers. I won't blame him, since two years in film time is a short time, and I think he is actively seeking to do things other than his bread'n'butter, ie these romantic roles. (Off-camera, he's still being delightfully opinionated on Twitter!)

Baava is a Telugu debut direction for Rambabu, and a thoroughly harmless romantic family film about Veerababu (Siddharth) who is essentially a prankster, causing his fellow villagers quite a bit of grief. He meets a girl named Varalakshmi (Pranitha), who has returned to the village after completing her studies and - no surprises here - falls in love with her. However, as ever, the union of two lovers is never complete until their families are also united, and Veerababu's and Varalakshmi's families have more history than others'...

As with most of Siddharth's films, it's hard not to compare this one to Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana, the grand jewel of his past career, because of the obvious similarities. In a sense, over here he also plays a character who starts out kind of ridiculously hyperactive and (to some) annoying to boot. Then the love story kicks in properly, and his character mellows out and becomes more relatable, but still has to prove himself to the female lead character's family. I think NVNN is a lot stronger in the hyper first half, but Baava comes to its own eventually as well.

If there is anything bad to say about the film, it's perhaps that it never quite rises above "adequate". Both leads are fine, songs are cute, story can be compelling at times but draggy during some moments. It's a serviceable, entertaining film, but doesn't offer much anything that's new.

Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? Not sure. It didn't blow me away, but it did move me at times (the back stories for certain characters were great!) and best of all, it didn't really have anything to annoy me, unless you count the forgettable gang of friends of Veerababu on the first half.

It's worth watching, and if you're a fan of Siddharth, perhaps even owning.

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Sociopaths and the girls who love them: Ishaqzaade.

"Curse of the second half," they said. "Punishing the heroine," they said.

And I, like a fool, asked, "How bad can it be?"

It turns out, so bad I cannot even discuss this film without getting into all the various spoilersome niggles I had with plot and characterization. For a short, spoiler-free version, here's my take:

I was never bored during Ishaqzaade, to the credit of the film's production. However, what promised to be an action-packed Romeo & Juliet tale of two young lovers (fresh faces Parineeti Chopra and Arjun Kapoor), their families divided in political and religious rivalry, ended up being quite the dysfunctional mess. While there's some good - music, Parineeti Chopra's acting - there's just so much bad I'm not quite sure I'd recommend it.

And now, onto the SPOILERS...

If there was any justice in the world, somewhere half-way through the film, Parineeti's Zoya would have had a switch flip in her head and she would've gone full-on Urmila-in-EHT, avenging the injustice that befell her in the most mind-bogglingly gruesome manner imaginable. I would've enjoyed that, especially as I loved Parineeti in this - she's so solid for a newbie, lively in her expressions, believable in her sorrow. I'd rate her as highly as Anushka Sharma, my other favourite among the young recently debuted actresses.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen, and instead the film decides to have various female characters (first Parma's mother, then the prostitute with the heart of gold Chand) tell her that her love is what will cure the incredibly sociopathic male lead Parma. How unhealthy is this message? I'm all for the cliché of a woman's love curing a criminal, but considering this is the very same guy who completely and utterly messed up Zoya's life, in the cruelest, most calculating and cold manner possible, I'm not so sure he's all there for the curing. After such unforgivable actions, how can she trust him, let alone anybody? The message is harmful, to say the least. That man who had no regard for your feelings, wishes or honour? That abusive jerk? Stay with him, because you're the one who might turn him from an animal into a human being.

So instead of him getting his due comeuppance, instead the film builds toward a situation where they're both so utterly screwed they kind of have to be with one another. Is this romantic? Not even in the most tragic sense do I feel it is. I'm known to enjoy some pretty troubled, dysfunctional couples - love doesn't always have to exist in a problem-free, cushioned environment. But this here is just beyond the pale. When Zoya is shown to forgive Parma, finally, and the two marry properly, I don't get the sense that everything will be okay for these crazy kids, because at least now they've got each other. No, instead I'm stuck on thinking how this is more or less her Stockholm Syndrome'd by the circumstances into this marriage with him. Love him or perish, you're screwed either way, might as well...

It would help if the character of Parma was fleshed out or shown to be a little more respectful of Zoya's feelings and opinions. Instead he comes off as the sort of brat he acted like when he was deceiving her, conning her into the fake marriage. Does he end up deserving her forgiveness? Not even an inch of it. Arjun Kapoor might be an okay actor, but his talents so far did not stretch to give the role the sort of innate humanity that the character really desperately needed. I ended up hating Parma, and mistrusting his every action, no matter how genuine. He was rotten, and even if consequences lead him to abandon his initial loyalties, it does not redeem him in my eyes.

The final disclaimer gives some sense of why things went they way they did, why the movie doesn't cheer for progress or display any, and things go back to the status quo, as if nothing ever really happened in the first place. On the other hand, I'm sure a lot of these real life stories of ishqazaade (love rebels according to the film's own translation) are ten-fold in romance than the movie paying tribute to their lives.

So why did the film makers make these bizarre choices to "jazz up" what could've been a really good tale of love against all odds? I'll never know, nor will I ever understand. In the end you're also left wondering the inhumanity of an ideology where "honour" turns your own children into mere possessions that you only care to destroy to salvage your own "respect". What a cruel world it can be...

Friday, July 6, 2012

Hire me, Bollywood: Kiss of the Spider Woman re-imagining

Argentinian author Manuel Puig's novel "Kiss of the Spider Woman" (illustrated here by the novel's stylish Finnish translation cover art) draws a lot out of a simple premise: the dialogue between two prisoners, one a staunch communist activist and the other an effeminate gay man, forms almost the entirety of the novel. Valentin, the former, listens to Molina, the latter, tell him stories from old movies - through these re-tellings they discuss each other, life, politics and love.

The novel was perhaps the first to be told almost entirely through dialogue (with some official documents and footnotes relishing the story on the side), and it was later adapted into a stage version, that was then made into an Academy Award-winning film.

And after I finished reading and mulling this story over, I just thought to myself, "This would make a fantastic Indian film."

Why do I think it's so ripe for an Indian film remake? If you've read the novel, you know it packs a punch precisely because there is so much there to get into. The stories of the films tell us something about the character who narrates them; Molina is an escapist at heart, stuck in a world that doesn't accept him, but as the novel also shows, stuck inside these gendered misconceptions of both himself and the world around him. This kind of escapism is what forms a large part of the tradition of Indian films - the other reality where the corrupt politicians get beaten up by brave populist heroes, where the beautiful girl and the handsome boy fight adversity and find love despite their families' disapproval, the classic melodramatic heroines singing poetic tunes about their woes..

These kinds of aspects would find an easy translation into the films of Hindi film yore. Then there are things about the character that would obviously be different. Molina's identification with femininity means he might be categorised as a hijra in the Indian context. Or the character might be more closeted in terms of who he really is, and who he wants to be.

Valentin, on the other hand, is the revolutionary, whose movement relies on secrecy, but who suddenly finds it impossible not to share some of himself with Molina. The two men form a bond - and without spoiling, it's safe to say this bond is not easily defined, especially given their unusual circumstances. Valentin seems haunted by doubts about his cause, and his constant reading of political literature seems to be partly due wanting to educate himself, but also to make sure he remains committed to his cause.

India's history has no shortness of revolutionary movements, and at least in some states, the Maoist Naxalite movement has been seen as gaining prominence (as well as being classified a terrorist organisation by official authorities). So again, this would not necessarily be a difficult thing to transplant into the Indian context.

In the novel, they get through many films - six according to some counts, seven according to others. In the film and stage version, they only delve deeply into one. On the page, scenes can whizz by when narrated, but in film, telling a story takes longer. But the narration of the films are integral to the story, not just because they form such a big part of it, but also because they cut into the differences between these two characters - Molina's melodramatic tastes in film reflect popular cinema, whereas communist Valentin's dismissal of certain films, certain scenes in them, seems to suggest an elitism. A really good director could form a story, a film within a film, with this narration, that would dig deep into this particular contrast between the two characters. The political v the non-political, the progressive v the socially conservative, the popular v the high-brow.

As for casting, well, if you want to aim big,  then why not aim the biggest? Aamir Khan as the brooding, uncertain Valentin, plagued by his past regrets but committed to his cause. Shahrukh Khan as the equally uncertain but only as fragile as he allows himself to be Molina, the narrator of the films that stir such emotions inside them both, the eternal escapist, unhappy in this world but with little desire to change it. For both stars, these would be bold roles, and fascinating characters to play; and of course, I am fantasy-casting like it's going out of style, here.

If you've not read this novel yet, do so, as I highly recommend it. I cannot speak about the strength of the English translation, as I read the novel in Finnish, but I assume it'd be worth it.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Nationalism, culture & representation - thoughts on Finnish cinema.

You might be thinking, what with that lofty post header, what the hell do Finnish films have to do with Indian films, the main subject of this blog? Not a whole lot, but allow me to explain.

A lot of foreign fans sometimes feel discouraged when Indians rag on their own cinema. "It's just not as good as American films", "they just steal plots from better foreign films", "the acting is so over-the-top and melodramatic!" are just some of the criticisms you might hear voiced. Some of that attitude might be rooted in internalised racist or colonialist thinking - the idea that if it's Indian, it's naturally subpar to anything that comes from outside of India; a certain lack of self-confidence in one's own cultural products. I say some, because it's not always the explanation, and I think it would be harmful to label other people's tastes as being rooted in something that they don't themselves recognise at all.

Another explanation of this high level of criticism towards cultural products of one's own culture/country is simply the question of representation - when we identify with a culture we were born and raised in, we might feel defensive or close to whatever members of the same culture produce as representations. We look at them through a different lense - it's not, "is this a good film?", it's "is this a good representation of Finnish culture/Indian (Tamil/Telugu/Kannada/Muslim/Sikh/etc) culture?". We don't choose to do this, instead it plays in the back of our heads like an unwelcome guest commenting on what you're reading over your shoulder, and it raises the standards just that little extra. It means you pay closer attention to everything, and are more quick to think about questions of accuracy. Dialogue, costumes, milieu - these all become more highlighted somehow. We also watch the film as a film, but with those raised standards, the film has also become something much, much more. It's sometimes not even so much a question of cultural representation as just the fact you want something from your culture to be good enough so you can present it to others with pride; this nationalist notion that even though you had nothing to do with the making of the cultural product, it's connected to you in some sort of way, because of this shared culture.

You can never see something from somebody else's eyes, and I think that's partly why people who have these "unwelcome guests" are often surprised to hear somebody else is watching, too, and doesn't mind the melodramatic acting or the song numbers (in the case of Indian films) or doesn't recognise the perpetual angsty male loser that so often ends up being the hero, or the clichéd sex scene where all you see is a naked butt but serves no purpose whatsoever (in the case of Finnish films). (Can you sense my over-critical tone from this yet?) To an outsider, sometimes a good film is just a good film. An outsider is not necessarily looking for any kind of representation, positive or negative - they just want to be stimulated by the film-watching experience.

So this is where I understand and sympathise with Indian people who just cannot fathom why anybody would want to watch some of the cinema that their culture(s) produce, because they just don't see the films as that good. Of course, there are a lot of differences between my pooh-poohing of Finnish cinema and those desi critics of Indian cinema - for one, scale and outreach. Finnish cinema has some audience outside the country's boarders, but not a whole lot; even expats would rather eat rye bread and go to sauna than watch a Finnish film to reach back into their native culture. We're a small country in terms of population. We're isolated. And most of us do end up walking out of the theatre and telling our friend, "That was okay ..for a Finnish film."

What's my point, then? Well, first of all, to say to all those who feel this way about their own cultural products - I get it, and I also get that you can't always help it. Even if you try to shut off that more critical side of your brain, it might not be possible. You are going to be paying close attention, you will be more critical than necessary perhaps, and your lived experience will define how you see the flow of dialogue, or the familiar milieu portrayed, or certain types of people characterised. That's just what film-watching entails, and in large part that's what makes discussion of film so interesting - to see how your own views of the world influence your understanding or like of a particular story, trope or character.

So you can't always shut off your inner cultural critic, but you can try to give films more of a fair chance by trying to make sure doesn't talk throughout the film. After all, what are films but stories? And stories aren't always location/time specific - at times, they're just stories. So rate them as such.

(This semi-pensive post is the 300th post in this blog. Hurrah!)

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Head-first into the world of Upendra: Super (hand symbol).

What does any film watcher want in this world but to see something they've never seen before? To be surprised or provoked by a film experience is one of the greatest joys of it all, and on top of that, the delicious aftermath of telling a friend, "I saw a film unlike any film you've seen before."

From the moment I found out about Upendra, the "Real Star" of the Kannada language film industry of the south, often titled Sandalwood, I understood this was a man who was doing something Different, with a capital D. Now, whether it was something Different that I would like, I hadn't any idea, but I was curious all the same.

So when I was putting together a DVD order of 6 films from six different film industries of India, and came upon "Super" (the title, being a handsymbol as seen in the screencap above, could be understood in multiple ways, as explained by Wikipedia but "Super" stuck in the media and fan conscious), I knew I had to see it, even if the DVD had no subtitles whatsoever.

I mean, it's a film whose title is a hand symbol.

A hand symbol.

Wrap your head around that first, folks, before you get on this ride - because "Super" is not just a quirky Southie director with a big ego playing around with concepts in a way that lends itself to amusing screencaps (though it is plenty of that, too!), it's also a political satire and a political philosophy dissertation in the format of a film. It's a film-long metaphor for the betterment of Indian society. It's simply put - something very unique, indeed.

Even the beginning credits provide something of interest. "Dialogues" become "die locks", story becomes "sorry". Producer becomes "fraud user".

Behind these twists on words, we get scenes from life in India - all the negative aspects, be it violence, crime, or poverty. And then we reach this ultimatum:

The letters "pendra" follow the U, eventually, but for a moment, the audience is literally being pointed at. This is your India. Look at it.

After that, we are taken 20 years into the future, to 2030 (this film was put out in 2010), where a foreigner comes to Mysore and sees a rich India, with cultured Indians strolling around in exquisitive Indian clothing (all the saris are made of the finest silk), with technology decorating tall buildings and not a trash in sight. Curiously, the problem of poverty has not been erased - but instead of fellow Indians slumming it, you have white people as beggars and service workers.

Naturally the foreigner - white British man, I should add - wants to know what lead to this enormous rise of India's wealth and infrastructure, and an Indian scholarly man tells him the story of how this all came to be, in a movie-long flashback.

Our "heroin" as per the beginning credits, Nayantara, enters the scene with flowers in her hair, romancing a rowdy who seems scared to death of her. Without subtitles this sequence is almost impossible to decode, but somehow she ends up threatening some rowdies until our hero bursts into the scene:

...carrying roses, accompanied by motorcycled badasses and white girls in mini-skirts. Okay!

The man is of course played by Upendra, the director himself, and the character is called Subhas Chandra Gandhi (remind you of anyone? it should). For a man raised in England, we see the enormous passion he's got for his home country, India. We even get a scene where the healing powers of the Indian soil are demonstrated in a scene that reminds me of Shahruh Khan's pigeon-curing in DDLJ.

Hand on heart, he has faith that his country, India, is the greatest in the world..

Eventually we see him meet Nayantara's character Indira (which leads me to ask what the meeting with the roses was about? God, I would kill for subtitles..), who is a traditional Indian girl, coming to London to perform traditional music and dance. We see the two fall in love.

It's all rather adorable, and they even get married, where we get the film's first twist; Indira is not really the traditional girl she acted like, but a mini-skirt wearing, cigarette-smoking, wine-glass holding schemer, who only married Subhas because years ago, her sister Mandir (Tulip Joshi) attempted suicide after he turned down her love, and now Indira wants to revenge this injustice.

She breaks down his idealistic view of India; Indians are rotten, corrupt and dirty, and could never amount to much. He's devastated, but takes up on her challenge to see Indian society for what it is.

This leads him to fight for a former teacher, who's got some trouble with his pension, but the problems of society hit him in the face every step of the way. He's distraught, but wants to make a difference all the same, and stays in India to do so.

Based on this, it might not seem like there is a lot going on, but the crux of the political satire and the message of the film only comes into full bloom on the second half. I've read that the film addresses specific Karnataka political scandals, and as I understand it, the political ideas of the film boil down to the thesis of corruption only existing so long as it is allowed by the people; Upendra's satire cuts not only the corrupt politicians but the people who dismiss politics as corrupt and don't try to change the ways things work on a microlevel.

In true film tradition, this political tale and message is still inter-cut with songs. The romance itself is a little questionable to say the least; not only the way in which it comes about (the scheming Westernised woman?) but also the way this plot-point ends - as a metaphor for something bigger. I'll get into some big spoilers later on regarding this, but for now, that's all I'll say. (I should also warn anybody who is squeamish over portrayal of rape, even just attempted such, there are such scenes in the film.)

At the end of the day, what is there to be said for a film so rich with thinking, even if a lot of it is fairly jingoistic? Well, I have to say, for all my criticisms of some of Upendra's points, and some questions that I have about the film as I saw it without subtitles, I really appreciate what he's doing, and how interestingly he is doing it. Even if I disagree with some of his choices, they are bold ones, they do make one think and they are packaged in a glorious mass entertainer that is truly in a league of its own. I think a subtitled DVD would be in high demand; this is a story not just for Indians, but also NRIs and even us Westeners to mull over.

It is weird and exaggerated (just look at the hairstyle in the screencap above), but it is also wonderful, and it has those complexities that you wouldn't necessarily expect from a blockbuster film. I don't think I understand Upendra in all his glory just yet, but I am more than happy to find out and see more. I didn't always agree with this film, but I ended up loving it for what is was - and what is was attempting to do.

Since the film is written like a thesis, I'll respond to it like one - with questions, thoughts and challenges. My first thought upon seeing Upendra's vision of the future wasn't to be offended that he portrayed white people as beggars, but rather the idea that an utopian future would include poverty in such a visible manner. To me, the problem in any society isn't the skin colour of the poor, but the fact that people are so poor they become beggars in the first place. I think the key to happiness in wealthy nations is not that I'm rich and somebody else is a beggar, because seeing them causes me grief/guilt and a number of other negative emotions - but that I'm reasonably well-off and my fellow (wo)man is not on the streets, either. The gap between the rich and the poor is what creates envy, greed and mistrust between people. I think somebody needs to send Upendra a copy of this book called The Spirit Level - which states that inequality harms us all, the rich the poor and the middle-earners.

As far as his central idea goes, I am more persuaded. What is the responsibility of the people who consider politicians corrupt but continue electing them? What is there to be said for political apathy, and how much better would societies be if people felt more of a collective responsibility over the society that is essentially theirs? The thesis that you scale back democracy so much that the Chief Minister is the Common Man - or the common man is the chief minister of his own society - is very thought-provoking. The idea is that the choices we make on an individual level can be both to the detriment of the collective level - the society - or to the betterment of it. You can be great if you choose to live great - this sort of thinking.

I'll have to admit, I'm still unsure how I feel about the rape attempt of Indira to wake up Mandira from her coma. Even though steeped in metaphor - Indira as India, Mandira as Indian people, comatose from their apathy as to how bad things truly are - it still makes me uncomfortable. Of course, lack of subtitles made sure I had no idea whether Indira was actually in on this plan or not - whether she knew the true backstory of how her sister got to the state she ended up in. If she didn't, what is essentially happening - putting the metaphor aside for a moment - is that her husband is attempting to rape her. The horribleness of this imagery does lend the metaphor the sort of impact it was probably meant to have, but there's also other things to unpack here. (Did it have to be Subhas himself doing the raping?)

Why do women get to only to be metaphorical stand-ins for a nation and its people? There is a problematic, unquestioned misogynist premise here that is not uncommon in Indian films, but ought to be pointed out all the same; women are there to be "invaded" (raped) or protected.

Patriarchy is not Upendra's fault, but I wish a director who obviously is thinking a lot about the film he is making, and has a tendency to present his messages in interesting ways, would question such decisions. Women who have agency are essential to any kind of social change that India needs as a country. (See several Satyamev Jayate episodes for succinct explanations of why this is.)

Another thing where I wish I had subtitles was so I could dig into the portrayal of Gandhism in the film. It seems like Upendra is saying, Gandhi's thesis of "turning the other cheek", being passive but strong against an enemy has made the Indian people docile in the face of adversity and problems. They are "turning the other cheek" towards corrupt politicians, when they should be making a difference actively, every day, in their lives.

In the end, the biggest questions the movie brought up in me are questions of humanity - why do we do bad things, selfish things? Is it just our nature, or our carelessness about the welfare of others? And then the really tough questions - how can we change for the better, and whether we can change to leave a lasting impact?

But I do love the ending, and the punch it packs with such simplicity - who changed this all? You did. In the end, it's not a story of a hero, because no one person can change as much as needs to be.

As for Upendra, I am extremely interested in watching his past works, both as a director and an actor. He's obviously doing something interesting, something unique and something different, and I think I can overlook the misogynist elements in his films (as I've heard there are some, and which was my biggest problem here) for the benefit of whatever else he is trying to say. He's also quite good-looking which is always a bonus.

I also have to thank Amogh on Twitter for answering my questions about the film, helping me grasp some of the complexities of the message Upendra was putting forth.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Missing user.. Win 10

Home Forums Windows Missing user.. Win 10

This topic contains 7 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Fleetwood 1 year, 6 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #4530

    I have Dell XPS, Win 7 home premium, 64bit, standalone home desktop, with 2 users, both Administrators ( Cathy and Ron ) Life was good.

    Yesterday, for reasons unknown to me, Win 10 installed itself.
    Now, I only have “Ron” as a user.
    I really need to get “Cathy” back as a user option.
    I looked under C/users and the “Cathy” folder is there and about the same size as the “Ron” folder.
    Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
    Seems like it should be simple, but I can’t figure it out
    I’m in the doghouse big time around here.

    This isn’t really answering your question — but if you were happy with Win 7, why not just roll the update back to Win 7? In other words, undelete the forced update change to Win 10.

    If you can, before you do that, run off a good backup of what you have now. I have undone the Win 10 updates on several (4) computers, and in each case had no problems. You have a month window where you can do that, but the sooner probably the better.

    Then download a copy of Never10 (from the http://GRC.COM site) and run that. That is a nice little utility that lets you lock out the Win 10 forced conversion, and to enable them again if you want.

    As Nick has pointed out, the end-of-life point for Win 7 has arrived and support just isn’t there anymore. But I still seem to be getting updates for my Win 7, and as long as none of those are designed to really break Win 7 (which I suppose is next) you might as well enjoy it.

    On the backup of what you just got updated to, if you keep that around then you already have your Win 10 for some time in the future should you want it for free — which it still is.

    As a suggestion — what you may try:

    It’s possible that Cathy is just not being shown as a possible default login option when you boot.

    After you have booted up into Ron, if you do a log out — then would Cathy be shown as a possible user? Seems I have been able on some systems set up users but have the initial boot go direct into one particular user. To get to one of the hidden users, the log out – log in sequence made them available.

    Windows 7 is officially supported through January 14, 2020.

    Yes and no 🙂 — Win 7 regular support ended in January 2015, now it is in the extended support phase until the date Christian mentioned.

    During this period they will continue to offer security updates. Anything else you would need to pay for. For instance, if I wanted help from them on my constant STOP 3B BSOD, it would cost me money.

    I suppose if you needed their help in rolling a forced upgrade to Win 10 back to Win 7, you would have to pay.

    Thank you so much guys!

    I’m going back to Win 7 after I do a backup here.
    ( probably will have to get a new Seagate dashboard for 10 first )
    Then I’ll stick in Never10 ( Didn’t know it existed )
    I have a Win7 (month old) backup, if needed.

    Part of my problem was the unexpected timing of the update. I wasn’t prepared with backups, tutorials, Win 7 shells, case of beer, and a large block of free time.

    The missing user is the real problem, and I’ll continue trying to figure that out before (if) I try 10 again.

    Thank you again, I really appreciate the help.

    You might like to explore this:
    Open a RUN box (Windows key + R)
    Enter: “control userpasswords2” (without the quotes!)

    I think that works in both Win 7 and 10, and probably 8.1.

    That lets you control what users can log in without passwords, and such.

    I tried to set up a second user on the 10 test box here, and found I had to have an email address for the user, supply full name, date of birth, and so on. And, the password for that account has to be known to Microsoft — which I assume gives them to hooks to log in to my computer at any time. And we worry about Google tracking us :-)?

    Maybe you need to expose more information about Cathy to Microsoft before she is allowed to use their computer that is in your house.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  HotDawg.

    I did go through the Microsoft e-mail, password etc. for both of us. (They already had mine)
    Then I tried to make “Cathy” a family member without giving them the info. Just like you would do for a child. ( just click on the highlighted text at bottom of the info box pages to bypass )
    Microsoft said I couldn’t use “Cathy” so I used ‘Cathy1″ and tried to rename the user folders so “Cathy1” would have the old “Cathy ” user setting. Didn’t work. Probably a big mistake on my part. The “Cathy” folder is now empty.
    I now have 10 different users here like “default” and “Default.migrated” “default appPool” “Public” “TEMP”
    It’s a mess……
    Back to Win 7 and regroup!
    Thanks again

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-164-5-214.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-47
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
You are here

Other Courses

Other courses and club training

As well as offering sailing and powerboat courses we also offer a range of other RYA and club training courses such as 1st Aid, Race Managment and Introduction to Racing.

RYA 1st Aid

RYA Club Race Officer

Introduction to Racing

This is a one day course that covers all the usual first aid subjects, but from a boating perspective. It is aimed at anyone who goes afloat, whether on inland waters, rivers, estuaries or on cross channel passages.

This course is aimed to give your volunteers the confidence to run the club racing and to have a good knowledge of the procedures and duties of a race officer.

This is a South Cerney Sailing Club course that provides a basic introduction to racing at South Cerney Sailing Club. The course is aimed at anyone who would like to start racing and is ideal for novices and beginners.

Suggested minimum pre-course experience

Experience of club racing

Assumed knowledge

Minimum duration

8 hours

8 hours

4 hours

Course content

The recovery position in a confined space
CPR, including the drowning protocol
Cold shock and hypothermia from immersion and/or exposure
Seasickness and dehydration
Medical assistance or advice by VHF
Helicopter rescue

The course provides an overview of the Race Management Scheme, the structure of Race Management and the knowledge and tools that you will need to be able to run racing at your club.

The course covers the types of racing available at South Cerney Sailing Club, race signals, courses, and a few basic rules of racing. The course is free to club members

Ability after course

In a medical emergency a little first aid knowledge and immediate action can save lives, especially in remote locations. This one-day course is designed to provide a working knowledge of first aid for people using small craft and to support skippers. It fulfills the requirements for dinghy sailors, powerboat drivers, Instructors and coaches.

Able to act as race officer at your club

Knowledge to participate in club racing

Further information: please contact

Copyright © 2015 South Cerney Sailing Club Limited


text:
Our Pediatricians

All of our physicians are MDs, Board Certified by the American Board of Pediatrics, and consistently update their knowledge base through Continuing Medical Education activities. They are members of the AMA (American Medical Association), fellows of the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and members of the IMS (Indiana Medical Society). Our doctors have privileges at St Francis Hospital, conveniently located close by, and have helped their pediatric program grow and mature with Dr Blanchard having served in the past as Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Pediatric Department and Dr Gloyeske’s past service on the Infection Control Committee for the hospital and current service as Chairman of the Pediatric Department. Southside Pediatric doctors can attend to newborns at St Francis Hospital and provide care for any of our patients who require admission to their Pediatric Unit.

Nancy Zaring, Office Manager

I have had the privilege of working for Southside Pediatrics since 1988. I have enjoyed watching our patients grow into adults, and return with their own children. Children are our future and I hope to be a small part in making it great.

We are fully staffed with qualified Registered Nurses who maintain CPR certification. They are an integral part of the care team and have a deep fund of pediatric knowledge from their education and experience. Our nurses are one of our most valuable resources in your child’s care not only directly during a visit to the office, but in providing advice and information for our patient families with questions and concerns. Plus they are awesome people who enjoy working with you and your children!

Office Staff

We are lucky to have wonderful employees who support our Southside Pediatrics practice. We hold our front office staff members to a high standard that they exceed with a smile. Managing scheduling, handling phone calls, and tracking the flow of paperwork in a HIPAA compliant and efficient manner is not for the faint of heart. We also count among our team those who manage the interface between patient families insurance companies, specialist care providers, and us! Billing is a complicated matter, but with their input we are able to provide you with the service of filing with your insurance company and advocating for your child’s best care options.


text:
Hungarian inventions

There are a few special treatments only available in Hungary, invented by Hungarian experts and doctors.

Márta Fenyő's invention, just like the well-known and widely spread Bioptron lamp operating on the principles of the Sensolite-treatment, has a thirty-year history. The localised light treatment technology was developed at the beginning of the 1980s has been extended to the use on the whole body.

Its operation is as follows: the polarised light invades the body into a 1 cm depth, reaches the blood circulation through the capillaries, thus the biologically vitalising effect immediately gets to all the cells and organs of the human body. Due to the effect of polarisation, the oxygen-trapping ability of the red blood cells increases, bringing more vital oxygen to each cell, organ or organ system enabling a more effective development and operation.

The polarised light therapy has a boosting effect to the immune system. The T-lymphocytes (white blood cells), which play an important role in recognising and neutralising the faulty cells generated every minute and later being responsible for serious illnesses, are activated due to the polarised light immensely, therefore enabling the prevention of serious and less serious illnesses, also, they can boost or fasten the healing of existing ones.

- boosts the natural protection mechanism
- increases circulation
- has an anti-inflammatory effect
- perfectly enables health protection
- healing acute illnesses
- healing chronic illnesses (improved symptoms, improved condition, the improvement of life-quality)
- boosts the patient's condition, he/she will feel more energetic
- it is successfully used by Paediatrics, Dermatology, Allergology, Immunology. Sport Traumatology, Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, Psychiatrics, Pulmonology and Otolaryngology

Light has been used in healing for thousands of years, and light therapy had success recently in modern medicine. The main effects of the Bioptron light therapy: increases the regenerative ability of the body, therefore expediting the system's own self-induced healing processes, increases micro-circulation, harmonizes metabolism and strengthens the immune system.

Essence of Paprika: Contour-enhancing and detoxifying body treatment

We start off the treatment with a goat-milk bath, which boasts metabolism. Next comes the cherry stone-essence peeling, preparing the skin for the detoxifying massage. The pleasant massage milk rebuilds the tired, aged skin with the power of paprika, cleanses the blood veins and the lymph system. Paprika essence oil is medically proven to help dissolve and remove fat deposited in connective tissue. Playing a major role in skin tightening processes, it is the number one herbal essence used in curing lifeless, serous skin. It is also well used during treating rheumy and artiosclerosis. After massaging the pack onto the body parts to be treated (hip, thigh, rear) we apply a body-wrap to avoid the pack from drying so that the contents of the body-pack can penetrate the skin even deeper. The Rekongem-pack, besides the paprika, has beneficial components, some which also provide an anaesthetic effect.

At the end of the treatment, we soothe and cool down the skin with our special herbal products. These may not be used by Guests who show allergic reactions to Capsaicin or Methyl Salicylate! The body-pack has a warming, slightly prickling effect.

Mr. Lajos Nagy, Hungarian naturopathic doctor's method is known as Sonoterápia® (Sonotherapy). The inventor is the patentee of this new treatment in many countries worldwide. The aim of the process is to stimulate the metabolism of the cells of the veins with sound waves, and activate the organism's resilience to combat against vasoconstriction and arteriosclreosis. Sonotherapy®: pain-free application of pulsating, low frequency, low energy sound waves.


text:
Weight bath

Weight bath is an underwater treatment, which aims to remove the vertebrae from one another, thus stretching the spinal column.

The stretching process renders the restoration of the original and healthy condition of the discs possible. Weight bath is a painless treatment as the elevating power of water brings the body in a relaxed state, and the weights stretch the spinal column in a most indulgent way. During the treatment, the guests are anchored on the neck and/or under the arms, practically hanging in the water while different weights of 2, 3 or 5 kilograms – depending on the state of the disease – are fixed on the back and/or the ankles.

Weights applied in the weight bath may be attached to the body in 3 different ways:
– one point (neck only)
– two-points (under the arms)
– three-points (neck and under the arms)

The weight must be fixed to the patient's body as instructed by the medical doctor, with a maximum of 20 kilograms at a time.

Duration of treatment: 20 minutes

Water temperature: indifferent (34-35°C)

The methods of weight bath treatment was invented and developed by Dr Károly Moll in Hévíz. This treatment is recommended for patients with problems in the neck, back and the spinal column, but it is also suitable for the purposes of prevention.

(Source: heviz.hu)


text:
26 April 2006

Gregory Colbert - Ashes and Snow

I really really wish that I was at, Santa Monica Pier, California these days. This exhibition seems so fantastic! Please explore the website too - it´s exceptional!! I found it here.
“In exploring the shared language and poetic sensibilities of all animals, I am working towards rediscovering the common ground that once existed when people lived in harmony with animals. The images depict a world that is without beginning or end, here or there, past or present.”—Gregory Colbert, Creator of Ashes and Snow

Jessica said...

The photography is beautiful thanks for the link!

Anneli said...

Hi, thank you for sharing. This is
so beautiful and the homepage is amazing.


text:
Monday, August 24, 2015

Sting to perform at Arena Teques October 10

On Saturday October 10, 2015, Sting will perform at Arena Teques in Morelos, Mexico. Joined by a 4-piece band, he will perform many of his most celebrated hits. Tickets for the concert are available for purchase NOW via Ticketmaster.

This concert is part of the project Música para Morelos (Music for Morelos) that the State Government has implemented through the activities of Fondo Estatal para la Promoción y Desarrollo de Eventos Vinculados con la Cultura y Turismo: PROCULTUR (State Fund for the Promotion and Development of Events Related to Culture and Tourism: PROCULTUR). The Fund's objective is to promote culture and tourism, as well as the social and economic welfare of the State, bringing to the general public all kinds of events by means of taking advantage of the public spaces that Morelos has.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Grutas de Cacahuamilpa Trip

We had a great trip yesterday. It was well worth the visit and here's some info.

Estrella Blanca bus fare to the Grutas from Cuernavaca was $66. Entrance fee to the Grutas is $75. After a two hour guided tour of the caves, we paid $200 for a taxi to Taxco, a half hour drive. (Combis are also available.) Bus fare for the return trip to Cuernavaca from Taxco was $90.

Also recommend the trip up to the Cristo Monumental in Taxco: an impressive statue, and beautiful views of the valley below.

Shops, restaurants and parking

Cave entrance

These amazing caverns are located 52 Kms. from Taxco on highway 166 in the State of Guerrero. The Grutas de Cacahuamilpa or cacahuamilpa Grottoes make for a fascinating excursion.

The Caverns were discovered in 1834 by Manuel Saenz de La peña and were decreed as a national park in 1937. Only 10 of the estimated 70 kilometers of passages have been explored so far. The highest of the explored chambers measures some 80 meters in height. The average height of the chambers is 40 meters. The cavern’s mouth measures 21 meters in height and 40 meters in width.

The park opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 5:00 p.m. everyday. The tour is throughout approximately 2 kilometers of the underground labyrinth and each tour lasts about 2 hours. I really recommend that you carry some water with you and comfortable shoes. At the visitor’s center there are restaurants, snack bars, and souvenir shops.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Chinameca farm becomes Museum of Agrarismo

Chinameca farm becomes Museum of Agrarismo

Objects of the time, multimedia elements and a half hundred documents from the sixteenth century to the present day, make up this new exhibition dedicated to this social movement

The Morelense museum was provided with an information and documentation to develop studies on the subject; besides the show opened Emiliano Zapata in Morelos A hundred years of drafting the Plan de Ayala, the Ex Hacienda de San Juan Chinameca, Morelos, where began and ended the Zapatista movement, was converted to house the Museum of Agrarismo, a space that will be dedicated not only to the history of the forms of property in Mexico, but their study through an information and documentation.

Opened this week by President Felipe Calderon, the enhancement of this space is the product the coordinated effort between the Ministry of Education through the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) and Historical Studies of the Revolutions of Mexico, the Agrarian and the Government of the State of Morelos. The Museum exhibits Agrarismo the evolution of the social and political movement that marked the history of contemporary Mexico, through multimedia elements, objects of the time and about fifty historical documents from the XVI until today.

He was also presented with an information and documentation that will be key to developing research in this area. The tour of the new exhibition consists of eight sections: What is agrarismo?, Earth: mother goddess, political status, ideological status, Cast and forms of ownership transformations in the twentieth century, Agrarian Development, and New Age, vision for the future.

Directions to Chinameca --- Leaving the city of Cuernavaca take the highway no. 138 bound for Yautepec, and then state highway 2 and shortly before reaching Tlaltizapán, a detour by the state highway 9, 20 km is the Hacienda de Chinameca, distinguished by its distinctive brick fireplace with the inscription "Land and Freedom".
Related Posts with Thumbnails


text:
Episode 74 - ASU vs Colorado Preview

It was a disappointing trip deep in the heart of Texas, but the Sun Devils now return home to focus on Pac-12 play.

We begin this week's show with a rundown and recap of the action against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Brad and Joe examine the good, the bad, and the lingering questions we took away from the game.

Up next is a friend of the program—and a record setting Devil. Fan favorite Josh Hubner returns to give his expert opinion on the sorry state of ASU's punting game and how it can be fixed. Next up is Devilbacker Carl Bradford to give his take on the team's struggles in rushing the passer, and how that can change against Colorado.

To help preview Saturday's game, we bring in Jon Woods, editor-in-chief of RalphieReport.com. We finish up with a look ahead to Saturday, ASU's key's to victory, and what we need to see from the Sun Devils.

Be sure to stay tuned after the Song of the Week for the full audio of Todd Graham's weekly press conference.

Click below to stream, listen via iTunes or Stitcher Radio

Direct download: Episode_74_-_ASU_vs_Colorado_Preview.mp3
Category:Speak of the Devils -- posted at: 10:15pm PST

October 2013
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31


text:
Tuesday, 8 September 2009

I'm a coward, apparently...

As is Aidan from A Dribble of Ink, Dark Wolf from Dark Wolf's Fantasy Reviews, Larry from OF Blog, Jeff from Fantasy Book News and Reviews, Gav from NextRead, the entire crew at Fantasy Book Critic, and many other book reviewers throughout the genre blogosphere. As are many other book reviewers from other genres. And the professionals who get paid to write book reviews for high-brow publications, such as the Guardian - many of them are supposedly cowards too.

Well, because we don't put a little number at the end of our reviews.

Or at least, so says Paul Stotts from genre blog Blood of the Muse. In an interview over at Temple Library Reviews, Paul said the following:

" I think writing a review, and not giving it some sort of numerical score is a cop out; it’s cowardice—pure and simple—since many online reviewers don’t want to upset publishers or authors.

So they write reviews that are open to interpretation, using nebulous terms like good, overemphasizing the positive aspects of the book, trying very hard not to have an opinion. It’s okay, you’re entitled to have an opinion, you’re entitled to take a stand and let people know what you think.

See, words lie; numbers don’t. And I don’t want to lie to my audience. So I score every book on a scale of 100. Like any review, the number is completely subjective; there are no underlying components. I score books by ranking them against other novels I’ve read in the genre. It’s rather simple. But effective."

I beg to differ. To me, the suggestion that all book reviews that don't incorporate a numerical rating are a 'cop out' because said reviewer doesn't want to upset the author and/or publisher, is nothing short of ridiculous.

As those of you who have followed this blog from the start will know, I used to use a numerical rating for my book reviews. Eventually I ditched it because I felt I was not being consistent enough with my use of it, and I decided that in any case it simply wasn't necessary. To my mind, a good book reviewer should be able to make their feelings on a book clear without having to rely on a numerical failsafe. Now, that's not to say that I think reviewers shouldn't use ratings - personally I don't care either way. It's up to the individual blogger to decide. I just so happen to think that - along with a good many of my fellow bloggers - that they just don't add much value to a review, and can actually cause confusion when the number doesn't seem to correlate with the opinions expressed in the review.

Suggesting that us bloggers that don't use numerical ratings are being cowardly is bizarre - I just don't understand where Paul's coming from here, nor can I comprehend what possible evidence he has to support his theory. Just because you stick a number at the end of your review doesn't mean you're being honest and that your integrity is intact. Sure, there are some reviewers out there - probably - that are a little scared to be too critical, and maybe they don't use ratings as a result (note the emphasis on 'maybe'). Even if this was the case, they're still a distinct minority.

I just find it amusing that my credibility is being questioned simply on this basis. If I was a coward and was scared of upsetting, say, Gollancz, then why did I give one of their books a scathing review? What about Solaris - if I was worried about what they thought of me, would I have given one of their books a pretty awful review? As it happens - I have excellent relations with both publishers, and not once have either of them expressed annoyance at any of my reviews and not once have I compromised my own integrity or principles by writing a falsely-positive review in order to stay on good terms with them.

Perhaps Paul could kindly explain his theory a little further, maybe with some hard evidence. I'd also be grateful if he could explain his own rating system to me, because I'm afraid I don't understand what the difference between an 83% rating and an 86% rating is.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now. In fact, I think I'll hide underneath it 'cos that's what a coward would do, right?

MarkCN said...

Having no numbers seems to have done the trick nicely for the last few decades at least.

To reduce a book to an arbitrary number seems strange - I didn't realise you could reduce art quite that easily.

Ian Sales said...

Reading that interview, he comes across as a bit of a prat, anyway. And the blog he revers - I hope I Didn't Just give Away The Ending - isn't that the one where the blog owner went off on some bizarre rightwing nutjob alpha-male rant about Richard Morgan's Black Man?

Alec said...

His position is overstated, no doubt, but he is not totally off the mark. I need to read the whole interview to see if the tone is consistent throughout but I will agree with him in part, though for different reasons.

Especially with respect to blogs where the average page view time is shorter than most, readers appreciate a quick quality reference, and a numbered score provides that. I guess it all depends on which crowd you are catering to.

Martijn said...

I understand both views—if someone feels happy expressing their happiness with a book as a number, then by all means, let them go ahead. I respect (and prefer) your strategy: a textual review which I have to read to understand your opinion of the book.

I've been following your blog for a while now. I say ignore people who call you a coward and continue your excellent work.

Ben said...

I think Paul was just explaining why he does things the way he does and wasn't intending to question anyone's integrity or "courage."

As far as whether or not art can be reduced to an "arbitrary" number, I would argue that if the number is based on the reviewer's reaction to what is being reviewed then (1) it's not arbitrary; and (2) there's absolutely no reason that the person's thoughts can't be summarized numerically.

Aidan Moher said...

He fellates Pat, and then calls out bloggers who don't slap an arbitrary (and often useless) number on their review?

He should give Shawn Elliot's Symposium on Reviews a read. It deals with Videogames, but the lessons to be learned apply to any reviewer.

Hagelrat said...

I don't use numbers, I don't check other peoples. In fact the most attention I have paid to numerical ratings on reviews is to note that some blogs have really cute things like pints of blood.
I read reviews either because I enjoy the reviewers writing or because I know we share similar tastes and I will take their recommendations.

Iain said...

Ah FFS!! Ahem, excuse the MMO speak there.

If someone can't guage the thrust of a review without having a number attached to the end they probably don't have the deductive powers to follow a novel's plot and shouldn't be reading the book anyway!!

Some people will bitch about anything! Continue with your cowardice James; it has pointed me to several good books over the last year and half.

gav (nextread.co.uk) said...

@ Iain, snap!

I've just put up my own thoughts on the matter here:

I'm also a coward

But it boils down to, in reviewers we trust. That's why bloggers are so important to what I choose. If I don't like your taste I ain't going to read your reviews!

PeterWilliam said...

I posted on this over at Aidan's as well. On the whole "to number or not to number" I'm not sure it really matters. I know some people, like me, have extraordinary short attention spans and, thus, want the quick, fast, short bottom-line. So, I also give a number. However, as James has already experienced and stated, I'm starting to run into problems where I've books with similar ratings and I'm not sure that I would recommend both equally. I can see precisely why that, possibly, I may begin to slide away from ratings.

A Different James said...

I have only just started doing reviews (and as such, can state that they are a bit crappy), but I decided before I started that I wasn't going to go down the score route. I try to make my thoughts clear enough in the last paragraph so that people know where I stand, whether I recommend buying the book, picking it from the library, whatnot and so forth.

I have maybe an average of like four readers and the chances of an author or publicist caring one way or another about my blog is extremely low. So what then, do I have to be cowardly about? I want to convey my opinion through words, not numbers.

Switching gears to a reader rather than a blogger. If a reviewer manages to express their opinion properly in their review, what need is there for a scoring system in the first place? And what of the varying scales? I find Pat's scoring system flawed (seems more a 5 point system instead of a ten) and not all that useful. I also seem to lack the brains to figure out the need for a system that uses decimals.

~ A Different, But Just As Cowardly, James.

Ben said...

I really think you guys are overreacting. It's not like Paul launched some vicious attack at anybody or any particular reviewing method. He simply explained why he does things the way he does and expressed his own views about the shortcomings of other methods. What's the big deal? That's what having an opinion entails...

And I don't see him (or anyone else for that matter) going off on a rant because of the negative things you've all said about reviewers who do use a numerical rating.

gav(NextRead) said...

@ Ben

'I think writing a review, and not giving it some sort of numerical score is a cop out; it’s cowardice—pure and simple—since many online reviewers don’t want to upset publishers or authors.'

So you don't think that he's saying that we are all cowards who don't want to upset publishers then?

Am I misreading that quote?

Number systems are ok, and I'm sure we can explain our preference for using or not using them but he's been direct than that don't you think?

Ben said...

No I don't think you're completely misreading the quote. I agree that it is not the most delicate way to articulate what he's trying to say, but really, isn't it clear that he's just trying to make a point about his reviewing style and not trying to attack anyone?

I think by far the more odd thing is how upset people got about it. It's akin to someone saying on his or her blog that Americans are a**holes and me getting personally upset about it, as if it were directed at me specifically when it would be obvious to anyone that the speaker was just trying to make a general point.

Rob Oakes said...

I think that the debate resolving around objective measurements is rather silly. It assumes that a critic is really nothing more than some sort of glorified school teacher. What do you think the role of a critic is? To read all of the existing literature out there and grade it? As though any single person has the power to assign determine whether it is meritorious, or not?

Maybe I should let you in a little secret. I've worked in higher education, and I've been around long enough to learn important lesson. That particular model doesn't work very well; not in education, or most anywhere else.

Maybe that's why I much prefer reviews which don't offer some sort of objective measurement. They require that I read the commentary and attempt to understand the rationale of the reviewer. Why didn't she take to a particular book, what was her response? What did she find interesting?

In fact, I've found that an interesting and well written book review is almost always indicative of a well written book. After all, derivative works bear the indelible mark of the original. I'd even go further: I think that attempting to grade the quality of a book detracts from the quality of the review.

Someone who is lost trying to objectively weight the original work isn't focused on responding to it. The fundamental process of reading is simply too different. Such a reader doesn't allow herself the creative freedom to agree, be moved, or otherwise challenge. Instead, she might as well have a red pen out while scanning the text for errors.

So rather than call it cowardice, I would instead call it intelligence. A non-grading reviewer is free to wrestle with the text, which ultimately results in a more valuable review. After all, we're talking about literature: objectivity be damned.

Adam Whitehead said...

I've found having to come up with a review score quite annoying a lot of the time, especially when I've come back to a book a few days/weeks/months later and gone, "That should have been a star less," but felt it would be a bit cheap to retrospectvely start changing scores.

At the same time, since my reviews on the blog grew out of reviews on Amazon, I've always had to pick a star rating anyway. I think it is useful as an 'at-a-glance' indicator if I think a book is good, bad or meh, but I agree that the reviewers needs to get his opinion across in the actual review itself rather than rely on the score as a crutch (a mistake I have made a few times).

For those who choose not to give review scores, absolutely fair enough, and I have pondered going down this road a few times (in fact, I did with my RPG reviews, since I felt that pen-and-paper RPGs are almost impossible to quantify in such a way).

Ben said...

@rob oakes

Who said anything about objectivity? Just because you assign a number to something doesn't mean you're being objective or trying to be. No one here is arguing that assigning a number in a review is somehow a final determination of its objective worth. Have you ever asked a friend "on a scale from 1 to 10 what do you think about...."? That's what we're talking about here.

Do you really believe that if there's a number after a review that the reader doesn't have to "read the commentary and attempt to understand the rationale of the reviewer" but the absence of a number will make the reader do these things? And do you really believe that because some of us can express ourselves on a scale from 1 to 10 that we don't allow ourselves "the creative freedom to agree, be moved, or otherwise challenge."?

The best part about this entire series of comments is that the original post was about how unjust it was for Paul to criticize a particular type of reviewing and a majority of commenters have responded by simply doing what they're upset with him for doing.

Mark Chitty said...

This is definitely an interesting topic and one I've thought about for a long time. I give a rating in my reviews, but I constantly question whether I should or not.

I don't think it's cowardly to not score reviews as a good reviewer can convey their opinion of the book within the text. I always read a review fully and a number at the end is not the be all and end all of the review, just a little addition.

I guess I like to give the reader a quick reference of what I thought and a mark out of ten is the way I choose to do that. I do feel that my reviews stand up on their own without a score, but I just haven't been able to convince myself to give up the system.

Bottom line, a reviewer should be honest in their assessment of a book regardless of whether they include a score or not.

James said...

Thanks everyone for the comments, it's great to get some debate going on this issue.

To be honest, I don't think I'm over-reacting. By saying that its cowardice to write reviews without using ratings, by extension Paul is accusing me of being a coward and being afraid of publishers.

This is entirely untrue and therefore naturally I feel rather aggrieved. I think Paul could easily have made his point without the need for name-calling.

@Rob Oakes

Great post there, Rob. Some interesting points you raise.

That's why I ditched numerical ratings - I found it really hard to give consistant scores. For example, I'd read a book and think "Yeah, this is really good - I'll give it 8.5/10" and then later I'd realise I'd only given a book I had liked even more 8/10. That can be a real problem, and it got to the stage where I decided that I'd be better off without. What the hell is the difference between 8.5 and 8.75 anyway?

Larry said...

I'm going to have fun with all this. Give me a little bit and then let's see if my writing will equal my ambitions.

Joe Sherry said...

Larry: I hoped you might, which was why I used you as an example in my post on this.

I've no problem with the using of numerical scores, it's the whole cowardice / appeasing thing that irks the hell out of me. My hell has been irked.

Paul said...

I deliberately wrote that answer to be inflammatory. Using a harsh word like 'cowardice' was certain to provoke people, to get them defensive, and to foster great discussion which was my point with the interview.

The mistake people are making is that it's personally aimed at them. It's not; it's a general statement about my review methodology.

I'm a crappy reviewer. I think if I didn't give a numerical score, I would be copping out. I would be snowing my audience. The number is my crutch. If I didn't give out a number, people should question the integrity of my reviews.

What I think I'm really railing against here is that as publishers get more involved with blogs, convincing readers of a blogger's integrity is going to become more difficult. Really, how do you convince your audience you are on the level?

It's made me ponder potentially publishing a Reader's Manifesto. Something where I promise to tell it like it is in reviews, promise to publish only original material, promise to let people know I'm working off a review copy. A guarantee. And if I break it, it's my ass. It's my integrity.

Larry said...

OK, it's up now.

Stop backpedaling here. Just man up and admit that you wanted to get the stir out of some (nicely done, I should add). I actually paid attention to your blog for once. Not my cup of tea in terms of the review style, but mine's not for several as well. But for once, I did issue a scoring system rubric on it ;)

Joe Sherry said...

I can't speak for others, but I didn't think the label of cowardice was specifically aimed at me...but where you absolutely failed on every level except coming off as extremely arrogant with that comment is that it isn't a general statement about your review methodology.

It's partly about your review methodology and mostly about why everyone who doesn't use numerical values to make clear what their stance is on a given book is a feckless invertebrate sucking on the tit of the publisher's goodwill.

It may not be what you meant, but it is damn sure what you said.

You flat out questioned the integrity of everyone who doesn't use a scoring system to grade their reviews.

RobB said...

I guess I'm a coward, then too since I think all of my reviews at SFFWorld have appeared without number rankings. Darn, now I'm really upset, another sleepless night for me.

Neth said...

Well, apparently I'm couragous.

I've gotten into this before, so I won't belabour the issue again, but in short:

I started doing scores when I started my blog. I think they are largely arbitrary and I wouldn't do it again if I were starting over. But, since I started I continue to do them - I consider them an after thought since I the words in the review are what are really important. But, I do find that I can do statistics with my numeric scores, and I've found some interesting trends in doing so.

I posted about some of the basic stastics a couple of years ago. Maybe I'll do another one if I can find the time.

PeterWilliam said...

I just collected my thoughts on it. I suppose that my use of ratings is a fusion of what Ken and Joe Sherry had to say. Then again, it's just a supposition - you know, the root for suppository.

Harry Markov: daydream said...

I lose my Internet connection for one day and the whole blog-o-sphere starts talking about an interview I conducted. It's kind of flattering to know that bloggers I admire started posting about something on my blog.

Okay, glee aside I think I should address this as well. :) I didn't feel offended by the answer or the use of cowardice, but yeah thinking on how it is stated here I see it is offensive. Rating reviews is one of those subjects that are solely left up to the individual to decide.

Gail said...

I guess I'm a coward too or my over-inflated ego believes my opinions are worth more than a number. What's a number without something to back it up? And if you back up your opinions why do you need a number?

Simcha said...

I feel that a well written review is much more helpful then a number ranking, which really doesn't tell me that much.
I don't rank books because I would spend more time agonizing over just the right number of stars to give or the exact number between 1 and 10 ( I don't know how he manages 100) that the book deserves, then writing the review itself.

Reader said...

I agree that you don't need a number for a review to be honest. That said, lots of times I read review sonline phrasing a book and downplaying the bad parts. For me, raves are so common that I'm more interested in what the reviewer didn't like about the book (I guess I'm just a negative person...)

Alec said...

Everyone needs to stow the light-sabers and relax. I feel like I am on Larry's blog...

Larry said...

Interesting comment, Alec, considering I tend to have a sense of humor about most anything...if one bothers to look between the lines ;)

ThRiNiDiR said...

I have courage! Haven't read the review, don't intend to, no direspect to Paul.


text:
Monday, April 7, 2008

Wicked fancy? * oh dear, whom might you be? *

Wicked fancy is a partly scary comic i shall be making, I'm sort of creeped out by one of my characters, so far at least.Honestly in the franchise of our comics, including Bliss, will be the most freaky comic yet, the first comic of it will actually have a very physcoscene......that alarms me at the point, that i remember i am the writer and drawer of the whole thing......I'm out on an edge with this comic, i am revealing the dark, bloody scary dark side of our spider society,get ready i am planning to launch it April 20- something, no real date has been figured out, since me and bliss haven't discussed all that crap we have to go through to put a comic on, a link website, page distinction, and color schemes.....sorta stupid post i just want you to know more about it, it will easily addict you to it, tee-hee-hee-hee

PS:a new fan art or art distribution is now in effect, send in your art guys we will put them on the website, and if they are really really good we will keep it on!
then there is the comic throw-outs, send us some ideas for comics or ideas we can make or use for our comics! =P don't be discouraged your idea can be the best yet, tell your friends to visit, we relish visitors, the more the merrier....honestly wisp is scarier

No comments:


text:
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

124. Magic Husband

Part I:

The following is a letter that my department recently received from a customer (which has nothing to do with us). We get stuff like this pretty frequently, but I haven't worked comment cards or letters in a long time so I usually don't get to read them. My supervisor gave me this one as a gift, and it is now framed at my desk.

The return address is from Western Medical Center, and is addressed to:
Magic Husband

It is written in pencil on wide rule notebook paper, with the handwriting of a second grader.
Dear Magic Husband,

Alot has happened since I wrote you last. If you read the papers, then you will know that Orange County placed me on conservatorship a long time ago and then put me in a brothel that they couldn't get me out of. They were holding me hostage there for about 4 million years. I just got taken to a board and care about 2 weeks ago. The doctor changed my meds. to a lethal substance. She refused to change them back and sent me to another place in Orange County (Anaheim Western Medical) that I may be a hostage at. Renee M. was at the board and care. She said that she wanted to marry Billy Idol and become my mother. I don't want that at all. She won't let anyone come for me until Xmas. Alot of people being killed so be careful. Renee M. has been tampering with the mail and she had people stealing my packages from my people.
I am going to write you some more tommorrow.

Your "Baby",
Grace R.

Part II:

I am the sort of girl who enjoys googling random things just to see what I find. As it turns out, there is also a poem called "The Magic Husband". I find I rather love it, so here it is. Consider this blog a sort of textual diptych and just go with it.

"The Magic Husband" by Kathleen Ossip

Oh, we cavort. A little less poise, please.
The shower-crud, the plangent peonies!
He chisels at the oaken escritoire
his paperwork-his toy, his dream, his art
and hums as if to all America
a dope impromptu on the sound of schwa.

The shower-crud, the plangent peonies
translate to a grace note, key of E,
which definitely won't be what it should
have been; in fact, will pass away unheard,
but every night at ten my hardy wretch
plays air-piano at the oaken desk.

With uninvited earnestness he laughs.
He only asked for summer nights sans gnats,
a nap, and freedom from all social roles.
At summer's end he walks the yard and trolls
for squirrel-gnawed pears beneath the fraser fir,
and when he finds them, look, the guy's on fire.

He came in with the envelope in paw.
He had me read the letter then. I saw
the magic pager on his magic pants,
the wallet fill of chits, the triceps tensed,
the pen and pencil set I had a cry.
Stoop labor, baby. That Ill never try.

The venture on the Island's fallen through.
Surely the sky shouldn't be that blue.
Has never faded, my true ding an sich,
holdover, throwback, tetchy nihilist
a-muzz with love and narcotherapy.
The tenor wavered contrapuntally,

the tune bespoke a swan upon a pond.
Even his nerve endings aren't his own.
Sure, I like money. I like lots and lots.
He pitted through his business shirt. He stopped
lightly, lightly, lightly on the steps.
No boy knows just when he goes to sleep.

The kidskin briefcase trembles at his touch.
We're on a kick with Cherry 7-Up.
How flaky, toxic, wondrous, marginal,
those dulcet suds! He whistles, Hell was full,
so I came back. Next afternoon in bed,
he ordered me to spill it so I did.

1 comment:

Janieac said...

I like this post. I really like the poem. Interesting.