Despite *Jackson et al's once again coming up with the goods and delivering upon their usual promise of **unequivocal genius, it would be quite remiss to give the film a clean slate, a no-holds-barred endorsement. The creators of The Hobbit movie #1 are, after all is said and done, mere mortals as the rest of us, so let's not ever seek to pretend otherwise. My main gripes, grizzles and grumbles? Many and varied, naturally enough, but principally the adaptation's inauthenticity in realistically portraying, and thus convincingly depicting, the ***relative battle-hardiness of The Hobbit's respective good guys and villains. In this regard I'll cite some of the most glaring and grating and at times jarring inconsistencies and incongruities observed, if only in the interests of that all too underrated and lowly esteemed, seemingly quaint and apparently antiquated notion of fair play and balance. So as not to give even a skerrick of the impression of having viewed the movie with a pair of - one of my now two sets of - rose-tinted 3D glasses, seeing it as an unmitigated world of wonders. (*Let's not, as so many do, almost invariably overlook the other genii intimately involved in the making of these Tolkien film adaptations, especially the likes of Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, and Richard Taylor and his Weta Workshop team. **As my (1988) Chambers Concise Dictionary has it, meaning: 'unambiguous; explicit; clear and emphatic.' ***A commonly enough undertaken device of cinematic reinvention, admittedly, in order to maintain the popularly-accepted and welcome notion of the forces of good ever, or at least ultimately, triumphing over the forces of evil. Nonetheless a device by its very nature complicit in duplicity, in upholding fictions we wish to believe in rather than the realities better describing things as we actually tend to experience them - not to be too cynical.about matters. Though personally I actually subscribe to such a notion - of good ultimately, cosmically, 'winning out' over evil - I'm simply pointing out that upon this earthly plane things don't always seem that way, much less tend to play to that sort of script.)
So let's begin with the main character, Bilbo Baggins, brilliantly and determinedly, despite innumerable obstacles, cast by Sir Peter himself, and consummately executed by Martin Freeman. An eminently successful characterization, even unexpectedly acknowledged as such - if ever so sparingly, seeking to damn with faint praise - by one of the film's most trenchant New Zealand critics, he of National Radio's Matinee Idol infamy, nay notoriety, Simon Morris. Notwithstanding this sterling, well-nigh impeccable performance by Freeman, the filmmakers - in order presumably to tie together one very important ****'loose end', i.e. Thorin's deeply suspicious attitude towards and distrust of Bilbo, with their necessary, and literary-accurate, eventual reconciliation - take extreme licence to bend the parameters of credulity both to and well beyond the bounds of credibility in one major instance. This is the depiction in the film's final battle scene, and indeed penultimate scene overall, of the hobbit bravely sallying forth at the very last moment to rescue Thorin, when Azog the Goblin Chieftain and his gang of wolves drive the dwarf crew literally to the edge of a precipice. Not only is such bravery, however noble and well-intentioned, foolhardy in the extreme, the outcome of such - instant death and destruction by Azog & co - is so self-evident that Tolkien doubtless never even envisaged such a prospect much less included it in his story. Perhaps J R R knew something?(****Though actually in the book this relationship is fraught, deteriorating - in the extreme - once again, much later on in the story, and their 'friendship' can only be described as an on-again, off-again affair, a professional collegiality and camaraderie rather than one based upon any sense of 'fair dinkum' mateship.)
Alongside this portrayal, in the selfsame scene - a scene taking believability to new levels - we witness trees, flimsy enough in and of themselves, and scarcely sturdy enough to hold such heavy-set *****dwarfs much less a bunch of 'em in each tree, bending well beyond breaking point, to the nth degree and all the rest. And yet these admirable specimens of flora manage to somehow maintain their weighty and unwieldy cargo of passengers - otherwise long-since jettisoned 'over the edge' and into a literal abyss of despair, death and destruction - even when they are mercilessly assailed in no uncertain fashion, time and time again, by a veritable juggernaut of large, powerful and skilful beasts of malevolence on a mission of annihilation at any cost. Now really folks. Otherwise, as I said, an excellent, essentially flawless, even unsurpassable Hobbit-depiction by Freeman, capturing the nuances of Bilbo's character and moreover his extremely complex relationships with his fellow adventurers. Yes, he's definitely the star of this new show, no question about it. (*****Ever Tolkien's preferred spelling for our (English) 'dwarves', though sometimes also 'dwarfs'.)
Which isn't to suggest the performances by others such as Thorin aren't masterful also, but it's all a matter of degree. Although I would also contend, once again, that the rendering of the film's chief villains, be they Azog, the Goblin-King under the Mountain, or the three trolls - Bert, William and Tom - are equally unsurpassed. However the story's Arch-Enemy, Smaug the Dragon himself, makes his (highly premature but understandable) entrance into the film in such a way as to seriously strain credibility; though I would likewise argue - solely with the benefit, however, of a second and third viewing - that this is ultimately so well-executed, seen in the odd tidbits and snippets of Smaug and his various body parts, especially in the film's closing moments, that this concern is considerably allayed. Such a situation undoubtedly oftentimes comes about, I readily accept, with such fast, action-paced thrillers, and so perhaps cannot be helped. Yet 'seeing is believing', as they say, and for those without the time and cash to see the film again, let alone thrice, such initial, even if frequently inaccurate impressions truly do 'die hard'.
For this very reason - despite my later relief - my issue with his portrayal still bears mention. It is this: Smaug's eye-catching unveiling amidst the seemingly limitless horde of jewels at the film's end, and the immense fire-breathed energy and unrivalled presence of his power-packed physique at its start, were almost undone and belied, I would contend, by the 'precursor' bunch of silly-looking dragon streamers at the outset of his age-old assault upon the dwarf kingdom of Erebor. I appreciate these do have their modern-day resonances in especially Chinese and Japanese dragon festivals and the like, but frankly fellas, they just seemed a little amateurish. Essentially representing El Nasty as a bit of a lightweight, feather-duster equivalent 'bad guy'. Not such a good much less apt look for 'Smaug the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities'. No, One to be lampooned only at one's peril.
A central and equally contentious element of, if not Tolkien's fantasy literature itself, then certainly its Peter Jacksonesque interpretation, the battle scenes were otherwise both too many and too long and Lord of the Rings film trilogy blood 'n guts and gore extremish, though ably effected and varying enough from one to the next for all that. And so - try as I may, and I certainly have - it is hard to fault film reviewer Morris' contention that Bilbo's (captivating and well-depicted) character definitely lended itself to much more filling out, which additional characterization was precluded simply due to the exorbitant proportion of the film devoted exclusively to battle scenes. (Which was also of course a commonplace criticism of the Rings' films.) And so something had to give, and unfortunately, what 'gave' here was more of Bilbo, the main character who clearly deserved even much more of the attention he did get. Though it could equally be argued that we were given such a superb sampling of his sublime and ever-so-subtle character to be held spellbound, however short and seemingly stinted that cinematic synopsis may well have been.Thus whetting our appetites for what's yet to come.
Nevertheless, for devoted fans like myself, I suspect we'd have remained engrossed if the film had gone on for some while longer, as despite all the fighting, the film maintained a good, steady pace and captivating, suspenseful tension throughout. As for Morris et al's criticism that in (apparently) prolonging the film beyond its reasonable limit Jackson and crew essentially threw into the film each and every nook and cranny of the book, this actually shows a rather superficial understanding of Tolkien's classic, as Jackson and co arguably failed to do just that very thing. Sure, the film might well have highlighted the book's many much less protracted battles, but it meanwhile signally failed to focus sufficiently upon the oodles of space the book gives to the elaboration of Bilbo and company's characters. So those making such criticisms essentially contradict themselves, decrying the film's length (allegedly due to needless padding out with rampant fighting) while pleading for more character development notwithstanding. So maybe it's not the film's alleged lengthiness, only their tedium with its subject-matter they in fact find so objectionable. Methinks what such really want is both a cake and the eating thereof. And as I've ever found, that's somewhat tricky.
And so while I completely concur with Morris' contention that additional, useful, character-developing footage of Bilbo's character wouldn't have gone amiss, that's only because that was an important part of the relevant portion of the book which the filmmakers seemed to skimp upon. And as we all know, scrimping and saving is best left to the financiers and monetarists: not. But certainly not to those wishing to faithfully reproduce the classic literary works of such an idiosyncratic genius as Tolkien.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Now Don't Be So Hasty: 3rd Time Still 'Lucky': Premature Reports of The Hobbit film's demise are just that - premature (and grossly exaggerated)
So what keeps drawing me - back and back, and back - ever 'there and back again', to quote J R R Tolkien's well-known phrase, fully utilized by his film adaptors, for Bilbo's adventure to the Lonely Mountain? Some throwback to childish phantasmagoria? An - as yet undiagnosed - case of "OCD", obsessive compulsive disorder, admittedly (if rather subjectively) so attested by a loving sister herself apparently afflicted with selfsame clinically-diagnosed condition? A 'pure and simple' liking, yea love for the (first instalment of the) film adaptation and its medley, its motley array of arguably brilliantly-characterized cast? Plenty of 'time on my hands' and a rather laissez-faire (by which folk tend to mean, laissez-aller) attitude to life, as some other siblings and another close 'relative' would no doubt attest, one calling me once 'a man of leisure'? Some misguided, and doubtless inordinate, desire or determination to defend Sir Peter Jackson & co, and to vindicate their reputations and efforts in their latest masterwork from the usual and all-too-typical jump-upon-the-bandwagon critics and detractors and innumerable other 'antis' presently relishing, and revelling in (and none too unsmugly at that) The Hobbit's failure to confirm even its seemingly meagre nominated share of three 'minor' awards at the recent Oscar's?
Perhaps all of the above - 'with knobs on', as some wags would surely add, 'along with all the rest', as others might say, inferring any number and combination of especially subconscious, subterranean impulses and motivations which invariably goad or prod one in a simultaneous multitude of often mutually-conflicting directions. But, damn it, I can't help myself: it's a damn good film, and even exquisite capturing/ rendering/re-enactment of the essential spirit of Tolkien's now 75-year-old kid's fantasy extraordinaire. Irrespective of the few, and I'll readily concede conspicuous, flaws that a keen reader and devoted admirer of The Hobbit cannot help but see, especially, or so I've found, with each and every subsequent viewing of its cinematic counterpart. Yep, The Hobbit departs, and at times majorly, from the substantial content, 'the guts' of J R R's literary work. But to the gratitude of all those diehard Tolkien fans who likewise relish and appreciate his works' Jacksonesque interpretation, the first film at least manages to adopt, to convey, to encapsulate the very mode, the manner, the style of that selfsame literary gem. And that's all that ultimately really matters. Or as the rotund woman is known to have remarked: "That's all she wrote."
Nevertheless for the sake of that ever-elusive quality of balance and fair play which the modern media pays much lip-service to yet really cares stuff all about, it would be a little remiss to overlook let alone leave unmentioned what strike me as the film's most glaring omissions, incongruities and inconsistencies, and so these will be cited and expounded in my final instalment. My essential premise, my justification for so doing being my admission as follows: yes, in many parts, respects and ways, as is somewhat inevitable with any film adaptation of especially a renowned and much loved literary work, The Hobbit diverges, and then some, from Tolkien's book. And of course this is patently self-evident, the two genres essentially differing so markedly from one another, not least in the ways that time is perceived and experienced, as well as the ways in which a narrator's or (especially) central character's unspoken commentary are re-presented visually. And, again quite understandably, I concede, with *each subsequent viewing, increasingly obscuring one's progressively fainter recall of one's own imaginative 'mock-up' of the original text, a tendency remarked upon at a recent public forum coinciding with the Dunedin, New Zealand premiering of The Hobbit by noted C S Lewis scholar, and founding Tolkien Club member (of one of its Australian chapters) Professor Paul Tankard of the University of Otago in Dunedin. Resulting in the molding, merging and morphing of one's original imaginative understanding into an increasingly 'definitive' idea one assimilates and imbibes and appropriates from the visual film material. To the obvious detriment of that initial, if necessarily inchoate, personal perception one forms and develops further with every new reading.
*Having already seen the film three times, at its Dunedin premiere on the 12th of December in its much-touted High Frame Rate 3D version, a week later as a personal birthday treat in simple 'ole 2D - yet, if anything, enjoyed even more, and lastly in mid-January in 'plain' 3D at the time a whole lot of criticism was being directed anew at the Government's costly financing of the venture. Incidentally the day I (initially) made this new posting coincided with a would-be 4th viewing, again in 2D, if I'd managed to get my act together sufficiently to 'cheer it' off the screen as it rapidly and rather prematurely winds down, at least here in the increasingly sunny south of God's Own. Incidentally, but intriguingly, espying an old newspaper clipping recently I noticed something rather interesting - for film buffs generally but especially for Wingnut Studios/Weta Workshop fans. In either 2000 or 2002, 'each and every kiwi' saw 4 films apiece that year, netting or grossing the New Zealand box office and/or the relevant filmmakers around **$100 million NZ, which even if just translated directly into 2012/2013 dollars would represent a sizeable one-tenth of the Hobbit's internationally-cited nettings/grossings of one billion dollars, last I heard anyhow. So you can see that if each and every New Zealander also saw The Hobbit an average of my own hoped-for 4 times, Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Taylor et al'd be onto a (financial) winner beyond all description. And through their exceptional talents I'd suggest Aotearoa, in particular our tourism industry, would not be far behind. (**But in today's dollars who knows what the comparable figure might be... .)
Perhaps all of the above - 'with knobs on', as some wags would surely add, 'along with all the rest', as others might say, inferring any number and combination of especially subconscious, subterranean impulses and motivations which invariably goad or prod one in a simultaneous multitude of often mutually-conflicting directions. But, damn it, I can't help myself: it's a damn good film, and even exquisite capturing/ rendering/re-enactment of the essential spirit of Tolkien's now 75-year-old kid's fantasy extraordinaire. Irrespective of the few, and I'll readily concede conspicuous, flaws that a keen reader and devoted admirer of The Hobbit cannot help but see, especially, or so I've found, with each and every subsequent viewing of its cinematic counterpart. Yep, The Hobbit departs, and at times majorly, from the substantial content, 'the guts' of J R R's literary work. But to the gratitude of all those diehard Tolkien fans who likewise relish and appreciate his works' Jacksonesque interpretation, the first film at least manages to adopt, to convey, to encapsulate the very mode, the manner, the style of that selfsame literary gem. And that's all that ultimately really matters. Or as the rotund woman is known to have remarked: "That's all she wrote."
Nevertheless for the sake of that ever-elusive quality of balance and fair play which the modern media pays much lip-service to yet really cares stuff all about, it would be a little remiss to overlook let alone leave unmentioned what strike me as the film's most glaring omissions, incongruities and inconsistencies, and so these will be cited and expounded in my final instalment. My essential premise, my justification for so doing being my admission as follows: yes, in many parts, respects and ways, as is somewhat inevitable with any film adaptation of especially a renowned and much loved literary work, The Hobbit diverges, and then some, from Tolkien's book. And of course this is patently self-evident, the two genres essentially differing so markedly from one another, not least in the ways that time is perceived and experienced, as well as the ways in which a narrator's or (especially) central character's unspoken commentary are re-presented visually. And, again quite understandably, I concede, with *each subsequent viewing, increasingly obscuring one's progressively fainter recall of one's own imaginative 'mock-up' of the original text, a tendency remarked upon at a recent public forum coinciding with the Dunedin, New Zealand premiering of The Hobbit by noted C S Lewis scholar, and founding Tolkien Club member (of one of its Australian chapters) Professor Paul Tankard of the University of Otago in Dunedin. Resulting in the molding, merging and morphing of one's original imaginative understanding into an increasingly 'definitive' idea one assimilates and imbibes and appropriates from the visual film material. To the obvious detriment of that initial, if necessarily inchoate, personal perception one forms and develops further with every new reading.
*Having already seen the film three times, at its Dunedin premiere on the 12th of December in its much-touted High Frame Rate 3D version, a week later as a personal birthday treat in simple 'ole 2D - yet, if anything, enjoyed even more, and lastly in mid-January in 'plain' 3D at the time a whole lot of criticism was being directed anew at the Government's costly financing of the venture. Incidentally the day I (initially) made this new posting coincided with a would-be 4th viewing, again in 2D, if I'd managed to get my act together sufficiently to 'cheer it' off the screen as it rapidly and rather prematurely winds down, at least here in the increasingly sunny south of God's Own. Incidentally, but intriguingly, espying an old newspaper clipping recently I noticed something rather interesting - for film buffs generally but especially for Wingnut Studios/Weta Workshop fans. In either 2000 or 2002, 'each and every kiwi' saw 4 films apiece that year, netting or grossing the New Zealand box office and/or the relevant filmmakers around **$100 million NZ, which even if just translated directly into 2012/2013 dollars would represent a sizeable one-tenth of the Hobbit's internationally-cited nettings/grossings of one billion dollars, last I heard anyhow. So you can see that if each and every New Zealander also saw The Hobbit an average of my own hoped-for 4 times, Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Taylor et al'd be onto a (financial) winner beyond all description. And through their exceptional talents I'd suggest Aotearoa, in particular our tourism industry, would not be far behind. (**But in today's dollars who knows what the comparable figure might be... .)
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
A Glimpse of Goodness in a Chasm of Ghastliness (#3)
It seems a jinx associated with 'the best laid plans of mice [or muppets] and men' is indeed afflicting me at present, as - who wouldn't have guessed it? - my first (now apparently permanently misplaced/lost somewhere in the cybersphere) posting upon this topic - focusing almost exclusively upon the very reason I began this topic, i.e. the gruesome, grisly events, and national/international reaction, around the gang-raped/(ultimately) murdered (apparently physiology rather than medical) student (as first wrongly reported) - has now in one important sense 'been superseded by subsequent events', as is so often the case. But c'est la vie, as they say, and small bikkies in light of those horrendous events and their even more momentous aftermath, an aftermath now playing out upon the Indian and world stage as the five males involved in said incident are given their initial court hearing. Anyhow, the following represents what, to the best of my ability, was my response to the incredible news reportage on Friday the 4th evening (New Zealand time) that no-one, i.e. no-one in the legal profession, in all of India was apparently prepared to represent said accused. Which would or could hardly surprise anyone remotely acquainted with this horrific case, a case which has evidently, and for obvious, perfectly understandable reasons, galvanized the whole Indian nation as it were, and has certainly propelled it onto the TV screens and front newspaper pages of our world. So let's begin by saying that the aforementioned (see posting #2) epidemic of (especially egregious, gratuitous and intense) violence once again engulfing Planet Earth, showing new footholds being 'gained' and sinister new twists and turns being taken all across our globe - in this new year and even and especially since the Sandy Mount school massacre in the U.S. - has been overshadowed by the ghastly gang-rape and death of this Indian student. And for once, both in the tenor of its approach and the actual contents thereof, the international media, alongside and following its Indian counterpart, has 'stepped up to the mark' and shown its quality; has certainly given it every bit of exposure it necessarily warrants. But firstly vis-a-vis India's legal fraternity (as of last Friday, anyhow.)
ALL POWER, CREDIT AND PRAISE to the Indian legal fraternity who, in an (?internationally)unprecedented action - in light of the appalling nature of the crime - are[were] steadfastly refusing to even countenance legal aid/assistance to the fiends involved, for fiends they surely were. For the brutal cold-blooded gang-rape and prolonged assault - and ultimate killing, nay murder - of an Indian student returning home, presumably, on a bus trip: a woman no doubt otherwise destined for greatness. That is, until this awful tragedy saw her life prematurely cut short. Yet, and for that very reason, in view of the impending vote by the Indian Parliament upon legislation still to be fully drawn up, in a vote that will no doubt now be not only overwhelming, but maybe even unanimous, her - as yet unpublicized - name will doubtless, as already suggested, be 'inscribed' upon it. And thus her name, and hence legacy, indeed because of this very tragedy, is indeed still 'destined for greatness', and will live on in Indians' and womens' lives internationally, as the figurehead/lightning-rod for galvanizing long-delayed action upon womens' treatment in India.
And to those who take deep-seated umbrage at such a suggestion - i.e. of the collective 'waiver' by Indian lawyers of the long-established right of everyone to 'due process', clearly a deeply cherished and integral part of the legal process of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as India founded upon the British justice system and especially its emphasis upon basic, inalienable common rights and privileges - well, in this one instance spare your pompous pontificating for another more appropriate occasion. As with the eruption of do-gooders and other apologists who emerged like proverbial ants/cockroaches following America's capture and/or trial and/or summary execution of such human vermin as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, though their collective voices were strangely resoundingly silent during the respective reigns of terror and/or genocide of said 'gentlemen' either in their own homelands or throughout the world, between (and even before) 1990 through 2011 - learn to appreciate better the place of balance in matters of world justice. I would respectfully suggest that 'your average punter' both here (in the West), there (in India) and indeed everywhere (throughout this celestial orb) has/have a much better intuitive/instinctual grasp and understanding of 'natural justice' than any of your ilk ever will. And indeed for all those who ever reflectively defer to Maori here in God's Own Country, well, have you never heard of the long-established custom, still evidently practised in this 'enlightened' day and age, of 'utu' - commonly understood and *translated as 'revenge' or 'vengeance', but roughly approximating to such ancient notions, whether Western or otherwise, of natural justice.? (*'Revenge or satisfaction' in the 1979 Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary.)
Or would you here implicitly and even unconsciously default to the real, usually unspoken - for obvious reasons - view of so many liberal elitists on this sort of issue, that 'the poor natives' are really somewhat benighted on such matters?; thus displaying the very sort of patronizing, paternalistic dribble that such politicos have invariably attributed to their old-fashioned, out of touch, fuddy-duddy Mother England-boot licking ideological opponents over many generations. But of course the arguments are ever infinitely malleable whenever they happen to serve one's own ideological agenda, eh. Moral relativism personified.
And so to/for all those meddling Western apologists and so-called do-gooders now (if tentatively, for obvious, understandable reasons) crawling out of the woodwork and over one another in their mad scramble to make excuses for/defend the brutal fiends/thugs involved - in response, say, to the inevitable rush, nay probably stampede now, to judgment, of/by Indian lawmakers et al to bring in the death penalty
for said perpetrators, even possibly lowering its ambit perhaps to cater for/to the 12-year-old who apparently/evidently took a leading role in the 'incident' - I, and doubtless (hundreds of) millions (of especially Indians) have but one thing to say (to you): you know nothing, and have no idea whatsoever. And, believe you me, I'm being kind and generous - in the extreme. What right have you to pontificate upon the rights and wrongs of (a) victim/s of such horrific events/happenings? No, really? Unless and until one of your own loved ones undergoes/experiences just such a ghastly sort of thing, you have no right whatsoever to criticize, much less condemn the supposed/alleged 'inhumanity' of those - quite naturally and understandably - crying out for (seemingly heartless) revenge/vengeance.
Nay, for a long-forgotten principle of Western society, simply termed natural justice. Or 'a fair go' in New Zealand's own proverbial vernacular - a 'concept', however, having both 'positive' and 'negative' implications, as the well-publicized trial of Norway's very own, one and only, mass murderer, Anton Breijik Breivik,, showed so well. No, Norwegians generally didn't deem him merely insane, deluded, a mere madman, as so many erroneously and I would suggest scurrilously today likewise denote Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. No, they knew perfectly well what they were doing, and yes, they were downright evil - indeed evil personified in Hitler's (and others') case/s. However unwelcome such an ascription may well be to your hypervigilant sensibilities.
To paraphrase an old and well-known native (American) Indian saying: Don't - you dare - criticize your brother (or sister) until you've walked a mile in his (or her) mocassins. Or to cite a wholly different, supposedly Western, but actually Semitic, tradition: You're walking upon holy, sacred ground. For human beings are indeed sacred (beings), having been made in God's own image, however admittedly defaced that image appears at times Yep, the Good Book declares: whosoever sheds (his fellow human's) blood, by him shall his blood be shed, for in God's own image He made him [i.e. man and woman]. And whether we still live under a theocracy or not - and we patently do not - most people instinctively understand and implicitly agree with such a sentiment; however unnerving and unsettling it may well be to modern ears - including, believe it or otherwise, my own. It just somehow has the ring of truth about it, far above and way beyond our petty human reason(ing)s, however carefully reasoned, intricately developed and speciously articulated.
And if you have a problem with that, I have just one thing to say: take it up with 'the Man Upstairs'.
I hear He's open for business come the fast approaching Judgment Day; and I've heard He not only makes no mistakes - His judgment is flawless - but He tends to have the last word.: upon all of us, myself included!
ALL POWER, CREDIT AND PRAISE to the Indian legal fraternity who, in an (?internationally)unprecedented action - in light of the appalling nature of the crime - are[were] steadfastly refusing to even countenance legal aid/assistance to the fiends involved, for fiends they surely were. For the brutal cold-blooded gang-rape and prolonged assault - and ultimate killing, nay murder - of an Indian student returning home, presumably, on a bus trip: a woman no doubt otherwise destined for greatness. That is, until this awful tragedy saw her life prematurely cut short. Yet, and for that very reason, in view of the impending vote by the Indian Parliament upon legislation still to be fully drawn up, in a vote that will no doubt now be not only overwhelming, but maybe even unanimous, her - as yet unpublicized - name will doubtless, as already suggested, be 'inscribed' upon it. And thus her name, and hence legacy, indeed because of this very tragedy, is indeed still 'destined for greatness', and will live on in Indians' and womens' lives internationally, as the figurehead/lightning-rod for galvanizing long-delayed action upon womens' treatment in India.
And to those who take deep-seated umbrage at such a suggestion - i.e. of the collective 'waiver' by Indian lawyers of the long-established right of everyone to 'due process', clearly a deeply cherished and integral part of the legal process of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as India founded upon the British justice system and especially its emphasis upon basic, inalienable common rights and privileges - well, in this one instance spare your pompous pontificating for another more appropriate occasion. As with the eruption of do-gooders and other apologists who emerged like proverbial ants/cockroaches following America's capture and/or trial and/or summary execution of such human vermin as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, though their collective voices were strangely resoundingly silent during the respective reigns of terror and/or genocide of said 'gentlemen' either in their own homelands or throughout the world, between (and even before) 1990 through 2011 - learn to appreciate better the place of balance in matters of world justice. I would respectfully suggest that 'your average punter' both here (in the West), there (in India) and indeed everywhere (throughout this celestial orb) has/have a much better intuitive/instinctual grasp and understanding of 'natural justice' than any of your ilk ever will. And indeed for all those who ever reflectively defer to Maori here in God's Own Country, well, have you never heard of the long-established custom, still evidently practised in this 'enlightened' day and age, of 'utu' - commonly understood and *translated as 'revenge' or 'vengeance', but roughly approximating to such ancient notions, whether Western or otherwise, of natural justice.? (*'Revenge or satisfaction' in the 1979 Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary.)
Or would you here implicitly and even unconsciously default to the real, usually unspoken - for obvious reasons - view of so many liberal elitists on this sort of issue, that 'the poor natives' are really somewhat benighted on such matters?; thus displaying the very sort of patronizing, paternalistic dribble that such politicos have invariably attributed to their old-fashioned, out of touch, fuddy-duddy Mother England-boot licking ideological opponents over many generations. But of course the arguments are ever infinitely malleable whenever they happen to serve one's own ideological agenda, eh. Moral relativism personified.
And so to/for all those meddling Western apologists and so-called do-gooders now (if tentatively, for obvious, understandable reasons) crawling out of the woodwork and over one another in their mad scramble to make excuses for/defend the brutal fiends/thugs involved - in response, say, to the inevitable rush, nay probably stampede now, to judgment, of/by Indian lawmakers et al to bring in the death penalty
for said perpetrators, even possibly lowering its ambit perhaps to cater for/to the 12-year-old who apparently/evidently took a leading role in the 'incident' - I, and doubtless (hundreds of) millions (of especially Indians) have but one thing to say (to you): you know nothing, and have no idea whatsoever. And, believe you me, I'm being kind and generous - in the extreme. What right have you to pontificate upon the rights and wrongs of (a) victim/s of such horrific events/happenings? No, really? Unless and until one of your own loved ones undergoes/experiences just such a ghastly sort of thing, you have no right whatsoever to criticize, much less condemn the supposed/alleged 'inhumanity' of those - quite naturally and understandably - crying out for (seemingly heartless) revenge/vengeance.
Nay, for a long-forgotten principle of Western society, simply termed natural justice. Or 'a fair go' in New Zealand's own proverbial vernacular - a 'concept', however, having both 'positive' and 'negative' implications, as the well-publicized trial of Norway's very own, one and only, mass murderer, Anton Breijik Breivik,, showed so well. No, Norwegians generally didn't deem him merely insane, deluded, a mere madman, as so many erroneously and I would suggest scurrilously today likewise denote Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. No, they knew perfectly well what they were doing, and yes, they were downright evil - indeed evil personified in Hitler's (and others') case/s. However unwelcome such an ascription may well be to your hypervigilant sensibilities.
To paraphrase an old and well-known native (American) Indian saying: Don't - you dare - criticize your brother (or sister) until you've walked a mile in his (or her) mocassins. Or to cite a wholly different, supposedly Western, but actually Semitic, tradition: You're walking upon holy, sacred ground. For human beings are indeed sacred (beings), having been made in God's own image, however admittedly defaced that image appears at times Yep, the Good Book declares: whosoever sheds (his fellow human's) blood, by him shall his blood be shed, for in God's own image He made him [i.e. man and woman]. And whether we still live under a theocracy or not - and we patently do not - most people instinctively understand and implicitly agree with such a sentiment; however unnerving and unsettling it may well be to modern ears - including, believe it or otherwise, my own. It just somehow has the ring of truth about it, far above and way beyond our petty human reason(ing)s, however carefully reasoned, intricately developed and speciously articulated.
And if you have a problem with that, I have just one thing to say: take it up with 'the Man Upstairs'.
I hear He's open for business come the fast approaching Judgment Day; and I've heard He not only makes no mistakes - His judgment is flawless - but He tends to have the last word.: upon all of us, myself included!
Sunday, January 6, 2013
A Glimpse of Goodness in a Chasm of Ghastliness (#2)
Barely has a new year - and 'post-Apocalyptic era' at that - opened upon humanity than we are once more confronted with how great an oxymoron that word - 'humanity', supposedly representing qualities of empathy, compassion, kindness, understanding and 'fellow feeling' - is. For surely a very real, eminently reasonable and patently indisputable case could well be made that the constantly extolled and repeated - to ad nauseum and far beyond - politically correct to a fault, diatribe force-fed modern 'man' through all manner of mass media, i.e. that homo sapiens is gradually, if ever so imperceptibly, progressing, evolving into ever better and greater things, 'from the goo via the zoo to you' as one wag has put it, is rendered pure mockery every single day - and night - one happens to turn on the TV or radio news. For quite the contrary to this fictitious view of humankind rising ever higher upon the moral scale of worth, we see him, and her, diving ever deeper and more and more inexorably into new, previously unfathomed depths and sewers of depravity, viciousness and sheer evil.
And here I am strictly confining myself to the realm of senseless, heartless, ruthless, merciless violence, brought into clear focus internationally once more by the United States of America - even prior to 2013 or Christmas-time 2012 - in the Sandy Mount, Connecticut primary school massacre. To the point where this morning BBC News disclosed the very real possibility that 'special body armour', i.e. bullet-proof vests, presently being manufactured in Bogota, Columbia, may well soon be made available to American school children. But not alone in the U.S., nor only amidst the dark, daily horrors of Bashar al-Assad's blood-thirsty Syrian regime, nor just among the sporadic but continual suicide bombings and other acts of barbarism witnessed everyday throughout the eastern Middle East is such violence all too evident. Whether against groups of aid workers or courageous fellow citizens including 'minors' or helter-skelter against any and all civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - in addition to the never-ending insurgencies against anyone and everyone suspected of having any links whatsoever to their mortal enemies or religious rivals - in such nations as Pakistan and Iraq we constantly are shown the ugly outbursts of a more than inhuman rage and wrath and seemingly unceasing brutality and callousness and diabolical cruelty. No, even now here in 'God's Own' itself we see - yeah, I accept, on a much lesser scale, but nevertheless - equally barbaric instances of humanity at its worst and most vicious.
Almost simultaneously, though with widely different outcomes, we heard, at the peak of New Year's 'festivities' nationwide, of two 60-some-year-olds, one a community gardener giving back, in a solo fashion, to her fellow Nelsonites at the top of New Zealand's South Island, the other an 'ex-pat' on holiday leave from Australia visiting the North Island's Waihi, merely attempting to blend into the celebratory mode of things, as he naturally assumed, there. Both met, admittedly, much more than their 'match' physically, though infinitely lesser beings on all scales of moral and spiritual worth. Sadly for kith and kin, the 62-year-old woman in Nelson may survive - by the veritable scruff of her neck, apparently - but will doubtless suffer ongoing trauma from her vicious attacker's cowardly assault. However the 64-year-old visitor from Aussie quickly departed this mortal life shortly after the random but all too successful act of ultimate unkindness of his own callous knife-wielding assailant; though his wife managed to fly over to offer some small mercies for his final few hours. As his family noted, Murray Wilkinson was "a selfless, helpless and humble man" -someone who doubtless wouldn't have hurt a fly.
Reminding me once more of someone only too aptly named Lois Dear - who for that reason alone, but also on many other levels, could've actually been my own dear Mum (whose middle name is Louise): a lady who was viciously slain in cold blood in bright middaylight a half dozen years ago. Returning to her classroom out of work hours - as no doubt was her wont - that particular weekend, she was accosted and overcome and brutally mutilated and murdered, senselessly and purposelessly having her earthly existence savagely terminated by a nasty piece of goods - to give him his full due. But oh, yes, I forgot, he was 'high on drugs'. No, he'd lowered himself by that means to the level of a brute, and even supposedly vicious 'beasts' will only act in that manner for dear life's sake, purely in self-defence, never in acts of gratuitous, meaningless brutality.
And yet in light of those tragic facts I should have trouble looking myself in the mirror, let alone snatching nightly shut-eye, for upon hearing of that 'case' I then, and staunchly, resolved to - finally - get off my chuff and actually 'do something about it'. Though long opposed to the very notion of capital punishment, I'm honest enough to increasingly accept and admit that its proponents - in a large number of instances, leaving aside the unavoidable and obviously deeply concerning one of innocent people thus being killed, which 'matter' is in many ways an incontrovertible argument against it, were there no others - are less and less impugnable as the years 'progress'. (But that for another day.) The salient point I'm getting to is that I then determined to take an action every single kiwi has open to us - though the efficacy of such is certainly open to debate: the initiating of a citizen's initiated referendum, upon receipt of the required number of signatures on which the government-of-the-day is legally bound to hold a referendum. (As just alluded to, whether many politicians frankly listen to such is another matter altogether.) But obviously, and despite standing as a candidate for Parliament in the 2008 general election, I've simply never gotten around to following through upon that resolution, much to my self-confessed shame. And despite no doubt having a ready backer in that well known kiwi patriot Norm Withers of Christchurch - whose own dear mum likewise once suffered a brutal if non-fatal attack by a thug.
Ah, the best intentions of mice and men, as they say, though like NZ's own Bret McKenzie of recent Muppet song fame, one ever wishes to see oneself as a man not a muppet. Though as they likewise say, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', or as that other great NZ patriot John Tamihere might have put it, we need a whole lot "more do-ey and [a whole lot] less hui". And as America's beloved J.F.K. memorably declared, among many memorable utterances: "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Nuff said - already.
And here I am strictly confining myself to the realm of senseless, heartless, ruthless, merciless violence, brought into clear focus internationally once more by the United States of America - even prior to 2013 or Christmas-time 2012 - in the Sandy Mount, Connecticut primary school massacre. To the point where this morning BBC News disclosed the very real possibility that 'special body armour', i.e. bullet-proof vests, presently being manufactured in Bogota, Columbia, may well soon be made available to American school children. But not alone in the U.S., nor only amidst the dark, daily horrors of Bashar al-Assad's blood-thirsty Syrian regime, nor just among the sporadic but continual suicide bombings and other acts of barbarism witnessed everyday throughout the eastern Middle East is such violence all too evident. Whether against groups of aid workers or courageous fellow citizens including 'minors' or helter-skelter against any and all civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - in addition to the never-ending insurgencies against anyone and everyone suspected of having any links whatsoever to their mortal enemies or religious rivals - in such nations as Pakistan and Iraq we constantly are shown the ugly outbursts of a more than inhuman rage and wrath and seemingly unceasing brutality and callousness and diabolical cruelty. No, even now here in 'God's Own' itself we see - yeah, I accept, on a much lesser scale, but nevertheless - equally barbaric instances of humanity at its worst and most vicious.
Almost simultaneously, though with widely different outcomes, we heard, at the peak of New Year's 'festivities' nationwide, of two 60-some-year-olds, one a community gardener giving back, in a solo fashion, to her fellow Nelsonites at the top of New Zealand's South Island, the other an 'ex-pat' on holiday leave from Australia visiting the North Island's Waihi, merely attempting to blend into the celebratory mode of things, as he naturally assumed, there. Both met, admittedly, much more than their 'match' physically, though infinitely lesser beings on all scales of moral and spiritual worth. Sadly for kith and kin, the 62-year-old woman in Nelson may survive - by the veritable scruff of her neck, apparently - but will doubtless suffer ongoing trauma from her vicious attacker's cowardly assault. However the 64-year-old visitor from Aussie quickly departed this mortal life shortly after the random but all too successful act of ultimate unkindness of his own callous knife-wielding assailant; though his wife managed to fly over to offer some small mercies for his final few hours. As his family noted, Murray Wilkinson was "a selfless, helpless and humble man" -someone who doubtless wouldn't have hurt a fly.
Reminding me once more of someone only too aptly named Lois Dear - who for that reason alone, but also on many other levels, could've actually been my own dear Mum (whose middle name is Louise): a lady who was viciously slain in cold blood in bright middaylight a half dozen years ago. Returning to her classroom out of work hours - as no doubt was her wont - that particular weekend, she was accosted and overcome and brutally mutilated and murdered, senselessly and purposelessly having her earthly existence savagely terminated by a nasty piece of goods - to give him his full due. But oh, yes, I forgot, he was 'high on drugs'. No, he'd lowered himself by that means to the level of a brute, and even supposedly vicious 'beasts' will only act in that manner for dear life's sake, purely in self-defence, never in acts of gratuitous, meaningless brutality.
And yet in light of those tragic facts I should have trouble looking myself in the mirror, let alone snatching nightly shut-eye, for upon hearing of that 'case' I then, and staunchly, resolved to - finally - get off my chuff and actually 'do something about it'. Though long opposed to the very notion of capital punishment, I'm honest enough to increasingly accept and admit that its proponents - in a large number of instances, leaving aside the unavoidable and obviously deeply concerning one of innocent people thus being killed, which 'matter' is in many ways an incontrovertible argument against it, were there no others - are less and less impugnable as the years 'progress'. (But that for another day.) The salient point I'm getting to is that I then determined to take an action every single kiwi has open to us - though the efficacy of such is certainly open to debate: the initiating of a citizen's initiated referendum, upon receipt of the required number of signatures on which the government-of-the-day is legally bound to hold a referendum. (As just alluded to, whether many politicians frankly listen to such is another matter altogether.) But obviously, and despite standing as a candidate for Parliament in the 2008 general election, I've simply never gotten around to following through upon that resolution, much to my self-confessed shame. And despite no doubt having a ready backer in that well known kiwi patriot Norm Withers of Christchurch - whose own dear mum likewise once suffered a brutal if non-fatal attack by a thug.
Ah, the best intentions of mice and men, as they say, though like NZ's own Bret McKenzie of recent Muppet song fame, one ever wishes to see oneself as a man not a muppet. Though as they likewise say, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', or as that other great NZ patriot John Tamihere might have put it, we need a whole lot "more do-ey and [a whole lot] less hui". And as America's beloved J.F.K. memorably declared, among many memorable utterances: "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Nuff said - already.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
And A Little Child Shall Lead Them...AND ABOUT TIME/NOT A MOMENT TOO SOON
Only when our kids are vitally affected do we tend to act...but the straw that breaks the camel's back has now been snapped, and in a thoroughly unpolitical, non-partisan, almost apolitical fashion President Barack Obama has taken the lead...to finally do something...about America's sorry record of civilian violence. He has stepped up to the mark at a turning point in U.S. history and shown the one quality essential in a true leader: yes, leadership. At this pivotal moment. And it's uncannily, eerily, almost palpable - even from afar, via the omnipresent television set - that the nation is, silently but ever so staunchly, right behind him; backing him 100%. In much the same way the entire nation, and much of the world, stood full square behind President George W Bush in the seconds, minutes, hours and days immediately following 9/11. As J R R Tolkien's Samwise Gamgee might have put it: "You've shown your quality, Mr President."
Yes, it could, ever so easily and glibly, quite legitimately be asked: Well, what else could President Obama have done? The answer is: absolutely nothing. Precisely what has been done - for all too long. The point is he hasn't; that's the difference.
Yes, Obama's only taken slight - though not at all hesitant - very tentative steps...thus far. But 'from small beginnings great things may come'. As the 'ole ditty puts it: 'It only takes a spark to get a fire going...'.
Yes, it could, ever so easily and glibly, quite legitimately be asked: Well, what else could President Obama have done? The answer is: absolutely nothing. Precisely what has been done - for all too long. The point is he hasn't; that's the difference.
Yes, Obama's only taken slight - though not at all hesitant - very tentative steps...thus far. But 'from small beginnings great things may come'. As the 'ole ditty puts it: 'It only takes a spark to get a fire going...'.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
All Hail To Our Own Home-grown "Leader of Men": Peter Jackson - JRR Tolkien Fantasy Works Adaptor Extraordinaire
R Rating: Meant only for those who have already seen the film. (Unless one has no intention of going, in which case my various comments will be well-nigh meaningless anyway.)
Necessary Disclaimer: I'll admit I'm not a film reviewer by trade or hobby, but as a lover of The Hobbit - rereading it multiple times, including during the recent run-up to its grand premiering - my passionate interest and 'jealousy', as in loyalty, to Tolkien's writing makes me a fair judge, I believe. Much as sports fans and automobile enthusiasts are a reasonable source to consult when it comes to judging the merits of a particular team, game and/or performance. And best I can recall the few book and film reviews I did while taking creative English writing classes at our local varsity a decade or so ago were judged reasonable enough.
Hugely conscious that Low-Lifers Anonymous, certain doctrinaire partisan political ideologues, elitist film critics and literary purists, and other signed-up and sealed members of Peter Jackson Knockers Incorporated (both domestic and global) are busily crawling out of their snake-pits to spout their vitriolic venom at Sir Peter and spread their snivelly slime (read: 'snot' - and not the troll variety) upon his new creation and infect the body populace with their viral viciousness as I write - just for starters, let me declare, vis-a-vis The Hobbit film #1: Overall, a *supercalifragilisticexpialidocious kinda flick - 'wunderbar' as the Germans (apparently 'as a nation' huge fans of the (**most recent) film adaptation of J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy) would say. (*My local library assures me of the correctness of this spelling!**There actually was an animated two-hour version of Tolkien's LOTR in 1978, largely unknown and for good reason long since faded into obscurity.)
The following features were what particularly grabbed me - and held me fast - in viewing the film: 3D High Frame Rate the day it premiered nationwide (Wednesday, December 12th, but no midnight session for me); and again yesterday evening on my 48th birthday, the 18th of December, when I saw it in simple, good 'ole-fashioned 2D, and was pleasantly surprised to find it had already grown hugely upon me in less than a week. So how do I rate it, as one humble pleb among a nation, indeed world, of such viewers? In visual impact, simply superb, even breathtakingly brilliant, quite literally out of this world - if not that of Middle Earth. Here I include the scenery (surpassing all 3 ***'predecessor' Lord Of The Rings' films in toto), costuming, special effects (revisiting good 'ole CGI), dramatic tension and resolution, colour, lighting etc. As with the Rings' films, the various flashback scenes are almost flawlessly enacted and moreover are brilliantly 'cut' and weaved rather seamlessly into the surrounding story, especially the various introductory scenes of the Lonely Mountain and the assorted dwarf versus orc and goblin battle royales. In characterization (both casting and acting delivery): off the charts, yes, you'll even want to write home about it; especially the main character/ hero, Bilbo Baggins, ("Bagginses" to Gollum), played by Martin Freeman. (***In chronology of production and release, admittedly, but actually 'successors' in the real time of Middle Earth.)
What can one say? This was and is and will no doubt prove to be throughout the remainder of the films, a brilliant typecast by Peter Jackson - whose unfailing instincts failed to fail him yet again. (Yours Truly early on sent Peter Jackson (even if, I suppose, it's extremely doubtful he ever saw it) a photo (magazine shot) of a potential (indeed lookalike) Bilbo Baggins - an American by the 'unreal' name of Bob Gass, who was the absolute spitting image of that older Bilbo (Senior - who appears in both the Rings' trilogy and the start of this film).) Seeing as, since finding the ring, Bilbo wasn't supposed to have aged at all, I couldn't quite see why the same good 'ole (Sir) Ian Holm - or a virtual replica such as Bob Gass, if Ian had no longer been available - wouldn't have well sufficed. (At the appropriate juncture, that is, i.e. halfway through the film (#1), though I accept the practical logistics of such would entail numerous potential difficulties.) Nevertheless Martin Freeman's Bilbo, serving as the perfect younger counterpart to the equally superbly cast and acted (Ian Holm's) Bilbo of (mainly) the Rings' trilogy, is so supremely wrought that all niggling criticisms vanish in the proverbial puff of magical dragon smoke.
In reproducing 'the letter' of the book. The Hobbit leaves much - in every way - to be desired, quite frankly; in reflecting and representing the essential 'spirit' of Tolkien's The Hobbit, as with PJ's LOTR film adaptation of J R R's classic tome Lord of the Rings, it is an exquisitely, even beautifully rendered offering to Tolkien aficionados. And containing the perfect mix of serious and comic elements, especially at its outset, befitting the much loved kid's fantasy story that it is. Moreover, fulfilling - if not exceeding - all hopes of Rings' movie devotees, in their introductory, connecting, storytelling roles at the film's beginning, both Ian Holm's Bilbo Senior and Elijah Wood's Frodo faithfully come to the party and ably meet longstanding viewer expectations. As Galadriel might be imagined intoning in the background: "Welcome back [to the Shire] Masters Frodo and Bilbo Baggins."
Other characterizations are worthy of note, such as these excellent performances (and casting decisions): Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield - suitably and preeminently grave, intense, focused and clearly defined; and Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown alongside his wonderful avian confidants, beloved hedgehogs, and rabbit (sled) crew. Though some understandably regard Radagast's portrayal as somewhat odd, even eccentric in the extreme - and who's disputing that? - I found it a delightful touch, marrying both the film's much noted and extensive use of both the Lord of the Rings' ****trilogy's voluminous appendices, and Tolkien's understated character development of the rather obscure backblocks wizard Radagast in that epic. (****Or rather sestet, seeing as Tolkien himself actually split each of the three parts in his LOTR series into two smaller books, though in fact had them published only as a trilogy.)
I also (especially) loved these guys' beards and fierce, dwarfish demeanour and attitude: Graham McTavish's Dwalin, John Callen's Oin and Peter Hambleton's Gloin. However the combination of ultra-modern (if dwarfish) hair-dos (even 'weir-dos'!), extremely humanish (in particular hairless) faces, and laid-back, cutesy-funny personae of other dwarfs, though intriguing, still seemed an at times incompatible, unbefitting, even unbecoming feature. And so these didn't impact me as powerfully as those preceding characters who displayed an arguably more 'native' dwarfish temperament, though perhaps the latter thus served as an effective foil to their serious cousins' personalities, and, like humans, dwarfs surely vary considerably from dwarf to dwarf. Mark Hadlow's Dori and Ken Stott's Balin seemed to (successfully) combine both elements - i.e. a real, physical dwarfishness with a certain light-hearted personality streak. Overall, an eclectic hodgepodge of physico-temperamental characterizations of which Tolkien might have approved, though 'have been proud' would probably be stretching things. That is, if J R R would or could ever have reconciled himself to a modern-day big screen adaptation of his beloved and ever-so-idiosyncratic Middle Earth, itself somewhat of a stretch admittedly, as Peter Jackson also once openly mused.
But hats and scarves and any other available paraphernalia off to the tale's major villains. Such as Barry Humphries' Goblin King, or the Great Goblin (Under the Mountain) - and as a minor (key) highlight, the little flying fox messenger goblin (the GK's personal assistant/'scribe'), apparently played, animatronically, by Kiran Shah, of Rings, *****Narnia and other blockbuster movie fame.
Also - and equally brilliant (in both sheer physicality and characterization): the Trollshaw Trio: Bert, Tom and William (played by Mark Hadlow (again) and William Kircher and Peter Hambleton (again) respectively), alongside some digital animation worthy of Andy Serkis cum cgi-creation Gollum. If ever the perfect embodiment of Tolkien's own characterization, in both spirit and letter, can be said to have been carried out to flawless perfection in any of the Jackson films, these three - Bert, Tom and William - personify it. And for sheer creepiness combined with conscious power and malice, Azog (Chief Goblin Above The Mountain) put in a stellar performance - surprisingly, the only significant character going ******unmentioned in Brian Sibley's just released Official Movie Guide. (*****#1: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where Yours Truly met him in person. ******But perhaps Sir Peter et al were determined, following months of mini-releases of film highlights over the worldwide web, to keep a few surprises up their cinematic sleeve.)
Unfortunately the initial snippets of Smaug the Dragon (the chief villain of the saga - in Bilbo's words from the book "the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities") were also a chief, a great disappointment to this ardent book fan (that is, if the oriental 'dragon streamers' were meant to be a representation of Smaug, seemingly highly unlikely though the two to three (lone) images in quick succession seem to leave no alternative conclusion)...redeemed - hugely, however - by the final, fleeting glimpses of the same emerging from his treasure hordes in Mount Erebor as the film ends...'unfinished' and awaiting instalments two and three. And although (Sir) Ian McKellen's performance as Gandalf in possibly the second (alongside Thorin) major role - at least in this first film - is more than adequate, even a classy act, it seems somewhat below his - admittedly hard to emulate - LOTR performances. Similarly with all three of the minimally featured senior 'old-timers' from LOTR - i.e. Hugo Weaving's Elrond, Cate Blanchett's the Lady Galadriel and (Sir) Christopher Lee's Saruman. Though again, all more than adequate performances, Saruman, like Gandalf, appeared overly tired, weary, but perhaps they're simply getting on in years, and looking every bit of it as well. Gollum also didn't quite do it for me - perhaps from seeing so many LOTR backgrounders - yet when I recollect seeing him again on screen last night, there's absolutely nothing to fault about his performance; if anything, he seemed a mirror image of the Gollum we've come to love so dearly in The Two Towers and Return of the King.
Maybe the cgi treatment - certainly not Andy Serkis' performance much less voice - didn't seem to have anything novel (even if technically it did). But enough of my musings.
As with Lord of the Rings, it would appear from initial soundings in the international film critic community that, for whatever reason: be it all the numerous controversies swirling seemingly endlessly around the creation of this new epic trilogy, and its director; be it a hangover of resentment from how the second LOTR film, The Two Towers, so closely correlating chronologically and
ostensibly substantively with the Twin Towers tragedy of 9/11, was thus seen as apparently, implicitly lending its endorsement to the worldwide War on Terror that ensued; be it simple envy of Peter Jackson, Weta et al's rollercoaster success ride in recent years; be it simple fatigue with the apparent plethora of fantasy films in recent times; be it a super-abundance this year of other excellent film offerings; be it the sense of inevitability that the other films in the trilogy, or at least the last, will see PJ et al - as they assuredly did with Lord of the Rings, when the excellent first part of the trilogy was conspicuously and strangely ignored - scoop up a dragon horde's worth of awards that come late but not never; or be it an actual, genuine dislike of the substance and (adapted) storyline of this first hobbit film: Hobbit #1 is destined to be overlooked, even positively ignored when the gilded largesse of movie-making internationale is soon enough distributed. That will be a pity - if not the type (of pity) shown by Bilbo towards Gollum when given the chance to finish him off for good. For this film and its splendid, superbly cast crew will not have been judged upon their actual merits but upon apparently arbitrary and extraneous standards and criteria, whether these be:
political prejudice and/or personal pique; inevitable and understandable fantasy fatigue; a veritable bread-basket of alternative film offerings; a sense of resentful or fatalistic inevitability about PJ et al's soon enough rebounding and metaphorically slaying all their numerous film rivals; or sincere dislike or disdain. And let's be brutally honest: except for the third and very last of these, that's well beyond the remit of the Oscars and Academy Awards.
And I reserve the last word on the film to Yours Truly - i.e. to me, myself and I. If The Hobbit #1 was really so very bad, the fact that my personal appreciation only blossomed within a week, at a time when a number of negative reviews were rapidly gaining oxygen and traction, and when I then viewed it again without any special (3D or HFR) technical aides and effects whatsoever, surely provides an apt, if admittedly anecdotal, rebuff to such assessments. If I do say so myself.
Necessary Disclaimer: I'll admit I'm not a film reviewer by trade or hobby, but as a lover of The Hobbit - rereading it multiple times, including during the recent run-up to its grand premiering - my passionate interest and 'jealousy', as in loyalty, to Tolkien's writing makes me a fair judge, I believe. Much as sports fans and automobile enthusiasts are a reasonable source to consult when it comes to judging the merits of a particular team, game and/or performance. And best I can recall the few book and film reviews I did while taking creative English writing classes at our local varsity a decade or so ago were judged reasonable enough.
Hugely conscious that Low-Lifers Anonymous, certain doctrinaire partisan political ideologues, elitist film critics and literary purists, and other signed-up and sealed members of Peter Jackson Knockers Incorporated (both domestic and global) are busily crawling out of their snake-pits to spout their vitriolic venom at Sir Peter and spread their snivelly slime (read: 'snot' - and not the troll variety) upon his new creation and infect the body populace with their viral viciousness as I write - just for starters, let me declare, vis-a-vis The Hobbit film #1: Overall, a *supercalifragilisticexpialidocious kinda flick - 'wunderbar' as the Germans (apparently 'as a nation' huge fans of the (**most recent) film adaptation of J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy) would say. (*My local library assures me of the correctness of this spelling!**There actually was an animated two-hour version of Tolkien's LOTR in 1978, largely unknown and for good reason long since faded into obscurity.)
The following features were what particularly grabbed me - and held me fast - in viewing the film: 3D High Frame Rate the day it premiered nationwide (Wednesday, December 12th, but no midnight session for me); and again yesterday evening on my 48th birthday, the 18th of December, when I saw it in simple, good 'ole-fashioned 2D, and was pleasantly surprised to find it had already grown hugely upon me in less than a week. So how do I rate it, as one humble pleb among a nation, indeed world, of such viewers? In visual impact, simply superb, even breathtakingly brilliant, quite literally out of this world - if not that of Middle Earth. Here I include the scenery (surpassing all 3 ***'predecessor' Lord Of The Rings' films in toto), costuming, special effects (revisiting good 'ole CGI), dramatic tension and resolution, colour, lighting etc. As with the Rings' films, the various flashback scenes are almost flawlessly enacted and moreover are brilliantly 'cut' and weaved rather seamlessly into the surrounding story, especially the various introductory scenes of the Lonely Mountain and the assorted dwarf versus orc and goblin battle royales. In characterization (both casting and acting delivery): off the charts, yes, you'll even want to write home about it; especially the main character/ hero, Bilbo Baggins, ("Bagginses" to Gollum), played by Martin Freeman. (***In chronology of production and release, admittedly, but actually 'successors' in the real time of Middle Earth.)
What can one say? This was and is and will no doubt prove to be throughout the remainder of the films, a brilliant typecast by Peter Jackson - whose unfailing instincts failed to fail him yet again. (Yours Truly early on sent Peter Jackson (even if, I suppose, it's extremely doubtful he ever saw it) a photo (magazine shot) of a potential (indeed lookalike) Bilbo Baggins - an American by the 'unreal' name of Bob Gass, who was the absolute spitting image of that older Bilbo (Senior - who appears in both the Rings' trilogy and the start of this film).) Seeing as, since finding the ring, Bilbo wasn't supposed to have aged at all, I couldn't quite see why the same good 'ole (Sir) Ian Holm - or a virtual replica such as Bob Gass, if Ian had no longer been available - wouldn't have well sufficed. (At the appropriate juncture, that is, i.e. halfway through the film (#1), though I accept the practical logistics of such would entail numerous potential difficulties.) Nevertheless Martin Freeman's Bilbo, serving as the perfect younger counterpart to the equally superbly cast and acted (Ian Holm's) Bilbo of (mainly) the Rings' trilogy, is so supremely wrought that all niggling criticisms vanish in the proverbial puff of magical dragon smoke.
In reproducing 'the letter' of the book. The Hobbit leaves much - in every way - to be desired, quite frankly; in reflecting and representing the essential 'spirit' of Tolkien's The Hobbit, as with PJ's LOTR film adaptation of J R R's classic tome Lord of the Rings, it is an exquisitely, even beautifully rendered offering to Tolkien aficionados. And containing the perfect mix of serious and comic elements, especially at its outset, befitting the much loved kid's fantasy story that it is. Moreover, fulfilling - if not exceeding - all hopes of Rings' movie devotees, in their introductory, connecting, storytelling roles at the film's beginning, both Ian Holm's Bilbo Senior and Elijah Wood's Frodo faithfully come to the party and ably meet longstanding viewer expectations. As Galadriel might be imagined intoning in the background: "Welcome back [to the Shire] Masters Frodo and Bilbo Baggins."
Other characterizations are worthy of note, such as these excellent performances (and casting decisions): Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield - suitably and preeminently grave, intense, focused and clearly defined; and Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown alongside his wonderful avian confidants, beloved hedgehogs, and rabbit (sled) crew. Though some understandably regard Radagast's portrayal as somewhat odd, even eccentric in the extreme - and who's disputing that? - I found it a delightful touch, marrying both the film's much noted and extensive use of both the Lord of the Rings' ****trilogy's voluminous appendices, and Tolkien's understated character development of the rather obscure backblocks wizard Radagast in that epic. (****Or rather sestet, seeing as Tolkien himself actually split each of the three parts in his LOTR series into two smaller books, though in fact had them published only as a trilogy.)
I also (especially) loved these guys' beards and fierce, dwarfish demeanour and attitude: Graham McTavish's Dwalin, John Callen's Oin and Peter Hambleton's Gloin. However the combination of ultra-modern (if dwarfish) hair-dos (even 'weir-dos'!), extremely humanish (in particular hairless) faces, and laid-back, cutesy-funny personae of other dwarfs, though intriguing, still seemed an at times incompatible, unbefitting, even unbecoming feature. And so these didn't impact me as powerfully as those preceding characters who displayed an arguably more 'native' dwarfish temperament, though perhaps the latter thus served as an effective foil to their serious cousins' personalities, and, like humans, dwarfs surely vary considerably from dwarf to dwarf. Mark Hadlow's Dori and Ken Stott's Balin seemed to (successfully) combine both elements - i.e. a real, physical dwarfishness with a certain light-hearted personality streak. Overall, an eclectic hodgepodge of physico-temperamental characterizations of which Tolkien might have approved, though 'have been proud' would probably be stretching things. That is, if J R R would or could ever have reconciled himself to a modern-day big screen adaptation of his beloved and ever-so-idiosyncratic Middle Earth, itself somewhat of a stretch admittedly, as Peter Jackson also once openly mused.
But hats and scarves and any other available paraphernalia off to the tale's major villains. Such as Barry Humphries' Goblin King, or the Great Goblin (Under the Mountain) - and as a minor (key) highlight, the little flying fox messenger goblin (the GK's personal assistant/'scribe'), apparently played, animatronically, by Kiran Shah, of Rings, *****Narnia and other blockbuster movie fame.
Also - and equally brilliant (in both sheer physicality and characterization): the Trollshaw Trio: Bert, Tom and William (played by Mark Hadlow (again) and William Kircher and Peter Hambleton (again) respectively), alongside some digital animation worthy of Andy Serkis cum cgi-creation Gollum. If ever the perfect embodiment of Tolkien's own characterization, in both spirit and letter, can be said to have been carried out to flawless perfection in any of the Jackson films, these three - Bert, Tom and William - personify it. And for sheer creepiness combined with conscious power and malice, Azog (Chief Goblin Above The Mountain) put in a stellar performance - surprisingly, the only significant character going ******unmentioned in Brian Sibley's just released Official Movie Guide. (*****#1: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where Yours Truly met him in person. ******But perhaps Sir Peter et al were determined, following months of mini-releases of film highlights over the worldwide web, to keep a few surprises up their cinematic sleeve.)
Unfortunately the initial snippets of Smaug the Dragon (the chief villain of the saga - in Bilbo's words from the book "the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities") were also a chief, a great disappointment to this ardent book fan (that is, if the oriental 'dragon streamers' were meant to be a representation of Smaug, seemingly highly unlikely though the two to three (lone) images in quick succession seem to leave no alternative conclusion)...redeemed - hugely, however - by the final, fleeting glimpses of the same emerging from his treasure hordes in Mount Erebor as the film ends...'unfinished' and awaiting instalments two and three. And although (Sir) Ian McKellen's performance as Gandalf in possibly the second (alongside Thorin) major role - at least in this first film - is more than adequate, even a classy act, it seems somewhat below his - admittedly hard to emulate - LOTR performances. Similarly with all three of the minimally featured senior 'old-timers' from LOTR - i.e. Hugo Weaving's Elrond, Cate Blanchett's the Lady Galadriel and (Sir) Christopher Lee's Saruman. Though again, all more than adequate performances, Saruman, like Gandalf, appeared overly tired, weary, but perhaps they're simply getting on in years, and looking every bit of it as well. Gollum also didn't quite do it for me - perhaps from seeing so many LOTR backgrounders - yet when I recollect seeing him again on screen last night, there's absolutely nothing to fault about his performance; if anything, he seemed a mirror image of the Gollum we've come to love so dearly in The Two Towers and Return of the King.
Maybe the cgi treatment - certainly not Andy Serkis' performance much less voice - didn't seem to have anything novel (even if technically it did). But enough of my musings.
As with Lord of the Rings, it would appear from initial soundings in the international film critic community that, for whatever reason: be it all the numerous controversies swirling seemingly endlessly around the creation of this new epic trilogy, and its director; be it a hangover of resentment from how the second LOTR film, The Two Towers, so closely correlating chronologically and
ostensibly substantively with the Twin Towers tragedy of 9/11, was thus seen as apparently, implicitly lending its endorsement to the worldwide War on Terror that ensued; be it simple envy of Peter Jackson, Weta et al's rollercoaster success ride in recent years; be it simple fatigue with the apparent plethora of fantasy films in recent times; be it a super-abundance this year of other excellent film offerings; be it the sense of inevitability that the other films in the trilogy, or at least the last, will see PJ et al - as they assuredly did with Lord of the Rings, when the excellent first part of the trilogy was conspicuously and strangely ignored - scoop up a dragon horde's worth of awards that come late but not never; or be it an actual, genuine dislike of the substance and (adapted) storyline of this first hobbit film: Hobbit #1 is destined to be overlooked, even positively ignored when the gilded largesse of movie-making internationale is soon enough distributed. That will be a pity - if not the type (of pity) shown by Bilbo towards Gollum when given the chance to finish him off for good. For this film and its splendid, superbly cast crew will not have been judged upon their actual merits but upon apparently arbitrary and extraneous standards and criteria, whether these be:
political prejudice and/or personal pique; inevitable and understandable fantasy fatigue; a veritable bread-basket of alternative film offerings; a sense of resentful or fatalistic inevitability about PJ et al's soon enough rebounding and metaphorically slaying all their numerous film rivals; or sincere dislike or disdain. And let's be brutally honest: except for the third and very last of these, that's well beyond the remit of the Oscars and Academy Awards.
And I reserve the last word on the film to Yours Truly - i.e. to me, myself and I. If The Hobbit #1 was really so very bad, the fact that my personal appreciation only blossomed within a week, at a time when a number of negative reviews were rapidly gaining oxygen and traction, and when I then viewed it again without any special (3D or HFR) technical aides and effects whatsoever, surely provides an apt, if admittedly anecdotal, rebuff to such assessments. If I do say so myself.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Yes, Isn't Everyone An Instant Genius After the Fact
Tragedies still happen. Mistakes occasionally do occur. People aren't always perfect. Stuff goes down.
So what's new? Welcome to the human race. No, life isn't fair, even if way back yonder it was apparently created to be (so). It's long since ceased to be (thus) - "with knobs on", as some like to say.
Yet every action carries its own consequence/s, each cause has its effect/s. Sure, some small - and oh so gradual - but inevitable nonetheless: someday - somewhere - somehow... . But oh, how brilliant is hindsight. We're all - ever, always - experts 'after the fact', when all is done and dusted, when the proverbial dust has settled, when everything's over, rover...especially when(ever) we're home and hosed. Oh yes, we're top of the class.
Or so we like to think. But is it really so? Are we actually so perfect, so flawless ourselves. No, really?
So for all those frantically scrambling onto the frenzied media-generated bandwagon and baying for blood in the aftermath, the fallout of a U.K nurse's tragic suicide: look, it was really 'just a prank', which went badly wrong...yet there, but for the grace of God, go you and I...no, really.
But no, I'm sorry; my earnest, heartfelt apologies - and forgiveness requested: you'd never do that, would you... . Well, if that's your verdict, well-considered or otherwise, then so be it - only don't expect myself or anyone else to beat down a path to your door, extending mercy and forgiveness whenever you foul up.
Hasn't One spoken thus?: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." And: "Those who are well have no need of a Physician, but (only) those who are sick." Yes, you can hold on for dear life to all your accumulated, lifelong-purchased perfection and self-righteousness, but - ultimately - you can't expect to have it both ways, as the man who was (effectively) my step-dad for much of my childhood, at least teenage years liked to say: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Though I've little doubt you'll try hard enough.
Yes, everyone's an expert after the fact. But really, who'd've guessed the ultimate outcome from recent well-reported events over the telephone cables between Australia and Great Britain? Oh, you did? Well then, congratulations - and celebrations - as the old song goes. Sorry, you actually didn't? Then please refrain from carrying on as if you did. And acting as two innocent jokesters' judge, jury and executioners.
But if you persist, did you realize there's a name for your kind? Well there is. If not the long-foretold Antichrist, then let's just say you're one of his dutiful minions, one of many antichrists. No, I'm really not kidding, if you're pardon the irony. You've just seen fit to usurp the prerogatives of The Only Just Judge, and has He not said, through His messenger James, the Lord's own (earthly) brother, in words admitting of no possible misunderstanding whatsoever, no ifs, buts or even (the slightest) maybes?:
"Judgment is [i.e. is now and will be later on as well] without mercy to the one [i.e. all those] who has[have]
shown no mercy." So watch out - you might well be next!
So what's new? Welcome to the human race. No, life isn't fair, even if way back yonder it was apparently created to be (so). It's long since ceased to be (thus) - "with knobs on", as some like to say.
Yet every action carries its own consequence/s, each cause has its effect/s. Sure, some small - and oh so gradual - but inevitable nonetheless: someday - somewhere - somehow... . But oh, how brilliant is hindsight. We're all - ever, always - experts 'after the fact', when all is done and dusted, when the proverbial dust has settled, when everything's over, rover...especially when(ever) we're home and hosed. Oh yes, we're top of the class.
Or so we like to think. But is it really so? Are we actually so perfect, so flawless ourselves. No, really?
So for all those frantically scrambling onto the frenzied media-generated bandwagon and baying for blood in the aftermath, the fallout of a U.K nurse's tragic suicide: look, it was really 'just a prank', which went badly wrong...yet there, but for the grace of God, go you and I...no, really.
But no, I'm sorry; my earnest, heartfelt apologies - and forgiveness requested: you'd never do that, would you... . Well, if that's your verdict, well-considered or otherwise, then so be it - only don't expect myself or anyone else to beat down a path to your door, extending mercy and forgiveness whenever you foul up.
Hasn't One spoken thus?: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." And: "Those who are well have no need of a Physician, but (only) those who are sick." Yes, you can hold on for dear life to all your accumulated, lifelong-purchased perfection and self-righteousness, but - ultimately - you can't expect to have it both ways, as the man who was (effectively) my step-dad for much of my childhood, at least teenage years liked to say: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Though I've little doubt you'll try hard enough.
Yes, everyone's an expert after the fact. But really, who'd've guessed the ultimate outcome from recent well-reported events over the telephone cables between Australia and Great Britain? Oh, you did? Well then, congratulations - and celebrations - as the old song goes. Sorry, you actually didn't? Then please refrain from carrying on as if you did. And acting as two innocent jokesters' judge, jury and executioners.
But if you persist, did you realize there's a name for your kind? Well there is. If not the long-foretold Antichrist, then let's just say you're one of his dutiful minions, one of many antichrists. No, I'm really not kidding, if you're pardon the irony. You've just seen fit to usurp the prerogatives of The Only Just Judge, and has He not said, through His messenger James, the Lord's own (earthly) brother, in words admitting of no possible misunderstanding whatsoever, no ifs, buts or even (the slightest) maybes?:
"Judgment is [i.e. is now and will be later on as well] without mercy to the one [i.e. all those] who has[have]
shown no mercy." So watch out - you might well be next!
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Replaying That Worn Out Record Over and Over and Over Again: Well, We've [All] Been There, and Now We're Back Again - already
*The script has been oh so predictable, really quite corny.
*The villain of the piece: one overtly and overly successful and widely popular 'leader of men', alongside his latest pet project.
*The crime: being - way - too successful and popular for his own good, and failing to bear fools gladly.
*The heroes & heroines: a ragtag assortment of envious and spiteful, ne'er-do-well also-rans, seeking for publicity and fame off the back of their arch foe, and ever eager to knock yet another presumptuous tall poppy off his high perch before it all starts to go to his head.
*The chief protagonists: one dark-complexioned, cagey conspirator from foreign fields, with his three local accomplices: one sharp and smooth-tongued and seemingly sage, the other two good-hearted though naive, one outrageously fortunate, the other hailing from close to home.
*The plot: A variety of concocted, trumped-up charges, posited fast and furiously by a cabal of apparently unassociated, unrelated individuals and groups, in order to knock said villain from his lofty and heady heights, to 'bring him down to earth' and attempt to show him just one more mere mortal among a world of such beings. Attempting, in the process, to destroy his reputation and credibility, alongside those of his many and similarly esteemed colleagues, and thus bring their major lifework into disrepute and dishonour.
**Success of the plot? Eventually a total flop - a failure on a grand scale - as the plot unravels thick and fast even as the various protagonists scramble furiously every which way seeking to turn any remaining loose ends to their advantage, while also stitching up new and ever more intriguing conspiratorial subplots and subtexts into the overall narrative of their endgame grand design.
**Ultimate moral of the story? As either Aesop or the Good Lord might have put it, the one who rolls a stone will have it roll back upon her own person, those who dig a pit will eventually fall into it themselves.
**Rating? "PG"(Parental Guidance Recommended) In order to explain the inherent subtleties and innate nuances of the plot to uninitiated observers, onlookers and newcomers, in case they too are, all too easily and cleverly, taken in by each and every unexpected twist and turn the story takes as it progresses.
*The villain of the piece: one overtly and overly successful and widely popular 'leader of men', alongside his latest pet project.
*The crime: being - way - too successful and popular for his own good, and failing to bear fools gladly.
*The heroes & heroines: a ragtag assortment of envious and spiteful, ne'er-do-well also-rans, seeking for publicity and fame off the back of their arch foe, and ever eager to knock yet another presumptuous tall poppy off his high perch before it all starts to go to his head.
*The chief protagonists: one dark-complexioned, cagey conspirator from foreign fields, with his three local accomplices: one sharp and smooth-tongued and seemingly sage, the other two good-hearted though naive, one outrageously fortunate, the other hailing from close to home.
*The plot: A variety of concocted, trumped-up charges, posited fast and furiously by a cabal of apparently unassociated, unrelated individuals and groups, in order to knock said villain from his lofty and heady heights, to 'bring him down to earth' and attempt to show him just one more mere mortal among a world of such beings. Attempting, in the process, to destroy his reputation and credibility, alongside those of his many and similarly esteemed colleagues, and thus bring their major lifework into disrepute and dishonour.
**Success of the plot? Eventually a total flop - a failure on a grand scale - as the plot unravels thick and fast even as the various protagonists scramble furiously every which way seeking to turn any remaining loose ends to their advantage, while also stitching up new and ever more intriguing conspiratorial subplots and subtexts into the overall narrative of their endgame grand design.
**Ultimate moral of the story? As either Aesop or the Good Lord might have put it, the one who rolls a stone will have it roll back upon her own person, those who dig a pit will eventually fall into it themselves.
**Rating? "PG"(Parental Guidance Recommended) In order to explain the inherent subtleties and innate nuances of the plot to uninitiated observers, onlookers and newcomers, in case they too are, all too easily and cleverly, taken in by each and every unexpected twist and turn the story takes as it progresses.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
But Let's Beware of Making Israel Into World Villain #1 & International Pariah To Boot
Though the following once roughly drafted, now somewhat spruced up 'letter to the editor' was within days overtaken by a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, these 'troubled thoughts of the night' give proper balance to and provide some degree of context (in my view) to this lay-person's reading of the long-running Palestinian-Israeli conflict:
As per usual, unequivocally the full weight of accepted international moral opinion and consensus comes down upon and falls heavily against the Israelis - as represented by their Government's actions of late.
Granted - and it's a big concession - Israel certainly did kick-start this conflict anew, in one major, important sense, by choosing to - at this time - 'take out' in exactly such a clinically well-planned, organized and executed assassination, a leading member of Hamas. For who knows what underlying reason? Perhaps as a major distraction, with knowledge of attention all too undesired to soon come upon them again - whether well-deserved or otherwise - for the death in 2004 of Yasser Arafat, a beloved leader of the Palestinians. Someone who, love him or hate him, exuded a natural charisma and leadership on the world stage unequalled by any other popular Middle East leader since Abdul Nasser; excepting Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein, though these two were hated, loathed and detested in significantly greater proportion. Or maybe, as has been said, simply as an age-old device in drumming up support ahead of a rapidly approaching election.
So here we have it: the widely acknowledged militarily stronger nation in the conflict, Israel, supposedly - admittedly its vehement critics would argue only ostensibly - goes out of its way to avoid causing civilian casualties, yet actually 'achieves' exactly the opposite outcome among Gazan civilians (through arguably no fault of its own). Whereas that selfsame country, Israel, daily and hourly suffering intense aerial bombardment throughout its territory, perpetrated by a party, yes arguably the guilty aggressor in the conflict, determined thus to 'take out' as many innocents as possible, fails miserably in its aim but certainly not for want of trying or intention. And so we come to judge one party - i.e. the Israelites - as ipso facto the aggressor in the conflict, due to the evident results of its actions.Whereas the other party in the conflict, the Hamas militants in Gaza, despite motive-wise, apparently having no greater desire than to kill as many innocent Israelis as possible -none of their missiles evidently being aimed at obvious military targets - are rather impotent as it turns out, and so are to be automatically adjudged the innocent party. I'm sorry, something's not quite right here. If I indeed am wrong, then pray tell me in what appreciable way?
Indeed, Israel's Government amazingly made no upping of its long-threatened escalation of said conflict (by sending ground troops into Gaza) even while yet another bus full of completely innocent and totally defenceless Israeli civilians were bombed to smithereens - without either a murmur or a whisper from the international community, much less its supposed 'guardians' the United Nations. Which reminds me of a number of old newspaper clippings I've been stumbling upon recently, which alarmed and concerned me at the time in view of the international media approach to Israel. What were these? Simply two occasions over the past decade-and-a-couple years when Israel, in order to secure the release from captivity of one (or at most a few) of its soldiers in Palestinian (I believe Gazan) captivity, willingly and rather controversially - among its citizenry - to put it mildly, agreed to simultaneously release around 500 Palestinians prisoners. So who - really - cares more about its own civilian (or for that matter military) population?
As per usual, unequivocally the full weight of accepted international moral opinion and consensus comes down upon and falls heavily against the Israelis - as represented by their Government's actions of late.
But who's at real or at least most fault here? Arguably not the Israelis, merely exercising the long-established and universally all too well-understood right - of sovereign nations and/or peoples - to self-defence; by whatever means are at their disposal. Suffering daily, continual and intense bombardment from an enemy, apparently bent upon their - utter - destruction, or at the very least their abject terrorizing, they simply respond with surgically precise air strikes - sadly, and yes all too predictably, killing many innocent civilians including small kids in the process; (among families, according to Israel's Government, however, deliberately 'planted' next to missile silos and the like, to subsequently elicit popular sympathy for the Gazans' side of the conflict.) Whereas since the Israelis manage, through clever(er) technology and/or simply better preparedness, to evade such civilian death - losing very few citizens to Hamas rocket fire - they are automatically deemed the moral transgressor in the conflict. Since the Gazan Palestinians are thus clearly understood to be the natural underdog, 'we' instantly come to their defence and support, much as few people would tend to rally in support of Goliath when David is being overshadowed and threatened darkly with death. That's human nature, clearly understood and very understandable.
Granted - and it's a big concession - Israel certainly did kick-start this conflict anew, in one major, important sense, by choosing to - at this time - 'take out' in exactly such a clinically well-planned, organized and executed assassination, a leading member of Hamas. For who knows what underlying reason? Perhaps as a major distraction, with knowledge of attention all too undesired to soon come upon them again - whether well-deserved or otherwise - for the death in 2004 of Yasser Arafat, a beloved leader of the Palestinians. Someone who, love him or hate him, exuded a natural charisma and leadership on the world stage unequalled by any other popular Middle East leader since Abdul Nasser; excepting Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein, though these two were hated, loathed and detested in significantly greater proportion. Or maybe, as has been said, simply as an age-old device in drumming up support ahead of a rapidly approaching election.
So here we have it: the widely acknowledged militarily stronger nation in the conflict, Israel, supposedly - admittedly its vehement critics would argue only ostensibly - goes out of its way to avoid causing civilian casualties, yet actually 'achieves' exactly the opposite outcome among Gazan civilians (through arguably no fault of its own). Whereas that selfsame country, Israel, daily and hourly suffering intense aerial bombardment throughout its territory, perpetrated by a party, yes arguably the guilty aggressor in the conflict, determined thus to 'take out' as many innocents as possible, fails miserably in its aim but certainly not for want of trying or intention. And so we come to judge one party - i.e. the Israelites - as ipso facto the aggressor in the conflict, due to the evident results of its actions.Whereas the other party in the conflict, the Hamas militants in Gaza, despite motive-wise, apparently having no greater desire than to kill as many innocent Israelis as possible -none of their missiles evidently being aimed at obvious military targets - are rather impotent as it turns out, and so are to be automatically adjudged the innocent party. I'm sorry, something's not quite right here. If I indeed am wrong, then pray tell me in what appreciable way?
Indeed, Israel's Government amazingly made no upping of its long-threatened escalation of said conflict (by sending ground troops into Gaza) even while yet another bus full of completely innocent and totally defenceless Israeli civilians were bombed to smithereens - without either a murmur or a whisper from the international community, much less its supposed 'guardians' the United Nations. Which reminds me of a number of old newspaper clippings I've been stumbling upon recently, which alarmed and concerned me at the time in view of the international media approach to Israel. What were these? Simply two occasions over the past decade-and-a-couple years when Israel, in order to secure the release from captivity of one (or at most a few) of its soldiers in Palestinian (I believe Gazan) captivity, willingly and rather controversially - among its citizenry - to put it mildly, agreed to simultaneously release around 500 Palestinians prisoners. So who - really - cares more about its own civilian (or for that matter military) population?
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Alas, Yasser Arafat's Legacy May Soon And Sadly Speak...
Methinks the current exhumation of Yasser Arafat, longstanding leader of the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization - and moreover undisputed 'spiritual leader' to the great majority of Palestinians -long rumoured to vindicate claims that he was poisoned to death those 8-some years ago now, may well prove those [claims] well-founded. And methinks this has indeed been the underlying and even 'justifiable' explanation for the long-simmering and again recently boiled over anger, yea fury, of so many Palestinians in Gaza. For surely this [only just undertaken] exhumation of his remains, in the expectation that such may well reveal signs of the untoward manner and cause of his premature departure from this life, has been only too well-reported in Gaza of late, and long before the longstanding tensions there once again came so dramatically to the surface in recent weeks. However controversial the life of this longserving champion of his people - an unwavering advocate of a Palestinian homeland for the long-dispossessed Palestinian people (although arguably also of the expulsion of Israelis from Palestine 'into the [Mediterranean] sea' and thus their utter extermination) - the actual cause of his death, long the subject of suspicion, if only now long after the fact close to being (theoretically) 'conclusively' established, should give ample pause to all parties involved and yes, maybe even soul-searching, among Israelis and Americans especially, in days and weeks and months to come. One can only ever live in hope. Irrespective of any 'verdict' or declaration upon the matter, however, one suspects that Arafat undoubtedly will be seen anew as a martyr. No, and to his enduring and considerable credit, he certainly didn't self-immolate or die in a suicide bombing, taking both his own life as well as that of countless innocents, but martyr for the cause he may well come to be regarded as. All the more so in that, whatever and moreover whoever the cause of his early demise, he thus appears to have been 'taken out of the way' in an extraordinary and surreptitious manner all too eerily reminiscent of Russia's current leader.
Admittedly I've personally suspected that Mr Arafat was not only deliberately 'disposed of', but done so for one reason more than any other: the well-founded and arguably justifiable conviction on the part of Israeli intelligence and security especially - and perhaps even their superiors going all the way up into the inner echelons of Israeli Government - that were he to have not been thus summarily despatched the world may well have seen its end in an atomic holocaust centered around Jerusalem in 2006: a scenario well within conceivable feasibility according to the revelations in Michael Drosnin's groundbreaking and critically important The Bible Code (unfortunately misrepresented by some superficial observers). Conspiracy theories some may assume, but I imagine such is a lot closer to the real crux of the matter than many imagine. And paradoxically, in so doing I also suspect that such covert assassins have - however inadvertently and inconceivably (in their own eyes) - actually thus moved Planet Earth a heckuva lot closer to such a long-feared scenario than they realize: a couple minutes if not seconds away from the long-fabled Doomsday Clock's hands striking midnight. Indeed by thus galvanizing the outraged sympathies and passions of the Palestinian people for their beloved long-time standard-bearer, thus transformed into an unrivalled and inimitable martyr for their cause par excellence, and by virtue of the appalling manner of his death perhaps even 'being able' consequently to enlist the similarly outraged sympathies of a world populace, or at least the leadership thereof, equally appalled by the thus silencing and disposal of a man generally considered not only a paragon of supreme moderation and even pragmatism in Palestinian-Israeli affairs, I - extremely regretfully - believe "the children of Ismael will [thus] prepare to arouse all the nations of the world to come against Jerusalem"*, and thus fulfil longstanding biblical prophecies that are rapidly looking increasingly liable of fulfilment...(From 'Chapter Notes', pages 170-172, The Bible Code.) But I certainly hope such is not the case, and like Michael Drosnin and Eliyahu Rips, the now famous Israeli mathematician intimately associated with the decoding of said 'Bible Code', and indeed a whole host of other commentators upon and (at times suitably hesitant and tentative) interpreters of various of the other major end-time, apocalyptic prophecies of a time many believe to be all too resonant with our own, believe - as has indeed ever been the case throughout the 'biblical (i.e. Older and Newer Testament) dispensation' - that humanity, by its own choices - has an essential freedom to choose just how those, supposedly predetermined' events, actually pan out. I.e. God's foreknowledge does not indicate His foreordaining.
And yet, realist that I cannot help but ultimately be, I suspect that Mr Arafat, "being dead, yet speaketh", and not in the faith-building way that his martyred biblical forbear - the first human being created, and all too soon murdered by his own brother - has surely done over earth's many millennia. No, I suspect rather that the manner - and presumed cause - of his demise will bear 'fruit' indeed, if long after the fact, but in a way far from conducive to that long-eluding peace in the Middle East that the region's numerous and diverse inhabitants and indeed humanity itself, have long wistfully yearned for and equally consistently been cheated of. As Grima Wormtongue of Lord of the Rings might have put it, an ill omen bearing evil tidings indeed.
Admittedly I've personally suspected that Mr Arafat was not only deliberately 'disposed of', but done so for one reason more than any other: the well-founded and arguably justifiable conviction on the part of Israeli intelligence and security especially - and perhaps even their superiors going all the way up into the inner echelons of Israeli Government - that were he to have not been thus summarily despatched the world may well have seen its end in an atomic holocaust centered around Jerusalem in 2006: a scenario well within conceivable feasibility according to the revelations in Michael Drosnin's groundbreaking and critically important The Bible Code (unfortunately misrepresented by some superficial observers). Conspiracy theories some may assume, but I imagine such is a lot closer to the real crux of the matter than many imagine. And paradoxically, in so doing I also suspect that such covert assassins have - however inadvertently and inconceivably (in their own eyes) - actually thus moved Planet Earth a heckuva lot closer to such a long-feared scenario than they realize: a couple minutes if not seconds away from the long-fabled Doomsday Clock's hands striking midnight. Indeed by thus galvanizing the outraged sympathies and passions of the Palestinian people for their beloved long-time standard-bearer, thus transformed into an unrivalled and inimitable martyr for their cause par excellence, and by virtue of the appalling manner of his death perhaps even 'being able' consequently to enlist the similarly outraged sympathies of a world populace, or at least the leadership thereof, equally appalled by the thus silencing and disposal of a man generally considered not only a paragon of supreme moderation and even pragmatism in Palestinian-Israeli affairs, I - extremely regretfully - believe "the children of Ismael will [thus] prepare to arouse all the nations of the world to come against Jerusalem"*, and thus fulfil longstanding biblical prophecies that are rapidly looking increasingly liable of fulfilment...(From 'Chapter Notes', pages 170-172, The Bible Code.) But I certainly hope such is not the case, and like Michael Drosnin and Eliyahu Rips, the now famous Israeli mathematician intimately associated with the decoding of said 'Bible Code', and indeed a whole host of other commentators upon and (at times suitably hesitant and tentative) interpreters of various of the other major end-time, apocalyptic prophecies of a time many believe to be all too resonant with our own, believe - as has indeed ever been the case throughout the 'biblical (i.e. Older and Newer Testament) dispensation' - that humanity, by its own choices - has an essential freedom to choose just how those, supposedly predetermined' events, actually pan out. I.e. God's foreknowledge does not indicate His foreordaining.
And yet, realist that I cannot help but ultimately be, I suspect that Mr Arafat, "being dead, yet speaketh", and not in the faith-building way that his martyred biblical forbear - the first human being created, and all too soon murdered by his own brother - has surely done over earth's many millennia. No, I suspect rather that the manner - and presumed cause - of his demise will bear 'fruit' indeed, if long after the fact, but in a way far from conducive to that long-eluding peace in the Middle East that the region's numerous and diverse inhabitants and indeed humanity itself, have long wistfully yearned for and equally consistently been cheated of. As Grima Wormtongue of Lord of the Rings might have put it, an ill omen bearing evil tidings indeed.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Still It's Somewhat Sad To See...
...pictures of jubilant masses rejoicing in misplaced triumphalism in the streets of Gaza, celebrating and skiting as if they've just achieved, not a painstakingly arrived at ceasefire, in the very nick of time, but rather a glorious victory upon the field of battle. And, to add sad and inglorious insult to injury, pronouncing this 'triumph' as if it were one more notch in a tally of victories against the much loathed and feared 'Zionists' of Israel. For such is certainly the tenor and substance of the understandably emotive but surely inflammatory language reported by foreign correspondents in Gaza. That is, if we are to trust the evidence of our eyes, admittedly often a dangerous thing; but the telecast celebratory marches and associated 'spontaneous' street demonstrations of solidarity with the militant, yea terrorist Hamas movement presently governing Gaza, would tend to lend 'cred' to such an interpretation. Leaving one to wonder whether this present 'blip in [Israeli-Gazan] proceedings' is really serious and liable to extend beyond the token customary period.
And certainly Israel's Government, on the other hand, by threatening speedy and severe retaliatory measures in the immediate aftermath of the recent conflict, may well bring short-term comfort to its citizenry, but how such helps accomplish a climate of goodwill and hope in the extremely fraught situation is incomprehensible to the nth degree. For surely in such a highly charged atmosphere every pebble thrown into the maelstrom of muddy waters known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not altogether dissimilar from yanking the lid off of Pandora's Box. Sure, the potentially dire consequences are anything but unexpected, yet they are certainly considerable, and where they might ultimately lead 'God only knows'...
*Necessary Disclaimer: In saying all the foregoing I'm well aware how utterly and thoroughly insensitive such comments no doubt initially and superficially might have appeared, and so I hasten to add that they were in no sense to be taken as casting any sort of unfair and untoward reflections upon those who've lately been suffering extreme grief and anguish from the killing, maiming and otherwise mutilating of their kids, parents and other relatives, friends, colleagues and neighbours, let alone the destruction of their homes and environs. Mind you, surely that 'goes', i.e. applies equally to all those likewise innocent Israelis suffering similar - if on a much lesser scale - trauma, and let's not forget the ongoing and irrevocable psycho-emotional trauma induced by all of the same, as well as that inevitably caused by the ongoing regular bombardment of one's overall vicinity, though apparently without (military) 'success', which so often either goes unnoticed or not fully appreciated by the casualty 'number crunchers' in their penchant for 'cold hard facts and stats'.
And certainly Israel's Government, on the other hand, by threatening speedy and severe retaliatory measures in the immediate aftermath of the recent conflict, may well bring short-term comfort to its citizenry, but how such helps accomplish a climate of goodwill and hope in the extremely fraught situation is incomprehensible to the nth degree. For surely in such a highly charged atmosphere every pebble thrown into the maelstrom of muddy waters known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not altogether dissimilar from yanking the lid off of Pandora's Box. Sure, the potentially dire consequences are anything but unexpected, yet they are certainly considerable, and where they might ultimately lead 'God only knows'...
*Necessary Disclaimer: In saying all the foregoing I'm well aware how utterly and thoroughly insensitive such comments no doubt initially and superficially might have appeared, and so I hasten to add that they were in no sense to be taken as casting any sort of unfair and untoward reflections upon those who've lately been suffering extreme grief and anguish from the killing, maiming and otherwise mutilating of their kids, parents and other relatives, friends, colleagues and neighbours, let alone the destruction of their homes and environs. Mind you, surely that 'goes', i.e. applies equally to all those likewise innocent Israelis suffering similar - if on a much lesser scale - trauma, and let's not forget the ongoing and irrevocable psycho-emotional trauma induced by all of the same, as well as that inevitably caused by the ongoing regular bombardment of one's overall vicinity, though apparently without (military) 'success', which so often either goes unnoticed or not fully appreciated by the casualty 'number crunchers' in their penchant for 'cold hard facts and stats'.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Let All Good Men (& Women) Rejoice, With Heart and Soul and Voice - AND YET...
Whenever 'peace' is achieved, all folk of goodwill cannot but be glad, even thankful...and yet for every silver lining there is inevitably a darker cloud beneath. However, 'today' - the day of the ceasefire brokered between Israel and the Gazans - is not the day to dwell upon that. To paraphrase what the ranger Aragorn - the Dunedain of the North born to Gondorian kingship in the 3rd-4th age of Middle Earth - declared: "there may [indeed] come a day [and no doubt all too soon] when the strength of [Israeli and Gazan] men fail, but this is not that day." A day when the (most disputed part of the) Middle East once more goes up in flaming smoke or down in a flaming heap, but, thank God, "this day is not that day". No, "let us rejoice and be glad": for divine mercies, however 'small' and all-too-temporary. "Blessed [indeed] are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
Monday, October 22, 2012
A Politician of Rare Quality Has Fallen: George McGovern - Rest in Peace Until the Resurrection Day
A great man has died. Though largely unrecognized in his day for his immense moral calibre and yea, even spiritual stature - except for a supposed gaffe/faux pas deemed then and now by the superficial media elite as fatal to his political chances (i.e. his declaring himself entirely, completely, absolutely, "1000%" behind his first vice-presidential running mate of 1972, then Missouri Senator Thomas (Tom) Eagleton, later replaced with/by Peace Corps' Director Sargent Shriver, because of Eagleton's 'mental illness' - depression and having undergone electro-shock therapy) - the man towers head and shoulders above and beyond such petty and all-too-predictable evaluations/assessments/historical judgments.
George McGovern, one-time and long-serving Senator for South Dakota - until the Reagan Republican landslide of 1980 - and Democratic Presidential Nominee against Richard Nixon in 1972, was probably the first politician, alongside perhaps Aotearoa-New Zealand's own idealistic and idealism-inspiring short-lived Prime Minister Norman Kirk (of the same era), to inspire Yours Truly. A man of simple convictions, of heartfelt integrity, moreover of decency and civility - admittedly in an era notably and largely lacking the rudeness and incivility and extremely polarized political discourse of today's American (and Western) politics, Mr McGovern served his state - and nation - well. Irrespective of whether he achieved the ultimate political office. Those attaining such positions aren't always the most deserving let alone effectively redeeming of such immense privileges anyhow - so conspicuously the case in this instance.
Not for him the extremely cynical and again, oh-so-typical epithet applied to all politicians by Newstalk ZB's 'Drivetime Show' host Larry Williams the other day, who in commentating upon President Obama's supposedly superior performance in the recent second U.S. presidential debate, remarked that "[of course] President Obama lied...but they all lie, politics is [all] about the art of bending the truth". Whether such is or more specifically was true of Obama in said debate is itself a debatable point no doubt, and one I have no intention much less desire here of traversing...indeed like most folks I'm really probably not in a position to know - and ditto vis-a-vis Obama's opponent Mitt Romney - but I will say this: though such a characterization would certainly seem 'equally' applicable to Mr McGovern's renowned, yea infamous, even notorious 1972 presidential adversary - the ill-fated, impeached 37th President of the United States - it's not remotely applicable to George McGovern. If he had any fault, much like Yours Truly, it was in being far too open and candid about his views on this, that and the other: to use the rather hackneyed phrase, he wore his heart upon his sleeve.
'When all is said and done' Mr McGovern - the last surviving major presidential contender (successful or otherwise) from the pre-Reagan era, barring President Jimmy Carter - was more than anything else a supremely decent human being. And surely there's not a better tribute one can be paid, is there?
George McGovern, one-time and long-serving Senator for South Dakota - until the Reagan Republican landslide of 1980 - and Democratic Presidential Nominee against Richard Nixon in 1972, was probably the first politician, alongside perhaps Aotearoa-New Zealand's own idealistic and idealism-inspiring short-lived Prime Minister Norman Kirk (of the same era), to inspire Yours Truly. A man of simple convictions, of heartfelt integrity, moreover of decency and civility - admittedly in an era notably and largely lacking the rudeness and incivility and extremely polarized political discourse of today's American (and Western) politics, Mr McGovern served his state - and nation - well. Irrespective of whether he achieved the ultimate political office. Those attaining such positions aren't always the most deserving let alone effectively redeeming of such immense privileges anyhow - so conspicuously the case in this instance.
Not for him the extremely cynical and again, oh-so-typical epithet applied to all politicians by Newstalk ZB's 'Drivetime Show' host Larry Williams the other day, who in commentating upon President Obama's supposedly superior performance in the recent second U.S. presidential debate, remarked that "[of course] President Obama lied...but they all lie, politics is [all] about the art of bending the truth". Whether such is or more specifically was true of Obama in said debate is itself a debatable point no doubt, and one I have no intention much less desire here of traversing...indeed like most folks I'm really probably not in a position to know - and ditto vis-a-vis Obama's opponent Mitt Romney - but I will say this: though such a characterization would certainly seem 'equally' applicable to Mr McGovern's renowned, yea infamous, even notorious 1972 presidential adversary - the ill-fated, impeached 37th President of the United States - it's not remotely applicable to George McGovern. If he had any fault, much like Yours Truly, it was in being far too open and candid about his views on this, that and the other: to use the rather hackneyed phrase, he wore his heart upon his sleeve.
'When all is said and done' Mr McGovern - the last surviving major presidential contender (successful or otherwise) from the pre-Reagan era, barring President Jimmy Carter - was more than anything else a supremely decent human being. And surely there's not a better tribute one can be paid, is there?
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Moral Courage In & From the Most Unlikely Place
At last, one nation, and a solidly Muslim and MiddleEastern one to boot, with the guts, the gumption to stand up on behalf of the hundreds, the thousands, of victims of Syria's butcher Assad; even if - initially anyhow - primarily and largely for 'enlightened self-interest'. In this case in defence of its homeland.Yes, our modern-day United Nations stands "Guilty as charged" with lots of blood quite literally on its hands, for failing to confront Assad for his daily butchery "of tens and hundreds" of innocent civilians. And note nothing of the all-too-typical political exaggeration by Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to press home his point here; rather a careful, measured but all too accurate summation of the situation which is Bashir al-Assad's Syria. And likewise he cited the consistent Russian and Chinese vetoing of U.N. resolutions upon the matter, blocking any and every attempt at a resolution of the Syrian civil war.
Yes, just like Nero did those couple millennia ago, the world and its supposed 'leaders' stand or more aptly sit idly by and fiddle while Assad and his cohorts wreak bloody havoc upon their own citizenry, massacring tiny kids - infants and toddlers - without a twinge of guilt or remorse. Will the godly finally stand up - or are they all, permanently, 'missing in action'. As John Tamihere might have put it, we need a little less hui and a whole lot more do-ey.
Yes, just like Nero did those couple millennia ago, the world and its supposed 'leaders' stand or more aptly sit idly by and fiddle while Assad and his cohorts wreak bloody havoc upon their own citizenry, massacring tiny kids - infants and toddlers - without a twinge of guilt or remorse. Will the godly finally stand up - or are they all, permanently, 'missing in action'. As John Tamihere might have put it, we need a little less hui and a whole lot more do-ey.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Hey Folks, Let's Be Reasonable Now...
In view of the (largely Western) propensity to toss around, willy-nilly, such terms as fascist and nazi these days, it comes as no great surprise, admittedly. Nevertheless it must've seemed in extremely bad taste - obviously to her compatriots, whether politically supportive or otherwise, but especially to her personally - for Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel to be mocked and derided by Greek protestors as a Nazi tyrant, during her recent visit to Greece; for her admittedly extremely controversial determination to impose an economic straightjacket upon all peoples of the European Union.But surely shouldn't some things simply remain 'forever' off-limits as unacceptable and offensive in any context? Especially since Germany is hardly ever gonna really, easily 'live down' what transpired so awfully and tragically those six-and-a-half to eight decades ago now; and from all accounts has gone to the nth degree to attempt to 'make right' what can obvoiusly never really be made right, only properly assimilated and learnt from in order to ensure it never happens again. Tragically, in all too many places and instances - if in a wholly different series of contexts - 'it has': Stalin's Reign of Terror, Mao-Tse-Tung's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, Idi Amin's bloody barbarism, Rwanda's internecine bloodbath, Milosevic's genocide in Kosovo and the Balkans, Saddam Hussein's million-some Victims. (And though I carry absolutely no brief for the man, I won't here set George W - the former U.S. President - alongside these others, although the very idea of 'collateral damage' is an utterly repugnant one.)
Heightened tensions tend to give rise to such expressions of vitriol and intemperance, as can clearly be seen all around our world at present in all manner of conflicts and other situations, but that's hardly the point. Much as innocent Jews are once again being targeted throughout Europe and especially in France, and - on another level altogether, but still - as has occurred on our very street over recent days, where five individual and large swastikas have been bedaubed upon lampposts and sidewalks. A symbol ever evoking the worst sentiments in humanity and eliciting the fiercest gut level reaction. But such, as they say, is the price of freedom.
Heightened tensions tend to give rise to such expressions of vitriol and intemperance, as can clearly be seen all around our world at present in all manner of conflicts and other situations, but that's hardly the point. Much as innocent Jews are once again being targeted throughout Europe and especially in France, and - on another level altogether, but still - as has occurred on our very street over recent days, where five individual and large swastikas have been bedaubed upon lampposts and sidewalks. A symbol ever evoking the worst sentiments in humanity and eliciting the fiercest gut level reaction. But such, as they say, is the price of freedom.
Friday, October 12, 2012
A Wonderful Illustration Of That Very Point
So how 'chuffed', simply amazed and astonished and astounded I was, when, a couple of Saturdays ago, incidentally during a sojourn of one of those aforementioned relatives, to - quite literally - 'stumble upon' someone doing the right thing by the country she had now chosen, presumably, to call her new home. As 'author' of an unpaid opinion piece 15 or so years earlier, entitled 'Not Just in the Backblocks', in which I - rather painstakingly - chronicled, both visually and prosewise, the then state of doggydoodom in my beloved Dunedin, call me somewhat biased if you will, but nevertheless... . This youngish Asian gal, no doubt quite unused to a smile much less a kind word from her new, largely European - in these often frigid, southern climes - fellow residents, appeared 'out of the ether' as I was rounding a final bend in the bush of one of Dunedin's innumerable walking tracks, patiently bending down beside a river and scooping up the defecated dregs of her dog's digestive system; quite impervious to my presence until I chanced upon her.
So she was doing what she did "with fear (of) and favour toward none" - as well befits a visitor to this blogsite. And indeed thus undoubtedly proving herself a better citizen and/or resident than the - great - majority (at least until recent times) of her fellow Dunedinites. And a few minutes, at most, later, as I passed out of the reserve, followed a short distance back, by herself and her doggy, I noticed, and pointed out in her hearing, a large sign - the first of such I'd ever encountered - informing all such pet owners of the $300 fine they would be liable for if they failed in their pooper-scooper duties. Which she claimed, in an ever-so-genuine fashion, to never have even noticed, just as she'd reacted similarly to my surprise at her act of disinterested benevolence a few minutes earlier. Well done milady!
So she was doing what she did "with fear (of) and favour toward none" - as well befits a visitor to this blogsite. And indeed thus undoubtedly proving herself a better citizen and/or resident than the - great - majority (at least until recent times) of her fellow Dunedinites. And a few minutes, at most, later, as I passed out of the reserve, followed a short distance back, by herself and her doggy, I noticed, and pointed out in her hearing, a large sign - the first of such I'd ever encountered - informing all such pet owners of the $300 fine they would be liable for if they failed in their pooper-scooper duties. Which she claimed, in an ever-so-genuine fashion, to never have even noticed, just as she'd reacted similarly to my surprise at her act of disinterested benevolence a few minutes earlier. Well done milady!
Yes, When One's In Rome - You Know The Rest
One oughta - at least attempt to - 'do as the [locals] do'...rather than throwing one's weight (be that physical or 'just' psychical) around. Such naturally has innumerable practical, everyday, 'real life' applications - but we won't here get into the oft-contentious matter of 'entertaining' one's in-laws - or more often outlaws. But on more substantial, weighty matters: how come no-one among our Western intelligentsia ever bothers to inform either the Middle Eastern multitudes, much less immigrants to our shores from those parts, that freedom of speech and expression is such a precious 'commodity' that we've been periodically prepared to die for that great, much-revered value - however abhorrent the individual expression of that principle may well happen to be. End of story.
And as for the renewed death threats towards Salman Rushdie...
As night relentlessly follows day and day invariably succeeds night, so the voices of oppression, repression and tyranny lost no time in calling anew for renowned British-based author Salman Rushdie's murder...for merely having the temerity to be seen and heard, in the immediate aftermath of the recent Mid-Easternwide anti-free speech protests over the American 'anti-Mohammed' YouTube clip creator, voicing his own considered reflections, in spite of his own unenviable situation, in favour of freedom of speech. Having personally witnessed this recent, shortish interview, I actually wondered whether or rather how soon such folk would once more be clamouring for his blood, and indeed, I can hardly claim to have been 'disappointed' in terms of that expectation. But can we say or claim that Western - in this case British - 'justice' is itself blameless, seeing as, for instance, during the last worldwide bout of stridently militant Islamist sentiment following the publication of the Mohammed-mocking Danish cartoons in early 2005, those British Islamist (no, I won't dignify them with the adjective 'Muslim') protesters openly baying for death to all such evil-doers were not subsequently, forthwith prosecuted for so doing. And yet hasn't threatening others with death - not 'jokingly', but in deadly, earnest seriousness - ever been a prisonable offence? (In the West, I mean, and especially in the once Great Britain, where people died in the early-1940s for life and liberty. Rallying to Sir Winston Churchill's cries to "fight 'em on the beaches, upon the bunkers and in the backblocks". (Or something like that.))
Thursday, October 11, 2012
And While We're Addressing Such Matters...
...It's Simply Outrageous:
If it was a Christian minister or pastor involved in offering a bounty upon the life of one of his 'foes', we'd - quite literally - hear no end of the matter...and moreover we'd hear calls - left, right and centre - by fellow ministers as well as Christian laity, worldwide - for his censure; condemning him in no uncertain terms; to use the pertinent biblical metaphor, there'd be no giving the trumpet an uncertain sound, no sirree. And in an earlier age, and no doubt still in certain 'Christian' quarters, he'd be defrocked and/or excommunicated (from the church/Christian communion) - at the very least. And that's not even broaching the fact that in many places the making of death threats is still a prisonable offence.
So why the palpable, tangible silence - from self-respecting, supposedly 'moderate' Muslims worldwide - towards this Pakistani Government Minister? No, not only has he - a week or two ago now - made this appalling, outrageous call - for the blood of this (admittedly) offensive, offending American YouTube clip 'author' - with apparently no repercussions, much less sacking-on-the-spot by his Pakistani Government superiors, but lo and behold he received the equivalent of a standing ovation from the surrounding hordes/'ignorant multitudes', and, far worse, apparently was wildly cheered on, even received vehement applause from the many Pakistani journalists present. Something simply doesn't mesh here. And yes, I myself here and now upon the spot confess quite openly to my own utter gutlessness in voicing these sentiments at the time. Guilty as charged for my own moral cowardice - so unlike that admirable Pakistani 'kid' Malala. Why so? Well, you figure out yourself. But let me conclude by stating in as unequivocal a fashion as I can that any religion or ideology which sustains its argument and/or supposed 'credentials' by dint of coercion is utterly and thoroughly bankrupt. It deserves everything it has coming to it: lock, stock and barrel as well. To quote a certain ex-politician: no ifs, buts or maybes.
If it was a Christian minister or pastor involved in offering a bounty upon the life of one of his 'foes', we'd - quite literally - hear no end of the matter...and moreover we'd hear calls - left, right and centre - by fellow ministers as well as Christian laity, worldwide - for his censure; condemning him in no uncertain terms; to use the pertinent biblical metaphor, there'd be no giving the trumpet an uncertain sound, no sirree. And in an earlier age, and no doubt still in certain 'Christian' quarters, he'd be defrocked and/or excommunicated (from the church/Christian communion) - at the very least. And that's not even broaching the fact that in many places the making of death threats is still a prisonable offence.
So why the palpable, tangible silence - from self-respecting, supposedly 'moderate' Muslims worldwide - towards this Pakistani Government Minister? No, not only has he - a week or two ago now - made this appalling, outrageous call - for the blood of this (admittedly) offensive, offending American YouTube clip 'author' - with apparently no repercussions, much less sacking-on-the-spot by his Pakistani Government superiors, but lo and behold he received the equivalent of a standing ovation from the surrounding hordes/'ignorant multitudes', and, far worse, apparently was wildly cheered on, even received vehement applause from the many Pakistani journalists present. Something simply doesn't mesh here. And yes, I myself here and now upon the spot confess quite openly to my own utter gutlessness in voicing these sentiments at the time. Guilty as charged for my own moral cowardice - so unlike that admirable Pakistani 'kid' Malala. Why so? Well, you figure out yourself. But let me conclude by stating in as unequivocal a fashion as I can that any religion or ideology which sustains its argument and/or supposed 'credentials' by dint of coercion is utterly and thoroughly bankrupt. It deserves everything it has coming to it: lock, stock and barrel as well. To quote a certain ex-politician: no ifs, buts or maybes.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Once To Every Man and Nation
"Once to every man and nation Comes the Moment to decide
In the strife of truth with falsehood, For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever 'Twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, And 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue Of the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever With the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward, Who would keep abreast of truth.
Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet 'tis truth alone is strong,
Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, Keeping watch above His own."
So wrote James Russell Lowell in his memorable 1845 hymn, bearing lyrics which are all but inspired.
And a fitting tribute, surely, to the 14-year-old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousafzai, whose near-assassination today for having and showing immense, tremendous moral courage in the face of a bunch of brutal, religious thugs speaks for itself. Malala, may the Eternal enfold you in His arms of love and compassion, now and forevermore.
In the strife of truth with falsehood, For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever 'Twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, And 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue Of the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever With the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward, Who would keep abreast of truth.
Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet 'tis truth alone is strong,
Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, Keeping watch above His own."
So wrote James Russell Lowell in his memorable 1845 hymn, bearing lyrics which are all but inspired.
And a fitting tribute, surely, to the 14-year-old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousafzai, whose near-assassination today for having and showing immense, tremendous moral courage in the face of a bunch of brutal, religious thugs speaks for itself. Malala, may the Eternal enfold you in His arms of love and compassion, now and forevermore.
Monday, October 1, 2012
And Last But By No Means Least, Let's Hear It For The Oft-Impugned Murray McCully
New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully - and his Green Party counterpart Kennedy Graham, of Sir Douglas' persuasion - are right on the ball in regard to what should be the international pariah nation of - no, not Israel, as is usually the case, but - Syria, a brutal regime 'run by a thug', as someone so well expressed it yesterday on one of TV3's various Sunday morning current affairs shows. But as they've both said, when but when is someone gonna do something about it? No, really? It's about time.
And While I'm About It, Let's Put In A Word For Some Other NZ Politicians
Chiefly, let's say a word for Justice Minister Judith ("Crusher") Collins, and, oddly enough - in juxtaposition with her - "The Right Honourable" (as he is still reverentially deferred to around the Beehive's unhallowed halls - yes, admittedly out of a sense of proper parliamentary etiquette) Winston Peters himself...for each turning in extremely creditable performances in recent parliamentary sittings. Winston - for finally, but as they say, 'better late than never', learning the art of biting his tongue (as I've unfortunately done to my gums four times in two weeks, three times over just the last two days) vis-a-vis our Parliament's much-esteemed Speaker Lockwood Smith - and that despite his barely-concealed displeasure and disgruntlement. Ms Collins - for showing the utmost aplomb and quietly dignified, gracious mien and composure in response to especially the questioning of West Coast Green M.P. Kevin Hague, an especially productive and 'in earnest' member of that party, alongside Kennedy Graham in particular. She not only answered the specific questions asked, she did so fully, frankly and fairly, and with the utmost reasonableness and goodwill. And, as ever, an 'in deadly earnest' demeanour totally befitting the seriousness of the matters being raised.
Third Time Lucky - Yet Another Positive
Hard to believe I was hearing the selfsame "(Sir Peter) Jackson-hater", C.T.U. President Helen Kelly, on Mary Wilson's National Radio Evening Edition this Monday the 1st of October, telling Mary that, yes, there was nothing wrong, indeed it was a good thing in fact that our P.M. was currently 'doing the rounds' in the corridors of Hollywood promoting the New Zealand Film Industry. Certainly in said interview Ms Kelly maintained her stance on what had gone down around the special deal made with Warner Brothers over the Hobbit films saga back in 2010, and naturally, and reasonably, echoed generally aired media concerns over John Key's doing so now against the obvious immediate backdrop of the Kim Dotcom fiasco and links to those selfsame Hollywood studios. And I certainly cannot fault Ms Kelly's citing the Government's 'picking winners' yet simultaneously leaving Kiwi Rail out to dry, though a departing worker in town I chatted to yesterday informed me that local Dunedin South M.P. Clare Curran - Yours Truly stood against as an independent (believe it or not) candidate in 2008 - had grossly inflated the number of layoffs from the two he maintained had occurred...(Still, my money's with Ms Curran on that one, but perhaps I misheard him.)
Hey, Maybe They're Even Doing Something Else Right!
Wonder of wonders, will they never cease? Yes, once more the crime stats are dropping significantly throughout the land. And again, I've no doubt that fact bears no relation whatsoever to the fact that our 'new' government has been making short shrift of lawlessness wherever it may be found... Still, once again, it can't but make you wonder - just a little anyhow. (And notice, I didn't even mention Crusher Collins.) Perhaps Michael Cullen was correct when he cited law and order as one of the basic factors in the 2008 change of government. Personally, I'd always thought so myself. Like many others I'm sure.
At Least They're Doing Something Right
Funny thing, a 'new' government (4 years on, it's stretching the term a little, but nevertheless) and suddenly the issue of bowel (and perhaps also prostrate) cancer is 'on the agenda': as in prospective screening for this worrisome scourge afflicting increasing numbers of New Zealanders. And yet the previous crowd were zealous about cervical cancer, admittedly occurring with the backdrop of the well-publicized Hawkes Bay scandal. No, I'm sure it had little to do with the fact that the latter was clearly a female disease, and the former a male one - it couldn't possibly be, could it... But it sure makes ya wonder, eh... Anyhow, I for one will give the present Government and its Minister, Tony Ryall, due kudos - hey, it could one day be my life - or even yours...who knows?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Aotearoa's Very Own Cause Celebre & Folkhero Kim Dotcom #4
Yes, Kim Dotcom has become more than a bit of a New Zealand folkhero - as another Newstalk ZK talkback host, Leighton Smith, has suggested, now veritably running NZ Government by default...
God's Own's Very Own Cause Celebre & Folkhero #3
Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson had an interesting speech during Parliament's urgent debate on the matter last week, in which he spoke admiringly dispassionately and moreover made the interesting point/observation that it was just as well that the P.M. and his deputy hadn't in fact been more in hands-on command of the issue - i.e. of NZ"s security service apparatus - for surely that would be, or would smack of, the hallmarks of a police state - something people understandably enough accused Rob Muldoon of when he wielded that privileged position of being head of the S.I.S. and occasionally divulged info which suggested he was having a little too much hands-on control of its day-to-day operations.
NZ's Own Cause Celebre & Folk Hero #2
Re Deputy P.M. Bill English: Though accused, understandably enough, of serving as P.M. Key's convenient fall guy for any governmental failing under Mr Key's "Don't - God Forbid! - let any dirt stick to me" approach to his government's exceedingly successful PR operation, superbly copy-and-pasted from the Australian public relations consultants, Crosby and Textor, at least he straightaway confessed to his own involvement the other day...and likewise, though somewhat seriously sullied by the rental expenses saga a couple years back, was never one of those National MPs implicated in Nicky Hager's Hollow Men. Nevertheless such a matter - even amidst hundreds of others - should surely be rather towards 'the top of the agenda', one would think, when debriefing his leader upon what had transpired in his absence.
New Zealand's Very Own Cause Celebre & Folkhero Rolled Into One: Ruminations Upon Kim Dotcom and the Kim Dotcom Saga
Vis-a-vis P.M. John Key: I concur completely with Newstalk ZB Morning Show host Mike Hosking's assessment of Mr Key's apology: that it was "genuine and decent...the proper and right thing to do"; and in regard to TV1 Headline News that he'd given "a rare apology", that was undoubtedly and all too sadly true, and yet at least he's given even just one, unlike a well-known predecessor of his; and yes, I'm - obviously - not including any of Ms Clark's saying "I'm sorry" to the Samoans and Chinese etc: all fair enough indeed, but hardly requiring great personal humility much less contrition on her part. And looking back, I do believe there were a few, if not half a dozen or so, such 'matters' on her part which did indeed warrant such.
Friday, September 28, 2012
It's Time For The World To Heed The Clear Warning Signs
The world indeed stands close to the precipice - closer than perhaps any time since the height - or perhaps depths is more apt - of the Cold War between The U.S.A. and the (former) U.S.S.R.. And yes, as unpopular and unsexy as it is today to say so, the Israelis, in particular its rather forcible, frank and formidable leader Benjamin Netanyahu, are right on the money vis-a-vis the imminent threat posed by the apocalyptic-like machinations and ambitions of Iran, with or without its present leader Ahmindinejab. And for anyone doubtful of such a quick perusal of Michael Drosnin's classic The Bible Code, let alone Daniel chapter 11: 40-45, make this abundantly clear. (And only a mention will here be made of that selfsame Older Testament prophet's citing the nations of Libya and Egypt in the very last days, countdown-to-Armageddon scenario. Netanyahu's speech today was reasoned, measured, yet deadly in earnest: let our 21st-Century, Israel-despising world take note. God will ever defend His own - though they fail to turn to Him till the very 11th hour; yet surely we're now closer to midnight - well past five to twelve on the Doomsday Clock - than we even were during that most infamous period of the Cold War.
And the Js have it also
Good on both Labour's Jacinda Ardern and new Green M.P. Jan Logie for fronting up and putting their wallet where their many professions have been and seizing the ammunition by their incisors and living beneath the 'real' poverty line for, I'm assuming, a whole week; as 1.4 billion of our fellow earth inhabitants also apparently do on a regular, day-to-day basis.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
TV Plaudit #4: The one-time "Honourable" John Tamihere's ThinkTank
This one-time would-be leader of the NZ Labour Party and our nation - more's the pity and our loss due to his coming completely unstuck c/o an extremely ill-advised Ian Wishart interview - has finally found his niche. Another ably compered discussion - panel in this instance - Mr Tamihere delivers his show with great style and panache, an ever-polite and exceedingly courteous demeanour and helpful, self-effacing approach. Moreover invariably eliciting intelligent and thoughtful contributions and tete-a-tete from his guests upon subjects of moment generally ignored (or simply never gotten around to) by the mainstream media And the icing upon the cake is surely the intro 'panel', perhaps suggesting John missed his real calling in life on either Get Smart or Mission Impossible. "Eat your heart out, Maxwell Smart" (and Agent 66, or was that 99?)
#3 Plaudit: TV3's (newish) Three60 Show
Much as the ODT's World Focus supplement has proved itself from inception, this newish Sunday morning international current affairs show has been a stunner. Good topics, with useful interviews, and ably compered by the formerly challenged and rather acerbic Guyon Espiner, but from his Q&A interviews - or was that The Nation? - having proven himself increasingly able and on-the-ball and incisive. A good move, folks, but typically probably unknown, unnoted and unrecognized: like most good TV shows.
And while we're on the subject of tv shows...
A thank you to the ever irrepressible Walrus of New Zealand TV himself, Mark Sainsbury, on a good innings and many worthwhile interviews/discussions/topics - amidst admittedly a fair volume of chaff.
An Example Worthy of Emulation: Real Food for Thought
Certainly food for thought - that is, those young gals, and NZ Oxfam Director, on tonight's CloseUp, personally experiencing what it's like to live/survive on a real poverty daily diet, of .70 cents a meal a day. Something it might benefit all of us to do/attempt - on a genuine, real basis - from time to time. Not to mention all the kiddies who still engage in the yearly 48-hour famine, raising funds through sponsors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)