Since
the death of Debussy, Sibelius and Schönberg are the most
significant figures in European music, and Sibelius is
undoubtedly the more complete artist of the two. However
much one may admire Schönberg's powerful imagination and
unique genius, it is difficult not to feel that the world
of sound and thought that he opens up—though
apparently iconoclastic—is
au fond as restricted as the academicism it has
supplanted. Sibelius's music suffers from no such
restriction, and it indicates not a particular avenue of
escape but a world of thought which is free from the
paralyzing alternatives of escape or submission. It offers
no material for the plagiarist and is to be considered
more as a spiritual example than as a technical influence.
We are not likely to find any imitations of Sibelius's
No. 7 because the spiritual calm of
this work is the climax of the spiritual experience of a
lifetime and cannot be achieved by any aping of external
mannerisms. —Constant
Lambert, Music
Ho!, 1931
Sometimes technique is
enough. And when it is harnessed to an uncompromising
vision followed through with total commitment, you get
art. Yes, that's right. If this seems ridiculous, consider
what Steven Spielberg would have added to this apocalyptic
scenario. Well, you'd get superfluous exposition, kute
kiddies, a happy ending and a wooden stake of
"meaning" driven through its heart.
Instead, Cloverfield is pure cinema, stripped bare
of accretion. Its flat emotional affect delivers a mise
en scène perfectly consonant with the personal
experience of disaster as it happens.
Post-9/11 metaphor? Think
harder, reviewers. Cloverfield is not horror
recollected in sentimental tranquility. It is a presentiment
of the
long emergency.
Grade: A
Cloverfield: 'Does this mean we don't get bonuses this year?'
Has atavism been entirely
bred out of the (North) American male? It is tempting to
describe Juno as a twee feminist fantasy, but the
almost universal rapture with which our elite has greeted
it suggests we are meant to regard it as The Way We Live
Now. So this is the way the (Western) world ends: not with
a bang, not with a whimper but instead suffocated under an
avalanche of
excruciatingly poptastic "witticisms." Imagine
Oscar Wilde as channelled by the Gilmore Girls, and you'll
get an understanding of just how sissified this movie is.
After Juno had ended,
I resolved to devote what remains of my life to making the
possession of acoustic guitars a crime punishable by
death. Then I considered converting to Islam. Later, after
I calmed down, I was possessed by a renewed admiration for
the truth and beauty to be found in John Hughes's high
school comedies.
If Juno is the Barack
Obama of Oscar-nominated films, then There Will Be
Blood is the John McCain—nothing
but atavism. In fact, much like John McCain's public
image, it is a celebration of insanity. As Aristotle
pointed out, the mad have nothing to teach us and so
neither does this movie, despite its high level of
technical achievement.
Now, I understand that the
past is a foreign country, and that it is too much to
expect Paul Thomas Anderson to betray the slightest
knowledge of orthodox Christian theology, let alone the
syntax and cadence of the Authorized Version. But am I
alone in finding Eli Sunday the feeblest fundamentalist
ever? Prediction: "I'm finished!" will be to the
2000s what "Here's Johnny!" was to the 1980s.
You have been warned.
Thank God for the Coen
brothers, who make movies for adults. No Country For
Old Men is just as technically accomplished as There
Will Be Blood, but its technique is deployed in the
service of moral seriousness, not merely in striking the
nerve endings that induce bleats of
"masterpiece" from the critically jejeune.
Another difference between
the two is that while Daniel Plainview and Anton Chigur
may both be regarded as the Devil, No Country For Old
Men does not regard his triumph as inevitable. Two
caveats: 1. One suspects that Tommy Lee Jones cannot
distinguish profound from ponderous—or
mellifluous from mushmouthed. 2. One suspects that
the Coens believe cheating the audience of narrative
expectations to be per se a good thing. But this is
an exquisitely beautiful film and terrifically exciting in
every respect, while Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin are
just as good as Daniel Day Lewis. Better, actually, because
their performances are less self-regarding.
Grade: A-
No Country For Old Men: Dogs are the stormtroopers of
the animal kingdom
THOUGHT
FOR THE DAY (SPECIAL WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I NEEDED YOU?
EDITION II)
Marvin
Kurz [lawyer
representing B'nai Brith]: I understand from your previous
evidence that you don't feel that there should be any kind
of human rights redress for people who feel that they are
discriminated against. That is how I understood your
evidence this morning. Right?
KMG:
No, I think that, as long as people can go to court under
tort law, they don't need human rights laws.
Kurz:
As long as people can sue in tort, you think that should
be sufficient, that there should not be any Human Rights
Commissions at all.
KMG:
No, I don't think they are a good idea.
Kurz:
And human rights tribunals.
KMG:
No.
Kurz:
Do you agree that harmful words against a group can hurt
them?
KMG:
That is a difficult question. They may feel hurt. Whether
they are hurt or not is a different thing. In any event,
individuals are hurt every day. It seems to me that is a
part of life.
Kurz:
Groups who feel hurt by language used by others should
just get on with it. That is basically your view?
KMG:
Pretty much. Let me make a distinction. It is against the
law, and I fully support laws—if
someone writes, "Let's kill all Jews." That goes
beyond free speech and I don't think it is defensible. The
sorts of statements counselling violence against people I
don't believe to be acceptable.
Kurz:
If somebody just defames the Jews, since you brought up
that example, you think the Jews should have no response.
Right?
KMG:
They have all the responses that are open to anyone else
in society. They can complain that this is unjust. They
can say, "You shouldn't print this," or they can
start boycotts, whatever people want to do.
Kurz:
But there should be no legal redress. That is your
position.
KMG:
That is my position.
—Kevin Michael Grace, testimony before the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal, in Citron
v Zündel, 5 December 2000 (8024-8026)
THOUGHT
FOR THE DAY (SPECIAL WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I NEEDED YOU?
EDITION)
Marvin
Kurz [lawyer
representing B'nai Brith]: To put it perhaps mildly, you
disagree with the decision that the [British Columbia
Human Rights] Tribunal reached in the Collins
v Abrams case. Correct?
KMG:
Yes, I disagree. Further, I think they should have no
authority to consider such matters.
Kurz:
What do you mean by that, sir? I don’t understand.
KMG:
I don’t believe that a Human Rights Commission such as
the BC Human Rights Commission should have the ability to
empanel tribunals to imperil freedom of the press.
Claude
Pensa [Chairperson, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal]: I
am sorry, I didn’t hear the last words.
KMG:
To imperil freedom of the press.
Kurz:
You don’t think that human rights legislation should
deal in any way with any form of restriction of freedom of
speech. Is that what you are saying?
KMG:
I don’t believe in human rights legislation.
Kurz:
You don’t believe in human rights legislation?
Grace:
No, I do not.
Kurz:
Why is that?
KMG:
Because I believe that certain things are criminal and
certain things are not criminal. I think that human rights
tribunals fall between two stools. I think, if someone has
committed a crime against the Criminal Code, you find the
evidence and try them. Other than that, I don’t believe
in it.
Kurz:
What if somebody discriminates against another person? You
don’t think there should be redress to that in a human
rights tribunal?
KMG:
No, I do not.
Kurz:
You think they should just be able to discriminate for
reasons of race or religion?
KMG:
Let me put it this way. Short of establishing a police
state, it is impossible to end discrimination. If people
have cases, there is tort law. If people have suffered
damages, they can go to the courts and get redress.
Kurz:
I take it you have no great respect for human rights
tribunals. Would that be a fair statement?
KMG:
Yes, I think it would be a fair statement.
Kurz:
You think they are kangaroo courts?
KMG:
Yes, indeed I do.
Kurz:
Do you think they jump to the will of the political elite?
KMG:
Yes. —Kevin
Michael Grace, testimony before the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal, in Citron
v Zündel, 5 December 2000 (7931-7933)
