Tomorrow is my birthday, and I have just one wish:
That we all stop the violence and hate, and share a special dish.
While we pray for France tonight as we fall asleep in bed,
We all must band together so no more blood is shed.
Terrorism and war may seem inevitable now,
But we can be much better, and combined we will prove how.
Whatever your neighbour's background, their religion or their quirks,
Show them love and solidarity,
Because humanity and peace still work.
Thursday, 14 July 2016
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
Me and my last-born, man-boy mentality...
Last night, watching the State of Origin at my local pub felt rather strange. Maybe that was due to the game itself, as the Blues won, but I was quite a bit more introverted than usual in such contexts.
I'm a youngest child, and therefore I must admit I really love the limelight much of the time. But not all. As an adult (though regarding myself that's a loose term), I've grown quite ambiverted. I love socialising, particularly in entertainment places and restaurants et cetera, and that's a very healthy part of life, but time after time, however many others are present, before too long that overwhelmed last-born mentality bubbles back up, and I just have to escape for a bit (politely excusing myself, though, of course). Last night, I didn't actually know anybody there (which usually doesn't matter anyway), but then as this happened I even got slightly short of breath, which I hope is not a sign of things to come. That mentality, or it resurfacing is nobody's fault, but I wonder: are those feelings congenital, or just ones whose developments creep up on you?
When you're the youngest (at least in my experience), you have to really fight to be noticed, to be taken seriously, because you're immediately thrust into an already full house, whether you were planned or not (and JFTR I'm pretty sure I was). You're stuffed in there, trying hard to carve your own niche out into the family dynamic, and meanwhile you have however many bigger and stronger siblings to compete with, and naturally your parents also have adult issues preoccupying them. I swear, being the youngest is very overrated.
But as I said, my feelings here are really nobody's fault, and I do love all my family, even though we still drive each other mental often. They're the bedrock of my existence. The frustrating thing for me about that, though, is my position in the dynamic. So, if you have any younger siblings, however they usually behave, try to be patient and sympathetic with them if you're not already, and above all remember this: they asked to be born no more than you did.
I'm a youngest child, and therefore I must admit I really love the limelight much of the time. But not all. As an adult (though regarding myself that's a loose term), I've grown quite ambiverted. I love socialising, particularly in entertainment places and restaurants et cetera, and that's a very healthy part of life, but time after time, however many others are present, before too long that overwhelmed last-born mentality bubbles back up, and I just have to escape for a bit (politely excusing myself, though, of course). Last night, I didn't actually know anybody there (which usually doesn't matter anyway), but then as this happened I even got slightly short of breath, which I hope is not a sign of things to come. That mentality, or it resurfacing is nobody's fault, but I wonder: are those feelings congenital, or just ones whose developments creep up on you?
When you're the youngest (at least in my experience), you have to really fight to be noticed, to be taken seriously, because you're immediately thrust into an already full house, whether you were planned or not (and JFTR I'm pretty sure I was). You're stuffed in there, trying hard to carve your own niche out into the family dynamic, and meanwhile you have however many bigger and stronger siblings to compete with, and naturally your parents also have adult issues preoccupying them. I swear, being the youngest is very overrated.
But as I said, my feelings here are really nobody's fault, and I do love all my family, even though we still drive each other mental often. They're the bedrock of my existence. The frustrating thing for me about that, though, is my position in the dynamic. So, if you have any younger siblings, however they usually behave, try to be patient and sympathetic with them if you're not already, and above all remember this: they asked to be born no more than you did.
Inspiration... where do you come from?
(Written on 10/07)
I don't know exactly what to write about today, but I feel I should still put pen to paper. Why does anybody really do anything anyway? I'm on a bus currently, in a calm, contemplative mood, and I genuinely like writing, particularly in contexts like this. You can do it any time, anywhere. And come to think of it, I sense many famous writers didn't know what to write about when they began writing any one of their works. Filmmaker Federico Fellini turned his struggles to bring one of his projects to life into his most famous movie, 8 1/2 (not that I've seen any of them, though).
But maybe sometimes you don't need a specific subject or idea in order to be creative and/or successful. What if the piece ITSELF became the subject or idea, after the fact? And if you do intend all along, consciously, to convey a message or push buttons, could this just feel forced or make it vulnerable to over-analysis? I really don't know. But I'm not sure I want to either. I'm sure most other creative types would echo my sentiment that I feel I don't have to explain my work to anyone. It should be self-explanatory, and everybody having their own reactions to and interpretations of it is simply a fair entitlement for all.
I don't know exactly what to write about today, but I feel I should still put pen to paper. Why does anybody really do anything anyway? I'm on a bus currently, in a calm, contemplative mood, and I genuinely like writing, particularly in contexts like this. You can do it any time, anywhere. And come to think of it, I sense many famous writers didn't know what to write about when they began writing any one of their works. Filmmaker Federico Fellini turned his struggles to bring one of his projects to life into his most famous movie, 8 1/2 (not that I've seen any of them, though).
But maybe sometimes you don't need a specific subject or idea in order to be creative and/or successful. What if the piece ITSELF became the subject or idea, after the fact? And if you do intend all along, consciously, to convey a message or push buttons, could this just feel forced or make it vulnerable to over-analysis? I really don't know. But I'm not sure I want to either. I'm sure most other creative types would echo my sentiment that I feel I don't have to explain my work to anyone. It should be self-explanatory, and everybody having their own reactions to and interpretations of it is simply a fair entitlement for all.
Thursday, 7 July 2016
Spielberg the Sensational!
During an interview on the set of one of her last films, Joan
Crawford pointed the director out to the journalist and said: "Go
and interview that boy. He is going to be the biggest director of all
time!" And she was right. "That boy" was Steven Spielberg.
Since 20 June 1975, when Jaws was released and became the first movie to gross $100 million at the US box office, Steven Spielberg has become a genre and a phenomenon unto himself. Not since Hitchcock or Walt Disney has any filmmaker brought us so many scenes or images that have branded themselves into our collective consciousness: a giant rolling boulder, a brachiosaurus leaping to eat a tree branch, a girl in a red coat walking through the Warsaw Ghetto, Roy Scheider leaping from his beach chair after seeing a shark attack, and, of course, a bike flying past the moon, to name but a few. All of those were destined from the start to become iconic.
But Steven is a genuine artist; he was never in it for the money or esteem. Whether you like his style or not, his passion for and faith in the medium itself is unmistakable. I feel I can confidently say this because when I've watched films from directors whose styles I dislike, I really still have sensed their love for the art-form (and if they didn't love it, why would they be working in it anyway?). And while initially he may not seem to have a distinctive directorial style, that's not quite true. As opposed to more overtly visual directors like Burton or Luhrmann, you just have to look deeper into a Spielberg film to find the visual (or auditory) uniqueness. A common motif he uses is light and its sources (for instance the candle-lighting scenes in Schindler's List, Celie reading under the sun in The Color Purple, the lamp scene in Saving Private Ryan and, of course, E.T.'s finger), and on the soundtrack he often punctuates scenes of violence or tension with random music from one of the characters (see the Ghetto apartment block raid in Schindler's List, intercut with pianistry). And of course there's the backward dolly zoom in action scenes, first used in Jaws.
But his recurring themes are what you can most recognise a Spielberg movie through: loneliness, family conflict, war, coming of age, intolerance, adventure. I consider him for these reasons a very Dickensian storyteller, but he still takes all these themes and tropes and makes them his own. And though I can understand how many people find his work cloying or manipulative, he delivers sentiment with such sincerity and charisma that in most cases I can never help but find it utterly enchanting.
And now he has (perhaps inevitably) joined forces with Disney to bring Roald Dahl's The B.F.G. to the screen, and it is just marvellous. He has brought to life this very meaningful tale of two outcasts - an orphaned little girl and the Big Friendly Giant - who, despite initial conflict, take a journey that changes them both. Steven's usual collaborators, editor Michael Kahn, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and of course the greatest film composer there ever was, John Williams, have yet again all served him superbly. But most fittingly, his late E.T. collaborator (and former Mrs. Harrison Ford) Melissa Mathison wrote a beautiful screenplay. It could be his best film this decade (although I also loved Bridge of Spies and particularly War Horse).
All great directors have made at least one stinker. For me Spielberg's is Hook, and for that matter Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade should've been just that. And there are five of his movies I still haven't seen: Duel, 1979, The Twilight Zone: The Movie, Always and Amistad. But we should stop holding celebrities to a higher standard than everybody else, and Steven has delivered enough silver screen magic to cover ten decent directors. Love or hate Steven Spielberg, his legend is undeniable. And I'm sorry, but I had to close this way: he is a one-man DreamWorks.
Since 20 June 1975, when Jaws was released and became the first movie to gross $100 million at the US box office, Steven Spielberg has become a genre and a phenomenon unto himself. Not since Hitchcock or Walt Disney has any filmmaker brought us so many scenes or images that have branded themselves into our collective consciousness: a giant rolling boulder, a brachiosaurus leaping to eat a tree branch, a girl in a red coat walking through the Warsaw Ghetto, Roy Scheider leaping from his beach chair after seeing a shark attack, and, of course, a bike flying past the moon, to name but a few. All of those were destined from the start to become iconic.
But Steven is a genuine artist; he was never in it for the money or esteem. Whether you like his style or not, his passion for and faith in the medium itself is unmistakable. I feel I can confidently say this because when I've watched films from directors whose styles I dislike, I really still have sensed their love for the art-form (and if they didn't love it, why would they be working in it anyway?). And while initially he may not seem to have a distinctive directorial style, that's not quite true. As opposed to more overtly visual directors like Burton or Luhrmann, you just have to look deeper into a Spielberg film to find the visual (or auditory) uniqueness. A common motif he uses is light and its sources (for instance the candle-lighting scenes in Schindler's List, Celie reading under the sun in The Color Purple, the lamp scene in Saving Private Ryan and, of course, E.T.'s finger), and on the soundtrack he often punctuates scenes of violence or tension with random music from one of the characters (see the Ghetto apartment block raid in Schindler's List, intercut with pianistry). And of course there's the backward dolly zoom in action scenes, first used in Jaws.
But his recurring themes are what you can most recognise a Spielberg movie through: loneliness, family conflict, war, coming of age, intolerance, adventure. I consider him for these reasons a very Dickensian storyteller, but he still takes all these themes and tropes and makes them his own. And though I can understand how many people find his work cloying or manipulative, he delivers sentiment with such sincerity and charisma that in most cases I can never help but find it utterly enchanting.
And now he has (perhaps inevitably) joined forces with Disney to bring Roald Dahl's The B.F.G. to the screen, and it is just marvellous. He has brought to life this very meaningful tale of two outcasts - an orphaned little girl and the Big Friendly Giant - who, despite initial conflict, take a journey that changes them both. Steven's usual collaborators, editor Michael Kahn, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and of course the greatest film composer there ever was, John Williams, have yet again all served him superbly. But most fittingly, his late E.T. collaborator (and former Mrs. Harrison Ford) Melissa Mathison wrote a beautiful screenplay. It could be his best film this decade (although I also loved Bridge of Spies and particularly War Horse).
All great directors have made at least one stinker. For me Spielberg's is Hook, and for that matter Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade should've been just that. And there are five of his movies I still haven't seen: Duel, 1979, The Twilight Zone: The Movie, Always and Amistad. But we should stop holding celebrities to a higher standard than everybody else, and Steven has delivered enough silver screen magic to cover ten decent directors. Love or hate Steven Spielberg, his legend is undeniable. And I'm sorry, but I had to close this way: he is a one-man DreamWorks.
Australia: Land of the Hung Parliament!
Would you look at what happened last Saturday night? Australia spent
millions on election advertising (which also carries and environmental
cost), strategy and initiative, not to mention average citizens having
to tolerate their TV shows and letterboxes being swamped with all of
that shit, only for Australia to get her second hung parliament in six
years. It's hard to imagine nobody wanting to slap a few XXXX Golds down
over that...
Now, if you must know I'm a Labor man overall, though I've really never agreed with all of their policies either. And I've voted ever since I was old enough. But ignoring all the issues themselves for a second, as a keen follower of politics, I believe this election results' nexus point is a lack of uniqueness among the key players, personally and ideologically. Firstly, the leaders' debate was widely condemned as a snoozefest, and I must agree. From where I was watching it was simply an hour of tired rhetoric from both Turnbull and Shorten. Then, during the campaign, they both repeatedly gave what felt like rather rehearsed answers during interview. How gullible do they think we are? Even Richard Di Natale to me played it too safe, and then there's Julie Bishop, who could be Australia's most aloof politician in recent memory. Browse our political history, from all sides, and the names most prominent are usually because their owners, for good or bad, stood out from the crowd: Curtin, Hawke, Dunstan, Bonner, Hanson, even Menzies. Whether consciously or not, they were unmistakable individuals. That individuality, personally and ideologically, is sorely lacking in Australian politics in 2016.
But so is sincerity behind the spin. Our leaders must stop making dishonest, sugarcoated promises, whether during or between elections, which they think their constituents will trust them to keep. This time of course it was the proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite, which, even if successful, will still have to pass through both Houses, and we all know that would be a piece of cake for it. I'm not angry at Australia for this result, either; I actually had a feeling it would unfold rather like this. I just really hope all the key players learn from it. And I am concerned about Bob Katter now siding with Turnbull, and Pauline Hanson succeeding in her parliamentary comeback. It speaks volumes about those two when you consider they're so right-wing even the Tories don't want to know them.
But what was the decisive factor? Was it the Brexit? Immigration? Marriage equality? The economy? I'd say all of those may have tipped the scales toward this result, and for numerous reasons they are all significant. But if we don't find a way of achieving or managing them all, I'd say we will just keep reaching this election result.
Now, if you must know I'm a Labor man overall, though I've really never agreed with all of their policies either. And I've voted ever since I was old enough. But ignoring all the issues themselves for a second, as a keen follower of politics, I believe this election results' nexus point is a lack of uniqueness among the key players, personally and ideologically. Firstly, the leaders' debate was widely condemned as a snoozefest, and I must agree. From where I was watching it was simply an hour of tired rhetoric from both Turnbull and Shorten. Then, during the campaign, they both repeatedly gave what felt like rather rehearsed answers during interview. How gullible do they think we are? Even Richard Di Natale to me played it too safe, and then there's Julie Bishop, who could be Australia's most aloof politician in recent memory. Browse our political history, from all sides, and the names most prominent are usually because their owners, for good or bad, stood out from the crowd: Curtin, Hawke, Dunstan, Bonner, Hanson, even Menzies. Whether consciously or not, they were unmistakable individuals. That individuality, personally and ideologically, is sorely lacking in Australian politics in 2016.
But so is sincerity behind the spin. Our leaders must stop making dishonest, sugarcoated promises, whether during or between elections, which they think their constituents will trust them to keep. This time of course it was the proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite, which, even if successful, will still have to pass through both Houses, and we all know that would be a piece of cake for it. I'm not angry at Australia for this result, either; I actually had a feeling it would unfold rather like this. I just really hope all the key players learn from it. And I am concerned about Bob Katter now siding with Turnbull, and Pauline Hanson succeeding in her parliamentary comeback. It speaks volumes about those two when you consider they're so right-wing even the Tories don't want to know them.
But what was the decisive factor? Was it the Brexit? Immigration? Marriage equality? The economy? I'd say all of those may have tipped the scales toward this result, and for numerous reasons they are all significant. But if we don't find a way of achieving or managing them all, I'd say we will just keep reaching this election result.
Friday, 1 July 2016
How personal is TOO personal?
Yesterday, I drafted a post for here about something earlier this week that put quite a few things into perspective for me, but upon finishing it I realised I just couldn't share it with the world. It was too emotional for me and too indiscreet for everybody else involved. I've also made social media past previously which have landed me in hot water, professionally and personally, and maybe my memories of those influenced that realisation also. I won't describe those past incidents for obvious reasons (and I also don't want to bore you). Instead, I think I'll just give my answers to the question in this post's title.
Social media can track people's trajectories, private and public. Within that it's a useful, if often very dangerous, platform for expressing ourselves, if we're having health or family problems et cetera. It takes serious balls often to reveal such information even in in-person discussion, much less online. But were you enduring something that serious and you were active on social media, I think the time would come, whenever it did, for you to take the plunge. Life demands risk-taking sometimes, and by posting about your own issues you would be raising awareness about them for everybody's benefit, and once something is posted online, it's there in some form basically forever. But that said, I certainly do not condone nosiness or stalking.
When it involves your family or friends, I guess that's something I should let you all decide as to whether it should be publicised or not and if so, how. But to my mind, if it involves something they have done, you should consult them first, not use their real name(s), or best of all, try to have a heart-to-heart with them in person. However, I should confess on Facebook last year, on a page for an event we were both attending I posted to explicitly ask a friend if she could bring a DVD of mine which she'd "borrowed" over a year earlier. A few minutes later I got a private message in which she went right off at me, somewhat understandably, but as I told her then, when I lend things to people and don't get them back, I get very impatient, and I asked her as nicely as possible about it. Thankfully, though, it ended there, she finally brought me the DVD back on the night, and we're still friends.
But I digress. I'm not here to indoctrinate or lecture. I just don't want you to make any of the mistakes I've made online. They all cost me a lot, and educational though they have been, there is a darker side to that silver lining.
Social media can track people's trajectories, private and public. Within that it's a useful, if often very dangerous, platform for expressing ourselves, if we're having health or family problems et cetera. It takes serious balls often to reveal such information even in in-person discussion, much less online. But were you enduring something that serious and you were active on social media, I think the time would come, whenever it did, for you to take the plunge. Life demands risk-taking sometimes, and by posting about your own issues you would be raising awareness about them for everybody's benefit, and once something is posted online, it's there in some form basically forever. But that said, I certainly do not condone nosiness or stalking.
When it involves your family or friends, I guess that's something I should let you all decide as to whether it should be publicised or not and if so, how. But to my mind, if it involves something they have done, you should consult them first, not use their real name(s), or best of all, try to have a heart-to-heart with them in person. However, I should confess on Facebook last year, on a page for an event we were both attending I posted to explicitly ask a friend if she could bring a DVD of mine which she'd "borrowed" over a year earlier. A few minutes later I got a private message in which she went right off at me, somewhat understandably, but as I told her then, when I lend things to people and don't get them back, I get very impatient, and I asked her as nicely as possible about it. Thankfully, though, it ended there, she finally brought me the DVD back on the night, and we're still friends.
But I digress. I'm not here to indoctrinate or lecture. I just don't want you to make any of the mistakes I've made online. They all cost me a lot, and educational though they have been, there is a darker side to that silver lining.
Wednesday, 29 June 2016
Terror in Turkey.
Last year, my mum and I were lucky enough to visit Gallipoli for the centenary commemorations. We landed in and then left from Istanbul Ataturk Airport, which as you may have heard was the site of a suicide bombing on Tuesday in which about 40 people were killed, with scores more injured. I learned of that yesterday morning over breakfast, and as selfish as it may sound, my first thought was, "It could have been Mum or me last year." Because you think about it: overall, how much REALLY changes in one year? Not very much, at least for a news junkie like me, and that first thought I got from yesterday morning's harrowing news proved very sobering and frightening indeed.
But nonetheless, for me it was just a thought, and I am grateful for that. Because tragically for many others, it was, or will for a long time be an ordeal. My heart goes out to every last one of them, and all their loved ones, although I firmly believe they and Turkey will march on.
Now, I'm not sure if it's quite time to politicise this tragedy and I so I realise I may lose a few of you here, but we cannot turn any such acts into excuses for stigmatising all Muslims as terrorists, or justifying Islamophobia. I do think more less-radical Muslims could step up and try to peacefully combat extremist Islam, and its sources and motivations, but ISIS and ISIL are not universally supported among their own religion, and by going after just one group, I think you're just cutting a branch off a tree rather than digging deep to get to the root.
I know what I consider the root of this whole saga, but I want this time to let you all draw your own conclusions. If you've followed my posts here and/or on Facebook, you might already know it anyway.
Peace still works. And as well as ever.
But nonetheless, for me it was just a thought, and I am grateful for that. Because tragically for many others, it was, or will for a long time be an ordeal. My heart goes out to every last one of them, and all their loved ones, although I firmly believe they and Turkey will march on.
Now, I'm not sure if it's quite time to politicise this tragedy and I so I realise I may lose a few of you here, but we cannot turn any such acts into excuses for stigmatising all Muslims as terrorists, or justifying Islamophobia. I do think more less-radical Muslims could step up and try to peacefully combat extremist Islam, and its sources and motivations, but ISIS and ISIL are not universally supported among their own religion, and by going after just one group, I think you're just cutting a branch off a tree rather than digging deep to get to the root.
I know what I consider the root of this whole saga, but I want this time to let you all draw your own conclusions. If you've followed my posts here and/or on Facebook, you might already know it anyway.
Peace still works. And as well as ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)