Blinding Brillance

You have to give credit to Stephen Harper for making a brilliant move with this Quebec “nation” thing. It divides support for Parti Quebecois in Quebec and put the Liberals and the NDPs between a rock and a hard place. The declaration of Quebec as a nation within Canada gives the weak separatists an excuse to not go with the PQ. If the Liberals and the NDPs do not support this declaration, they risk being kicked out of Quebec entirely; and if they do, they would just make Harper look great. It does seem to be a no loss situation for Harper. People in Alberta may not like it, but one thing is clear so far in the reign of Harper is that he wants only a majority and that means winning in Ontario and Quebec. Plus, whom else are they going to vote for in Alberta after developing such hatred for the Liberals and NDPs? The brilliance of this move does not, however, make it any less cynical and shortsighted. The declaration itself does not do anything for Quebecois’ desire for separation: the First Nations are nations too, look how happy they are. And this is a one-sided declaration without any input from Quebec. This is not something for Quebec just to get some votes in the next election for Harper. It is no difference from the vague tax cuts every government put forth before every election. What this does is to put separation back on the front pages of minds and papers when it is all but dead and forgotten. This is not exactly a brilliant move for federalist. But then, maybe Harper is not a federalist. Maybe he does not care if Canada will fall apart so long as he will have a parliament he controls completely. Because that is the only way this move is brilliant, blindingly brilliant.

More Stranger Than Fiction

I have been consumed, in the last few days, by the ending of “Stranger than Fiction.” Does good intention absolve a dissatisfying frustration of expectations? Is it is good plot twist when it completely derails the momentum of a narrative? Does the bad taste from the last few minutes of a film ruin the very enjoyable experience that preceded it? Does the full acknowledgment of a weak ending make it less so? I tried very hard to find a yes in all these questions but failed. If the expectation built in 90% of the movie is to be frustrated, it had better be the result of a twist that makes you say “yes, but of course!” In other words, it has to be a far better ending with carefully but covertly. We have to be misdirected but strength of the logic towards the unexpected ending not diminished. The problem of “Stranger than Fiction” is that it convinced us that not having Harold die is a bad idea, agreed by all. It is then turned around for no better reason than the writer does not want him to die. Well, at that point, we may not want Harold to die but we have already ready accepted and understood his death. Even Harold understands and accepted it. If we are to go on a different direction, there had better be a damn good reason! And there is not. It just turned into a tease. If I want a tease, I do not go to movies; there are people I can call and places I can go for that. And for a clumsy tease, well, I do not want it anywhere. It is too bad though, it would have been a truly good movie.

Stranger than Fiction

Marc Foster and Zach Helm are good storytellers. It is not easy to pull off a postmodern feel good movie like “Stranger Than Fiction.” They have good help for sure--the actors are excellent across the board—but it is the cleverness of the script and the fine control of the directing that make it work. The conceit of the film is so surreal that it is almost in itself a cheap gag. Zach Helm fortunately decided not to go that way. Instead of writing a 90 minutes SNL skit, he set out to win us over to the side of our comic hero. We see him doing things we do everyday—brushing our teeth and walking to the bus stop. Although he is doing it with a sad obsessiveness—counting every stroke and every step— that we hope we do not do ourselves. This creates a sense of affinity for our taxman in the audience. So, when the conceit is revealed, we are willing and happy to go along with it. We are thus lead into the story rather than the gimmicks and the movie is half way to success. Foster’s direction too continues on this focus on storytelling. A lot of visual gimmicks are used—the taglines on things Harold is counting, for example—and all are treated with a restrained matter-of-factness. There are some many things in the film that would tempt a lesser director into all kinds of indulgence but Foster uses them simple as part of the set, part of the story and thus locates them in the narrative as supports that they are. This shows not only restrain but also a high level of trust in the abilities of his audiences. He does not have to make a big point of the coldness and sparseness of Eiffel’s apartment, he trust his audience to see the relationship between the rooms and its owner’s psyche, they are the texture and depth of the story. Without the distraction and the textured narrative, we, the audience, are allowed to share, even participate, in the story and are captivated by it. In the end I am moved by its fable charm. Unfortunately, it would have been so much better if Harold died, that would have made for not only a better novel but also a better film. Reasons are given, of course, for the change, but the movie does not convince us of the necessity. And so, like the novel in the movie, it is a very good enough movie but not a great one.

Altar Boy Ralphie

It is a given when you read in the newspaper that someone says “he is the most peace loving person” or “he is always respectful” that person in question has just at least beaten up someone or disrespected someone. A good example is Shirley McClellan, Ralph Klein’s deputy. In defence of Ralph’s ‘joke’ about Peter MacKay’s bone in Melinda Stronach’s body, McClellan said “[she] don't know of any person who is more respectful of women, who is less inclined to tell off-colour stories or use improper language.” I do not know Ralph, so McClellan may very well be correct except Ralph clearly disrespected Melinda Stronach as well as Peter MacKay. Apparently, despite his world champion level of respect of women and severe allergy for off-colour stories and improper language, Ralph bravely overcomes his aversion to disrespect women, told off-colour stories and used improper language! That must be a milestone for Saint Ralph. But wait, this is Ralph Klein, the man not know for respectful language, we are talking about. If I were to say something about Shirley McClellan, it had to be “I don’t know of any person who is more honest, who is less inclined to tell lies or misrepresent fact for political purposes.”
Poor Peter, just when the dog comment has just faded somewhat, he is having bone problem. And this time it comes from his own party, well, in name at least. And poor Melinda, being insulted in parliament is one thing, but to be insult from the other side of the continent must make her think, “when is this going to end?” David Emerson must be thanking his birth star that he is born a man.

What Kind of Dog is He?

The old British Bulldog is no doubt the favourite source of quotation for the Bush government. I feel sorry for Ike, being so disrespected. When I come to consider when Winston Churchill is quoted, I do not feel so bad for Ike anymore. They seem to think that the best use of Churchillism is when they are back into a corner and have nothing else to offer. Witness Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation speech. He paraphrased Churchill’s opinion about his critics: “I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.” He compares himself to Churchill and thus put down his critics. Very smart, it seems. If we look closely though, the comparison is slightly off. He is no doubt thinking about the late Churchill, the greatest leader of the British, the victor of WWII. Unfortunately there is little comparable between Rumsfeld and that Churchill besides age—Churchill was in his 70’s as Rumsfeld is today. There is however a Churchill that is very much like Rumsfeld. When Churchill was 40, as the First Lord of the Admiralty, he designed and oversaw the great disaster that is the Dardanelles and Gallipolis. Like Rumsfeld, the young Churchill achieved nothing while losing hundred of thousands of lives on the battlefield. And like Rumsfeld, Churchill was kicked out of office in complete disgrace. If there were no WWII and no failure of Chamberlain’s policies, he would have ended his life as a sad, grumpy voice from the backbench that everyone ignored. He was doubly lucky that he made his disastrous mistake when he was young. Rumsfeld has no such luck. He is old, there will not be a come back to prove himself again. Most people, including Rumsfeld forgot about the early failures of Churchill and want to be like the late Churchill. What turned the dandy into a bulldog was the horror of war and the realization that war is dirty, messy and extremely costly. When Churchill took office in 1940, he offered no grand plan but “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Rumsfeld, and the like, did not learn this lesson and thus they are like the young Churchill--the dandy failure, poodles rather then bulldogs. And that is why his critics are just in hounding him.

Messianic Goat

It is reported that in a new Vanity Fair article, many prominent neo-conservatives who once advised Dubya on military matters came out to criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, sometimes using languages more harsh than the Democrats. What is interesting is not that they criticize the war but on what points are they criticizing it. They do not think that the war is wrong, nor the justification for the war was wrong, nor the idea that this war would solve any problem is wrong, but that it was simple poorly executed. One of standard patronizing retort conservatives use on liberals is that they are naïve, not understanding the messy and evil nature of the world. Now who is naïve? War is messy, hardly ever achieves its intended goals, and even if it does, the price, both human and material, is far beyond what is expected. Even if this war were executed perfectly, Iraq would still be a complete disaster, with ‘reformed’ Ba’athist in power and most infrastructures destroyed. That is hardly achieving the goals of the war. The most fundamental fault of this war is the idea of it—the idea that a war would be the first step to peace in the Middle East. It is like taking arsenic to cure lead poisoning. Sure the war is severely mismanaged, but who urged these incompetents on their present path? Who but Mr. Perle and Company? Now things are going bad and they figure it is time to save themselves by blaming it all on their ex-messiah. This is not even Monday-morning quarterbacking but the worst kind of scapegoat—selling out ones own to save oneself.

Greedy Scam

My printer ran out of ink and I am faced with a horrible dilemma: to replace the ink cartridges or buy a new printer. They are about the same price. So, here is the scam, they sell you a printer cheap hoping to hook you on for endless purchases of ink cartridges. It is a pretty good scam--they catch you no matter what your decision is. I feel better with my HP because the print head is changed with the ink. At least I get a brand new print head. Of course, the HP cartridge costs quite a bit more. The Epson, however, is cheaper but has these counter chips on them that you have to reset to refill. To make matter worse, when the counter chips stop the machine from working, there is still plenty of ink in the cartridges. Why do ink cost so much, and why do they try to force us to buy them? To make money, clearly, by taking it from our pockets. I decided to get a resetter for the counter and refill the ink myself. Now, you say, why are you complaining, you got to refill on the cheap. Well, it is a messy and dirty job. And it does not have to be so. It is made so for no reason than making more money. It would be very easy to design ink reservoirs that can be refill easily, instead they make it as hard as possible and as expansive as possible. Technology may make our lives easier, but those who control it does not.