09.29.05
Posted in Uncategorized at 8:32 pm by
It’s time for another U-turn. I went to see Pride & Prejudice after all. I hadn’t been to the cinema in ages and my sister and I had to get over our disdain for all the other people there and the ridiculous noises that cinema audiences make these days (chatting, mobile phones, rustling sweets, in an out to the toilet, god almighty, sit and down and be quiet for a few hours).
Anyway, she turned to me as the credits rolled, and said: “We’ve a lot to talk about.” And so we did. We agreed there were pluses and minuses – more minuses.
The overall tone is what I supppose you would call – real. The Bennetts are poorer, the dresses plainer, the girls are played by actresses of the correct ages, they don’t wear make up (well, visibly, Kiera/Lizzy and Jane were done up nicely if discreetly). The balls were done in a much more lively and vibrant manner. So on an intellectual level I could appreciate that that was an interesting and perhaps more correct approach BUT, I don’t know. Were they that poor? Did a pig have to appear in the hallway? The book makes references to gardens, but I only saw farmyards there. It was all a bit agricultural. I observed the new approach but it didn’t impress my heart.
On the characters:
Mrs Bennett: I thought Brenda Blethyn played her very nicely. She presents her as a far more desperate and sympathetic character than usual. That was nice.
Mr Bennett: Well he was just a bit too scraggy. The sister reckoned his (Donald Sutherland) agent must have negotiated he got the last word in the film.
Bingley: They ruined him!! Bingley is charming, but he is not an idiot. They made him out to be a fool.
Jane: Fantastic. In the book she is very beautiful but actually the BBC actress who played her was not that gorgeous. So finally we get a Jane who lives up to the script.
Caroline Bingely. Liked her. She is much a more realistic bitch than Anna Chancellor in BBC BUT Anna was an absolute riot and hammed it up so I am not criticising her.
Mr Collins: He was good. He got a creepiness across that really made Lizzie’s rejection of him convincing.
Charlotte: Excellent actually. Her plainness made her acceptance of Collins very realistic and I loved her “don’t judge me” line.
Lydia: I liked the take because she was clearly so 15 altho’ it made Wickham’s interest in her less believable.
Wickham: Well, he was very good looking which was important but because they gave his and Elizabeth’s relationship hardly any time it made Elizabeth’s grievance on his behalf against Darcy seem less important.
Lady Catherine: Judi Dench. Very good. Now I loved the old cow who played her in the BBC but Dench makes her very formidable and Elizabeth’s standing up to her very brave. But arriving in the middle of the night for the show down was a bit ridiculous.
and so we come to our heroes:
Kiera. She did what I knew she would do. Yes, her eyes are beautiful and alive but I am sorry, what is going on with her jawline? It sticks out at the bottom so it constantly looks like she’s gritting her teeth. And while she did get across that wilfulness of Elizabeth’s, she did the giggling thing. Elizabeth is mature and composed. I know she’s only 20 but she doesn’t make a show of herself. We are proud of Elizabeth. Maybe we’d laugh out of nervousness, but not our Elizabeth. She conducts herself with dignity and we are proud of her. So sorry Kiera. I knew you would fail and you did.
Darcy. Darcy. Darcy.
To be honest, it wasn’t entirely McFayden’s fault. I don’t mind him being less good looking. And I thought he did intense and broody ok. Quite good actually. The director ruined it for him. Like, hello, Proposal scene???? (excuse descent into Friends-speak). She is running around in the rain (why? does she think she looks good wet?)
She takes shelter at some monument and he appears. How? Why is he there? Where are we? Did he beam down? Where’s his horse or carriage? I need logistical back-up for these things.
And the letter. The letter is absolutely crucial. It is the turning point of the plot. And they reduce it to two pages. Pathetic.
Then they add in sentences. In a much freer language and style. “He is bewitched, body and soul”. You are not Heathcliff, for God’s sake. And she says “your hands are cold”. What? Is this Hugh Grant and your woman in 4 Weddings? “Is it still raining?”.
So interesting exercise but result: fail.
Permalink
09.27.05
Posted in Irish Politics at 9:14 pm by
A brief update on the progression of my thoughts on this. Last year I
posted on this issue and I had decided that the State shouldn’t get involved in telling people what they could and couldn’t wear. But Kevin Myers has now written two columns on the topic and I have to record that they have persuaded me. There is a line between what is acceptable practice in a western democracy and what should be totally discouraged.
Here’s one extract from his Sep 16th column:
So, if you defend multiculturalism as parity of esteem for all cultures – and please, make yourself at home in Ireland of the Welcomes – well, you’re in essence saying that you respect cultures which mutilate little girls and justify the murder of rape victims because they are unclean (haram, a common practice in Jordan and Pakistan).
and today:
Anyway, just because the burka might be traditional in certain places doesn’t mean we should accept it here. We do not permit Swahili women to go bare-breasted in Dublin merely because they do so at home. Moreover, this is not a debate about some harmless sartorial vogue, but the spread of a fundamentalism which has so far caused tens of thousands of deaths across the world. Nor is this something strange and remote. A dozen British Muslims have so far become suicide bombers, killing scores of people, from London to Kashmir. We are all facing a complex war of civilisations, and part of that war is sartorial.
In all free societies, humans have a profound taboo about concealing the face, and I believe that taboo should now be reflected in law. We are increasingly dependent on Muslim immigrants, without whom our medical services would collapse overnight. By outlawing the burka, we are both protecting Muslim women and girls from the coercion of fundamentalists within their own immigrant communities, and are defending public cohesiveness according to European norms. We must not allow women to go masked in public. Full stop.
I know that my comments were originally made about the hijab, and Kevin’s are about the burka but I think the essential point is this: We are facing now what America has faced since its inception. That country has many flaws but one thing they got right was using the schools as the melting pot. Through the schools the peoples of many nations became one nation and without sacrificing their identities. Irish-America and Italian-America didn’t have to give up their cultures, but they all became Americans. I think you can pander to cultural sensitivities and end up creating huge divisions in a society instead of bringing people closer together. Fundamentalism is spreading and it is no harm to put the brakes on it. It does protect the moderates from pressure. So I am using my woman’s perogative and changing my mind. No religious symbols in the schools and I endorse Kevin’s no burkas on the street.
Permalink
Posted in Sunday Times Columns at 2:41 pm by
I’ve been thinking a lot about alternative therapies lately. There is such a huge range of what does work, what is placebo, the benefits of religion, fads like NLP, benefit of simple cognitive techniques in improving mental health, my yoga and pathetic efforts at meditation. Here’s something else to add to that list. Walking on hot coals. It’s easy to knock it, but is there something in what Mikal Nielsen, a firewalker says:
“For me, firewalking is about the experience of stepping into my fear,” the 47-year-old says. “The firewalking course is not about firewalking. I can teach you how to do that in five minutes. It is about stepping up to face what is between you and where you want to be in life. The only thing between the two is fear, and it shows up in hundreds of ways. With firewalking there’s a belief there that says it can’t be done. And when people actually do it, a shift takes place in the brain – we start to look at and question all our other beliefs. Do we really need beliefs such as ‘relationships are hard work’ or ‘there’s not enough money to go around’? Do they serve us – and if not then we can start letting go of them. That’s what the firewalk is about – personal growth. It’s not a gimmick or a party trick.”
Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized at 2:34 pm by
Amazing. The Irish Times gets it wrong! In an interview with John McColgan, creator of Riverdance on his new production of The Pirate Queen (musical about Grace O’Malley) he says: “We thought about a musical with its routes in Ireland and with dance.” I presume he meant “roots”. Happens to us all.
Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized at 2:29 pm by
I see that “Sir” Tony is getting a taste of his own medicine:
From today’s IT
“An overseas group, which plans to publish a free newspaper for Dubliners “within the next few days”, is attempting to block Independent Newspapers from using the word “Metro” in the title of a competitive publication.”
When John Ryan started his ill-fated “Stars on Sunday” he had to fight off the might of the Independent Group because they said the Daily Star should be the only paper allowed to use the word “Star” in its title. Stars on Sunday was always a stupid paper but I am glad that its spirit lived long enough to cause trouble for Tony.
Permalink
09.25.05
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:23 pm by
I have one thing to say about Kate Moss. I don’t think she’s that great looking. Perhaps in real life. But in photographs? Never seen the attraction. And her clothes aren’t cool. They’re a mess. And her legs are bandy. I couldn’t care less what drugs she does or with whom she has sex. She’s young and rich. And they’re all it so I am sorry that the press turned on her. But who is a beauty today? I think Robin Wright and Diane Lane are truly beautiful. And Elle McPherson looked her best when she put on all the weight for Sirens. Skinny, she looks ordinary. Tall and lithe perhaps but not actually beautiful. Am I the only one left unmoved?
Permalink
Posted in Sunday Times Columns at 10:09 pm by
Miriam O’Callaghan is pregnant again. She has 7 children. 4 from the marriage with Tom McGurk, and 3 with Steve Carson. So this will make the lads “even”. Its almost unseemly in this day and age to have so many children – still, she’s rich. She’s also 46. ouch. She says she’s happiest when she is pregnant. I understand this because despite the physical traumas of pregnancy, you feel extremely virtuous and worthy with a baby inside you. Creating life is one way to validate your existence. Although if she needs that much validation, then its no surprise that she’s in television where mass viewership will also provide the kind of approval her psyche must require. I too have ambitions to broadcast. Perhaps I am projecting my pyschological needs on to her. What???? Never.
Permalink
Posted in Domestic/Relationships, Feminism at 10:03 pm by
I know its “my” paper but I must say the ST does get good stories. Here’s an interesting one about sneaky civil servants using their access to databases to rat to the press on Lotto winners.
Permalink
Posted in Feminism at 9:53 pm by
Real leaders don’t indulge popular fears
Civil servants at a pension office in Sligo voted to go on strike last week. Not for any of the usual reasons – better pay or shorter working hours. Instead they’re threatening a walk-out because Vodafone is putting three mobile phone antennae on their roof. The workers believe that the health risks are so great it is their duty to prevent the installation at all costs.
They are completely wrong, and yet convinced they are right. How can this be? There are 3.8m mobile phones in Ireland, according to ComReg, the regulator. They don’t keep a count of groups protesting against antennae, but I’d say one for every parish in the country is about right. The protesters are convinced that the non- ionising radiation emitted from the antennae is responsible for a range of conditions, from cancer to Alzheimer’s to migraine.
What these diseases have in common is that nobody is quite sure what causes them. In medieval times, people blamed sin or comets for mystery illnesses. Now we blame modern technology. A harsh comparison, but given the absence of rational thought in each case, we have to ask why there is such a huge gap between actual risk and perceived risk among the general population.
In response to people’s concerns, ComReg monitors the emissions from 400 mobile phone stations throughout the country. The full report for each station is available on its website. Completely at random I read the report on the Slieve Mish mast in Co Kerry. For each radio frequency, a maximum exposure level for the public is recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). On Slieve Mish, the highest emission at the GSM mobile phone transmission frequency was 0.01% of the maximum level recommended. In other words, the emissions are 10,000 times lower than recommended. A pretty comfortable margin of safety.
Protesters will shriek that when it comes to their health, any risk, no matter how small, is unacceptable to them. But this is a lie. Getting out of bed every day is a risk. Whether on foot, by car or by public transport, we run an actual risk of being killed simply by going somewhere. We all, including those civil servants in Sligo, own millions of radiation-emitting mobile phones. The truth is we are quite willing to take big and quantifiable risks every day.
In the case of mobile masts, it is not the level of risk involved, but the manner in which we assess that risk. People assume that the illusion of control, like a talisman, is what protects them. Since they are at the wheel of the car, they think they can overtake the truck before they meet the oncoming bus. The truck or the bus may accelerate, thus undermining the driver’s control of the situation, but this seldom occurs to the driver.
When someone thinks they are in control they will take enormous risks without flinching. When they think someone else, a big company or a government, is imposing a risk upon them, they lose the head.
The Rossport Five are beginning their fourth month in jail because they believe that Shell’s gas pipeline could kill them. Shell wants to build its gas terminal onshore because gas workers are often killed on dangerous offshore terminals, or when the helicopters taking them to and fro crash.
Shell’s pipeline has been designed to take twice the pressure that will be needed. So the chances of an accident in Co Mayo involving Shell are minuscule, and the reaction in Rossport is out of all proportion to the actual risk. But there was no planning process for the pipe, and Shell is a multinational with a nasty reputation and it is wielding compulsory purchase orders. The result is mass hysteria.
In Kinnegad, Lagan Cement has been given permission by Meath county council to burn meat and bone meal (MBM) instead of coal in its furnaces. By burning less coal, the cement company will reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45%, an indisputably good thing. There is a tiny risk that the MBM may contain CJD, the human equivalent of mad cow disease, so burning it at 2,000C is a reasonably effective way of completely destroying any traces.
Does that satisfy locals? Of course not. There was a huge protest around Kinnegad because people believed they were going to catch CJD. Do they also believe if they sail far enough west they will fall off the edge of the earth? The problem is that, on all of these issues, there is a complete absence of political leadership. Nobody is willing to stand up to protesters and tell them they are simply mistaken. Instead they are indulged. Wherever there are protesters there are politicians who will say things like “Their fears are real” (not “Their claims are real”). They will say that it is their job to “represent the people’s views”. Who decided that was a politician?’s job? Not Michael Collins or Eamon de Valera. Don’t politicians have the slightest obligation to tell their constituents that just because they read a mad report on the internet, that doesn’t make it true? In one sense, it’s hard to blame them because voters have a nasty habit of electing single-issue protest candidates. No TD or councillor in a proposed incinerator constituency wants to be the first to admit that we have to have them and you won’t grow another head if you live near one.
But Irish politicians are doing themselves no favours in the long run. In almost all protest campaigns the politician is ineffective. This is not an accident: it’s because they decided long ago to outsource hard decisions to politically unaccountable bodies such as An Bord Pleanala and the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus they have protected themselves from being forced to decide on tough issues and taking the rap when the hard choice has to be made.
Inevitably when paid professionals take the unpopular decisions, the ineffectiveness of the politician becomes apparent. People begin to wonder what politicians are for, and either don’t bother to vote in the next election or support an independent.
The various party conferences have been given wide coverage over the past month. Amid all these think-ins, did anyone suggest adopting a policy of standing up to protesters? No, that would be called electoral suicide. But as long as they refrain from offering true leadership on these issues, they are destroying themselves anyway. Just more slowly.
*Blog special update* On the Shell issue, I would like to make clear that I think the non-tax deal they have is outrageous, but that’s a reason to kick FF out of office – not get hysterical about safety issues.
Permalink
09.23.05
Posted in Sunday Times Columns at 9:10 pm by
Here are some extracts from The Atlantic’s feature on Abraham Lincoln and his lifelong battle with depression. The author uses accounts of the time to tell the story of how his illness was viewed. It’s compassionate and fascinating.
“Abraham Lincoln fought clinical depression all his life, and if he were alive today, his condition would be treated as a “character issue”?that is, as a political liability. His condition was indeed a character issue: it gave him the tools to save the nation….”
In 1835 he had his first major bout when a woman it is thought he loved called Ann Rutledge died. He reacted badly.
“Indeed, the villagers’ anxiety was intense, both for Lincoln’s immediate safety and for his long-term mental health. Lincoln “told Me that he felt like Committing Suicide often,” remembered Mentor Graham, a schoolteacher, and his neighbors mobilized to keep him safe. One friend recalled, “Mr Lincolns friends ? were Compelled to keep watch and ward over Mr Lincoln, he being from the sudden shock somewhat temporarily deranged. We watched during storms?fogs?damp gloomy weather ? for fear of an accident.” Some villagers worried that he’d end up insane. After several weeks an older couple in the area took him into their home. Bowling Green, the large, merry justice of the peace, and his wife, Nancy, took care of Lincoln for a week or two. When he had improved somewhat, they let him go, but he was, Mrs. Green said, “quite melancholy for months.”
Weren’t they great friends to watch over him so well? I am not sure such compassion would exist now.
And I like this analysis:
“….in the nineteenth-century conception of melancholy, genius and gloom were often part of the same overall picture. True, a person with a melancholy temperament had been fated with an awful burden?but also, in Lord Byron’s phrase, with a “fearful gift.” The burden was a sadness and despair that could tip into a state of disease. But the gift was a capacity for depth and wisdom.”
Later on the author refers to the 1979 study about depression which I had read somewhere before:
“Abramson and Alloy pointed to a phenomenon called “depressive realism,” or the “sadder but wiser” effect. Though psychiatry had long equated mental health with clear thinking, it turns out that happiness is often characterized by muddy inaccuracies. “Much research suggests,” Alloy has written, “that when they are not depressed, people are highly vulnerable to illusions, including unrealistic optimism, overestimation of themselves, and an exaggerated sense of their capacity to control events. The same research indicates that depressed people’s perceptions and judgments are often less biased.”
Depressed people have the ability to see through sham and fakery. If they can respond as Linclon did by staring pain in the eye and finding a way to overcome it, they can achieve great things. These days of course they are dosed with Prozac or abandoned.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »