Ripple Effects

The AGA Exhibits: Images In Sight And Sound

The AGA actually is a much smaller building than I expected. But what’s appealing is the ubiquitous windows and glass allowing natural light to pour in, visually expanding the interior space. The windows also make the surrounding downtown buildings visible from within, enhancing the sense of connection with the adjacent urban environs. The exhibits are distributed among three floors of galleries.

Figures in Motion showcases 40 of Edgar Degas’ (1834-1917) bronze sculptures of dancers, bathers, and horses. Juxtaposed in the exhibits are paintings, pastels, drawings, and prints of early photographs showing these figures in action. The nuance of a single movement, as simple as the drying motion of bathers, can turn into a subject of grace and beauty under the sensitive eyes and expressive hands of the artist.

In contrast, Francisco Goya’s (1746-1828) etching prints suites Los Caprichos (1799) and The Disasters of War (1810-1820) are the realistic depiction of the ugliness and foibles of humanity. A sharp social critic, his art mightier than the sword, Goya’s works expose unreservedly the horror of war and his critique of his time.

Up to the second floor I came face to face with the archetypal portraits by the renowned Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh (1908-2002) in the exhibit Karsh: Image Maker. We all must have seen some of his black and white portraits of famous people, somewhere. The most well-known probably is Winston Churchill from whose mouth Karsh reportedly pulled out a cigar as he did his work. Other famous portraits include that of Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Ernest Hemingway, Princess Elizabeth, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, Alfred Hitchcock, Helen Keller, Grey Owl and numerous remarkable history makers. I was totally absorbed as I walked by these meditative portraits of iconic personalities.

It seemed that the exhibits grew more interesting with every flight of stairs I stepped up. The third floor offered an experience totally new to me. As far as I can recall, this is the first sound installation mixed media art that I’ve encountered. In a large, rectangular room occupying the whole floor, The Murder of Crows is installed. Sound sculptors Janet Cardiff and George Miller have shown this work, their largest sound installation, in Australia, Germany and Brazil. This is their North American premiere.

98 speakers are placed strategically and aesthetically in a large room, surrounding a table in the middle. On the table is a megaphone. Audience seats are grouped in the space encircled by the speakers. The whole setting visually is a minimalist display. The photo below is this installation in Berlin. Even without the sound, the arrangement is an artistic presentation in itself.

But what we had at the AGA was a windowless room with dim lighting. The added effects were even more haunting and claustrophobic.

The 30 minutes sound presentation is a fusion of narrations, voices, footsteps, birds and bats, choral and orchestral music. It evokes sequences of dreamscapes, and in part is an audio rendition of Goya’s etching The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters in the Los Caprichos series (See image above). The etching shows the artist himself asleep at his desk, with owls and bats hovering over him. The title divulges layers of meaning, prompting speculations of Goya’s actual thoughts. The sleep of reason unleashes powerful imagination, even nightmares. Or, the erosion of reason led humanity into chaos and irrationality…

The phrase ‘the murder of crows’ refers to the collective gathering of the ominous birds, re-created here by the groupings of the 98 black speakers, some mounted on stands, some placed on chairs. The very title and the effects made me feel like I was in the middle of the Hitchcock movie The Birds. The sound was so riveting that I was glued to my seat in suspense… and the music from the massive choir and orchestra was both amazing and disturbing. Click here to watch a 5-minute video clip of the sound installation. Click here to read an interview with Cardiff and Miller.

The AGA is not a big structure, but what is offered inside spans the artistic expressions separated by a chasm of time, form, and style. From Goya’s disturbing etchings to the graceful renditions of Degas’ dancers, to the photographic images of iconic personalities captured by Karsh, and to end with the haunting sound installation The Murder of Crows, the exhibits were rains of pebbles into this quiet pond of thoughts… something I had not anticipated at the start of the trip.

Photography was not allowed in the galleries, so I cannot post any authentic visual experience here. The above images are from the following sources:

Degas’ bronze sculpture Little Dancer and Karsh’s portrait of Albert Einstein from AGA website http://youraga.ca/current

Goya’s The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters from Wikipedia Commons

The Murder of Crows sound installation from Cardiff and Miller’s website http://www.cardiffmiller.com/artworks/inst/murder_of_crows.html

***

Art Gallery of Alberta

Drove up to Edmonton to take in the new Art Gallery of Alberta. My first impression when I looked at the promotional materials was its similarity to a Frank Gehry like the Disney Concert Hall in L.A. and the Peter B. Lewis Building on the Case Western Reserve University campus.

A look at it in real life confirmed my thought, it sure was a Gehry style architecture. A little googling later led me to the information that its architect Randall Stout used to work at Frank Gehry’s studio. CLICK HERE for an extensive interview of Randall Stout and some spectacular images of his portfolio.

I don’t have any sophisticated photo software to take out the traffic lights and the sewage repair work underway, so the following picture shows the real life street scene of the remarkable structure at its most authentic. But for some sparkling clear views and a detailed description of the architecture, CLICK HERE.

And here are some pictures of the inside, like the above, were taken by my little Panasonic Lumix pocket camera, no touch-up or editing:

The AGA is situated adjacent the Sir Winston Churchill Square in downtown Edmonton, a public open space linking the City Hall with the arts:

The Winspear Centre, home of the Edmonton Symphony is just across from the Square:

To finish off my day visit, I saw this colourful reflection of the slowly setting sun on the downtown buildings:

Of course, I didn’t drive three hours from Calgary just see the the architecture, but the exhibits. And that has to be another post.

Photos taken by Arti of Ripple Effects, March 2010.
All Rights Reserved

The Power of Aloneness

Before the resurrection was the death.
Before the death, the long path of suffering.
Before the suffering, the lonely struggle,
Agonizing solitude.

The Garden of Gethsemane,
Epitome of aloneness.
Even the closest would fall asleep
But one kept watch, awake for all.

Sweat dropped like blood
A heart pierced before nails were hammered in.
The soul cried out no, not this cup
But oh, not my will.

Not fear of sinews tearing from the joints
But the searing pain of separation
A Father who would leave totally alone
the tainted Son of Sin.

A prostrating prayer, a yielding spirit
The power of aloneness thus transformed.
As He got up from that rock, He had risen
Ready to accept the kiss of death.

I would never know the nailing pain
nor the bitter taste of that dreadful cup
But let me feel the power of solitary rest
To stay awake and rise and conquer death.

***

Poem by Arti of Ripple Effects
On the Eve of Good Friday, 2010.

Photos taken by Arti in Israel, 2007.
Top: Via Dolorosa, Bottom: A Garden in Jerusalem

Yasujiro Ozu and The Art of Aloneness

Growing up in Hong Kong during the 60’s, I had my share of Japanese literature and films, as well, the early version of anime. Books were in Chinese translations, films with Chinese subtitles, and anime needed no language. As a youngster I had my fix of Samurai action flicks by the legendary Akira Kurosawa, or the early sagas of The Blind Swordsman deftly performed by Shintarô Katsu. The fast, magical sword-fighting movements displayed in elegantly choreographed sequences defined what ‘cool’ was in the eyes of a very young film lover, decades before Jason Bourne emerged.

But I admit, I had never heard of Yasujiro Ozu (小津安二郎, 1903-1963) before reading the book The Elegance of The Hedgehog, and since, have become a mesmerized Ozu fan.

In Muriel Barbery’s marvellous work of fiction The Elegance of The Hedgehog, I was fascinated by the following excerpt that led me to explore the world of Ozu. Barbery mentioned some dialogues in the Ozu film ‘The Munekata Sisters’ (1950). Here, after quoting elder sister Setsuko, Barbery wraps up the chapter from the point of view of the concierge Renée, narrator of the book:

SETSUKO
True novelty is that which does not grow old, despite the passage of time.

The camellia against the moss of the temple, the violet hues of the Kyoto mountains, a blue porcelain cup — this sudden flowering of pure beauty at the heart of ephemeral passion: is this not something we all aspire to? And something that, in our Western civilization, we do not know how to attain?

The contemplation of eternity within the very movement of life.

I could not find any copy of ‘The Munekata Sisters’, but I did manage to find a few other Ozu films on DVD in The Criterion Collection at an independent video store. One particularly stands out, both the film and the special features. And that’s Tokyo Story (1953), the best known and most acclaimed Ozu work.

TOKYO STORY (with spoiler)

Instead of the macho samurai films of his time, Ozu chose to explore the quiet subject of family relationships, parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, and from them come the topics of marriage, loyalty, aging, death, filial duties, parental expectations, and generational conflicts. Through his perceptive camera work, Ozu sensitively revealed the undercurrents beneath the seemingly calm surface of daily family interactions.

‘Tokyo Story’ is about an aging couple Shukichi (the Ozu actor Chishu Ryu) and Tomi (Chieko Higashiyama) from small town Onomichi going on a trip to visit their adult children in bustling Tokyo. At that time, postwar Japan was cranking up her economic engine, and urbanization was taking off. Shukichi and Tomi’s children were all busily engaged in their work and family, with no time or patience to entertain their visiting parents, albeit struggling with a thin sense of obligation. They passed the two old folks from home to home, and finally sent them off to a spa resort on their own, a supposedly well-meant package substituting for their absentee hospitality.

With his subtle cinematic language, Ozu explored the issues facing the family in urban, postwar Japan. I’m surprised that in a time when the rebuilding of national pride was as much an essential as that of the economy, Ozu was brave enough to depict the collapse of the family, revealing the conflicts and tensions behind the amicable social façade. It’s interesting how contemporary and universal they are. Have we not heard of those ubiquitous ‘mother-in-law jokes’ in our modern Western society? Or, in real life, do we not struggle between taking care of our own family and career, and finding the time and energy to look after our aging parents?

But the contemplative cinematic offerings of Ozu draw us into deeper thoughts. ‘Tokyo Story’ quietly depicts the truth of these issues: No matter how many siblings there are in a family, each person is responsible for his or her own decision and action. Even in a mass society like Japan, one can still make individual choices. Despite the currents, one can stand alone against the tides, and act according to one’s heart and conviction. While the brothers and sister are evading the task of hospitality, the young widowed daughter-in-law Noriko (the Ozu actress Setsuko Hara) chooses to care for her deceased husband’s parents out of genuine love. She stands alone in her kindness and grace, a selfless heroine in a family hinged upon superficial ties.

Illness and death too have to be borne alone. Despite their being together all the years of their marriage, Shukichi and Tomi each has to face the imminent all alone. After Tomi falls ill upon arriving home from Tokyo, the strong bond of togetherness in marriage quickly dissolves into helpless resignation of parting and letting go. Shukichi soon realizes he has to face life all alone. The poignant scene though is that despite his loss, he looks out for his daughter-in-law Noriko, appreciating her loyalty, and relieving her of further obligations. Despite having no blood ties, the two of them have touched each other in a way that’s beyond flesh and blood. Noriko selflessly gives while Shukichi accepts and appreciates in the midst of aloneness. The tables are turned, while they are left to face life alone, they are yet bound together in an unspoken bond, one that’s far stronger than filial ties.

The Criterion Collection carries several sets of Ozu titles. ‘Tokyo Story’ is one in a trilogy of Noriko’s stories. Disc Two features ‘I Lived, But…’, a two-hour documentary on the life of Ozu, and ‘Talking with Ozu’: a 40-minute tribute to the great director featuring reflections from international auteurs Stanley Kwan, Aki Kaurismaki, Claire Denis, Lindsay Anderson, Paul Schrader, Wim Wenders, and Hou Hsiao-hsien. It also features audio commentary by Ozu film scholar David Desser.

~~~~ Ripples

CLICK HERE to my review of another Ozu classic: Floating Weeds (1959)

Alone Again… Unnaturally

A year ago around this time, I wrote the post ‘No Texting for Lent and The End of Solitude’. It was in response to the news about some Roman Catholic bishops urging the faithful to restrain from texting as a penance during Lent. And around the same time, I came across the article by William Deresiewicz ‘The End of Solitude’, pointing out the difficulty of remaining alone in our over-connected society.

Now a year after Deresiewicz published his essay, the number of tweets had grown by 1,400%. Now there are 50 million tweets per day, an average of 600 tweets per second. So, if you’re calling for ‘No texting’ at Lent, you might as well tell people not to use the phone, the computer, the iPhone, all the smart gadgets, in other words, get off the human race for the time being.

Hey, that may not be such a bad idea. The current issue of The American Scholar has another article by Deresiewicz, yes, on solitude again. I’m glad to read articles on ‘Solitude’, why? There just aren’t too many written on this topic. And thanks to Deresiewicz, seems like his is the only voice crying in the digital wilderness. The article is a lecture he delivered to the plebe class at the United States Military Academy at West Point in October of last year, entitled ‘Solitude And Leadership’.

If you want others to follow, learn to be alone with your thoughts.

This quote at the beginning of the article just about sums it all up.

Speaking to this class of freshman, all eager and gung-ho to fall in line with the rank and file of this prestigious Military Academy, Deresiewicz has the audacity (ok, guts) to tell his audience to shun conformity, break away from regimentation, to ask questions, to seek their own reality, to form their own opinion, and to exercise moral courage. And his main crux: it is only through solitude can they do this.

Facebook and Twitter, and yes, even The New York Times, only expose you to other people’s thinking. Whenever you check your tweets, or get on to your social network, or read the newspaper for that matter, you are only hearing other people’s voices:

That’s what Emerson meant when he said that “he who should inspire and lead his race must be defended from travelling with the souls of other men, from living, breathing, reading, and writing in the daily, time-worn yoke of their opinions.” Notice that he uses the word lead. Leadership means finding a new direction, not simply putting yourself at the front of the herd that’s heading toward the cliff.

He urged them to read books instead. Well aren’t books other people’s opinion too? True, sometimes you need to put them down too to visualize you own reality and formulate your own stance. But, books, especially the time-tested ones, have weathered social scrutinies and oppositions, and yet still stand today offering us wisdom of perspectives in finding our own path.

Further, the major difference between a well-written book and a tweet, or a Comedy Central episode, or even a newspaper article, is basically, time.

The best writers write much more slowly than everyone else, and the better they are, the slower they write. James Joyce wrote Ulysses, the greatest novel of the 20th century, at the rate of about a hundred words a day… for seven years. T. S. Eliot, one of the greatest poets our country has ever produced, wrote about 150 pages of poetry over the course of his entire 25-year career. That’s half a page a month. So it is with any other form of thought. You do your best thinking by slowing down and concentrating.

Of course, this may sound reductionist. But, I like the idea of slowing down in this rapidly shifting world. Deresiewics urged the freshmen of West Point to practice concentrating and focusing on one thing rather than multi-tasking. He charged them to take the time to slowly read, think, and write, in solitude, an axiom that’s so rad that his audience probably had never heard before.

In this über connected world we’re in, it’s unnatural to be alone. A solitary moment has to be strived for with extra effort, and much self-discipline. That means unplugging the phone, turning off the computer and anything smart, yes, including friends, real or virtual. For Lent or not for Lent, it could well be the only way to find out who we are and where we are heading. Even if we’re not aspiring to lead, at least we know whom we should follow. And, you’ll never know, others may be attracted to our slowness and surety that they just might step right behind us. So it’s best not to steer them too close to the cliff.

History Made At The Oscars: Kathryn Bigelow Wins Best Director

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards has made history on several fronts.

Probably the most talked about is Kathryn Bigelow becoming the first woman to claim the Best Director Oscar. And lesser known is the fact that her film “The Hurt Locker” has also distinguished itself as the lowest grossing movie to win Best Picture. With $15 million spent on its production, “The Hurt Locker” has gained back $14.7 million in its domestic gross, and a total worldwide sale of $21 million, paltry compared to Avatar’s $2.6 billion. Bravo to the Academy voters.

Another major breakthrough at Oscars 2010 is Geoffrey Fletcher winning Best Adapted Screenplay for his work “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.” He is the first African American ever to win a screenwriting Oscar. Let me re-direct you to an inspiring post on Geoffrey Fletcher’s win from the blog Screenwriting From Iowa.

The Celluloid Ceiling

Does Bigelow’s win signify the turning of a new page for all female directors and woman workers in the film industry? Or is it just a one-time victory? Throughout Oscar history, there have only been three other women nominated for Best Director: Lina Wertmüller for “Seven Beauties” in 1976, Jane Campion for “The Piano” in 1993; and Sofia Coppola for “Lost in Translation” in 2003. None of them won. It has taken 82 Academy Awards to arrive at this point today.

The annual ‘Celluloid Ceiling’ report compiled by Dr. Martha Lauzen at the Center For the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University tracks women employed in the film industry over the years. Her 2009 study records the following findings:

Women comprised of 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films. This represents a decline of 3% from 2001.
.
Women accounted for 7% of directors in 2009, a decrease of 2% from 2008, and no change since 1987.
.
As for behind-the-scenes employment of 2,838 individuals working on the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2009, women represented 2% of the cinematographers and 8% of writers.

Has Bigelow shattered the Celluloid Ceiling once and for all? The answer is yet to be seen. Considering the gender disparity in the film industry, it remains a long and arduous journey for aspiring woman filmmakers.

But I admire Kathryn Bigelow for one thing: she downplays the gender issue and pursues the universal role of ‘director’, shunning being called a ‘female director’. When accepting her Award, she did not even mention the history-making significance of her win but rather acknowledged the troops at war.

Of course, she won on her own merits and not on account of her gender. So just let me help Barbra Streisand utter what is unsaid in her statement, the all important subtext:

“Well, the time has come … for us to recognize the excellent work of a director despite the fact that she is a woman.”

Bigelow, a painter turned filmmaker, was first trained at the San Francisco Art Institute and later won a scholarship for the Independent Study Program at the Whitney Museum in New York, “which gave her the opportunity to study and produce conceptual art that was critiqued by the likes of Richard Serra and Susan Sontag.” Later she re-directed her passion to film theory and criticism at Columbia University.

When asked about her movies not being “female”, Bigelow, gives a thought-provoking answer from the point of view of an artist [1]:

But you don’t get exasperated with this notion that your movies are not “female”?

No, because I respect it, and I understand it. The thing that’s interesting is that I come from the art world, or that’s where I was creatively, aesthetically, and intellectually formed and informed.

Certainly at the time I was there, there was never a discussion of gender per se. Like, this is a woman’s sculpture or a man’s sculpture. There was never this kind of bifurcation of particular talent. It was just looked at as the piece of work. The work had to speak for itself. And that’s still how I look at any particular work.

I think of a person as a filmmaker, not a male or female filmmaker. Or I think of them as a painter, not a male or female painter. I don’t view the world like that. Yes, we’re informed by who we are, and perhaps we’re even defined by that, but yet, the work has to speak for itself.

Hopefully the film industry can learn from the art world, such that we would never have to give a movie a gender, or stigmatize its filmmaker for being a woman. Then we can comfortably call them all artists.

****

[1] CLICK HERE to read the full interview by Willa Paskin on Slate Magazine “What Kathryn Bigelow learned from Rembrandt.

Oscar Results 2010

For Oscar Results 2011 CLICK HERE.

We’ve just watched history in the making at the 82nd Academy Awards: The first woman to win a Best Director Oscar, deservedly, Kathryn Bigelow for “The Hurt Locker.” “The Hurt Locker” is also the major winner of the night, garnering 6 Academy Awards from its 9 nominations:

Best Picture
Directing
Original Screenplay
Film Editing
Sound Mixing
Sound Editing

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=kathryn+bigelow+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196556″ src=”3/a/8/f/82nd_Annual_Academy_61d5.jpg?adImageId=11093993&imageId=8196556″ width=”234″ height=”355″ /]

“Well the time has come…” Barbra Streisand said as she announced the Oscar for Best Director. It took 82 Academy Awards to arrive. Only three other women had ever been nominated in this category, but none had won. I’m excited to see Kathryn Bigelow turn a new page of Oscar history last night.

She was clearly moved by this honor, describing it as: “The moment of a lifetime.” Bigelow gave credits to many, but especially to Mark Boal who was an embedded journalist in a bomb disposal team in Iraq for writing the story, and dedicated the award to “women and men in the military who risk their lives on a daily basis. May they come home safe.”

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=kathryn+bigelow+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196456″ src=”d/d/a/2/82nd_Annual_Academy_2274.jpg?adImageId=11094012&imageId=8196456″ width=”234″ height=”350″ /]

To me, the last half hour was the most worthwhile, as with all Oscar award shows, but especially this one. The comedic duo of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin was a disappointment. I expected better. When jokes were made at the expense of color and race, personal relationships of exes, and Meryl Streep’s record Oscar losses, you know they could have put in more effort. Was that a postmodern, deconstructing comic gig? Or simply denigrating the very films the night was supposed to honor? Of course, the audience could take a joke, or two… but I didn’t see all of them laughing. After Neil Patrick Harris’s enthusiastic opening musical, Martin and Baldwin paled in comparison. We might have just discovered who could be the next Oscar host.

However, there were a few more memorable moments that saved the show:

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=john+hughes&iid=8195141″ src=”4/1/c/6/82nd_Annual_Academy_81c8.jpg?adImageId=11093950&imageId=8195141″ width=”270″ height=”185″ /]

The tribute to John Hughes was especially touching. Passed away last year, Hughes was the legendary director whose movies were themselves expressions of teen angst. They represented a generation of youth striving to belong and to connect, in whatever way they knew how. It was quite a moment to see these actors come on stage to honor their director. The now middle-age Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick, stars of the iconic “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” gave a moving tribute. They were later joined on stage by Jon Cryer, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, the truant youths of “The Breakfast Club”. And who would forget “Sixteen Candles”, “Pretty In Pink”, and a bit more recent, the “Home Alone” movies. Macauley Culkin also joined in. The Hughes family was in attendance to acknowledge the tribute.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=sandra+bullock+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196632″ src=”d/7/2/a/82nd_Annual_Academy_9bff.jpg?adImageId=11094074&imageId=8196632″ width=”234″ height=”361″ /]

Sandra Bullock won Best Actress for her role in The Blind Side. “Did I really earn this or did I just wear you all down?” she asked. Just a day ago she won another acting award, the Razzie, the Worst Actress Award for “All About Steve”. But she took it all in stride. “I had the best time at the Razzie… it’s the great equalizer. No one lets me get too full of myself,” she said after the Oscars. Ahh… what a deserving Oscar winner.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=jeff+bridges+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196722″ src=”5/b/4/e/82nd_Annual_Academy_7b13.jpg?adImageId=11094103&imageId=8196722″ width=”225″ height=”300″ /]

Jeff Bridges won Best Actor finally after four nominations, his first one dating back to 1971 for “The Last Picture Show”. On the red carpet, when asked what his late father Lloyd Bridges would have said to him if he were here tonight, he answered: “He’d say, atta boy, atta boy!” I was most impressed by his performance in “Crazy Heart” as a washed-up country-western singer, not just acting, but singing as well.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=geoffrey+fletcher+oscar&iid=8196318″ src=”b/f/8/f/Oscars_2010_11ea.jpg?adImageId=11094421&imageId=8196318″ width=”234″ height=”259″ /]

While I had expected Jason Reitman to win Best Adapted Screenplay, I was glad to see Geoffrey Fletcher getting the recognition for “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire”, the first African American to win a screenwriting Oscar, and with his first feature screenplay. He was definitely moved, “This is for everybody who works on a dream every day, Precious boys and girls everywhere.”

When interviewed after the show, Kathryn Bigelow had this to say to all prospective female directors: “Never give up on your dream.”

So, it was a late-winter night’s dream for many. And it’s gratifying to see some deserving talents have theirs realized in a most amazing way.

For a full list of Oscar Winners, CLICK HERE to the official site of The Academy of Motion Pictures of Arts and Sciences.

What Is Stephen Harper Reading?

Now that the Winter Olympics have come to a close, maybe more of the world would have heard of Stephen Harper. No, no, he isn’t a medal winner. Just a hockey fan, and, he happens to be Canada’s Prime Minister.

And it’s good time to read this book. It all started one March day in 2007. Fifty Canadian artists of all sorts were invited to a Parliamentary session to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Canada Council for the Arts, each of them representing a particular year.

There they were sitting in the Visitors’ Gallery of the House of Commons, waiting for their item to come up on the long agenda of the day. At 3:00 pm, the business came to the celebration. All fifty of them were asked to stand up. The Minister for Canadian Heritage, Bev Oda at the time, rose up, acknowledged their presence, and gave a five-minute speech. Applause. Then on to the next business item. Stephen Harper did not even look up at them standing in the Gallery.

The fifty guest artists were incredulous. Among them was Yann Martel, who received a Canada Council grant in 1991 allowing him to write his first novel. His literary career reached an admirable high in 2002 when he was awarded The Man Booker Prize for his book Life of Pi. (CLICK HERE to read one appreciative reader’s response to the book, a personal note from Barack Obama.)

After this incident, driven by frustration, Martel decided to launch a most interesting project. He started sending Stephen Harper a book every two weeks, with his personal letter introducing the work, and of course, whenever appropriate, fill him in as to why that’s a good read for a Prime Minister. With such an intention, one can predict the tone of these letters. They are mostly sincere, mind you, albeit embedded with the occasional sarcasm, irony, and yes, some condescending subtext.

But overall, these letters to the Prime Minister sent with the books are genuine appeal to the Leader of the country to place more emphasis on the arts. They offer a place of stillness in the busy agenda of a politician. Martel’s is a gentle voice to remind the prime policy maker the role of the arts, in particular, literature and its appreciation, in the making of a nation, the importance of beauty and the imagination in the building of a vision and in shaping the humanity of her people.

So, it’s not so much as to what Stephen Harper is reading, but what’s on his TBR list. It remains unknown whether the PM has actually read any of these gifts, although letters of appreciation had been sent to Martel from his office. It’s fun too to read the choices of the titles… and their reasons. But above all, I’ve enjoyed reading Martel’s insights into how the literary speaks in the context of contemporary political and social landscape. Here are some examples. I’ve included a quote or two from Martel’s letter sent with each title:

Animal Farm by George Orwell

“Animal Farm is about collective folly. It is a political book, which won’t be lost on someone in your line of business. It deals with one of the few matters on which we can all agree: the evil of tyranny.

“Animal Farm is a perfect exemplar of one of the things that literature can be: portable history. … in a scant 120 pages, … the reader is made wise to the ways of the politically wicked. That too is what literature can be: an inoculation.”

The Island Means Minago by Milton Acorn (People’s Poet of Canada)

“But any revolution that uses poetry as one of its weapons has at least one correct thing going for it: the knowledge that artistic expression is central to who and how a people are.”

“… the past is one thing, but what we make of it, the conclusions we draw, is another. History can be many things, depending on how we read it, just as the future can be many things, depending on how we live it… And it is by dreaming first that we get to new realities. Hence the need for poets.”

The Educated Imagination by Northrop Frye

“Literature speaks the language of the imagination.”

“… the better, the more fertile our imagination, the better we can be at being both reasonable and emotional. As broad and deep as our dreams are, so can our realities become. And there’s no better way to train that vital part of us than through literature.”

A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift

“So, more cuts in arts funding… What does $45 million buy that has more worth than a people’s cultural expression, than a people’s sense of who they are?”

Mister Pip by Lloyd Jones

“Lloyd Jones’s novel is about how literature can create a new world. It is about how the world can be read like a novel, and a novel like the world.”

The Kreutzer Sonata by Leo Tolstoy

“Why a book on music? Because serious music, at least as represented by new and classical music, is fast disappearing from our Canadian lives… the latest proof of this: the CBC Radio Orchestra is to be disbanded… How much culture can we do without before we become lifeless, corporate drones? I believe that both in good and bad times we need beautiful music.”

The Uncommon Reader by Alan Bennett

“The irony in the story is as light as whipped cream, the humour as appealing as candy, the characterization as crisp as potato chips, but at the heart of it there’s something highly nutritious to be digested: the effect that books can have on a life.”

“Whenever an independent bookstore disappears, shareholders somewhere may be richer, but a neighbourhood is for sure poorer.”

Gilead by Marilynne Robinson

“Speaking of President Obama, it’s because of him that I’m sending you the novel Gilead, by the American writer Marilynne Robinson. It’s one of his favourite novels.”

“I would sincerely recommend that you read Gilead before you meet President Obama on February 19. For two people who are meeting for the first time, there’s nothing like talking about a book that both have read to create common ground and a sense of intimacy, of knowing the other in a small but important way. After all, to like the same book implies a similar emotional response to it, a shared recognition of the world reflected in it. This is assuming , of course, that you like the book.”

Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

“Since Julius Caesar is about power and politics, we might as well talk about power and politics. Let me discuss concerns I have with two decisions your government recently announced.

My first concern is about the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. New money allocated to the Council is apparently to be spent exclusively on “business-related degrees”…. we’re losing sight of the purpose of a university if we think it’s the place to churn out MBAs. A university is the repository and crucible of a society, the place where it studies itself. It is the brain of a society. It is not the wallet… A university builds minds and souls. A business employs.”

Louis Riel by Chester Brown and The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea by Yukio Mishima

“But I’ve always liked that about books, how they can be so different from each other and yet rest together without strife on a bookshelf. The hope of literature, the hope of stillness, is that the peace with which the most varied books can lie side by side will transform their readers, so that they too will be able to live side by side with people very different from themselves.”

Yann Martel is still sending books to Stephen Harper every two-weeks. Other authors he has sent include Jane Austen, Flannery O’Connor, Ayn Rand, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Douglas Coupland, Philip Roth, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Franz Kafka, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Beckett, Michael Ignatieff, Paul McCartney, Dylan Thomas, Laura and Jenna Bush… quite an eclectic selection. Excellent demonstration of how we can be so drastically different in our perspectives and background, and yet can still stand shoulder to shoulder in this vast land of the free.

To read the full list of all the books he has sent, and yes, including this one, CLICK HERE to go to the official site: What Is Stephen Harper Reading dot ca

What Is Stephen Harper Reading? by Yann Martel, published by Vintage Canada, 2009, 233 pages.

****

Regarding the role of universities and the humanities as dying disciplines, CLICK HERE to read my post: THE HUMANITIES AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES.

THEATRE by W. Somerset Maugham: In Search of Reality

It was pure serendipity. I thought I knew almost all of Maugham’s titles, but this one just escaped me. I found it on the ‘New and Notable’ shelf in the public library. It’s a Vintage International edition paperback published in 2001. Not new but it looked untouched and inviting.

Two pages into the book I knew right away I had seen it before. Of course, that’s the movie Being Julia (2004). Annette Bening got a Best Actress Oscar nom for her portrayal of Julia Lambert, a famous actress on the London stage in the 1930’s. The movie is a colorful account of how a successful stage actress deals with her mid-life crisis. With fame, fortune, and achievement in bounty, what more could she ask for but… love and passion. And during the course, obstacles, jealousy, and betrayal are all overcome, and revenge carried out; on or off stage, no matter, it’s equally exciting for the glamourous Julia Lambert.

But not until I read this novel on which the movie was based did I realize that a most important passage had been left out. And oh what an omission! For the crux of the book rests on those few pages. And not only that, the screenwriter had chosen to alter a character to suit his fancy, rounding off the edges of conflicts and alleviating tensions in presenting a smooth and suave storyline.

In the movie, Julia’s son Roger is a young man fresh out of Eton and planning to attend Cambridge after the summer. That much is true to the book. Roger is shown to be a devoted son, lovingly supportive of his mother in her pursuits in career and love life. But this is not the case in the novel. Maugham has crafted Roger as a critical young man, offering the necessary tension to the story. In a crucial scene at the end of the book, he questions Julia’s behaviour and integrity. These challenges form the climatic confrontation between mother and son, projecting the meaning behind the very title of the novel.

Here is an excerpt from this scene that captures the essence of the whole book. Julia asks Roger:

“What is it you want?”
Once again he gave her his disconcerting stare. It was hard to know if he was serious, for his eyes faintly shimmered with amusement.
“Reality.”
“What do you mean?”
“You see, I’ve lived all my life in an atmosphere of make-believe…. You never stop acting. It’s second nature to you. You act when there’s a party here. You act to the servants, you act to Father, you act to me. To me you act the part of the fond, indulgent, celebrated mother. You don’t exist, you’re only the innumerable parts you’ve played. I’ve often wondered if there was ever a you or if you were never anything more than a vehicle for all these other people that you’ve pretended to be. When I’ve seen you go into an empty room I’ve sometimes wanted to open the door suddenly, but I’ve been afraid to in case I found nobody there.”

By turning Roger into a complacent and docile young man, the screenwriter had failed to present the necessary tension in the story. Further, by avoiding the character foil between the successful actress mother and her meaning-pursuing, idealistic son, the movie fails to deliver the essential subtext, despite an impressive performance by Annette Bening.

Further, the best is yet to come in the book… such is the ingenuity of W. Somerset Maugham. After a superb, revengeful performance, overarching her rival, the young and beautiful Avice Crichton, and drawing everyone’s admiration back to herself, Julia celebrates on her own with a nice meal and mulls over a gratifying notion, on the very last page:

“Roger says we don’t exist. Why, it’s only we who do exist. They are the shadows and we give them substance. We are the symbols of all this confused, aimless struggling that they call life, and it’s only the symbol which is real. They say acting is only make-believe. That make-believe is the only reality.”

This is ever so relevant for us today. With all the online personae we can create and project, all behind the guard of anonymity, Roger’s quest for what’s real remains a valid search.

Sherry Turkle, the acclaimed ‘anthropologist of cyberspace’, has observed the liminal reality in our postmodern world and stated her own quest:

“I’m interested in how the virtual impinges on what we’ve always called the real, and how the real impinges on the virtual.”

Let’s just hope that the advancement of technology would not get the better of us, blurring the lines of fact and fiction, offering shields for fraud and deceits. Behind the liminal existence, let’s hope too that we still care what’s real and what’s not, and that our humanity will still be valued and not be compromised or lost in the vast abyss of bits and bytes.

The upcoming Academy Awards too, is another platform to showcase such a duality. I always find the acceptance speeches of award winners intriguing: what’s genuine and what’s fake in their thank you’s. Are they presenting their real self or merely acting? Outside of their roles, which part of them is authentic? Or, do they ever get out of their roles?

It’s interesting too to explore the influence of movies nowadays. Again, the postmodern emphasis is on the narrative, multiples of them, and storytelling the vehicle of meaning. Does the notion of Maugham’s character Julia mirror our world… that movies have become the symbols of what we call life? That make-believe has sometimes been merged with reality? Can we still tell them apart? Or, should we even try? Considering the pervasive effects of pop culture in our life today, considering a single movie can command a worldwide box office sale of $2.4 billion, and counting… Maugham was prophetic indeed.

***

The Hurt Locker (2008, DVD)

UPDATE March 7: The Hurt Locker has just won 6 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director. CLICK HERE to read Oscar Results 2010.

UPDATE Feb. 21: The Hurt Locker just won Best Picture at the BAFTA Awards (British Academy of Film and Television Arts). Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win Best Director. “I would like to dedicate this to never abandoning the need to find a resolution for peace,” she said in her acceptance speech. Mark Boal won Best Original Screenplay. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ACCEPTANCE SPEECHES.

With The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow could well have shattered the stereotype of female filmmakers, if there even was an image established for them. But a good guess is that they have generally been misconstrued as merely producers of romances, tear jerkers, simply put, ‘chick flicks’. A look at Bigelow’s filmography shows a track record of action thrillers. But it’s with The Hurt Locker, a captivating work about a bomb disposal team in Iraq, that she has garnered floods of accolade.

Professor Martha Lauzen of San Diego State University studies women in the movie industry over the years. She found that women represented only 9 per cent of Hollywood directors in 2008 – the same figure she had recorded in 1998. In this male-dominated circle, Bigelow is only the fourth woman ever in the 82-year history of the Oscars to be nominated Best Director. The other three were Lina Wertmuller (Pasqualino Settebellezze, 1975), Jane Campion (The Piano, 1993) and Sofia Coppola (Lost In Translation, 2003). None of them won.

Recently, Bigelow made history by being the first woman to win the Director’s Guild Award with The Hurt Locker. According to past trend, winners of the DGA usually went on to win the Oscar, with a few exceptions. Bigelow could be making Oscar history as well comes March 7. But of course, she has tough competition from her ex James Cameron.

The Hurt Locker focuses on an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team in Iraq in 2004. In this urban guerrilla war zone, the signature weapon is the Improvised Explosive Device (IED), or, roadside bomb. What stands out in this film is the intense psychological tension captured by the camera, the excellent editing, and the poignant performance of the three specialists in the EOD team. The nuanced playing out of their opposing psyche and the dynamics of their interactions are what fuel the riveting momentum.

Into this three-men EOD team the story zooms in on one character, Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner), bomb specialist, reckless maverick whose hubris and adrenalin cravings propel his dubiously heroic acts. The quote at the beginning gives a hint of what is to come: “… war is a drug.” Unlike other typical reactions to war, James embraces it. The whole movie is a character study exploring such a psychological make-up. And we are held on the edge of our seats as we follow the Dirty Harry of Baghdad clearing IED’s on the streets.

But the script excels in presenting a multi-layered character. As the story progresses, we see a softer side to the tough bomb expert, and yet, all revealing is movingly restrained. Renner’s performance is magically convincing. He has me on his side as soon as he appears on screen.

Using relatively unknown actors, the film poignantly portrays the vulnerability of Everyman in the war zone. But they can’t be unknown anymore after this. Jeremy Renner (Sgt. Will James), Anthony Mackie (Sgt. Sanborn), and Brian Geraghty (Spc. Owen Eldridge) have left their impressive marks here. Pitching in, albeit for only short moments, are some more well-known actors, Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce and David Morse.

Impressively shot like a documentary, its every scene intense, drawing the viewer in like a participant, an onlooker. Great camera works, excellent editing, breath-taking pacing, and thoroughly human.

Unlike other war movies, there are few bloody scenes, no gratuitous war mongering or protesting. Bigelow in the special feature mentions that the film takes an apolitical, non-partisan stance. Such a neutral, matter-of-fact depiction, focusing on the micro-level of three men handling the most dangerous job in the world, is no less powerful in conveying the danger, the sacrifice, and the courage needed to go through every single day in Iraq. The film stands out among other war movies in its sensitive and sometimes even eloquent treatment of the raw emotions and the dynamics of personalities caught in a hurt locker.

The term ‘hurt locker’ refers to a situation of extreme pain and hardship. The production itself could well illustrate the point. Filmed on location in Jordan, cast and crew had to endure long hours in searing heat of 115 degrees, had to make do with scarce resources, and improvise in tough circumstances. It had been suggested that “no woman over 40 could possibly have the stamina to direct a feature film.” Overcoming such a sexist view is the challenge every woman director has to face. Bigelow has proven herself to be admirably competent, crafting and delivering a superb production with an all male cast, (except a short appearance by Evangeline Lilly), in a land far from home.

The Hurt Locker ties with Avatar with 9 Oscar noms, including Best Picture and Best Director, but it gets nods in two categories that Avatar doesn’t, Best Actor and Best Writing, Screenplay written directly for the screen.

Jeremy Renner receives a Best Actor nod for his engrossing performance as Staff Sgt. William James. A fusion of James McAvoy and Russell Crowe, Renner has proven himself to be a worthy contender in the Oscar race.

Mark Boal gets an Oscar nom for his very first screenplay. This in itself is impressive, and a pointer to what makes a good piece of writing: write what you know. His personal 2004 experience in Baghdad as an embedded journalist with a bomb squad is what makes the story, characters, and every single detail so real and poignant.

The DVD has some fascinating Special Features capturing the Behind The Scene moments, a Gallery, and commentaries from Bigelow and Boal. Those who want to see the film before the Awards show will have to opt for the DVD. As a smaller, indie production, The Hurt Locker had only a short release in selective theatres. Hopefully after March 7, it might get a chance to be put on the big screen again. So, now you know who I root for comes Oscar night.

~ ~ ~ ½ Ripples

***

Click here for an insightful panel discussion on the movie, Spoiler Warning though, from Canada’s National Post.

***

Popularity versus Art

This year’s Oscars marks a new battleground for the dichotomy of art-house vs. blockbuster movies. By increasing the Best Picture category from 5 to 10 selections, it looks like the Academy is aiming at allowing the blockbusters a shot at the coveted statuette, and not the other way round.

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscars+statuette&iid=6857799″ src=”0/7/6/2/Academy_Of_Motion_6f24.jpg?adImageId=10186953&imageId=6857799″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

Why do I say that? A look at the past winners in recent years would give a hint or two: Slumdog Millionaire (2008), a production of just $15 million and a cast of unknown, foreign actors; No Country for Old Men (2007), a $25 million production and not a big hit domestically in terms of box office sales.

Several of the Best Picture contenders in recent years are represented by low-budget indie films, such as Juno (2007) and Little Miss Sunshine (2006). Mind you, they might have reaped millions from their Oscar nods after the fact.

Not that blockbusters are necessarily artistically deficient, or that indie films must be artistically worthy, but it’s safe to say that blockbuster movies are crowd pleasers and more readily received. Art-house films are offered only in limited release, and appreciated by a much smaller audience. Their low budget usually means no A-list stars. It also restricts the profuse use of innovative technology as in big budget productions such as Avatar (2009). So their general appeal is the essence of the screenplay, the acting, the storytelling within very limited means.

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscars+academy+awards&iid=7789226″ src=”7/2/4/e/Kathryn_Bigelow_nominated_99e7.JPG?adImageId=10186835&imageId=7789226″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

The two front-runners of this year’s nominations best illustrate this point. The battle of the ex-es aside, Avatar and The Hurt Locker are neck and neck with 9 nods, competing in many of the same categories. But The Hurt Locker appears in two that are crucial in defining its artistic value as a motion picture: Best Actor (Jeremy Renner) and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Mark Boal), while Avatar falls short in these categories.

From the popularity angle, some refer their contention as David and Goliath. The Hurt Locker, with a production cost of just $11 million and box office sales of $12.6 million, is miniscule when compared to that of Avatar’s $635 million, so far, and a reported budget of $237 million, one of the most expensive movies ever made.

Another way of seeing the two is the number of theatres screening the movies. Avatar has over 3,000 theatres domestically, while The Hurt Locker, well, you’re lucky to catch it before it disappears from its limited release. The DVD is out, so that really helps if you want to see it before the Awards night.

The other contenders pose a similar scenario. Other than Avatar, four Best Pictures nominees have passed, way passed, the $100 million box office sales:The Blind Side ($242 million), Up ($293 million), Inglorious Basterds ($120 million), and District 9 ($115 million). Slightly trailing behind are Up In The Air ($77 million) and Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire ($46 million).

So what stand out are two little films, meager in comparison in terms of box office sales: An Education ($9.6 million) and A Serious Man ($9.2 million).Their high acclaim from critics do not materialize in popular reception from movie goers, which is not surprising, for generally, these two groups don’t always see eye-to-eye.

Box office sales are the mark of popularity. They measure how many have flocked to the theatres and are willing to pay to see a movie. Low ticket sales of course is related to how widely released the movie is, but it also gauges popular taste. There’s the rub, would the Academy members vote for a movie that has been seen by just a fraction of the viewing public? Would they judge a movie only on its artistic and technical merits rather than the sales it generates?

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscars+academy+awards&iid=7783787″ src=”6/8/5/9/The_Blind_Side_eb8a.JPG?adImageId=10187133&imageId=7783787″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

Michael Phillips of Chicago Tribune calls the inclusion of The Blind Side in this year’s Best Picture pool “a triumph of the till”. Many critics are surprised to see it on the list. And I suppose for Hollywood insiders and members of the Academy, they know very well what the bottom line is. I’ve heard the argument before: If you want to see indie films and artsy productions, go to Sundance and Cannes. I can hear them grumble … be realistic, the Oscars is a celebration of the movie business in all its glory and glamour.

I’ve appreciated what one entertainment writer has noted:

… popularity is the spiritual currency of Hollywood’s art. That’s why we call it ‘pop culture.’

It seems that nowadays, spurred on by reality talent shows which generate winners through popular votes, the contention of popularity versus skills or artistic merits is tipped way out of balance. The critics are now made up of the populace; the panel of judges can only voice their opinion, however biting, but they do not get to vote.

And for the lesser known gems like An Education and A Serious Man, I’m glad they are included in the Best Picture pool, thanks to those who have nominated them despite their meager showing at the box office. After all, besides the money-generating function, film is in essence an art form. Art for art’s sake or for profit remains the on-going debate. Of course, the two need not be mutually exclusive… reality is, the financial component often is the main sustenance of a production. It’ll be interesting to see though how the battle of David and Goliath turns out at the Oscars this year. The implications could be more far-reaching than just churning out another winner.

Emma (2009, TV): Episode 3

The final instalment of Emma has a major challenge, to reveal the hidden agendas, and to tie up all the loose ends in just under an hour. The hurried scenes leave me with a feeling of watching a trailer, a montage of excerpts loosely linking up the story. This is especially so in the first half dealing with Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill’s secret relationship.

If the story feels a bit fragmented in this last episode, the cinematography makes up for that shortfall. The hour is saturated with stunning shots, magnificent scenic views and exquisite interior renditions. The Box Hill picnic scene is a vivid example:

Ironically, the pivotal Box Hill scene was not shot in Box Hill, a busy tourist attraction in Surrey. Instead, it was shot in Leith Hill, Mole Valley, another much quieter scenic point. For an interesting comparison of the two hills, click here to go to ‘this is surrey today’.

The Box Hill picnic is a crucial turning point in the story. Emma’s callous and sarcastic joke on Miss Bate and the subsequent scolding she receives from Mr. Knightly is nothing short of an epiphany in self-knowledge. The genuine remorse she feels could well reflect her greatest strength. I’m sure such quality of character is what seizes Mr. Knightly with tenderness, moving him to consider her “faultless in spite of all her faults.”

I have a feeling too that this is the very reason Austen finds her heroine likable. Romola Garai has effectively portrayed a contrite and humbled Emma, while Jonny Lee Miller has delivered convincingly a silent lover with passion and principle. My initial reservation about his role has definitely changed for the better in this final episode.

Fortunately as well, the endearing lines of Mr. Knightly to Emma, no, not the ‘badly done!’ admonition, but the heartfelt praise he spurts out in spontaneity, remains intact and without any modernized alteration from screenwriter Sandy Welch. Of course it needs to be declared in its authentic whole… Miller has the best lines of the series:

“I cannot make speeches, Emma… If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more. But you know what I am. You hear nothing but truth from me. I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.”

As with all Austen’s novels, the ending comes with nuptial ties. But as Masterpiece Classic’s host Laura Linney points out at the opening, considering the social discriminations inflicted upon the woman in Jane Austen’s time, allowing no ownership of properties, no decent employment (even Jane Fairfax compares the governess position with slavery), and no respect or rights given to the single female of low means, it is only a justifiable reward for the author to end her story with loving marriages for her well-deserved protagonists.

Towards this end, the camera takes us to the magnificent view of Beachy Head in the last scene. As Emma and Mr. Knightly stand on the edge of the cliff overlooking the boundless ocean, we see the series come to an idealistic end, maybe a broader stroke than that in Austen’s novel. But as some critics have noted, it is love that the author emphasizes rather than romance. From that perspective, looking outward together to the ocean vast instead of gazing into each other’s eyes may well be an apt interpretation of Austen’s heart.

***

CLICK HERE to go to Episode 1

CLICK HERE to go to Episode 2

Arti’s reviews of Emma (2009), Episodes 1 to 3, have been compiled into one article and published in the Jane Austen Centre Online Magazine. CLICK HERE to read the many other interesting articles on Jane Austen and her time.

**Photo Sources: Box Hill Picnic bbc.com; Beachy Head, not a scene from the movie, taken from Wikimedia Commons.