I adored Romeo and Juliet (Zeffirelli 1968) when I saw it all those years ago.
In fact when I watched it last night (2010) on DVD I realised I must have seen it several times as many of the scenes were so familiar. But I hadn't seen it again for at least 30 years so I came to it with fresh eyes.
When I first saw it I was young and passionately swept up in the two lovers, so beautiful, so sexual, so irresistible.
This time I still reverberated to their love, but the most powerful impact was the gangs of idle, dangerous young noblemen. They spread across the screen. They appeared very soon as the film opened, and recurred with mounting violence.
Discussing it afterwards with my husband this problem of young male violence was, we agreed, central to the purpose of the play. It was also clear to a critical eye, that the Prince was weak. For all his pomp, his curvetting about on his lordly horse, his blaring voice making threats, he does nothing effective to control the violence.
This we thought was partly because the English view of Renaissance Italy at the time was just that: violent, colourful and treacherous.
But Shakespeare was also a Tudor writer and the Tudor dynasty derived their stability from the people's deep aversion to any return to civil war, feuding or internal violence. Shakespeare was at the time of writing Romeo and Juliet, the Queen's loyal man. So his play supported the conservative view that a strong "prince" (monarch) was better than the dangers of violent division. Better Elizabeth's strength, even though it meant a near-dictatorship – secret police, torture and disappearances. The alternative was riot in the streets, and widespread bloodshed as in the Wars of the Roses.
So I do not agree with this reviewer Dennis Grunes that the theme of anti-violence is not sustained by Zeffirelli. It was to me overwhelmingly clear.
http://grunes.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/romeo-and-juliet-franco-zeffirelli-1968/#comment-5385
The review has more justice in accusing Zeffirelli of sugarcoating Romeo. Yes he is a flowerchild but I see this as the natural view in 1968, not necessarily a crass exploitation of youth culture by Zeffirelli. That WAS the icon of our times back then.
I was interested that Romeo's killing of Juliet's other suitor was excised. But the adjustment to Romeo's conflict with Thibault more than balances this out, as Romeo's savagery is quite obvious.
Like this reviewer Dennis Grunes I do not share the dominant view that Zeffirelli portrayed his youngsters as in rebellion against "the establisment" or "the system." Certainly they were horrified at the arranged marriage proposal, but Juliet before falling in love with Romeo is not averse to it in her family’s plans for her future. It is not the adults' arrangement as a custom the lovers’ reject, but simply Juliet's marriage to anyone else but Romeo.
In this they stand centrally in the tradition of Romance which opposes arranged marriage in the individual case of a heroine and hero, but not necessarily as an institution. (If an arrangement is carefully made and allows the pair to meet and be attracted, Romance would not object.)
But there is nonetheless some exploitation in the film. Lawrence Whiting has spoken on record as objecting to the dawn bed scene. I recall Olivia Hussay at the time speaking unhappily about it too which sounded to me as if Zeffirelli pushed them into it. Certainly the quick flash of Olivia's nipples seems crude and unnecessary, actually startling and distracting; as does the camera focus on Leonard's bottom. But if these items had been left out I think a scene of sexuality and nakedness, enfolded in a soft linen draped sanctuary bed, fits very well with the passionate innocence of the lovers.
As a detail I liked the Capulet parental marriage strain. It was a deft use of cinema imagery to amplify the text. It enriched the drama without overloading it with subplot.
Another detail I liked was the excellent costumes together with the actors' seeming habitual comfort in them. That is quite rare in a historical film where actors often look most uncomfortable! Olivia Hussay has mentioned that she was tightly laced and very hot in the Italian summer.
Yet another praiseworthy item was a graceful and believable interpretation of mediaeval dances. Thee whole atmosphere of the ball was well realised with very human anxiety by Lady Capulet as organiser, the excitement of the marraccas handed out etc.
The reviewer says things "just happen" such as the Friar's message arriving too slowly to tell Romeo what is going on so he will know Juliet is not really dead. But the written play, preferred by the reviewer, has a plague intervene to prevent the message arriving. I do not see how a plague is less random than a slow donkey. Both act as the accidental but natural agencies of a merciless Fate.
Mercutio curses "both your houses" - with plague and the link to what pivots the tragedy is therefore lost. It was Zeffirelli's choice to leave out any supernatural consequences but I think this works well. Mercutio's curse is a distraction and a muddling of the doom that develops from the violence of those dangerously feuding, idle young men. This is the dire warning of the play which a curse would obscure, as if the ultimate tragedy of the lovers’ death happened only because Mercutio drew down magic on them. Instead Zeffirelly leaves the purity of violence as the cause of doom.
Over all I found the key theme to be a beautification AND a strong warning against passionate impulse. Again and again the young people react without thoughtfulness, with abandon and passion.
Boys set up a fight for the hell of it then feel, significantly, horrified to see that they have caused a death. They play, and playtime turns lethal, still a theme today.
The lovers yearn together, embracing as they explicitly throw aside the danger they run if found together.
Romeo bounds off to hunt Thibault down in an excess of fury, never thinking what this might do to his chances with Juliet.
Juliet, though slightly more controlled than Romeo as she holds out for marriage, pushes him to arrange a secret marriage with no thought for how this could work out.
Later when the Friar offers her a dangerous drug she instantly reaches for it in urgent passion for an impulsive solution.
I did like the reviewer’s point very much that the Friar too is impulsively childlike. He takes almost no time to reflect: he glances at his herbs and in seconds plunges the child Juliet into a harebrained scheme. Later when it has gione wrong he runs away like a small child, wailing.
Shakespeare was perhaps plugging into the Elizabethan ideology of Catholics as no fit priestly guides.
In sum Zeffirelli offers us both the beauty of passion and its ugliness.
The film is lush, vivid with throbbing reds and golds within and luxuriant gardens without. Olivia's sweeping hair and rich curves beside Leonard's winsome body evoke the beauty of passionate sexuality. The young men fight in the streets with faces alight with excited playfulness, alive in the moment, and nothing else.
But young men die of their delight. Sso do the lovers. Agony as the price of passion is shown as a warning. The Prince, symbolic as the head/ Head of State, is weak, unable to control the passions at war in the body politic.
Nonetheless although this is all there, where Romeo and Juliet is flawed is in the absence of a rational voice to contrast a cooler point of view. The portrait of passion is too finely balanced in its light and dark, so much so that it is easy to be swept up, as I once was, in the glory of it, and even include the death scenes in that glory. They died young but lived fully is a poisonous creed. Why not live longer and live even more fully?
Shakespeare might have written within the Greek tradition that honoured restraint and self control. The Symposium, examining Love, held romantic love up to ridicule.
But if so, if passion is to be seen as the exquisitely bottled poison it can be, the play, and the much later film, needed a commentary or cautionary character to put the other point of view: that caution, sober judgement, is as necessary to the good life as waves of passion.
Living without either reduces us to being less than human.
Showing posts with label Beauty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beauty. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Avatar
I was reluctant to go, not being a lover of splashy special effects and not much else. Also violence nowadays goes way past my tolerance so I was all ready to leave and go home if necessary.
I liked it. A lot. There was a great deal more than special effects. The violence was there but it illustrated genuine conflict rather than the usual gory porn - of which there was none.
It has its flaws. I'll leave the in-depth discussion to after the READ MORE link so if you haven't seen it stop here.
But I'd recommend it.
Special effects A
Violence control B
Gender balance A
Characters B
Dialogue C (but with some good moments)
Politics B
Beauty A
The Na'vi are Noble Savages of classic kind: physically stronger and more agile than civilised humans; morally aware, deeply interconnected; religious without being cowed; linked to ancestors, passionate, loyal, aggressive and generous.
Cameron uses a blend of various tribal cultures to bring them alive for us. They have dreadlocked hair, painted skin, plaited and crafted decorative jewellery, belts etc.
This can easily be seen as stereotyping even racist. But how else do we create poetic images of an ancestral culture? The Na'vi are as much drawn from white Celtic ancestry as from colonial peoples on other continents. (The Celts were the early colonised too of course but they were white subordinates, mainly of the English.)
The military-industrial complex as the Enemy is vividly presented in ways that Left or radical rhetoric find it hard to do. The massive machines crunch and threaten what is human, supposedly to serve humans by extracting vital resources. The soldiers are manipulated with pep talks about 'survival' against 'hostiles' in a realistic way.
The human world is "dead" and all human scenes are shown in metallic colours that emphasise their techno, alienated state. The contrast with the quiveringly alive colours of the Na'vi world is obvious.
Ultimately although Avatar makes a brave picture of persons standing up to a machinelike civilisation, the ending is naive. The desperation for minerals (or fuels) would bring back a great force of conquest. But that is to disregard the nature of the film which is heroic saga, fantasy epic, rather than sustained political realism.
Cameron points his doom warning like an ancient prophet, rather than a political economist. But the warning is there loud and clear.
In religious terms Avatar is very good, a Pagan world realised. We have the Earth Mother who is immanent spirit in all things. We only borrow our lives and must give them back. The Na'avi thank the beasts they kill to eat as their relatives - trees, plants, animals are "all our relations."
But the Goddess is said not to interfere in the struggles on the planet, yet then she does - which disappointed me. I liked the first point better. However the animals drawn into the final battle could well have responded to the Na'avi under threat as their "cousins" so it becomes a moot point whether this is the deity or not. Such is the difficulty with an immanent "everywhere" divinity.
Though beasts are nominally respected in the most intense scenes with them, they are not. They are dominated. A young warrior is expected to duel with a flying dragon beast and subdue it much like "breaking" a horse. Why was there no "dragon whispering"? Why no partnership with the beast?
Nonetheless although the Paganism is flawed it is thrillingly there in a better realised screen presentation than I have ever seen before.
Politically Avatar is weak. The military and scientific groups among humanity are conventional and realistic enough. But the tribal politics are crude, a king and priestess and a bunch of warrior hunters. What did they use to navigate conflict in decisions? Was there a Council?
It appears that our hero can send out orders and get them obeyed by other tribes. How? Why? Because he had taken on the powers of legend. But how otherwise did the Na'vi mediate conflict and determine their laws?
Tal tells me that there is much more detail in the Pandorapedia that was not evident in the film.
Avatar is excellent on gender. We have a heroine who is strong, skilful, active and innovative - she does not just reflect the feelings or follow but initiates. Several times, including the crucial last event, she rescues our hero. Where else on the big screen does the final duel have heroine rescue hero? - except in comedy perhaps. Yet it is more interesting than that for that last duel has hero rescue heroine, who then repays the favour. Neat.
Nor is the heroine an isolated example of strong women. There's a scientist who has the breadth of mind to understand much of the Na'vi meaning. She attempts to block the military agenda but unsurprisingly fails.
There's also a great pilot who flies into battle with heroic wisecracking courage.
Among the Na'vi there's a queenly priestess plus a glimpse of another female leader.
I'm perhaps asking too much of the big screen in feeling even so there was a lack of gender depth. Unlike the Serenity/ Firefly opus which I recently much enjoyed discovering, the females in Avatar only connect to males and service their needs. Principally the hero's. But Serenity/ Avatar shows that gender balance can be imagined in-depth. Avatar had to please its backers no doubt so we couldn't go too far on gender. So B rather than A.
Oh but did I mention the sex scene was a bore? I liked the restraint, as heaving blue giant bodies would have made me heave. But why didn't they join their telepathic plaits - or do something other than a boring American kiss n cuddle?
Where Avatar gets murky, inspite of its many remarkably good points, is the white American rescuer hero. As Will Heaven at the Telegraph points out in no uncertain terms, the theme of the white rescuer is dubious. Tribal people, this theme tells us, cannot lead themselves out of trouble: they need the superior white guy to do that for them.
The point is hard to tease out. Yes Jake is a white American male, and a soldier at that. A conqueror. He bags the native princess and by her Pocahontas sponsorship wins acceptance in the tribe so he can later be its saviour.
But in Avatar he does it by becoming a Na'vi far more intimately than living among the tribe, adopting their dress and learning their language. He lives in a Na'vi body. So as he becomes the incarnation of an ancient Na'vi folk hero, he does it as a Na'vi. He looks to us like a Na'vi and his retuirn visits to his human body almost become an irritating diversion. As he says his human life has become the dream, his Na'vi life has become his reality.
There is also the pragmatic point that he can become the saviour of the Na'vi specifically because he has inside knowledge of the human military machine. This neatly reverses his original mission to spy on the Na'vi from the inside!
He can therefore exploit a blend of Na'vi ancestral knowledge of the territory, with his own trained knowledge of his own (?) people's weapons and tactics.
Tal comments: Knowing, for example, that while the Na'vi bows cannot harm military gunships when shooting from the ground upwards, when shooting from Ikran-back (Na'vi flying beasts), with the added speed of the beasts flight behind the arrow, they can pierce a gunships canopy.
Yet even allowing that Jake becomes a Na'vi as much as an outsider possibly could, even living in a Na'vi body, and that his leadership twins Na'vi folk legend, intimacy with territory and human knowledge of human military resources, even so. He is still white American male rescuing the native tribe. He's not a Na'vi person emerging from Na'vi life to save the day.
This is perhaps too much for America to stomach. After all they only just permitted themselves a black president. Autonomous heroes of colour will have to wait a bit.
Nor do we see much of other Na'vi wisdom; command politics again. A council of war would have been interesting with different ideas hashed out. Perhaps we can forgive that one in the cause of heroic legend.
He does, Tal reminds me, claim a "right to speak" among the senior Na'vi before everyone gathered. Implicit is the idea that all Na'vi have this right. But we don't see how conflict is discussed and mediated. Since Cameron is criticising the dominance type of system exemplified by the military industrial complex, I feel he should have shown more of its alternative option.
Over all as I said I liked it very much criticisms notwithstanding. I do not bother to critique what I do not respect. I came away strengthened, inspired, confirmed in so much that means so much to me.
The interconnectedness of life. Ecology. Strong women partnering men who can be vulnerable as well as strong for themselves. Sheer beauty. Violence portrayed as a conflict rather than mere gore. Dreamlike other reality.
Avatar for all its faults has a real grandeur. It's glorious especially to a Pagan. So go see it and get the DVD.
I liked it. A lot. There was a great deal more than special effects. The violence was there but it illustrated genuine conflict rather than the usual gory porn - of which there was none.
It has its flaws. I'll leave the in-depth discussion to after the READ MORE link so if you haven't seen it stop here.
But I'd recommend it.
Special effects A
Violence control B
Gender balance A
Characters B
Dialogue C (but with some good moments)
Politics B
Beauty A
The Na'vi are Noble Savages of classic kind: physically stronger and more agile than civilised humans; morally aware, deeply interconnected; religious without being cowed; linked to ancestors, passionate, loyal, aggressive and generous.
Cameron uses a blend of various tribal cultures to bring them alive for us. They have dreadlocked hair, painted skin, plaited and crafted decorative jewellery, belts etc.
This can easily be seen as stereotyping even racist. But how else do we create poetic images of an ancestral culture? The Na'vi are as much drawn from white Celtic ancestry as from colonial peoples on other continents. (The Celts were the early colonised too of course but they were white subordinates, mainly of the English.)
The military-industrial complex as the Enemy is vividly presented in ways that Left or radical rhetoric find it hard to do. The massive machines crunch and threaten what is human, supposedly to serve humans by extracting vital resources. The soldiers are manipulated with pep talks about 'survival' against 'hostiles' in a realistic way.
The human world is "dead" and all human scenes are shown in metallic colours that emphasise their techno, alienated state. The contrast with the quiveringly alive colours of the Na'vi world is obvious.
Ultimately although Avatar makes a brave picture of persons standing up to a machinelike civilisation, the ending is naive. The desperation for minerals (or fuels) would bring back a great force of conquest. But that is to disregard the nature of the film which is heroic saga, fantasy epic, rather than sustained political realism.
Cameron points his doom warning like an ancient prophet, rather than a political economist. But the warning is there loud and clear.
In religious terms Avatar is very good, a Pagan world realised. We have the Earth Mother who is immanent spirit in all things. We only borrow our lives and must give them back. The Na'avi thank the beasts they kill to eat as their relatives - trees, plants, animals are "all our relations."
But the Goddess is said not to interfere in the struggles on the planet, yet then she does - which disappointed me. I liked the first point better. However the animals drawn into the final battle could well have responded to the Na'avi under threat as their "cousins" so it becomes a moot point whether this is the deity or not. Such is the difficulty with an immanent "everywhere" divinity.
Though beasts are nominally respected in the most intense scenes with them, they are not. They are dominated. A young warrior is expected to duel with a flying dragon beast and subdue it much like "breaking" a horse. Why was there no "dragon whispering"? Why no partnership with the beast?
Nonetheless although the Paganism is flawed it is thrillingly there in a better realised screen presentation than I have ever seen before.
Politically Avatar is weak. The military and scientific groups among humanity are conventional and realistic enough. But the tribal politics are crude, a king and priestess and a bunch of warrior hunters. What did they use to navigate conflict in decisions? Was there a Council?
It appears that our hero can send out orders and get them obeyed by other tribes. How? Why? Because he had taken on the powers of legend. But how otherwise did the Na'vi mediate conflict and determine their laws?
Tal tells me that there is much more detail in the Pandorapedia that was not evident in the film.
Avatar is excellent on gender. We have a heroine who is strong, skilful, active and innovative - she does not just reflect the feelings or follow but initiates. Several times, including the crucial last event, she rescues our hero. Where else on the big screen does the final duel have heroine rescue hero? - except in comedy perhaps. Yet it is more interesting than that for that last duel has hero rescue heroine, who then repays the favour. Neat.
Nor is the heroine an isolated example of strong women. There's a scientist who has the breadth of mind to understand much of the Na'vi meaning. She attempts to block the military agenda but unsurprisingly fails.
There's also a great pilot who flies into battle with heroic wisecracking courage.
Among the Na'vi there's a queenly priestess plus a glimpse of another female leader.
I'm perhaps asking too much of the big screen in feeling even so there was a lack of gender depth. Unlike the Serenity/ Firefly opus which I recently much enjoyed discovering, the females in Avatar only connect to males and service their needs. Principally the hero's. But Serenity/ Avatar shows that gender balance can be imagined in-depth. Avatar had to please its backers no doubt so we couldn't go too far on gender. So B rather than A.
Oh but did I mention the sex scene was a bore? I liked the restraint, as heaving blue giant bodies would have made me heave. But why didn't they join their telepathic plaits - or do something other than a boring American kiss n cuddle?
Where Avatar gets murky, inspite of its many remarkably good points, is the white American rescuer hero. As Will Heaven at the Telegraph points out in no uncertain terms, the theme of the white rescuer is dubious. Tribal people, this theme tells us, cannot lead themselves out of trouble: they need the superior white guy to do that for them.
The point is hard to tease out. Yes Jake is a white American male, and a soldier at that. A conqueror. He bags the native princess and by her Pocahontas sponsorship wins acceptance in the tribe so he can later be its saviour.
But in Avatar he does it by becoming a Na'vi far more intimately than living among the tribe, adopting their dress and learning their language. He lives in a Na'vi body. So as he becomes the incarnation of an ancient Na'vi folk hero, he does it as a Na'vi. He looks to us like a Na'vi and his retuirn visits to his human body almost become an irritating diversion. As he says his human life has become the dream, his Na'vi life has become his reality.
There is also the pragmatic point that he can become the saviour of the Na'vi specifically because he has inside knowledge of the human military machine. This neatly reverses his original mission to spy on the Na'vi from the inside!
He can therefore exploit a blend of Na'vi ancestral knowledge of the territory, with his own trained knowledge of his own (?) people's weapons and tactics.
Tal comments: Knowing, for example, that while the Na'vi bows cannot harm military gunships when shooting from the ground upwards, when shooting from Ikran-back (Na'vi flying beasts), with the added speed of the beasts flight behind the arrow, they can pierce a gunships canopy.
Yet even allowing that Jake becomes a Na'vi as much as an outsider possibly could, even living in a Na'vi body, and that his leadership twins Na'vi folk legend, intimacy with territory and human knowledge of human military resources, even so. He is still white American male rescuing the native tribe. He's not a Na'vi person emerging from Na'vi life to save the day.
This is perhaps too much for America to stomach. After all they only just permitted themselves a black president. Autonomous heroes of colour will have to wait a bit.
Nor do we see much of other Na'vi wisdom; command politics again. A council of war would have been interesting with different ideas hashed out. Perhaps we can forgive that one in the cause of heroic legend.
He does, Tal reminds me, claim a "right to speak" among the senior Na'vi before everyone gathered. Implicit is the idea that all Na'vi have this right. But we don't see how conflict is discussed and mediated. Since Cameron is criticising the dominance type of system exemplified by the military industrial complex, I feel he should have shown more of its alternative option.
Over all as I said I liked it very much criticisms notwithstanding. I do not bother to critique what I do not respect. I came away strengthened, inspired, confirmed in so much that means so much to me.
The interconnectedness of life. Ecology. Strong women partnering men who can be vulnerable as well as strong for themselves. Sheer beauty. Violence portrayed as a conflict rather than mere gore. Dreamlike other reality.
Avatar for all its faults has a real grandeur. It's glorious especially to a Pagan. So go see it and get the DVD.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Barefooting
I have been a barefooter all my life - I'm 60 now.
My mother, now 86 was also one and her mother and brother too. I can tell you that my mama has always been exquisitely elegant in Paris type clothes, perfect make up - and gorgeous toe rings and ankle chains.
The family tradition continues with my huge 18yrs son who has never worn shoes for more than a couple of hours very occasionally for a high formal event like a funeral.
Sigh. We got the constant stupid ignorant question "Can't you afford shoes?" This goes back to the snobbery of the early 20thC when only the well off could afford shoes every day.
Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.
Read about it and make up your own mind.
Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.
In fact it's far healthier than wearing shoes which cramp and distort feet creating all kinds of health problems including bad backs.
My son was always far better balanced, better at climbing, and even calmer than other kids in shoes. Shoes HURT when you're not used to them which applies to all small kids.
I watched my son climb Cheddar Gorge around 60ft up - at 8yrs. Perfectly safe, he was like a tough little ape. It's also stood him well for martial arts where he's a demon fighter mostly due to strong sure balance.
Barefooting not dirty. Skin does not make dirt stick like dead skin (leather) or plastics do. The dirt drops off much quicker as you walk into a building so when oters are still tracking it in, you're not.
Bare feet don't get put on tables! or anywhere offensive any more than shoes are.
As for the common question on stepping in muck well you don't. Within weeks you learn to scan without being aware you're doing it. You step in it far less than shoe wearers who tend to be careless where they put their feet.
Bare feet don't SMELL! Sweat doesn't build up, soak into sock or shoe and go stale. It instantly ventilates and the foot stays dry. (This is an important issue for teenage males.)
Barefooting is safe. The skin on the sole rapidly toughens - it takes around 4 - 6 weeks. In fact it becomes tougher than many shoes. In summer when I barefoot more I don't even think about glass, splinters. I can just walk on 'em! and they drop away.
I did wash my son's feet when small in salt water every few nights just in case of tiny cuts but I was probably being overprotective.
Regarding chemicals etc there is very little protection from flip flops either. Liquid splashes in between the sole of sandal and sole of foot.
So most bio- or mineral-hazards are fenced off places, if serious, and only closed in shoes or boots are adequate. same as a building site or science lab.
There ARE a few hazards. Don't walk barefoot at night in the park because of rusty metal sharps, and dirty needles, for which ditto city centres. Don't walk barefoot in tropical countries because of parasites that lie in the earth there.
Otherwise FREE THE FEET!
While getting used to it, do it for longer and longer periods, like breaking in new shoes. Wash in salt water till the skin hardens. Expect to take around 4 - 6 weeks to learn to automatically scan the ground for yuck without noticing you're doing it.
Enjoy the massive sensuality of it. Ground textures are amazingly varied. The strength in bare feet travels up the spine so it's good for posture. Release those poor battered toes from potential bunions and corns, ingrown toenails. Gain a beautiful sense of balance as you move about.
If nothing else do give up shoes indoors. It saves your carpets or flooring because it's so much cleaner than tracking dirt in on shoes: and you get a lot of the benefits from part of each day barefooting.
Shoe manufacturers make a FORTUNE out of the damage you're doing your feet.
Free the feet - or choose not to barefoot.
But at least now you know a bit about it so you won't say (or think) incredibly stupid ignorant things about it.
Link - stunning pic of girl barefooting in snow!
Link Society for Barefoot Living
My mother, now 86 was also one and her mother and brother too. I can tell you that my mama has always been exquisitely elegant in Paris type clothes, perfect make up - and gorgeous toe rings and ankle chains.
The family tradition continues with my huge 18yrs son who has never worn shoes for more than a couple of hours very occasionally for a high formal event like a funeral.
Sigh. We got the constant stupid ignorant question "Can't you afford shoes?" This goes back to the snobbery of the early 20thC when only the well off could afford shoes every day.
Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.
Read about it and make up your own mind.
Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.
In fact it's far healthier than wearing shoes which cramp and distort feet creating all kinds of health problems including bad backs.
My son was always far better balanced, better at climbing, and even calmer than other kids in shoes. Shoes HURT when you're not used to them which applies to all small kids.
I watched my son climb Cheddar Gorge around 60ft up - at 8yrs. Perfectly safe, he was like a tough little ape. It's also stood him well for martial arts where he's a demon fighter mostly due to strong sure balance.
Barefooting not dirty. Skin does not make dirt stick like dead skin (leather) or plastics do. The dirt drops off much quicker as you walk into a building so when oters are still tracking it in, you're not.
Bare feet don't get put on tables! or anywhere offensive any more than shoes are.
As for the common question on stepping in muck well you don't. Within weeks you learn to scan without being aware you're doing it. You step in it far less than shoe wearers who tend to be careless where they put their feet.
Bare feet don't SMELL! Sweat doesn't build up, soak into sock or shoe and go stale. It instantly ventilates and the foot stays dry. (This is an important issue for teenage males.)
Barefooting is safe. The skin on the sole rapidly toughens - it takes around 4 - 6 weeks. In fact it becomes tougher than many shoes. In summer when I barefoot more I don't even think about glass, splinters. I can just walk on 'em! and they drop away.
I did wash my son's feet when small in salt water every few nights just in case of tiny cuts but I was probably being overprotective.
Regarding chemicals etc there is very little protection from flip flops either. Liquid splashes in between the sole of sandal and sole of foot.
So most bio- or mineral-hazards are fenced off places, if serious, and only closed in shoes or boots are adequate. same as a building site or science lab.
There ARE a few hazards. Don't walk barefoot at night in the park because of rusty metal sharps, and dirty needles, for which ditto city centres. Don't walk barefoot in tropical countries because of parasites that lie in the earth there.
Otherwise FREE THE FEET!
While getting used to it, do it for longer and longer periods, like breaking in new shoes. Wash in salt water till the skin hardens. Expect to take around 4 - 6 weeks to learn to automatically scan the ground for yuck without noticing you're doing it.
Enjoy the massive sensuality of it. Ground textures are amazingly varied. The strength in bare feet travels up the spine so it's good for posture. Release those poor battered toes from potential bunions and corns, ingrown toenails. Gain a beautiful sense of balance as you move about.
If nothing else do give up shoes indoors. It saves your carpets or flooring because it's so much cleaner than tracking dirt in on shoes: and you get a lot of the benefits from part of each day barefooting.
Shoe manufacturers make a FORTUNE out of the damage you're doing your feet.
Free the feet - or choose not to barefoot.
But at least now you know a bit about it so you won't say (or think) incredibly stupid ignorant things about it.
Link - stunning pic of girl barefooting in snow!
Link Society for Barefoot Living
Friday, 2 October 2009
Ardi our Grandmother
Ardi has emerged as the much older ancestress than Lucy of Africa.
See here.
I don't understand why (some) Christians can't hold their beliefs alongside the theory of evolution.
Nor do I see why evolution excludes the Goddess (and/or God if you prefer.)
Evolution is a theory. It's not fact. It's not "true."
It IS a good theory that holds up pretty well matching the facts we know.
It does however have some problems but then no theory is perfect.
Any theory shatters in contact with realities - they are so complex.
Goddess or God is not a matter of logic. She is a deep meaning in our lives. She is great and powerful enough to BE the force of evolution. No problem.
It's sad (to me) if people can't feel that deep meaning. Being a tiny pointless scrap of a machine universe os horrible and it certainly doesn't match my experience. The Goddess finds it a big joke!
Our latest ancestor looks beautiful. Blessed be.
[No further text ignore link to read more]
See here.
I don't understand why (some) Christians can't hold their beliefs alongside the theory of evolution.
Nor do I see why evolution excludes the Goddess (and/or God if you prefer.)
Evolution is a theory. It's not fact. It's not "true."
It IS a good theory that holds up pretty well matching the facts we know.
It does however have some problems but then no theory is perfect.
Any theory shatters in contact with realities - they are so complex.
Goddess or God is not a matter of logic. She is a deep meaning in our lives. She is great and powerful enough to BE the force of evolution. No problem.
It's sad (to me) if people can't feel that deep meaning. Being a tiny pointless scrap of a machine universe os horrible and it certainly doesn't match my experience. The Goddess finds it a big joke!
Our latest ancestor looks beautiful. Blessed be.
[No further text ignore link to read more]
Thursday, 2 July 2009
"Public Enemies" - John Dillinger
‘Public Enemies’ is such an outstandingly bad film it almost becomes interesting just because of that.
Depp is the only good thing in it, but he’s crippled by an overload of bad cimema.
As a film, "Public Enemies" needs a public health warning against boredom.
There’s a mass of gunfire, pitched much louder than usual to the point of real discomfort. Action fans might like it, but the camera work is so muddled it’s hard to make out who on earth is shooting who. I guess if all you want is bangs that's all right.
That muddle might be realism, as shootouts are like that, but good cinema it isn’t. A few shots of muddled shooting would give us realism: a constant flow of muddle becomes simply boring.
Action movies are often accused of cardboard characters. In this film we don’t even have paper ones.
Who was Dillinger? how did he become “John Dillinger”? We don’t know.
Yet we do, and his story is fascinating. Why was it all left out of the film? Why did we not see a glimpse of him looking after ‘his people’? for example. Nothing of the human person can be seen behind the guns except Depp’s skilled facial expressions.
Perhaps the greatest flaw is lack of identification. Even action films can grip us tight to the hero/ine. With Depp up there it’s a real tribute to the director Mann's failure that he leaves us outside gawping at muddle and mistakes. His hero is just a standard Hollywood cliché.
As for Dillingedr's gang and opponents, there are so many men in suits looking intense it’s hard to know who’s a cop and who’s a gangster. Constant close-up, in your face filmwork, doesn’t help recognition. Parts of faces, the back of someone's shoulder, don't tell us much about who's doing what to who.
Dillinger’s amazing capers simply aren't there. Not just a gunslinger but a mastermind so why not let us see what fun he was? Checking out banks by posing as a sales rep selling security systems – not shown. Setting up a job as a film company doing a bank robbbery, so people smiled as the real robbery took place – not shown. His trademark two shots at the ceiling, then “Everybody get down and stay calm!” – not shown. Instead lots of those muddled gunshots.
The regional American accents are so thick that a third of the dialogue or more is completely lost unless that's your hometown. Oh and who was the guy in the blue suit who got shot at the start? Never did find out. Nameless guy shoots nameless guy, shooter looks a bit uncomfortable, now that's real exciting cinema.
Most of the actors’ make up was smeared on like amateur stage make up. Men especially look peculiar in obvious heavy make up and tough guy heroes and villains hardly benefit from caked mascara, and lipstick.
There’s only one significant female role and she’s a scrawny, ugly little thing with no magnetism or appeal. Her photo in Dillinger’s fob watch, seen several times, shows up how hollow and skeletal she is.
Period detail is poor. Steam trains meant stations were filthy: this one was bright and clean – with white tilework. Everything else is lovely and clean too, such as streets and buildings. In a Depression era when everywhere except a few rich highspots was shabby and broken down.
The origin of the FBI was an interesting subplot, but like so much else, got lost in clever clever camera work, and muddle. The new type of gangster, another subplot, was another casualty to opaque accents, too-fast talk. That could have been genuinely interesting. Pity.
Was it too controversial to show just why Dillinger was so adored? Banks were hated then even more than now, with repossessions and unemployment as a ruthless backdrop for their greed. Dillinger challenged them by robbing them, so he was loved by the people so greatly they helped and sheltered him. They say his blood on the pavement was sacred, and hankies dipped in it when the body had been removed.
His death chapter is cheesy, predictable even if you don’t know the story. Why was the prostitute not wearing the red dress she actually wore? After such a boring film it was hard to feel regret when he died though the close up of blood pouring out of his face was a really nice touch (not).
Looking up Dillinger when I got home I was entranced by his real story. I think that was the one thing I can thank the film for. It made Dillinger so boring I wanted to know why he's a legend, so I looked him up. Not a great achievement for a film.
Depp is the only good thing in it, but he’s crippled by an overload of bad cimema.
As a film, "Public Enemies" needs a public health warning against boredom.
There’s a mass of gunfire, pitched much louder than usual to the point of real discomfort. Action fans might like it, but the camera work is so muddled it’s hard to make out who on earth is shooting who. I guess if all you want is bangs that's all right.
That muddle might be realism, as shootouts are like that, but good cinema it isn’t. A few shots of muddled shooting would give us realism: a constant flow of muddle becomes simply boring.
Action movies are often accused of cardboard characters. In this film we don’t even have paper ones.
Who was Dillinger? how did he become “John Dillinger”? We don’t know.
Yet we do, and his story is fascinating. Why was it all left out of the film? Why did we not see a glimpse of him looking after ‘his people’? for example. Nothing of the human person can be seen behind the guns except Depp’s skilled facial expressions.
Perhaps the greatest flaw is lack of identification. Even action films can grip us tight to the hero/ine. With Depp up there it’s a real tribute to the director Mann's failure that he leaves us outside gawping at muddle and mistakes. His hero is just a standard Hollywood cliché.
As for Dillingedr's gang and opponents, there are so many men in suits looking intense it’s hard to know who’s a cop and who’s a gangster. Constant close-up, in your face filmwork, doesn’t help recognition. Parts of faces, the back of someone's shoulder, don't tell us much about who's doing what to who.
Dillinger’s amazing capers simply aren't there. Not just a gunslinger but a mastermind so why not let us see what fun he was? Checking out banks by posing as a sales rep selling security systems – not shown. Setting up a job as a film company doing a bank robbbery, so people smiled as the real robbery took place – not shown. His trademark two shots at the ceiling, then “Everybody get down and stay calm!” – not shown. Instead lots of those muddled gunshots.
The regional American accents are so thick that a third of the dialogue or more is completely lost unless that's your hometown. Oh and who was the guy in the blue suit who got shot at the start? Never did find out. Nameless guy shoots nameless guy, shooter looks a bit uncomfortable, now that's real exciting cinema.
Most of the actors’ make up was smeared on like amateur stage make up. Men especially look peculiar in obvious heavy make up and tough guy heroes and villains hardly benefit from caked mascara, and lipstick.
There’s only one significant female role and she’s a scrawny, ugly little thing with no magnetism or appeal. Her photo in Dillinger’s fob watch, seen several times, shows up how hollow and skeletal she is.
Period detail is poor. Steam trains meant stations were filthy: this one was bright and clean – with white tilework. Everything else is lovely and clean too, such as streets and buildings. In a Depression era when everywhere except a few rich highspots was shabby and broken down.
The origin of the FBI was an interesting subplot, but like so much else, got lost in clever clever camera work, and muddle. The new type of gangster, another subplot, was another casualty to opaque accents, too-fast talk. That could have been genuinely interesting. Pity.
Was it too controversial to show just why Dillinger was so adored? Banks were hated then even more than now, with repossessions and unemployment as a ruthless backdrop for their greed. Dillinger challenged them by robbing them, so he was loved by the people so greatly they helped and sheltered him. They say his blood on the pavement was sacred, and hankies dipped in it when the body had been removed.
His death chapter is cheesy, predictable even if you don’t know the story. Why was the prostitute not wearing the red dress she actually wore? After such a boring film it was hard to feel regret when he died though the close up of blood pouring out of his face was a really nice touch (not).
Looking up Dillinger when I got home I was entranced by his real story. I think that was the one thing I can thank the film for. It made Dillinger so boring I wanted to know why he's a legend, so I looked him up. Not a great achievement for a film.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Shaven Slavery
A school wants to force a boy to shave because "his moustache is not part of school uniform."
Face shaving originally started among homosexual men to try to look boyish.
Shaving has also been widely used to control hygiene in prisons, armies and navies. Keeping crowds of males clean in grubby or dirty conditions, to avoid epidemics, is a lot easier if they are forced to shave and crop their hair.
With a few exceptions, more hair is therefore universally the sign of a free man.
In modern Western societies shaving is required of the mass of bonded servants who service companies, councils and corporations. Cropped hair also depersonalises men, making them look remarkably similar. Suits complete the clone robot appearance to a frightening degree.
Shaving demonstrates that the man is a subordinate male, a lesser person who must obey the boss even in very personal matters like this.
Noticeably when men have more independence they tend to grow more hair.
To force a child to shave means forcing them into servant status. This is especially damaging as once started shaving distorts facial hair into stubble, an unnatural condition which can be uncomfortable, and can cause medical problems (ingrown hair).
British law requires education not to close off a child's options to decide their adult lifestyle.
The child should be able to wait till he gets a job or starts a business, to choose his way in life. Education is not mere obedience.
Oh but of course it is. That is the main thing schools are about.
Face shaving originally started among homosexual men to try to look boyish.
Shaving has also been widely used to control hygiene in prisons, armies and navies. Keeping crowds of males clean in grubby or dirty conditions, to avoid epidemics, is a lot easier if they are forced to shave and crop their hair.
With a few exceptions, more hair is therefore universally the sign of a free man.
In modern Western societies shaving is required of the mass of bonded servants who service companies, councils and corporations. Cropped hair also depersonalises men, making them look remarkably similar. Suits complete the clone robot appearance to a frightening degree.
Shaving demonstrates that the man is a subordinate male, a lesser person who must obey the boss even in very personal matters like this.
Noticeably when men have more independence they tend to grow more hair.
To force a child to shave means forcing them into servant status. This is especially damaging as once started shaving distorts facial hair into stubble, an unnatural condition which can be uncomfortable, and can cause medical problems (ingrown hair).
British law requires education not to close off a child's options to decide their adult lifestyle.
The child should be able to wait till he gets a job or starts a business, to choose his way in life. Education is not mere obedience.
Oh but of course it is. That is the main thing schools are about.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Erotica for Women?
A new magazine called Filament aims to provide erotica for women.
Well I don't agree with those who immediately say that women don't respond to visual images. Many do, some don't.
But women have much higher standards than men when it comes to visuals because unlike men the visual is not the most important thing about sex. So a visual prompt has to be good to hack it.
Mind you I once asked John what he thought of porn and he said he found it boring even as a young man. A narrow set of poses and types, quickly becoming repetitive.
So the discerning man and many women both require something better.
More pics if you follow the READ MORE link.
It's unlikely that Filament will do any better than previous attempts to get female money. One picture shows a man's back - tired shrug. Now if there was a glimpse of the join with the thigh at one side ... but as it is BORING.
Another has an unpleasant pool of greasy oil around the shoulder and neck. Sloppy. Also why the jaundice yellow? Botox lips are NOT a turn on - they scream a lack of sensitivity. Kissing feelingless plastic is hardly sensual. Plus far too much make up. He looks like a schoolboy who has raided mum's make up and desperately tries to look grown up and instead looks like a crude doll. Poor boy.
I like the one I put at the top best - it has the contrast of white sheets and dark man, and some HAIR for Goddess' sake! though not enough.
But the pose is boring, too straight and rigid. Where's the all important hip? thigh?
Why are all these pictures cut at the waist when the lower stomach, hip and thigh is so magnificently central?
Why no pics of the line of jaw and how it aligns with a cheekbone? That's high erotica.
There needs to be a much wider range of types. Women are varied in our tastes. We don't just respond to elflike effeminate Legolas (oooh!) or elegant hard 007 Connery (oooh!) - we also like stocky Herculeans with deep hairy chests (oooh!) and strange, wiry creatures with slanted eyes (ooh!) and some of us like beards (ooh!) or tattoos (ooh!) or grubbiness and sweat from work (ooh!) or long luxuriant hair (ooh!) or sleek baldies (well no not me but lots of women love them) or jeans + leather belt and maybe cowboy boots (ooh!). That's just a few without thinking about it much.
Whichever type it is it'll take more than just a sheet, or a bit of symbolic art, or an expanse of well lit skin. It'll need a whole zone of body poses. Men use their bodies differently to attract another male and straight men rarely know how to do it for women. But some stars like Sean Connery know, so check them out. It certainly isn't enough to have the body sitting upright facing front, or lying in a straight line. What the legs and hips are doing is crucial.
Oh and pay attention to the THIGHS for heaven's sake. My great grandmother, an Edwardian lady, had a naughty habits of leaning over young men in the park and squeezing a thigh with a happy laugh. Wouldn't be allowed today but I can understand her joy very well indeed.
Then there's lesbian images. Don't they know straight women react very strongly to those without being lesbian at all?
Now THAT'S of interest - and no nakedness either, but the stuff of happy reactions for some.
I think the problem is the designers are just lazy. They want to crank out the same tired old stereotypes as the men's media. It might help if they realised that men too might like something better.
Also that more and more it's an obstacle that the brain throws up the questions - is the model happy about this? Or is s/he so slicked up it's uncomfortable? are they drugged? (check the eyes) are they scared? (ditto) - erotica is a two way exchange.
But that goes into the complex power play or porn, a huge can of worms. Not today thanks, it's my birthday so I'm staying lighthearted.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Harlow, Queen of Faerie
I remember Harlow very well as a heroine to my family so I am surprised to hear her spoken of in a new biography, as being so obscure.
Nowadays I hope we can understand better that these bewitching women - and men - are typically not themselves interested in sex. Not real sex.
To these fey creatures, sex is a way to power, very often the only way to get affection they know. To get a glimpse of gentleness, they will suffer a great deal of violence. Their lovers therefore know they can be uncontrolled and get away with it.
They crave affection, faeries do, to be wanted for more than their beauty, but then they are hurt by being used, so often settle for the power their pseudo-eroticism gives them. Not that this false eroticism isn't beautiful. It's the true meaning of glamour - Glamourye - the ancient eldritch art of faerie. To turn dross into gold by candlelight.
For when dawn comes, that fey creature is revealed as grubby, hung over, smelly and grey of skin. Frequently ill, anxious, craving and demanding. At worst dominating at best needy.
Yet still the fascination of that Look bespells us so the truth is hard to see.
The truth, of a starving abused child, desperate for love they never got. Instead they got sex, too early, so they absorbed its raw power without its sweetness.
Unequal sex, too young sex, damages for life.
Of these are made our stars, our prostitutes, our rent boys, and our battered wives. Seduced or bullied young they learn so thoroughly that they have little or no value except as a sexual body. The rest has a horrible logic that destroys them with drink, drugs and violence as they seek more and more desperately to numb the void.
Not a pretty sight after all, as what seemed so lovely is stripped of its illusion. Poor Jean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)