Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Great Movies: Belle de Jour

At the Movies with Michael5000


Belle de Jour
Luis Bunuel (1976)

A few weeks back, I said that All About Eve seemed more like a good movie than a great movie. Belle de Jour, in contrast, seems neither great nor good. It is well made, and very well acted, but it is simply not very interesting.

It doesn't help that the theme of the movie is sexual fetishism. Kink always sounds like it should be interesting, but unless you have been bitten by the specificity bug yourself, a fetish is really just about the least sexy aspect of sexuality. Also -- and this is a problem that Buniel shares with Fellini -- he is working with mid-century conceptions of what makes people tick, from back when the discipline of psychology was still practiced with digging sticks and stone axes. What looks today like a crude parody of human motivation and behavior (the heroine, contemplating a forbidden sexual act, has a brief flashback to, I kid you not, herself as a child refusing a communion wafer) might haved seemed like the height of intellectual sophistication, back in the day.

Plot: The dissatisfied wife of a handsome young surgeon -- we can tell that they have a Tragically Empty Marriage because they sleep in twin beds -- has constant fantasies of her own sexual humiliation. She decides to combat her existential angst (remember, it's the 1960s!) by improving her communication with her husband and cultivating a creative hobby. No, ha ha, just kidding, actually she takes a more realistic approach and goes into prostitution. This works fine until she develops an attachment with a young, thuggish client with metallic false teeth. Hijinks ensue.

Dialogue: The dialogue seems a bit contrived and wooden, but then the entire situation is a bit contrived and wooden. Maybe it's the translation. It's an excellent cast, though, and the contrived, wooden lines are delivered impeccably.

Visuals: Well, it's always fun to see Paris in the background. Most of the action takes place indoors, though, in apartments decorated in the unfortunate manner of the late 1960s.

Prognosis: Highly recommended for graduate students studying male fantasies about female fantasies. If you are into Catherine de Nueve, or are a fetishist, you might dig it. If you have an actual Catherine de Neuve fetish, it will be life-changing. Otherwise, you ain't missing much.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

The Thursday Quiz XIX

No matter where you live, it's

The Thursday Quiz!

The Thursday Quiz is, as always, a "Is It or Isn't It" game. From the list of twelve items, your job is to determine whether each IS or ISN'T a true example of the week's category.

Remember always the law of the land:
No research, Googling, Wikiing, or use of reference books. The Thursday
Quiz is a POP quiz. Violators will owe a pound of flesh.
This Week's Category will put your internal atlas to the test:

Small Countries

Some of the following are bona fide independent countries, and the information presented about them is true. The others are NOT countries, and the information presented about this is a delicious brew of plausible untruth and devious misdirection. Your task is to identify which are honest-to-goodness, generally recognized sovereign countries.

Sorry there's so much text this week.

1. Benin. Independent since 1960. It's kind of sad that Benin is remarkable as a "model democracy" in Africa. It had the distinction among the sub-Saharan African countries (excepting South Africa) of having the first president to actually step down after losing an election – and this happened as recently as 1991. In 2006, the sitting president did not change the constitution to allow himself to run for another term; this was considered another triumph for the rule of law. Benin's 5%/year rate of economic growth sounds great! Unfortunately, since the population growth rate is also about 5%/year, progress is pretty limited.

2. Bermuda. Independent since 1892. Famous for the cheesy "Bermuda Triangle" mythology, Bermuda's position in the mid-Atlantic made it a important shipping point in the age of sail. The thriving warehousing and transportation sector boomed again in the early days of flight, when the country's international airport served as a stopover and refueling point for planes traveling between Europe and the Americas. The long economic decline resulting from the loss of this traffic after direct transatlantic flight became the norm has led to depopulation, a decline in standards of living, and chronic political instability.

3. Brunei. Independent since 1984. This sultanate no longer controls all of Borneo and half of the Philippine Islands, like it did in the 15th Century, but it still remains a good old-fashioned absolute monarchy. The royal line remains unbroken for over five centuries, a hundred years as a British protectorate notwithstanding. Oil and gas reserves give Brunei a very high GDP, and this has actually translated into a pretty good quality of life for most citizens. Best to keep your opinion of the Sultan tightly under wraps, though. Oh, and alcohol is illegal.

4. Equatorial Guinea. Independent since 1959. It's the smallest country in continental Africa in both size and population, and one of the few places on that continent where Spanish is the dominant language. Enormous oil reserves give Equatorial Guinea the second highest level of wealth per capita in the world by some measures, but with a vast portion of this money flowing directly to the spooky president and his pals, most citizens live in relative squalor.

5. Fiji. Independent since 1970. This Pacific island state may sound like paradise, but it has regularly been destabilized by military coups over the last two decades. This is perhaps a hazard that comes with having a powerful, active military. Stop snickering; Fiji's military expenditures are on a par with, say, Nicaragua and Tajikistan, countries with ten times its population.

6. French Guyana. Independent since 1989. Poor French Guyana. Despite having been independent for almost two decades, and despite perennially hostile relations with its former imperial power, it has not been possible for it to drop the "French" from its name – there is already a country named Guyana! Though most adults still speak French, new ties to Brazil and the United States are shown by the large numbers of children who are now being educated in Portuguese and English. Significantly, French Guyana has no currency of its own; it uses the U.S. dollar.

7. Greenland. Independent since 1963. After centuries as the much larger but much less populous colony of Iceland, Greenland petitioned successfully for independence during the wave of decolonization that followed World War II. In this case, though, sovereignty had more to do with economics than nationalism; full independence allowed Greenland fishermen rights to a larger swath of the great Grand Banks fisheries of the North Atlantic. Today, even with fishing in decline, Greenland prospers from a surprisingly robust tourist trade. Due to global warming, it has recently become agriculturally self-sufficient for the first time since the early Middle Ages.

8. Macedonia. Independent since 1991. One of the countries to emerge from the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, Macedonia's biggest controversy has been its very name. Many ethnic Macedonians live in northern Greece, and the Greek state protested vehemently that having a country named "Macedonia" on its borders was both an insult to Greek Macedonians and a provocation to radical Greek Macedonian nationalists. Due to these protests, the country is recognized by the United Nations as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Greece would not allow the Macedonian delegation to be seated by "M" in the General Assembly (which is arranged alphabetically), and they themselves refused to be seated by "F" for "Former." The compromise? They are seated by "T," for "The." Next to Thailand.

9. Nauru. Independent since 1980. The smallest independent country on Earth, Nauru's economy was historically based on the mining of rich phosphate deposits from guano, or in other words seagull poop. This very lucrative source of income led to radical government and personal overspending and a near-total destruction of not only the island's 21 square kilometer land environment, but also much of the offshore marine ecology. With phosphate nearly tapped out, the future appears grim for Nauru. Unemployment already stands at 90%, as does another unhealthy product of the binge years: adult obesity.

10. Razjistan. Independent since 1991. When Razjistan was the first Central Asian province of the Soviet Union to declare its independence, western media heaped praise on the scrappy new country's national aspirations. Seventeen years later, this mountainous, semi-arid country is mired in a nightmarish totalitarian dictatorship. Officially, its level of wealth per capita is among the world's lowest, but off the record Razjistan is widely suspected of being the main source of uranium for Iran, its neighbor to the southwest. Some of the money from this illicit trade likely pays for the many heroic statues of the president-for-life that grace the boulevards of the capital.

11. Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Independent since 1947. The small island nation of Saint Pierre and Miquelon is not even shown on most American maps, which is surprising considering it is a North American country but understandable considering that its population is about 6000. Tucked just to the south of Newfoundland, this former French colony prospered after World War II due to its location on the North Atlantic fisheries. Modern "SPM" thrives by sale of geothermal electric power; it is also a leader (it its inevitably small way) in the development of wind energy technology.

12. St. Kitts and Nevis. Independent since 1983. The smallest of the many small Caribbean countries, St. Kitts and Nevis was until recently a British colony. Life there is by all accounts quite pleasant. The main economic base? Tourism. The biggest problem? Hurricanes.

Submit your answers by diplomatic pouch, or in the comments.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Boring Postcards: The Text

The front side of a boring postcard is usually much more interesting than the back side of a boring postcard. Travel messages from one stranger to another can be spectacularly banal, and they have a depressing sameness to them.

We are having a nice vacation. Have had ideal weather, had a shower to-day. We enjoyed all the family here, had a big time. Love, the Smutz's.




Dear Folks, Arrived in Glacier last night. We're here a few days & then on to Westport, Wash, for some salmon fishing. How are you all? Lovingly, B & H
Since boringness is a quality we would celebrate in the postcard itself, it's kind of a contradiction that it doesn't excite us in the written message. It might be that banality is funny in an impersonal context, but kind of disturbing when it's attached to an individual life. I'm not sure.





Hi - Am here - arrived Thursday morning. Sure is beautiful over here. So many things to do & see, but I'll sure try to see it all. Not much more space so will close & write you later. Love, Vesta. P.S. Haven't seen anyone in knit suits yet.

But in a recent batch of cards, we found a message that, although still plenty depressing, was bracingly different from the others.




Dear Folks, Hope you are all well. Haven't heard from you. My husband died July 18th. I sure miss him, never knew it could be so lonesome. He died sudden, 1/2 hour in the hospital. The shock about kill me. Write me, I would like to hear from you. Love, Marie.

I can't decide if news like this on a tourist postcard is really poignant, or kind of weirdly hilarious. No reason it can't be both, I guess.


It's Thursday Quiz Eve!

...and tomorrow's quiz is a bit, um, wordy. There, I've warned you.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Colorful Things Made out of Fabric






Quilt


I am on a roll with the quilting and had another finish (or refinish) last week. This one is called Two Complex Shapes, and you can probably guess why. The long-winded story of its creation is over yonder at State of the Craft, but that's probably only of interest to specialists. But, you don't need to be "into quilts" to flatter me about how cool 'Shapes here is.


Flags


If you didn't read through the Monday Quiz entries, you might have missed a couple of highly diverting flag-related links.

L&TM5K Dork g offered this link to an oddball Kiwi Philosophy prof's subjective scoreing of the world's flags. Can't say I agree with him across the board -- he screws Turkmenistan and Portugal, and an "A" for South Africa? Really? -- but I heartily salute his big goofy project!

Meanwhile, it turns out that Monday Quiz stud Chance has tried his own hand at flag criticism. I think he is my favorite of the flag critics, although he does go a bit hard on the Isle of Man's banner, which is at least distinctive. And trippy. I like trippy. In addition to having pulled ahead of the pack on the Monday Quiz leaderboard, Chance enjoys the distinction of being the only person in the world to have used the word "vexillology" so far this millenium.

Now, for any of you who could need a little practice in the flag-recognition department -- I'm certainly not going to name names -- here's a little something to keep you infotained for the next couple of hours, or at least until the boss walks by. Enjoy!







This Traveler IQ
challenge is brought to you by the Web's Original Travel Blog

Sunday, January 6, 2008

The Monday Quiz IX

Flags of the World

Obsolete vestiges of medieval heraldry? Or cherished symbols of the human unity achieved in the modern nation state? You be the judge!

1. What South American County?


2. What Northern European Country?


3. What African Country? (That's a Maasai shield, if that helps.)


4. Can you ID either of these two flags?





5. Can you ID either of these two flags?



Submit your answers in the comments.

Friday, January 4, 2008

The L&TM5K Quiz FAQ

There's been some mild confusion of late over the rules of the L&TM5K Quizes. That won't do. Therefore, this post will henceforth be the controlling document for all quizzy issues. It may be changed or added to in order to reflect changes in quiz practice.

----

General Questions

Q: When do the quizzes happen?
A: Weekly. The Monday quiz happens on Monday; the Thursday Quiz happens on Thursday.

Q: Are they the same?
A: No. The Thursday Quiz (TQ) has twelve questions in an "is-it-or-isn’t-it format," with questions tending to be at a more-or-less uniform, moderately challenging level of difficulty. The Monday Quiz (MQ) has five image-based questions that tend to become progressively more difficult in sequence.

Q: Can I look answers up?
A: Absolutely not. Once you’ve seen the quiz questions, it is strictly forbidden to check any online or offline reference, to consult a spouse, child, coworker, or any other human being, or in any other way to educate yourself on the subject at hand. No peeking at the entries of others. Intentional violation of this rule would be really depressing.

Q: How does the scoring work?
A: Oddly, it is quite different for the two quizzes.

Thursday Quiz: Contestants are ranked by the number of correct answers; ties are broken by the order of submission. The winner receives a virtual Gold Star, the second place winner receives a virtual Silver Star, and the third place winner receives a virtual Blue Star. If there are any subsequent responders with the same number of correct answers as the third place winner, they receive a virtual Green Star.

Monday Quiz: Contestants are ranked by the number of correct answers only. The winner or co-winners will earn a virtual Exclamation Point.

Q: What are the implications of all that?
A: On Thursday, you want to hurry to get your answer submitted first. On Monday, you can take your sweet time.

Q: Shouldn't third place be a Bronze Star?
A: Bronze looks too much like gold.

Persnickity Complaints

Q: Hey it’s not Monday/Thursday yet! / Hey, it’s still Monday/Thursday!
A: Indeed. MQ will generally (but no promises) be posted sometime between 10 p.m. Sunday and 1:30 a.m. Monday; TQ between 10 p.m. Wednesday and 1:30 a.m. Thursday. The quiz is considered “live” as soon as it has been posted. Submissions can be accepted for competition until the correct answers are posted, which may be anytime after 6 p.m. on Monday or Thursday. Oh, and we run on Pacific Time around here.

Q: There is a problem with a quiz question!
A: Oh, I doubt it. But let me know. If you are the first one to notice a significant error in the quiz, you will be awarded the cherished Big Purple Asterisk.

Q: You made an error in scoring, such that I did not receive the award I deserved!
A: You have until the next quiz of its type is posted – ie. roughly six days – to post your grievance, preferably in a flamboyant and witty fashion. The review committee must see decisive evidence in order to overturn the original judgment. If a decision is made in your favor, everyone’s stars will be adjusted accordingly, and everyone who lost a star or was downgraded to a lower star will forever afterwards regard you with barely-disguised resentment. It will add a delicious frisson to the proceedings.

(added 10/27/08) Q: But my second guess was right!
A: If a contestant provides more than one answer, or more than one answer-like statement, and does not clearly indicate which is their REAL answer, the first one is the one that counts. So there.

Baggage

Q: Why do you do this, anyway?
A: I get a kick out of it. A small but really fun group of people seem to enjoy it.

Q: I think blogs are stupid.
A: O.K.

Q: I don’t really like quizzes.
A: O.K.

Q: I like quizzes, but I don’t like to submit my answers.
A: O.K. As long as a handful of other people are submitting answers, I’ll keep making quizzes. If no one submits, though, I’ll start feeling like an idiot.

Q: What’s the next subject going to be?
A: I will never tell.

Q: I’ve got an idea for next week’s quiz!
A: Cool, Thanks! But not for next week. I plan topics out months in advance, and write the questions at least a couple weeks out.

Q: I think this week’s quiz was too hard/easy!
A: Sorry. In general, I aim for a quiz that is hard enough so that only one or two people will get all the answers right. That keeps the Thursday Quiz from being a horserace and the Monday Quiz from being a roll call. Sometimes I don’t get the calibration quite right.

Q: This quiz makes me feel stupid.
A: Well, it shouldn’t. First of all, when I write these things, I use references, but I don’t let you use references to answer them. Second, you wouldn’t be coming to this site and trying your hand at these quizzes in the first place if you weren’t an intellectually inquisitive person – which is to say, smart.

Faux Legalism

Q: Shouldn’t an enterprise of this magnitude have a legal statement?
A: Oh mais oui.

By competing, participants in the quiz consent to waive any responsibility by The Life and Times of Michael5000, michael5000, his family, or his cat, for any damages sustained to their property, pride, social standing, career, or feelings of self-worth, incurred through participation. Participants certify that they are over the age of 5, more or less sober unless legally intoxicated, and not prohibited from participating in recreational online quizzes by the laws of their country, district, locality, clan, or clique.

Participants further acknowledge that failing to submit answers due solely to a lack of knowledge or expertise on a given topic is to be a big chicken and a major killbuzz.

Personal attacks and expressions of racism, sexism, and other stupid crap will be dealt with severely. Michael5000 knows people you don’t want to have mad at you.

WARNING: Quizzes are intended for use only in an environment suitable for normal computer operation. Attempts to complete the quiz underwater, at extreme temperatures, in a full or partial vacuum, or while exposed to high levels of radioactivity can result in injury or death.


(Added 1/5/08): WARNING: Quizzes should not normally be taken while driving, unless (a) you are extremely tired and taking the Quiz will help you stay awake, (b) you are an awesome driver and can handle doing two things at once, or (c) it's getting late in the day and you are afraid that you are running out of time to get your answers in.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

The Great Movies: "Battleship Potemkin"

At the Movies with Michael5000


Battleship Potemkin 
Sergei Eisenstein (1925)

In 1905, the sailors of the Potemkin, a battleship in the Russian Imperial Navy, mutinied over brutal discipline and inadequate provisions. Sergei Eisenstein's portrayal of these events has been credited, depending on whom you ask, with either inventing a vocabulary of cinematic techniques that has shaped all moviemaking since, or with being the first film to discover and employ the techniques that work best for the medium. It's a philosophical question, and we'll leave it to the film students. My point is, this is considered a Very Important Movie.

It's tough for me to tell for sure just how novel Potemkin was, since I haven't exactly been immersing myself in films of the 1920s lately, or ever. Even so, it's obvious that in terms of its cinematography, this is a very sophisticated motion picture. The action proceeds is swift cuts from image to image, each with an immediately recognizable symbolic weight, and all sequenced together in such a way that we never lose track of the narrative. The well-known "Odessa Steps" sequence is a terrific example: only in occasional snippets do we pull back to get an overview of the action, a panicked crowd fleeing before an advancing line of Cossacks. In between, we see individual faces contorted by fear, fists waved in the air, guns firing, Cossack boots, a hand being stepped on, a body falling, and of course that famous baby carriage careening down the stairway. Great stuff, and a radically different presentation of material than had been possible in traditional, pre-cinema theater.

Now, speaking of radical.... Potemkin is unabashedly a propaganda film, and consequently it is always trying to manipulate you. The ~bad~ naval officers are preening, smirking, mincing, and lit in high contrast to make them look vaguely satanic. The ~good~ sailors, handsome, manly, and filmed from the most flattering angles, seem like the saintliest crew of comrades to ever embody the naval tradition. A dozen bad guys die, and we are supposed to cheer; one good guy dies, and we are supposed to weep for the sorrow of his poor mother. When the (virtuous, proletarian) mob beats up people who aren't on the bandwagon, that's supposed to be cool.

In other words, this is a film that wants to work your emotions and tell you what to think. I hate that shit. It's exactly why I don't like to watch most modern American movies, and I find I don't like it any more just because it's 80 years old and Russian. Fun fact: the Odessa Steps incident, which Eisenstein portrays in that riveting sequence that so vividly captures the brutality of the Tsarist regime? Never really happened. Hmm...

Visuals: Striking and sophisticated, as discussed above. Sometimes pretty over the top to modern eyes, though. The revolutionary fervor of the Odessa crowds looks like a modeling session for propaganda posters, and the freaky old priest on board the Potemkin is laugh-out-loud absurd.

Dialogue: Well, this is a SILENT movie, so....

Prognosis: Highly recommended for students of film history, or for those wishing to rekindle their righteous anger at Tsarist oppression and their belief in the correctness of Marxist-Leninist principles of proletarian revolution. Otherwise, it doesn't have a ton of entertainment value for the modern viewer.