Cartoon Time.

My Favourite Movies: Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

I remember vividly seeing this on the movies but find it difficult to believe that I saw it on release back in 1969. But maybe I did (then age 9) which might explain its impact on me and why, 40 years later, I still like this film so much.

If you haven’t seen it (shame on you) this winner of 4 Oscars revolves around the friendship of two notorious outlaws in the West at the point where the old ways where dying and modern times (represented by the bicycle of all things) was starting to make itself felt. After robbing a train twice – both on its inward and outward journey – the railroad owner decides that enough is enough and puts together the best of the best to track them down. Deciding that discretion is the better part of survival they travel to Bolivia where they continue to rob banks and live what passes for the high-life. But things, as they do, catch up with them and it ends rather badly.

On the face of it that doesn’t seem like the plot of a film anyone could fall in love with. What makes it special – for me at least – is the relationship between Butch, played by Paul Newman, and Sundance played by Robert Redford. I don’t know anything about their real relationship off screen but their on screen friendship (indeed love) for each other was clear to anyone with eyes to see it. They truly seemed to have known each other through the good times and the bad and to be determined to see things to the bitter end – together. But it wasn’t just the chemistry between the two main leads that made the plot, however exciting and fun it turned out to be, purely incidental to the enjoyment of this film. Part of the dynamic was the girlfriend of Sundance played by the beautiful Katharine Ross. Having been in similar relationships myself (always as the Newman character) not only did it add an extra dimension but also added a great deal of realism to what is, when all is said and done, a piece of pure escapism.

As with all things Western I can thank my father for the fact that I love this film and the genre in general. There’s definitely something about the wide open spaces, the freedom (both real an apparent) to go anywhere and do (pretty much) anything and its not surprising that the frontier is such an important part of the American psyche – who then of course exported it to the rest of the world. One other thing that might surprise some of my readers – or maybe not – is that I think I fell at least a bit in love with Redford in this film. I probably didn’t realise it at the time but looking back I can see it more clearly. Strange but true but who could blame me……..

Cartoon Time.

The Science Fiction of Military Marketing

by David Sirota for the San Francisco Chronicle

Friday, August 28, 2009

I'm a video game geek, so as I sat through movie previews a few weeks ago, I was sure I was watching Nintendo ads. There on the cinema's screen was a supersleek plane flying over a moonscape while communicating with an orbiting satellite. In the next moment, a multicolored topographical map, orders being barked - and in my own mind, memories of Call of Duty graphics. And then, finally, two guys in front of a computer console, and the jarring punch line: "It's not science fiction; it's what we do every day," said the bold type, followed by a U.S. Air Force symbol. Before giving the audience a chance to digest the slogan, it was on to another montage, this one of helicopters and explosions with 1970s music playing in the background. A preview for a Steve McQueen-themed game, I thought. Then, though, the familiar kicker: "The drones fight terrorism and protect America, and in the process, they keep the frontlines unmanned," said the voiceover, adding, "This isn't science fiction; this is life in the United States Navy."

The ads preceded "The Hurt Locker" - a dramatized movie about soldiers who defuse roadside bombs in the midst of Iraq's horrifying carnage. And even with its fictionalized dialogue, the film was far more honest than the U.S. military's fantastical sales pitch. Join the armed forces, the ads suggest, and you don't have to experience the blood-and-guts consequences of combat. Instead, you get to hang out stateside, entertaining yourself with a glorified PlayStation. During this, one of the bloodiest months in the Afghanistan war, the spots promote a somewhat comforting, if disturbingly misleading, message - one aimed at potential soldiers and the public at large. For the former, the goal is reassurance. As Bush-era attempts to conflate bellicosity and patriotism were undermined by persistent body bags, military recruitment has become more challenging. In response, the Pentagon hopes to make prospective volunteers believe their tours of duty will be as safe as a night on the couch.

For the general public, the objective is sedation. New polls show the country strongly opposes the Afghanistan and Iraq wars - but military officials want to preserve the possibility of an escalation in Afghanistan and a permanent deployment in Iraq. So the Pentagon is seeking an opiate to placate the war-averse populace. What better anodyne than a marketing campaign implying wars are fun video games? Certainly, the ads aren't pure science fiction. As the armed forces build more unmanned drones, Popular Science magazine reports that recruiters are indeed looking to add new remote pilots. The science fiction is the specific assertion that "the frontlines are unmanned." Claims like that are deeply destructive, beyond their obvious insult to the thousands on those very frontlines. It's a good bet more than a few enlistees will expect their service to be video game tournaments, only to find themselves dodging real bullets in a Baghdad shooting gallery.

More broadly, the American psyche's slow progress toward an increasingly peaceful disposition could be stunted by the propaganda's powerful paradox: While sanitizing ads play to the country's growing disgust with militarism, they could ultimately lead us to be more supportive of militarism. How? By convincing us that violence can be just another innocuous expression of adolescent technophilia. If we end up thinking that, we will have once again forgotten what all wars, even the justifiable ones, always are: lamentable human tragedies.

[I suppose that it’s more than possible to fight a war – even a long war – without casualties (on our side at least). But I don’t think it’s at all possible to win a war without ‘boots on the ground’. UAVs, not matter how technologically advanced, can neither take nor hold ground – though they may be used to deny ground to an enemy force. Personally I think that the best way to eliminate casualties in future wars is simply by not having them in the first place. Keeping war at arms length – no pun intended – is a pipe dream designed to disarm – this pun was intended – a public sick of seeing its armed forces fighting in worthless deserts and coming home broken or in body-bags. Remote fighting from the safety of a computer console thousands of miles away from the front line may look like the answer but it’s not. The best way to win is not to fight in the first place.]

Just Finished Reading: The Painted Man by Peter V Brett

Three thousand years ago the demons that haunted the world were finally defeated and cast back into the Core. In the intervening years the truth of their existence was lost and finally became Myth. So when they returned nothing and no one stood in their way and mankind was helpless as they ravaged everything through the nights that followed. Only the rising of the Sun banished them back to their fiery home. Within weeks advanced human civilisation had fallen into chaos with only handfuls of survivors huddled behind hastily drawn magical wards. Three hundred years After the Return the remnants of civilisation are slowly crumbling under the nightly demon onslaught as wards fail and houses or whole villages are consumed. The legendary fighting wards used to destroy the original demon invasion have been lost and without them humanity will eventually fail. When Arlen’s world is shattered in a demon attack which takes his mother he sets himself on the path to find the fighting wards and finally take the battle to the demons. But first he needs to conquer his own fear of the night and survive long enough into manhood to see if the legends are true and that demon-kind can indeed be defeated.

Regular readers will no doubt have noticed that my fantasy reading is few and far between. Fantasy in general doesn’t really appeal to my sensibilities. I like my SF hard and fantasy is just, well too fantastic for my liking. Not so in this case. The author has managed to create a complete and complex world that makes frighteningly perfect sense. I particularly liked the fact that this fantasy world was our world – transformed by demons of (apparent) legend into a place full of horrors. Horrors however that are perfectly logical in context. The characterisation – and there are many main and secondary characters to consider – is complex and diverse with both strong (and weak) men and women all believable and multilayered. The surviving knowledge and technology from the old world is woven into the fabric of the new reality to offer up intriguing ideas and possibilities for future volumes. The graphic use of magical wards is explained – though not fully – in an almost mathematical way adding to the overall realism of the story. There are passages that will shock and others that will make you feel queasy as demons break through wards and feast on the living and the dead. But there passages that lift the spirits as humanity fights back against odds that seem overwhelming but only appear so because of a learnt fear of the night. It is this fear that must first be overcome before humanity can turn the tide and Arlen has the will to do just that. Driven by his hate of demons he is determined to see their reign end or die trying.

This was frankly one of the best fantasy books I’ve read in years and was even more impressive when I read that this was the author’s first novel. Very well written, gripping and a true page turner this has convinced me that maybe I was too harsh on fantasy and that I should give it another go. I will definitely do so – with the sequel. Watch this space. Highly recommended for a thrilling read.

Cartoon Time.

My Favourite Movies: Fahrenheit 451

This is a classic movie based on the classic novel by Ray Bradbury. In an unspecified future, reading books is illegal and firemen respond to incidents where books are burnt as simply too dangerous to the public. Inevitably there is a resistance organisation who horde every piece of literature they can find.

Enter the main protagonist, Montag (played by Oskar Wener). He’s a fireman on the rise, good at his job, unthinking, unquestioning of authority and deeply unhappy. One day he meets Clarisse on the monorail who looks surprising like his vacant drug addled wife Linda (both played by Julie Christie) and they begin a strangely intense platonic relationship. As Montag begins to question his life he takes home some of the books he should have burnt and begins reading. When his wife finds out and reports him to the authorities he must either run for his life or spend years in a re-education centre.

The first thing that strikes you about this 1966 film is that there are no opening credits. Details of director, actors and so on are spoken rather than written – in-line with the scope of the film. The style of the film is bleak with modernist architecture, giant view-screens on the wall (just like lots of people these days!) and strangely empty streets. Most people are zoned-out under the influence of bland TV and freely available tranquilisers. Only those who read seem alive – despite the risk of feeling sad or uncomfortable as they absorb new ideas or feel the emotions of tragic fictional characters. Far from subtle, this film is a polemic against authoritarian government and censorship. I do wonder what was happening at the time to prompt both the writing of the book and the making of the film. Historically it was deep in the Cold War but was that the only context behind both book and film? I have no idea. Obviously, from my point of view (as you might expect) this film is deeply disturbing. I mean… a world without books! I’m sure I’d be one of the first against the wall….. Despite being rather dated by now this film still has much to say about state control and the ‘dumbing-down’ effect of television. It also extols the written word which is never a bad thing. Overall this film is a deserved classic despite its few faults. Reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984, Huxley’s Brave New World and, no doubt, highly influential on such later films as Equilibrium and V for Vendetta this is definitely one for collectors of dystopian cinema.

Cartoon Time.

Lesbians given equal birth rights

From the BBC

Monday, 31 August 2009

Women in same-sex relationships can now register both their names on the birth certificate of a child conceived as a result of fertility treatment. Female couples not in a civil partnership but receiving fertility treatment may also both be registered. The law change applies to female couples in England and Wales who were having fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009. However critics say the change would be detrimental to family values. Previously, the mother's female partner could not be registered as a parent. But the change in the law confers legal parenthood on the mother's female partner. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, there were 728 lesbians who underwent in vitro fertilisation (IVF) between 1999 and 2006. And in the same period, there were 5,211 lesbian females who received donor insemination (DI) treatment.

The changes to the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 were approved by Registrar General James Hall earlier this year, following Royal Assent for new parenthood provisions contained in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. A spokeswoman for the Home Office said that there will be provision for a birth certificate to be used that will have two "parent" sections, rather than mother and father. Also, sperm donors will continue to be able to opt in or out of having their name on the birth certificate, but if both mothers wish to have their name on the document, the donor cannot be registered in that way.

Home Office Minister Lord Brett said: "This positive change means that, for the first time, female couples who have a child using fertility treatment have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to be shown as parents in the birth registration. "It is vital that we afford equality wherever we can in society, especially as family circumstances continue to change. This is an important step forward in that process." Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told the BBC that the move undermined the traditional family model. She said: "If we want to build a stable society, a mother and father and children works as the best model. We should be striving towards repairing and reinforcing marriage. I think this move sends out the exact opposite message."

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, criticised the move, telling the Daily Mail that the change would "create a legal fiction around the parentage of the children" which would then result in a "legal minefield" when it came to issues of maintenance and inheritance. He was supported by Labour MP Geraldine Smith, who said: 'To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness." Stonewall's Head of Policy and Research Ruth Hunt said that as a result of the law change, life for lesbian families "isn't only fairer, it's also much easier". She added: "As the law improves to provide further equality, knowing your new rights will help people make full use of the services they're entitled to. And, if discrimination occurs, the same knowledge can help them demand fair treatment. Now lesbian couples in the UK who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers."

Just Finished Reading: A Guide to the Good Life – The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by William B Irvine

I’ve been interested in and fascinated by Ancient Philosophy for some time now. The more I learnt about it the more impressed I have become. A few years ago as part of my recent University course I spent quite a few weeks studying Aristotle and have become a firm fan. But I think first place in my mind goes to the Stoics. For many years I have regarded myself as a Stoical person – even before I understood what that really meant (actually what I really meant was that I was pretty phlegmatic about things). Of course Stoicism is much more than this as is ably demonstrated by this present volume. Stoicism is, I think, is a philosophy that has stood the test of time. It is a set of teachings as relevant today as it was in the ancient world – because human nature doesn’t really change that much. We still have to deal with disappointment, death, and the daily irritations of other people. Throughout history we have wanted things we don’t need and expended effort in the quest to achieve goals that could be expended more profitably elsewhere.

Irvine has an interesting take on the whole Stoic philosophy. He identifies both Tranquillity and Joy as central to their ideas on how Stoics proposed we should live a good life – not by being indifferent to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune but by realising simple and (frankly obvious) things about existence. Amongst these are truths that we often forget – that there are things beyond our control (which we should stop worrying about), things fully within our control (which we should spend most of our energy dealing with) and things that we can influence but not control (which is, rather inevitably, the problem area for most people). Another central theme the author concentrates on is the idea of negative visualisation. In this he recommends that we imagine a life without things we hold dear – be they objects that we have acquired over time – and often great expense – or loved ones that hold important places in our lives. Not only does imagining living without them make them more precious to us but also prepares us for their (probable) loss. In this way the negative effects of the theft or destruction of property or the death s of those around us is diminished and any pain felt shortened.

Irvine, after outlining the history of Stoicism explains psychological techniques for coping with the inevitable uncertainties of life, techniques that anyone can use in many situations and to good effect. Oddly I found myself more than once thinking – yup, already do that. Irvine also draws on Stoic writings to offer practical advice on dealing with other people, grief, anger old age and death. These topics where the subject of lively discussions in ancient Greece and Rome just as they are today. Sage advice from great Stoics such as Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus is drawn upon time and again to address real issues experienced everyday by real people. The only problem I had with this book – and I fully understand why he did it – was the author’s practical dismissal of the Stoic idea of Fate. I certainly understand that Fate is not central to the modern way of living. We are taught (or indoctrinated into) the belief that the world is our oyster to do with what we wish. The Stoics would have none of this. Fate was central to their philosophy. It did actually disappoint me that the author could ditch this because it, along with the foundation of their idea of Free Will, is difficult to accommodate with our modern sensibilities. Irvine’s mission is to bring the Stoics to the attention of the modern reader who would, I agree, find this difficult if he brought along all of their associated beliefs. He has tried, and mostly succeeded, in updating Stoicism for the 21st Century – or at least giving the modern reader an appreciation of their philosophy to a level that interested readers can go back to the original sources themselves. In that sense this book is a very good introduction to the subject and could easily form the core of an effective and practical philosophy of life for anyone in search of such a thing. Being a Stoic, the author makes clear, is no easy ride but walking their path and living their techniques could, with practice, improve the quality of your life. If you ever wanted to know about Stoicism but were put off by reading apparently dusty tomes written over 2 thousand years ago then this is a great book for you. Highly recommended.

Cartoon Time.