And now we follow up As You Like It with another English tale of a noble daughter who is wrongfully exiled and who courts her future husband in disguise: Cap o’ Rushes (“Animated Tales of the World,” 2002). This tale combines aspects of the “Love Like Salt” legend (related to the King Lear/Leir story) and “Cinderella.”
SciFi SongFest, Songs 54-55
Bowie laments that his new television has literally absorbed his girlfriend. Blondie gives us a glimpse of what it’s like to be thus absorbed.
54. David Bowie, “TVC-15” (1976):
55. Blondie, “Fade Away and Radiate” (1978):
Conscience of a Conservative
The full original French title of arch-conservative Joseph de Maistre’s 1821 Soirées, often translated as St. Petersburg Dialogues, is Les Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg; ou, Entretiens sur le Gouvernement Temporel de la Providence.
The full original French title of arch-liberal Gustave de Molinari’s 1849 Soirées, recently translated as Evenings on Saint Lazarus Street, is Les Soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare: Entretiens sur les Lois Économiques et Défense de la Propriété.
That the similarity in titles is intended as a reply rather than an homage is obvious from the fact that all the hostile references to de Maistre are assigned to the Economist (Molinari’s spokesman in the dialogue), while all the favourable references are assigned to the Conservative (one of the Economist’s two opponents).
The following quotation from de Maistre’s Soirées will give a sense as to why Molinari picked him out as the antithesis of the liberal vision of society that Molinari’s book sets out to defend:
[T]his divine and terrible prerogative of sovereigns: the punishment of the guilty … results in the necessary existence of a man destined to administer the punishments adjudged for crimes by human justice. This man is, in effect, found everywhere, without there being any means of explaining how; for reason cannot discover in human nature any motive capable of explaining this choice of profession. I believe you too accustomed to reflection, gentlemen, not to have thought often about the executioner.
So who is this inexplicable being who, when there are so many pleasant, lucrative, honest and even honourable professions in which he could exercise his strength or dexterity to choose among, has chosen that of torturing and putting to death his own kind? Are this head and this heart made like our own? Do they contain anything that is peculiar and alien to our nature?
For myself, I have no doubt about this. In outward appearance he is made like us; he is born like us. But he is an extraordinary being, and for him to be brought into existence as a member of the human family a particular decree was required, a FIAT of creative power. He is created as a law unto himself. …
Scarcely have the authorities assigned his dwelling, scarcely has he taken possession of it, when other men move their houses elsewhere so they no longer have to see his. … A dismal signal is given. An abject minister of justice knocks on his door to warn him that he is needed. He sets out. He arrives at a public square packed with a pressing and panting crowd. He is thrown a poisoner, a parricide, a blasphemer. He seizes him, stretches him out, ties him to a horizontal cross, and raises his arms. Then there is a horrible silence; there is no sound but the crack of bones breaking under the crossbar and the howls of the victim. He unties him and carries him to a wheel. The broken limbs are bound to the spokes, the head hangs down, the hair stands on end, and the mouth gaping like a furnace occasionally emits a few bloody words begging for death. He has finished; his heart is pounding, but it is with joy. He congratulates himself. He says in his heart, No one can break men on the wheel better than I. He steps down; he holds out his blood-stained hand, and justice throws him from afar a few gold coins, which he carries away through a double row of men drawing back in horror. He sits down to table and eats; then he goes to bed and sleeps. Awakening on the morrow, he thinks of something quite different from what he did the day before. …
Is this a man? Yes. God receives him in his shrines and allows him to pray. He is not a criminal, and yet no tongue would content to say, for example, that he is virtuous, that he is an honest man, that he is admirable, etc. No moral praise seems appropriate for him, since this supposes relationships with human beings, and he has none.
And yet all greatness, all power, all subordination rests on the executioner; he is both the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world, and in a moment order gives way to chaos, thrones fall, and society disappears.
Middelboe Chronicles, Part 16: As You Like It
Just as David, in yesterday’s installment, was wrongfully exiled from court and had to fend for himself in the wilderness, so does a similar fate befall the characters in As You Like It (“Shakespeare: The Animated Tales,” 1994):
The lion glimpsed at 18:29 and again at 23:43 seems to be borrowed from Henri Rousseau’s famous painting:
SciFi SongFest, Songs 52-53
Two songs about media manipulation:
52. David Bowie, “D.J.” (1979):
53. Voivod, “Jack Luminous” (1993):
All the Lousy Little Poets Coming Round …
… and the white man dancing.
I just got back from seeing Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time In Hollywood. (Or Once Upon a Time … In Hollywood. Some versions of the title include the ellipsis, some don’t.) (And yes, I saw it on the 25th. Even though all the publicity says its official u.s. release is the 26th. Go figure.)
I don’t want to say too much, because spoilers. But I can’t remember the last time I enjoyed a movie this much.
I mean, I do have some issues with it. From a feminist standpoint it’s actually pretty crap. I might talk about that later. But there’s a lot about it that’s really great – and not just because it hits my L.A. nostalgia buttons (though it does).
I’m usually not too averse to spoilers, but I’m glad I went into this movie not knowing much about the plot. I mean, I knew that it had something to do with a has-been movie actor and his stunt double, and that it also had something to do with Sharon Tate and the Manson Family murders. And those things are fine to know going in. Indeed, if you don’t know anything about Tate or the Manson Family, you’ll get a lot less enjoyment out of the movie, so I’d advise you to look up the basic details before seeing it. But it’s best to know nothing about the movie beyond that, going in.
I’ve seen a number of forgettable movies lately. I mean, literally forgettable. As in: the other day I saw some reference to Men In Black: International, and I thought, “Oh, I’m sorry I missed seeing that when it was in theatres.” And then I remembered that I actually did see it. And pretty much enjoyed it. Thor / Valkyrie team-up, cool. But it obviously didn’t make much of a lasting impact. (Of course that might say as much about my decaying brain cells as about the movie. Or maybe they used one of those devices on me.) After seeing Captain Marvel I was enthusiastically recommending it to friends; and while I certainly haven’t forgotten seeing it, I have a hard time remembering why I was so enthusiastic. But I feel pretty sure this one will stick with me.
Tarantino has said that if things don’t work out with his Star Trek project, this might be his last movie. I hope it’s not; but if it is, it would be a fine note to go out on.
Incidentally: the movie has a mid-credits scene, so you should stay for that. (Actually you should always stay through the entire credits of any movie, be there bonus scenes or not, because it spoils the mood to walk out early; but that’s another discussion.)
I have a couple of more spoilerific things I want to say, so I’ve buried them in the comments below.