'Eleanor Rigby: A Novel by Douglas Coupland. Random house Canada. 249pp.
Douglas Coupland is my favourite novelist. His novels often take place in North or West Vancouver, places I've often gone to. It's nice to read a novel that happens near where you live. Also his novels are easy to read. So you don't have to stress your mind wading through some incredibly dense work. Last but not least they remind me of t.v. dramas, but they're so much deeper, funnier and sadder than most stuff on the box.
'Eleanor Rigby' published in 2004 takes off from the Beatles' song of the same name. "Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where her wedding has been," sang the fab four about fifty years ago. "Lives in a dream." And the song's chorus asks "All the lonely people/ where do they all come from?" Coupland's novel like the Beatles' song is about loneliness.
When the novels opens, Liz Dunn a very lonely middle aged person is living, sort of, in a North Vancouver condo. Then the Hale-Bopp comet lands on the north shore and signals better things to come. Liz takes us back in time to a distant trip she took to Italy with one of her high school classes. Here, she ended up in a party that took place on a roof, and met a man. Then something happened.
"I'm overweight and my clothes are serviceable," Dunn explains to us. "They're usually loose fabrics because they conceal my roundness. Men af all ages don't notice me, period. To them, I'm a fern." So life looks grim for this plain Jane.
And her family is not very supportive. But then a stranger intrudes and transforms her life.
The novel here, I think, goes astray. The Beatles' song 'Eleanor Rigby' ends on a depressing but realistic note. Coupland's novel gives us an old-fashioned Hollywood style ending where all of Liz's problems vanish.
But in the end so what? The novels entertains and also Coupland drops all sorts of observations on life into the story. Now that I've unplugged my t.v. I'm going to keep reading Coupland's work. It beats watching the dramas on the box anytime, unless they're written by Dougals Coupland, that is.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Review of 'Tea With Hezbollah'
'Tea With Hezbollah: Sitting at the Enemies' Table. Our Journey Through the Middle East' by Ted Dekker and Carl Medearis. Doubleday, 245 pp.
What happens when a Canadian author and an American author get together? Well if the Canadian is best-selling novelist Ted Dekker and the American is Middle East specialist Carl Medearis you get an interesting book. They don't spend their time arguing about Americans' know nothing take on Canada or the high price of American-made goods on this side of the border.
Instead off they go to the Middle East to find out whether the top honchos over there obey Jesus's injunction, "Love thy neighbour as thyself."
This is a dangerous journey. And as the twosome touch down in six countries, death, despair and violence lurk everywhere, as do many cups of tea.
Dekker, an experienced novelist, describes the lands they pass through. Medearis, with a background in the Middle East, helps track down the leaders of movements like Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Sami Awad, the leader of non-violent resistance to settlers in Israeli's West Bank. Canada and the U.S. governments , by the way, classify Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
Most of the men interviewed agree with Jesus's saying. Others are not so sure and who can blame them? "I've stood in front of moving bulldozers and Israeli jeeps many times," says the Palestinian leader Sami Awad, "to try to prevent them from destroying farmland. I've been physically assaulted more times than can be counted by Israeli troops who use their rifles, boots and batons."
Awad has been denounced by Israeli leaders and by other Palestinians as a CIA tool. But he agrees with Jesus.
This is a male-dominated book. The only woman who shows up in the book is Nicole, who Dekker invents. And Israeli leaders don't show up in the book at all. Nor do U.S. politicians who launched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But the book contains an interesting history of the Samaritans, one of whom inspired Jesus's injunction.
'Tea with Hezbollah' doesn't probe too deeply but it's an enjoyable read. "A simple teaching," Dekker concludes, "made 2,000 years ago may bring agreement and hope."
What happens when a Canadian author and an American author get together? Well if the Canadian is best-selling novelist Ted Dekker and the American is Middle East specialist Carl Medearis you get an interesting book. They don't spend their time arguing about Americans' know nothing take on Canada or the high price of American-made goods on this side of the border.
Instead off they go to the Middle East to find out whether the top honchos over there obey Jesus's injunction, "Love thy neighbour as thyself."
This is a dangerous journey. And as the twosome touch down in six countries, death, despair and violence lurk everywhere, as do many cups of tea.
Dekker, an experienced novelist, describes the lands they pass through. Medearis, with a background in the Middle East, helps track down the leaders of movements like Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Sami Awad, the leader of non-violent resistance to settlers in Israeli's West Bank. Canada and the U.S. governments , by the way, classify Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
Most of the men interviewed agree with Jesus's saying. Others are not so sure and who can blame them? "I've stood in front of moving bulldozers and Israeli jeeps many times," says the Palestinian leader Sami Awad, "to try to prevent them from destroying farmland. I've been physically assaulted more times than can be counted by Israeli troops who use their rifles, boots and batons."
Awad has been denounced by Israeli leaders and by other Palestinians as a CIA tool. But he agrees with Jesus.
This is a male-dominated book. The only woman who shows up in the book is Nicole, who Dekker invents. And Israeli leaders don't show up in the book at all. Nor do U.S. politicians who launched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But the book contains an interesting history of the Samaritans, one of whom inspired Jesus's injunction.
'Tea with Hezbollah' doesn't probe too deeply but it's an enjoyable read. "A simple teaching," Dekker concludes, "made 2,000 years ago may bring agreement and hope."
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Review of the film 'No'.
When 'No' really did mean No'.
Film review of 'No' starring Gael Garcia Bernal and Antonia Zegers. Directed by Pablo Larrain. In Spanish with English subtitles.
In the 1970's one Latin American country after another succumbed to brutal right wing military dictatorships. Left wing critics claim that these events happened because of 'Operation Condor', a joint U.S. military plan to snuff out democracy all over Latin America.
Right wingers disagree. "Latin America has often been ruled by generals," they say, "and the U.S. played no part in any anti-democratic plan."
Whatever the truth, Chile in 1988 was ruled by a brutal military dictator called General Augusto Pinochet. He came to power in 1973 when he and his army overthrew the left leaning government of democratic President Salvador Allende and killed Allende and other leftists besides. Suddenly in 1988 Pinochet decided to hold a referundum on his 15 year rule of Chile.
The film 'No' is about this referundum.Gaul Garcia Bernal who plays the advertising executive Rene Saavedra sets up the advertisements for the 'No', the anti-Pinochet side. His boss ends up heading the 'Yes' side. "The election campaign is completely fixed," Saavedra tells the co-ordinator of the 'No' campaign.
Still, Saavedra stays on the campagin although he assumes that Pinochet will fix and win the outcome."The point of U.S. support of military governments," writes Noam Chomsky, "is to crush independent nationalism and popular forces that bring about meaningful democracy."
But the U.S. did fail sometimes, as did Pinochet. 'No" shows us how. But the movie ends up as a contest between advertising executives namely Saavedra and his boss at the ad agency. Meanwhile the protesting Chilean people, who provided the basis of the 'No' campaign, serve as just a backdrop to the two ad men. And the bearded Saavedra remains a detached observer of the whole campagin, until his wife, played by Antonia Zegers gets horribly beaten up by the police.Maybe that's how all ad executives, who weigh in on political campaigns, feel and act. But I found this kind of strange.
Director Pablo Larrain shot 'No' in a 1983 U-matic videocassette camera. So the film matches newsreel shots of the day and the commercials back then. 'No' is a fine film but it should have included more people from the 'No' side. Not all of these people were politicians or ad company executives.
Film review of 'No' starring Gael Garcia Bernal and Antonia Zegers. Directed by Pablo Larrain. In Spanish with English subtitles.
In the 1970's one Latin American country after another succumbed to brutal right wing military dictatorships. Left wing critics claim that these events happened because of 'Operation Condor', a joint U.S. military plan to snuff out democracy all over Latin America.
Right wingers disagree. "Latin America has often been ruled by generals," they say, "and the U.S. played no part in any anti-democratic plan."
Whatever the truth, Chile in 1988 was ruled by a brutal military dictator called General Augusto Pinochet. He came to power in 1973 when he and his army overthrew the left leaning government of democratic President Salvador Allende and killed Allende and other leftists besides. Suddenly in 1988 Pinochet decided to hold a referundum on his 15 year rule of Chile.
The film 'No' is about this referundum.Gaul Garcia Bernal who plays the advertising executive Rene Saavedra sets up the advertisements for the 'No', the anti-Pinochet side. His boss ends up heading the 'Yes' side. "The election campaign is completely fixed," Saavedra tells the co-ordinator of the 'No' campaign.
Still, Saavedra stays on the campagin although he assumes that Pinochet will fix and win the outcome."The point of U.S. support of military governments," writes Noam Chomsky, "is to crush independent nationalism and popular forces that bring about meaningful democracy."
But the U.S. did fail sometimes, as did Pinochet. 'No" shows us how. But the movie ends up as a contest between advertising executives namely Saavedra and his boss at the ad agency. Meanwhile the protesting Chilean people, who provided the basis of the 'No' campaign, serve as just a backdrop to the two ad men. And the bearded Saavedra remains a detached observer of the whole campagin, until his wife, played by Antonia Zegers gets horribly beaten up by the police.Maybe that's how all ad executives, who weigh in on political campaigns, feel and act. But I found this kind of strange.
Director Pablo Larrain shot 'No' in a 1983 U-matic videocassette camera. So the film matches newsreel shots of the day and the commercials back then. 'No' is a fine film but it should have included more people from the 'No' side. Not all of these people were politicians or ad company executives.
Thursday, 21 March 2013
The photos of Patrick Faigenbaum
Photographs by Patrick Faigenbaum. At the Vancouver Art Gallery in downtown Vancouver
On the ground floor of the Vancouver Art Gallery there's some beautiful photographs by the French photographer Patrick Faigenbaum. I'd never heard of Faigenbaum before which is too bad.
"It now seems clear," wrote the British art critic John Berger way back in 1968, "that photography deserves to be considered as though it were not a fine art. It looks as though photography is going to outlive painting and sculpture as we have thought of them since the Renaissance."
Faigenbaum's photos dispute Berger's first point. But they may support his second belief.
His photos fall into three or four types. There are still lifes taken mostly in Sardinia. There are portraits taken in France, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Italy. Faigenbaum has also taken some beautiful
colored photos of French and Sardinian landscapes and townscapes.
Fiagenbaum grew up in France in the 1970"s. First trained as a painter, he later switched to photography. "He is part of a generation who during the 1970"s," says a comment on the gallery wall," began to consider photography on the grand scale of historical easel painting." In line with that belief, Faigenbaum's photos are big. One photo of a farmer in a barn takes up one side of a gallery wall. Only a set of 26 small snapshots of a garden all lined up together stand out as an exception to the general rule of the photos's large size. All the rest of the photos take up lots of space.
My favourite photos by Faigenbaum in this exhibition are his black and white portraits of Italian aristocrats. Here, families pose for the camera in their houses, surrounded by expensive furniture and family treasures. But maybe just as powerful are Faigenbaum's landscapes and portraits of young, middle aged and older French people. Here you can see that this man has studied painting and a lot more besides.
On the ground floor of the Vancouver Art Gallery there's some beautiful photographs by the French photographer Patrick Faigenbaum. I'd never heard of Faigenbaum before which is too bad.
"It now seems clear," wrote the British art critic John Berger way back in 1968, "that photography deserves to be considered as though it were not a fine art. It looks as though photography is going to outlive painting and sculpture as we have thought of them since the Renaissance."
Faigenbaum's photos dispute Berger's first point. But they may support his second belief.
His photos fall into three or four types. There are still lifes taken mostly in Sardinia. There are portraits taken in France, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Italy. Faigenbaum has also taken some beautiful
colored photos of French and Sardinian landscapes and townscapes.
Fiagenbaum grew up in France in the 1970"s. First trained as a painter, he later switched to photography. "He is part of a generation who during the 1970"s," says a comment on the gallery wall," began to consider photography on the grand scale of historical easel painting." In line with that belief, Faigenbaum's photos are big. One photo of a farmer in a barn takes up one side of a gallery wall. Only a set of 26 small snapshots of a garden all lined up together stand out as an exception to the general rule of the photos's large size. All the rest of the photos take up lots of space.
My favourite photos by Faigenbaum in this exhibition are his black and white portraits of Italian aristocrats. Here, families pose for the camera in their houses, surrounded by expensive furniture and family treasures. But maybe just as powerful are Faigenbaum's landscapes and portraits of young, middle aged and older French people. Here you can see that this man has studied painting and a lot more besides.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
review of the movie 'The Gatekeepers'
'The Gatekeepers' starring Ami Ayalon, Avi Dicter, and Avraham Shalom. A documentary by Dror Moreh.
Is Israel a good thing or a bad thing? I'm a Jew and yet I've never been able to make up my mind on this question.On the plus side, Israel is a homeland for all Jews and that's certainly needed after all the hell that Jews have been put through over the ages. But then there's the 750,000 Arabs that Israel kicked out of the country when it was set up in 1948. And Israelis are still kicking arabs - or as they're known today Palestinians- out of Israel.
Once upon a time, Israel was a social democratic state that gave out some generous social programs. That was good. But to-day Israel's an armed state that runs one of the most brutally efficient killing machines in the world. Which is not so good. Israel's existence has raised the self-esteem of most Jews around the world- which is good. But many Moslems now hate Israel and want to see it destroyed along with world Jewry - which is bad. And so on.
These thoughts and others flitted through my mind while watching 'The Gatekeepers' an Israeli film by Dror Moreh. Here, four or five past leaders of Shin Bet, Israel's security agency, talked about their wars against Arab terrorist or as some might say freedom fighters. "When you're fighting terrorism," one of the former Shin Bet heads says, "there is no morality."
Film clips from the 1950's down to today, back up this statement. 'The Gatekeepers' is chockful of endless pictuures of Israelis killing Arabs and vice versa. Also it seems that Shin Bet carries out massive surveillance from the air of all Palestinian towns in Israel. Scenes of Israeli soldiers torturing captives pop up on the screen too while forrner Shin Bet heads discuss the best way to get Palestinian prisoners to reveal their secrets.
But overall the film left me with a sense of total futility.
"When you retire," another former intelligence chief says, "you become a bit of a leftist." No doubt. But when these men headed up Shin Bet they were hard, tough and ruthless. Then they were not leftists. 'The Gatekeepers' is an interesting film by Dror Moreh. It tells us about the insoluble conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Its main message to me was" The killing goes on," whcich is too bad.
Is Israel a good thing or a bad thing? I'm a Jew and yet I've never been able to make up my mind on this question.On the plus side, Israel is a homeland for all Jews and that's certainly needed after all the hell that Jews have been put through over the ages. But then there's the 750,000 Arabs that Israel kicked out of the country when it was set up in 1948. And Israelis are still kicking arabs - or as they're known today Palestinians- out of Israel.
Once upon a time, Israel was a social democratic state that gave out some generous social programs. That was good. But to-day Israel's an armed state that runs one of the most brutally efficient killing machines in the world. Which is not so good. Israel's existence has raised the self-esteem of most Jews around the world- which is good. But many Moslems now hate Israel and want to see it destroyed along with world Jewry - which is bad. And so on.
These thoughts and others flitted through my mind while watching 'The Gatekeepers' an Israeli film by Dror Moreh. Here, four or five past leaders of Shin Bet, Israel's security agency, talked about their wars against Arab terrorist or as some might say freedom fighters. "When you're fighting terrorism," one of the former Shin Bet heads says, "there is no morality."
Film clips from the 1950's down to today, back up this statement. 'The Gatekeepers' is chockful of endless pictuures of Israelis killing Arabs and vice versa. Also it seems that Shin Bet carries out massive surveillance from the air of all Palestinian towns in Israel. Scenes of Israeli soldiers torturing captives pop up on the screen too while forrner Shin Bet heads discuss the best way to get Palestinian prisoners to reveal their secrets.
But overall the film left me with a sense of total futility.
"When you retire," another former intelligence chief says, "you become a bit of a leftist." No doubt. But when these men headed up Shin Bet they were hard, tough and ruthless. Then they were not leftists. 'The Gatekeepers' is an interesting film by Dror Moreh. It tells us about the insoluble conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Its main message to me was" The killing goes on," whcich is too bad.
Monday, 11 March 2013
Continuation of book review of 'Nellie McClung' by Charlotte Gray
Review of book continued
Of course the Canadian Senate is a useless body, where even to-day, Liberal and Tory stalwarts get appointed to sit and draw some nice fat salaries. Still, in 1928 totally-male dominated Canada, this court decision counted as a victory for women.
McClung's life wasn't tragedy-free. One of her four sons became an alcoholic and then later killed himself. Her husband had to take a back seat to her life, which was very very busy. "I spoke at two guest teas this week," McClung told a friend in a letter, "and will speak at one tomorrow. And I have two lectures to give."
In the 1930's the 60 year-old McClung and her husband Wes finally retired to Victoria to spend their last years there. McClung died in Victoria in 1951. The feminists of the 1970's rediscovered McClung and rescued her from obscurity. She'll never rank up there with Justin Bieber. But she deserves to be remembered and Charlotte Gray has done a good job in capturing McClung's life.
Of course the Canadian Senate is a useless body, where even to-day, Liberal and Tory stalwarts get appointed to sit and draw some nice fat salaries. Still, in 1928 totally-male dominated Canada, this court decision counted as a victory for women.
McClung's life wasn't tragedy-free. One of her four sons became an alcoholic and then later killed himself. Her husband had to take a back seat to her life, which was very very busy. "I spoke at two guest teas this week," McClung told a friend in a letter, "and will speak at one tomorrow. And I have two lectures to give."
In the 1930's the 60 year-old McClung and her husband Wes finally retired to Victoria to spend their last years there. McClung died in Victoria in 1951. The feminists of the 1970's rediscovered McClung and rescued her from obscurity. She'll never rank up there with Justin Bieber. But she deserves to be remembered and Charlotte Gray has done a good job in capturing McClung's life.
Nellie McClung an extraordinary Canadian
'Nellie McClung' by Charlotte Gray. With an introduction by John Ralston Saul. Penguin. Part of 'Extraordinary Canadians' series.
Ask most Canadians'Person' in section 24 of the act meant 'women' as well as men to name a famous citizen of their country and they'd probably reply, "Justin Bieber" or "Sidney Crosby" or maybe even "Stephen Harper". Don't think too many of them would mention Nellie McClung.
McClung died in the 1950's. Still she deserves to be remembered and long-time author Charlotte Gray tells us why. Gray has written a good short introduction about McClung. Gray touches on the main points of McClung's life. McClung moved from being a farm girl to being an author, a politician, a temperance advocate, a wife, a mother and a one-time Canadian icon. McClung led the pre-world war one struggle to win women the right to vote. Along with four other women - 'the famous five' as they're now known- she won the right for women to be a senator.
The British North American Act created Canada in 1867. The victory of the five women was that they used the courts to rule that the word 'Person' meant 'women' as well as 'men'.Now women could be appointed to the Senate as well as men.
Ask most Canadians'Person' in section 24 of the act meant 'women' as well as men to name a famous citizen of their country and they'd probably reply, "Justin Bieber" or "Sidney Crosby" or maybe even "Stephen Harper". Don't think too many of them would mention Nellie McClung.
McClung died in the 1950's. Still she deserves to be remembered and long-time author Charlotte Gray tells us why. Gray has written a good short introduction about McClung. Gray touches on the main points of McClung's life. McClung moved from being a farm girl to being an author, a politician, a temperance advocate, a wife, a mother and a one-time Canadian icon. McClung led the pre-world war one struggle to win women the right to vote. Along with four other women - 'the famous five' as they're now known- she won the right for women to be a senator.
The British North American Act created Canada in 1867. The victory of the five women was that they used the courts to rule that the word 'Person' meant 'women' as well as 'men'.Now women could be appointed to the Senate as well as men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)