In anticipation for the upcoming Albertan election I took the time to register to vote, since Laura and I move around so much. Registering to vote means that the voting process will be expedient.

If you’re an Albertan who has moved recently, or if you are new to the province, register here to vote. It takes about 3 minutes.

In the last few weeks, I have had the good pleasure of watching There Will Be Blood, I’m Not There (again), and No Country for Old Men (again). I personally and intellectually enjoyed each of these movies, although There Will be Blood tops my list of 2007’s Best Pictures.

Unsurprisingly, Calgary is a city of philistines, and at the end of each of these movies I have heard individuals loudly and publicly declare:

“There’s two hours I’ll never get back” (There Will be Blood)
“I don’t get it. Why?” (I’m Not There)
“What! No! Where’s the ending.” (said at the ending of No Country for Old Men)
“Another good movie with a lousy ending. Why can’t there be movies with good endings.” (No Country for Old Men)

I understand that the movies above don’t have typical or simplistic box-office movie plot structures. I also understand that folks who parade their ignorance publicly do so proudly. Although I do occasionally mock individuals who have the audacity to expose their foolishness, I suspect this only exacerbates the problem.

I would love to delve into discussion with the critics, however, I suspect my efforts would be rather fruitless. So, I am left with the question: should I, or should I not, direct witty and biting comments to critical curmudgeons?

Also, have you encountered philistinism at motion picture events?
Please share your thoughts in the comment section.

There was some discussion with my friends about a number of elements in The Darjeeling Limited, including the role of Bill Murray’s character (simply called “The Businessman” in the closing credits). The Businessman appears twice in the movie: once, at the beginning, and then later in the train-metaphor scene (where he is reclining, drinking sweet lime, with a package of Darjeeling Limited savoury snacks on the table beside him).

The Businessman not only symbolically represents the father of the Whitmans, but his appearance and failure to board the train prefigures one of the final scenes in the movie: the releasing of the father’s baggage by all three sons.

Beyond the similarity of The Businessman and luggage not boarding the trains, there is a parallel between the way that Peter looks back at the businessman (he removes his father’s glasses to have a better look at the person left behind) and the way the Whitman’s look back at the released luggage. I find that both scenes bring to the fore a present moment consciousness—a reflection on the self in the world—in the characters. I interpret this both from the expressions on their faces and by reading symbolically the scene.

To be clear, the present moment consciousness is represented by the scenes where the brothers look backwards, even as they are moving forwards and away. They reflect on that which is left behind, as they stand in their choice to move forward. These scenes disclose that the Whitman’s familiarity of the past and the known requires pause and reflection, even as they journey into what comes next (homecomings, reconciliations, relationships, and fatherhood).

The final scene of the movie—where the brothers go for a drink and a cigarette (exactly as they do at the beginning of the movie)—does not testify to an absence of personal and relational change in the Whitman’s: rather, that inner reshaping of a person is not always cataclysmic, but incremental and unvarnished.

These scenes support a hopeful interpretation of Anderson’s representation of people: humans can change and experience personal transformation, albeit slowly. Or, to return to the specifics of the film, the Whitman’s will leave behind their father’s baggage throughout their journeys; the process is life-long and ongoing.

I have already noted that I approach The Darjeeling Limited as a story about the spiritual journey. Through this lens, I see that every journey presents an opportunity to surrender the past—and the self associated with it—and become.

I have yet to investigate the connection between Rudyard Kipling’s Kim and The Darjeeling Limited. I am particularly interested in the use of the spectacles that characters acquire to change perspective on the world.

The Alphabet Game: A bp Nichol Reader (editted by Darren Wershler-Henry and Lori Emerson
Coach House Books, 334 pp)

bpNichol inducts his reader into the play and challenge of language, but where should a reader begin Nichol?

Although Nichol is best know for his concrete poetry, he produced an extraordinary amount of writing during his career—including scripts for Fraggle Rock. The Alphabet Game is a collection that offers readers who are new to Nichol an ideal first encounter. Those who are already familiar with Nichol will be attracted to the text because it includes excerpts from some more difficult to find publications.

Having not read Nichol at length, I approached the book with quiet cynicism, expecting that the humanity which draws me to art would suffer, as it sometimes does, under the impulse of literary experimentation. However, Nichol’s work is both beautiful and intellectual; the warmth in his words crowns his innovative endeavours.

The Alphabet Game displays Nichol’s stylistic diversity, offering excerpts from not only his groundbreaking concrete poetry but also from later works, including his unfinished lifelong poem The Martyrology. This collection gives the reader a perspective on nearly three decades of Nichol’s writerly development and experimentation. Editors Wershler-Henry and Emerson include both witty and serious selections from Nichol, displaying a breadth of emotions he is capable of evoking. The Alphabet Game foregrounds the envious power and challenge of strong writing.

In selections from Translating Translating Apollinaire, Nichol applies numerous creative permutations and arrangements of a single poem to place side-by-side multiple and untethered interpretations. With simple modifications to single words, Nichol imbues them with additional meaning in Still Water.

Inclusions from the nine books of The Martyrology are the highlight of this reader. The editors found the selection process from these books “particularly and excruciatingly difficult,” however they manage to present a consistent and strong poem. Although this process of selection essentially creates a poem unintended by Nichol (if that is possible), the assemblage ultimately prompts readers to seek out The Martyrology in its original form.

The Alphabet Game succeeds in showing Nichol’s lifelong concern with interrogating linguistic assumptions and habits, however it also seems to disclose much about the poet himself. A haunting question of Nichol’s writing concerns the disarming authenticity that permeates his work; to what extent does the writer avail himself to the reader? I do not yet have an answer to this question. The hallmark of good art, Nichol’s writing invites and withstands rereading and critical investigations.

The Alphabet Game is an excellent place to wade into Nichol. Those who do will likely be swept forward into one of the many publications included in this marvelous collection.

For those interested in hearing Nichol’s work, particularly his sound poetry, the Penn Sound offers mp3 recordings of his performances.

Other Reviews of The Alphabet Game:
The Edmonton Journal had a particularly well-written review.
The Torontoist has a strong, short review as well.
I also found an interview with Lori Emerson here.

Here’s what Mike says about bp:

His wit, along with the seriousness, was there to keep the language free and untethered, to keep the poem aware of its roots, like a tuxedo worn with bare feet in a muddy river … No other writer of our time and place was so diverse, attempted so much, and never lost sight of his intent. – Michael Ondaatje

an image i liked (from here)

As you may have heard, the Albertan Premier Ed Stelmach is threatening legal action against a Dave Cournoyer, a blogger, who registered the domain name edstelmach.ca. Rather than admitting that the publicity and communications people associated with his office made a blunder that most school children wouldn’t make, Stelmach and associates are attempting to bully Dave into giving up the domain and call him a liberal conspirator. Worse, they think that the public supports their actions (see CBC article)!

Action item:
Share this post with those you know to show Ed Stelmach and the Albertan Government that you are upset by the misuse of public office and bullying tactics surrounding this issue. We want a government that can admit its own faults—such as this mistake of not registering a domain name; not one that refuses to admit wrong and then blames its faults on the person pointing them out (David). I’m sure Ed thinks this is a small issue, however it reflects on the entire character of his style of government, making me want no part of the Albertan Tories.

Ed Stelmach sends a signal that he has no understanding about the importance of the internet to engage young voters like myself. Ed didn’t care enough to have an online presence last April, and now he’s trying to go outside of the law (domain names are on a first come first serve basis) because his office couldn’t be bothered to spend $14 for 5 minutes work. WTF?

If you want more the facts, here’s a CBC article on it, as well as an Edmonton Journal article. If you don’t trust liberal media, why don’t you see what Ezra Levant says on the issue… Even Ezra thinks Ed is humiliating himself, sorta like watching someone punch himself in the face repeatedly.

Note: Ed and anyone from Ed’s office. Please read Wikinomics, drop this issue, before you tangle yourself in a self-perpetuated publicity nightmare. Or, if you need marketing advice, I would happily provide some consultation to you about improving your online image, although it would entail more personal and organizational transparency, which you might not be up for.

*this phrase may not apply to corporations whose god is money.

The Taser/mp3 player has arrived (I’m not joking). I’m certain most users will zap themselves on multiple occasions fiddling with this thing, trying to change songs. Remembering Robert Dziekanski causes me to judge harshly this attempt to normalize and popularize a lethal weapon for the frightened suburban and urban mid-to-upper class (see this article on Taser parties). Tasers are not a safe alternative to firearms. Like firearm owners, all individuals using tasers should be held legally responsible for the possession and use of these devices; moreover, an added legal requirement for proper training on taser use would ensure people respect and understand the weapon that they wield.

Perhaps, instead of purchasing more weapons, people should learn to confront and overcome their fears.

I eagerly anticipate evaluating The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Into The Wild, and Margot at the Wedding, however here are the top 2007 films I’ve seen:

1. Atonement
2. Once
3. The Darjeeling Limited
4. I’m Not There
5. Across the Universe
6. No Country for Old Men
7. The Bourne Ultimatum
8. The Great Debaters

Until I actually saw the film, I thought Atonement would be a typical love story about some wartime couple; how wrong I was. I have not had such a strong emotional reaction to a story all year. While I find Ian McEwan’s novel, you should seriously consider making plans to see Atonement.

Once crafts a story about love and human connection between two musicians in Dublin. Unlike most musicals where people randomly burst into song, Once weaves the music seamlessly into the lives of its characters. This styling, as well as the digital filming, create a sense of authenticity and closeness as the story builds. The soundtrack for this movie is worth your time.

The Darjeeling Limited . . . I’ve already said much on this film. More will come.

Although I’m Not There has a few weaker moments, it has strong artistic and stylistic vision. This poetic film invites many interpretations because the characters and stories are episodic, unique, yet connected. Added bonus: Cate Blanchett as a Dylanesque figure—wonderful.

Across the Universe is a musical where people randomly burst into song; however the tunes are almost all Beatles music reimagined in ways that are familiar enough to enjoy yet capture the interest of people who’ve heard The Beatles (and covers) for more than a couple decades. The movie contains vibrant colours and sets. Although the storyline wears thin in many places, I take the film as a snapshot of the movement that is the 1960s—the characters are simply lenses to provide understanding of everything that was happening.

No Country for Old Men has topped the list of most reviewers . . . For me, the reflections on the fallout of the world changing makes this movie great. The unresolved ending—despite theater goers incredulity—closes this feature perfectly.

A great action movie, with some substance and good plot twists, that even Laura liked: The Bourne Ultimatum.

An “inspired by a true story” film about black students from Texas in the 1930s that Oprah produced and Denzel Washington directed, The Great Debaters surpasses the expectation of the inspirational movie genre. Beyond reminding me of the long and difficult (and ongoing) struggle for racial equality, the movie tells an inspirational story about the importance of education and the mind, as well as the importance of rhetoric. The movie hits it out of the park on the final scene.

Edit: Writers at The Village Voice (see article) and NY Times are heralding the late-coming There Will Be Blood as the best film of 2007! So … I may revise my list if I get the chance to see it.

. . .simply because I can’t/shouldn’t post this on ChristmasFuture.

For me, this video acknowledges that people need both leadership and opportunity to give. Moreover, the issue of global poverty is something we can, and should, feel responsible to deal with. I can’t pretend that I don’t have some responsibility to help others, whether they are close to me or if they live across the globe. Globalization shows us that we aren’t simply connected, but that we can genuinely impact one another.