Frédérik Sisa
Theatre Review: What Happened Was
For the past few months, I’d been trying on and off to remember a small indie movie I’d seen at least 8 years ago. I didn’t remember the cast, or the title, or the director, or much of anything, really. I did remember, however, the ending. At least, I remembered its emotional tone; bittersweet, sad, but neither bleak nor without any hope. Whatever else I had forgotten about it, that feeling stuck with me all these years. So it was quite the coincidence when, after seeing What Happened Was… and being afflicted with a case of déjà vu, some online digging revealed that the movie I’d been thinking of was, in fact, the play’s cinematic counterpart.
You wouldn’t know it from the exterior – anonymous red double-doors that open to a candlelit stairwell – but the Stephanie Feury Studio Theatre is a wonderful, intimate venue that offers the perfect space for What Happened Was…though space may not be the right word; pocket universe, perhaps, consisting of all the accoutrements of a humble living room where two desperately lonely people with a volatile chemistry spend an evening together only to find their hopes and expectations colliding.
Pondering Those Pesky Propositions Part 2
We Know Where You Are
Question: If a sex offender is so dangerous that we absolutely, positively have to know where he is at all times, shouldnt he remain in jail? Sex crimes are particularly odious. But we mustnt forget that prison is as much intended to rehabilitate and deter repeat offenses as it is to punish. A problem faced by many ex-convicts is re-integrating into society, learning how to function without repeating their past offenses. Is strapping a GPS on ex-convicts conducive to readjustment to normal life? We might as well brand them with a big scarlet letter on the forehead.
To be sure, the justice system needs more than a bit of tweaking. But Im not sure its in the area of sex-based crimes. Prop. 83 just seems to be draconian for the sake of being draconian, and its questionable to what extent its an improvement over the current laws. But, as the essayist Eric Fine pointed out in a recent op-ed piece in thefrontpageonline.com (Measuring the Folly of the War on Drug, Oct. 4), the system could benefit from a purge of non-violent drug offenders to make room for the really violent criminals. How about it then? A proposition to decriminalize drugs?
Pondering Those Pesky Propositions
Part 1
I remember reading, somewhere in the blogosphere, something about rejecting the two million propositions currently on the ballot because they amounted to the people doing the legislature’s job. But as understandable a sentiment as that is, and as much as the legislature does seem to be rather useless, we can’t forget that the initiative system began as a means for the people to bypass a legislature beholden to special interests. There’s also something to be said about people making political decisions for themselves instead of delegating that responsibility to others who may or may not have their interests at heart. The problem, of course, is that everyone’s too busy trying to pay the bills to have the time to learn enough about the issues to make really informed decisions. I’m sure the special interests and power elites prefer it that way: Keep the people distracted and screw them over without their knowledge.
Why Hate Gays?
A California Appeals Court recently upheld the state ban on gay marriage, agreeing with the state attorney general that its up to the legislature, not the courts, to alter the definition of marriage. But frankly, I dont see why it should be up to the legislature or even society to define what marriage is for individuals. Where anti-gay marriage advocates view the issue as a matter of social interest, I view it is a matter of freedom. Marriage is about the personal relationship between two people. Its a personal contract between two individuals, not a covenant between individuals and society. How two people run their lives, what they do in the bedroom, how they arrange their means of support for each other in terms of health, inheritance, etc., has no impact on society. And thats where anti-gay advocates fail: Explaining why gay marriage is such a threat.
I have not heard a single solitary argument that offers any reason to think that allowing the government to recognize gay marriage will have destructive effects. And Ive not seen a single argument that explains how society will collapse into chaos because gay people are allowed to marry. The only facsimile of such an argument is that gay marriage is bad for children. Not only is there no proof of this, but the argument is easily refuted and not only by philosophy, but science too. A plethora of scientific organizations have published studies and issued statements to this effect. Heres one from the American Psychological Assn. (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parentschildren.pdf):
Didnt They Leave Something Out?
In the film “The Science of Sleep,” Stéphane, played with great gusto and pathos by Gael Garcia Bernal, is a young man for whom dreams and reality have a habit of blurring together. He’s creative, certainly. But a boring, non-artistic job at a calendar company is a major source of frustration. He’s also reeling from the death of his father, which contributes to a tortured psyche for which dreaming serves as a release.
Captivating Charlotte Gainsbourg plays Stéphanie, the girl next door who is as confused as she is confusing, and who torments as much as she is tormented. Also creative, she forms a relationship with Stéphane that is defined by paradox. A romance between the two seems like the most natural thing in the world, yet it is also clear that both suffer from some sort of existential condition that prevents them, however unintentionally, from achieving any meaningful human connection.
World Gone Mad (Again)?
What is going on?
First, an established, well-respected company like Hewlett Packard loses its direction, prompting invocations of Watergate and Enron. Blame a faulty moral compass; apparently, infiltrating news organizations, using con artists tricks to get peoples personal information, and other spying tactics never set off alarms that the company was going in the wrong direction. Even Microsoft, the bete noire of Linux and Apple lovers, never indulged in this kind of reprehensible behavior (as far as we know). Sure, all these Hewlett Packard big-wigs are taking the stand and pleading the 5th, hiding behind denials of personal responsibility and knowledge of the questionable legality of their probe into a boardroom leak. But does anybody really buy it?
The Incredible Spectacle
It was a spectacular protest at the King Fahad mosque on Sunday the 10th — spectacularly pointless.
What did the United American Committee (UAC) hope to accomplish? Ostensibly, they wanted the mosque to issue a fatwa against Osama bin Laden, or admit to preaching hate, or confess to harboring terrorists, reform their supposedly extremist ways, or something along those lines. All this, of course, was dressed up in the memory of Sept. 11. But it’s hard to swallow. Five years later, and now they’re protesting at the mosque? Part of their beef was that the mosque harbored two of the hijackers, that the Muslim community supported them, and that an imam at the mosque actively assisted them. The basis for their accusation is the 9/11 Commission Report. But unless they know something law enforcement doesn’t, they’re acting on spotty reasoning. To quote from the report (highlight added for emphasis)
Revisiting Chinatown (Part 2)
Note: I recently had a chance to re-watch "Chinatown," a film with much to admire particularly in its technical elements and performances. However, while the majority of critics and movies fans see it as a one of the best films ever made, I'm in the minority who disagrees. Here's why.
Consider the last line, the infamous Forget it, Jake. Its Chinatown. Its supposed to bring to mind Gittes repetition of history, which also involved a tragic death in L.A.s Chinatown. But since we only learn about his unhappy past through the odd line of dialogue here and there, it has no real resonance. The line represents a lazy shorthand of the telling but not showing variety, in which nothing is expressed other than a simple evil happens, and you cant do anything about it.
Revisiting Chinatown (Part 1)
[Note: I recently had a chance to rewatch "Chinatown," a film with much to admire - particularly in its technical elements and performances. However, while the majority of critics and movies fans see it as a one of the best films ever made, I'm in the minority who disagrees. Here's why.]
Chinatown, Roman Polanski’s 1974 technically-excellent film, starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway, has been variously overpraised as a textbook perfect film, the technicolor Second Coming of film noir that simultaneously subverts expectations of the genre, and a classic contemporary instance of Greek Tragedy. But in trying to be what Wikipedia describes as a “multi-layered story that is part mystery and part psychological drama,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown) Chinatown ends up a curiously overblown affair overburdened by the unfilled promise of genuine drama.
Papa Government and Property
This whole affair involving Culver City business owner Les Surfas and eminent domain is fascinating in how it illustrates the tension between government and personal freedom. If the government has the power to take a persons property, can any property be truly considered private? Sure, the limit on eminent domain is that the property should be taken for public use and, by law, the property owner should receive just compensation. But this only emphasizes that what we take owning property as a fundamental kind of freedom, it actually is actually conditional on the governments will. Compensation just dulls the pain. In other words, its not really a fundamental kind of freedom. Its the kind of thing that makes me wonder whether we, as a culture, have become so accustomed to Papa Government taking care of us that weve lost the ability to rely on ourselves. And for all the talk of common good and public use, these terms are sometimes (but not always) too vague and driven by narrow political/economic agendas to be anything other than self-serving exercises of power.
