Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Hound dogs

Watching Tuesday live, for once. No more Paris, so now gotta root for--anyone but Katharine. Doing Elvis, who Ryan calls the original American Idol. Idiots.

Took them to Graceland on a private jet, mobbed on the way in. Priscilla Presley greets them, Tommy Motola will be the guest mentor. Tommy gushes about the show, PP says if Elvis were alive this would be one of his favorite shows... it's getting a little silly.

Taylor first, doing Jailhouse Rock. TM ups the key, he's an odd one. Taylor starts out in the crowd, in a crazy burgundy suit. Such an odd crouching style. But totally in his element, it's gonna be his night. Right in the history of white guys who can't dance but have no problem just letting it rip. I mean, the song's kindof hard to bust out with, but it's an energetic, fun performance. Randy likes it; Paula gushes. Simon says in the real world, that was a terrible impersonation; we're gonna get real, dancing was hideous, karaoke with a capital K.

Chris next, in hipster jacket and jeans. Doing Suspicious Minds, a good pick for him. TM tells him to dig in and really get into it, don't just let it go; he says his vocal sound is incredible. Hmm, he's got shades on; and this song really shows off his tone, he's swaying back and forth, looks totally in control. Looks and sounds like a real rock star, like someone you'd actually pay money to see, even outside the AI tour. It's really quite enjoyable. Randy says nice and tender, didn't like the vocals that much. Paula says see you in the finals. Simon curtly says aside from the shades, that worked.

Elliott doing I Can Dream. Oh-oh... not sure about this, says he wants to show more of his tender side--so why not do Love Me Tender? Kindof weird that he's still here. TM says you need a lot of practice still learning the lyrics, don't want it to sound like a bar mitzvah song--nothing positive, really. In suit. Flashes of his nice tone, but I think this was a bad choice of song. Takes off in the second half, he sings well but it's just not that compelling for me. Randy says he wasn't sure at first, but you laid it out, it was hot. Paula says it may be the best vocal performance you've done this year. Simon says that was the best performance so far.

Katharine next, doing Hound Dog mixed in with All Shook Up. From rehearsals you can see she's gonna be cheesy. TM is impressed with her. In jeans and odd shapeless gray top. Messing around with Randy, before going up on stage. Seh's really going after it, really just hate her facial expressions, and body language. Also out of breath, drops some notes. Good energy per usual. Randy says you had a good time, but what happened in the middle--she dropped a lyric; Paula says at least you worked it out. Simon says it looked like a desperate, manic theater audition. Shrieky, and hope you do better on your second song. She takes Ryan's out, says she was worried about Elvis week.

Taylor talks about how much fun they had at Graceland. Doing In the Ghetto, TM tells him not to go crazy during it, liked his personal rendition. Still hyper at the start, totally wrong for the song. Nice tone, though; the lyrics to this song are so dated, gets in the way. Ugh, he's flat, also turns it into some weird song, rocking out then sudden spoken-word thing. Weird. Randy is like right key, right song, that was hot. Paula says it shows a different side. Simon says first performance was silly, this was perfect song for you--sung into the semis.

Chris does A Little Less Conversation, whoo-hoo. Bring out JPL; TM says it's a hard piece, up-tempo, jivey, says he's impressive (said same about Taylor, Katharine....) Good voice for this song, it's a little growly, like animated monotone. Stalks into audience, just takes over. Good timing, dramatic pauses, ends with a totally rocking-out part, he's a very good performer. Randy likes it, Paula of course gushes, Simon liked his first song better, until end it was kindof flat, just okay.

Elliott doing Trouble, TM says it's all about attitude. He's gone after tonight, so enjoy it while he can. He's trying to be all hoodlum-like, but it's like some kid playing in West Side Story. Good hip swivel, though; the thing about Elliott is he always gives it his all. Song's not very good, though. Crowd seems to like it, though. Randy says that was your best performance, ever. Paula seconds it. Simon says yeah, you've come out fighting, you deserve to go through to the next round. They're just trying to gin the results, ain't gonna happen (unless K drops). There's some sort of trouble between Ryan and Simon; eh, without Paris, this whole thing has lost some of its appeal for me.

Katharine does Can't Help Falling in Love, a great choice for her. She's really quite canny. TM tells her to make sure she pays attention to what she's singing about, which is what my problem has always been with her--she's all show, no true emotion. She starts off nicely, even if she smiles at totally the wrong places, and actually throughout--hey, idiot, this is not a happy song! Gosh, it's actually driving me crazy--her voice is good, but since it's not radio, her stupid smile totally detracts. And she doesn't hit it out of the park--it's good vocally, but I just can't like it, somehow it's less than it should have been. Maybe because it's a song that needs to build, to rise; and she oversings. Randy says better than first time around, but some problems. Paula says she liked watching her dance and have fun, for a change. Simon is like this hasn't been one of your best nights, it started great, but it was so over the top, just too much. Simon says you didn't pick the right songs tonight on what was a big challenge. She's glum at the end.

Yeah, the magic of this show is gone. Amazing what no Paris can do. She was the only non-pro, the only one who was still out there having a great time without calculation.

Oh well. Go Chris.

Chris I, 2
Chris II, 6
Taylor I, 1
Elliott II, 7
Elliott I, 3
Katharine I, 4
Taylor II, 5
Katherine II, 8

Letters of good tidings

T

There were two stories out today that really caught my eye, and showed that if we just live up to our principles the 'war' on terror really is winnable. And we won't even have to nuke anyone in the process.

First, an Associated Press story, Moussaoui Has New View of Justice System

Michael J. Sniffen: Stunned that he was sentenced to life in prison rather than execution, Zacarias Moussaoui now believes he could get a fair trial from an American jury. Too late, the judge says.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema quickly rejected a motion the confessed al-Qaida conspirator filed Monday to withdraw his guilty plea and get a new trial.

In his motion, Moussaoui said he lied on the witness stand March 27 when he reversed four years of denials and claimed he was to have hijacked a fifth jetliner on Sept. 11, 2001, and crashed it into the White House, "even though I knew that was a complete fabrication."

The 37-year-old Frenchman blamed his behavior on the effects of solitary confinement, his inability to get a Muslim lawyer and his misunderstanding of the U.S. justice system.

Moussaoui said he was "extremely surprised" by his life sentence by a federal court jury last week.

"I had thought I would be sentenced to death based on the emotions and anger toward me for the deaths on Sept. 11," he explained in an affidavit. "But after reviewing the jury verdict and reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence ... I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors."
Why aren't we celebrating this?! Shouldn't we be dropping leaflets with Moussaoui's motion all over the Middle East?

As I heard on a panel a couple of weeks ago, we've won when our enemies turn to our systems to confront us, instead of bloodshed.

Moussaoui's words are instantly believable, to my ears--I never thought he was some 9/11 mastermind, despite his crazy courtroom rhetoric. As Humphrey Bogart says in the Maltese Falcon, the cheaper the crook the gaudier the patter. He was just using the trial as a forum for his views, thinking he was a dead man anyway and he may as well make the most of it. From his point of view, he had no reason to believe our justice system wasn't inherently corrupt and racist. And then one day--wow, not dead after all.

How great a story is this... Islamic militant exposed to America, concludes that he was wrong. All he's said so far is he was surprised to get a fair trial, there's no indication he still doesn't want to kill Americans. But at least it's a first step; and lying awake in his jail cell at night, he's got to be puzzling out why our justice system is fair, and whether he's wrong about the bigger picture as well.

Heck, maybe it's a new trend; Iranian President's Letter to Bush Emerges Christine Hauser in the Times:
In his letter to President Bush, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared that Western-style democracy had failed and that the use of secret prisons in Europe and aspects of the war in Iraq could not be reconciled with Mr. Bush's Christian values. But the letter did not address directly the central issue that divides the two countries: Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In his wide-ranging letter, written in Persian with an English translation, Mr. Ahmadinejad at times challenges and concedes as he directs question after question to Mr. Bush but offers no concrete proposals. In Iran today, the Iranian president portrayed it as a blueprint of "suggestions for resolving the many problems facing humanity," the Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

State Department officials who read the letter suggested that it offered an interesting window into the mentality and thinking of Iran, especially because it seemed to reflect a inclination to dwell on myriad grievances of the past rather than on the problem at hand, namely Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. ...

The letter has been described as the first direct communication from an Iranian leader to an American president since 1979.

While Mr. Ahmadinejad said today in Iran that "Islamic courtesy" prevented him from revealing the contents of the letter and American government officials have not released a copy, an English translation provided by the Iranian government was released by United Nations diplomats.
As for the actual contents of the letter, some interesting excerpts via the Times:
Mr. Ahmadinejad also calls the 9/11 attacks a "horrendous incident" in which the killing of innocent people was "deplorable."

But he asks: "Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

The letter provides at times a striking insight into the Iranian president's vision of double standards in American foreign policy, criticizing what he portrays as a lack of support for elected Palestinian and Latin American governments.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also portrays himself as having his finger on the pulse of the Middle East region.

"As you are well aware," Mr. Ahmadinejad says, directly addressing President Bush, "I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them — many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either."

"There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies." ...

In his letter, Mr. Ahmadinejad both concedes and needles. With his country having fought a war with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ahmadinejad at once applauds the overthrow of the regime while criticizing what he seems to imply as a double standard.

"Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator," he wrote. "But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction."

He later adds: "I point out that throughout the many years of the ... war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West."

Its tone appears at times exceedingly polite, at least once referring to Mr. Bush as "Your Excellency," according to the translation. He also says it is not his intention to "distress anyone. "

But the Iranian president's style is to dissect what he sees as American logic, by posing question after question to make his point.

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on issues including health and aid to the poor, he wrote, "would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?"

The Iranian president also extends to Mr. Bush an "invitation" to return to governing the United States based on the values of Jesus Christ, whose name in the letter is followed each time by the letters "PBUH," which stands for "Peace Be Upon Him."

Frequently quoting passages from the Koran, Mr. Ahmadinejad calls for a return to a religious basis of government.

"Will you not accept this invitation?" Mr. Ahmadinejad asks Mr. Bush. "That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?"
Polite and aimed at dissecting American logic... not exactly typical views of Iranian leaders. And it's striking how reminiscent the letter is of Bush's domestic critics, as well sentiments expressed by our European allies and millions more the world over.

I think the most interesting thing about the letter is that the Iranians apparently think in this day and age policies could still be decided on the basis of reasoned argument.

There's something touchingly naive about this; and it absolutely belies the administration's efforts to paint Iran as a one-track monster, hellbent on getting nukes so as to pull down the temple around it. Iran's trying to reason with the U.S., they're clearly not some barbaric country going off the deep end.

It's interesting, hashing things out logically and engaging your opponent in debate are supposed to be Western hallmarks, borne of the Enlightenment. Yet in this case, it's the Iranians who, however naively and with whatever ulterior motives, seem to be going down that path, and the U.S. that, once again, is hoping to drown out the discussion with war drums.

The letter seems to harken back to the days when our Founding Fathers locked themselves up in a Philadelphia room and argued, yelled, cursed, bargained and ultimately forged our Constitution. It seems unbelievably Pollyanaish in our day and age to imagine our president and Iran's getting together to work something out--the U.S. would never accept Iran as a negotiating partner, nor the equality such a situation would entail; besides which, it's been a long time since we needed to rely on the force of our arguments or convictions to carry the day. Not to mention President Bush is no one's idea of a champion.

We really ought to be ashamed of ourselves; Iran actually has the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East, after Israel--we could stand to learn from them in this case.

The Times, for some reason, runs two articles on the letter--I'm not sure if I've ever seen that, it may be a mistake. At any rate, the second article is by Michael Slackman, who also wrote the initial article yesterday. It's actually pretty much the same as Hauser's piece, with this lead:
With the tone of a teacher and the certainty of a believer, the president of Iran wrote to President Bush that Western democracy had failed and that the invasion of Iraq, American treatment of prisoners and support for Israel could not be reconciled with Christian values.
The entire text is posted here by Le Monde. Oddly enough, despite running two articles the Times doesn't have their own version of the letter, just a link. Well, at least they provide that--and at least they've advanced beyond their moronic headline on the story yesterday, Iranian Writes to Bush; No R.S.V.P. Is Likely .Could you imagine a headline reading 'Frenchman writes to Bush'?! Besides which, unlike an invitation, you don't RSVP to a letter, you just respond.

The sad thing is I don't think our current president will read the letter, let alone respond. Even though the letter is peppered with the same kind of 'the end of times is near' beliefs Bush and his evangelical ilk are guided by. Actually, people who don't know that Muslims consider Jesus a prophet just like Muhammed, just not the final one, may be surprised by some of the language, like in the second paragraph:

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War and Terror his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze.
At any rate, I doubt Bush is someone who will be drawn into a debate, over the Bible or foreign policy... he probably sees it all as intellectual sophistry, he prefers to just look into people's eyes. More proof that the man is absolutely the wrong leader for the times.

All we have to do is let them see us for what we are. Terrorists are still people; they have causes and beliefs, no matter how misguided and twisted. For all the Republican puffery about Reagan's military buildup winning the Cold War, it wasn't that. It was our superior economic, political and cultural system. In the end, Eastern Europe and the USSR wanted to be more like us than we wanted to be like them.

Likewise, Islamic militancy has no real appeal for well-adjusted, normal people. In their hearts, Muslims know the mullahs are crazy. But some of them feel like they have no choice, when America won't let them do normal things like become port workers it's not surprising that some will turn to the seductive and emotional arguments of the local Jerry Falwell. Mix in dire poverty and generations of national humiliation, and it's really a testament to the moderating power of the Koran that more Muslims haven't turned to violence.

It's our challenge to create the conditions for normality to breed around the world, rather than propping up repressive regimes and waging crazy wars--either verbally or literally--to beat people into submission.

Just be ourselves, to borrow from dating advice 101. In our case, we don't need the world to love us, just to respect us and ultimately emulate us.

It will never happen, nor should it take place, at the end of a gun. The pen truly is mightier than the sword--and ink by the barrelful costs less than bullets.

Uncredited AP photo of Zacarias Moussaoui from Carver County Sheriff's Department via the Washington Post

AP Photo of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, waving as he is welcomed by Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda, right, on his arrival in Jakarta by Ed Wray.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Mixing it up



Wrapping up my review of the seven films I saw at the Tribeca Film Festival, the first film I saw actually was Blue Blood, directed by Stevan Riley. Film description was:

Boxing films are hit with a fierce uppercut in this clever, genre-tweaking documentary about the training regimen and sparring contests of Oxford University students who step out of the ivory tower and into the boxing ring to settle matters with their Cambridge rivals. In underlining the freedom to not care about failing, or about what other people think, Blue Blood paints a winning portrait of the spirit of the underdog.
It was pretty good--you definitely got sucked into the passion of the five students the filmmakers followed, all the more so because they look like such unlikely boxers at the outset (comical scenes of the guys in the gym are interspliced with interviews where the boxers themselves either come across as unintentionally unpromising, or their friends/family express severe doubts).

The film really is about that can-do British amateur spirit, which on the one hand has led to near-renaissance level achievements in fields from literature to sports to the hard and social sciences. But on the other has also led to really unequaled levels of racism, classism, and colonial incompetence/arrogance/disaster.

The kids themselves are allright; all white and similar--they keep talking about Oxford as the world's greatest university, which made me wonder what it is in the British mentality that allows them to truly believe an island nation of 60 million that until recently has been homogeneously white and since World War II has strapped for cash could really have bested the gathering of the world's best and brightest that the American university system represents.

I mean, even the documentary's soundtrack, of which the director and producer seem inordinately proud (it seemed jarring and intrusive to me, Albert Maysles said in his panel in response to a question that he indeed tries not to just film what happened rather than adding music to 'pep' things up) was mostly American music. One of the most amusing moment for many in the audience, which had a fair number of African Americans, was watching white boys practice boxing to rap on the soundtrack, I imagined the guy next to me was laughing at the double layer of incompetencey.

The boxers, of course, got better--and I actually quite enjoyed the film overall, it's always interesting watching something grow and change before your eyes. Even better, the only one of the five subjects who won his match was there for Q&A aferwards; the documentary ends by noting what happened to everyone, his line was he stopped boxing and took up ballroom dancing, which made everyone laugh. So of course, someone asked the guy--who'd just graduated with a degree in choral music or something--about his transition from the sweet but bloody science to the happy feet of ballroom dancing.

He didn't even pretend to not answer, just said: Well, I won the boxing match, and then after than with my partner won the British competitive dancing title the next semester, so it was a pretty good year.

Did I mention he's now working as a sculptor, and now is interested in becoming a filmmaker?

Talent of a different kind was on display in veteran filmmaker Stephen Olsson's Sound of the Soul. Description:
In a world where religions often drive people apart, Sound of the Soul offers a joyfully welcome reminder that spirituality can also bring us together. The film explores Morocco's historic heritage of tolerance, and showcases a stunning array of brilliant musicians at the Fez Festival of World Sacred Music, whose profound expressions of love and longing are unforgettable.
It was odd, at first I found myself not liking this documentary as much as somehow I thought I should--maybe it was the hour, or my allergies, or the previous day's glut of four films. For whatever reason, even as I watched the (brief) interviews with a dizzying array of world-class worldwide religious musical talent, and listened to their at times other-worldly music, I somehow didn't connect. Maybe because there was so much in the documentary, and the film was about the 'festival' rather than about people (this festival really has made me think about how important it is to present films via people, preferrably their faces, ideally with natural sound/music).

But it all changed about halfway through, I got sucked into it more; and then after listing to Olsson speak, I totally became a fan. There are some people who really defy expectations--I was expecting the usual white liberal goes to the dark savages and tells us and them about themselves, creating a diamond out of their rough.

And there were elements of that in the film, but none at all in the person. Olsson is just one of those people that you like right away. He's so--open? Affable? Just comes across as a good guy, with an appropriate sense of self, easy smile, and an apparent love for the people and cultures of the middle east. Without being patronizing, or self-aggrandizing, which is rare, so rare.

Hearing him speak made me trust him as a filmmaker, and even though in my mind's eye I'd have made the movie differently (my new hero Albert Maysles certainly would have), it made me in retrospect like his film more, seeing the context in which it was made.

At any rate, the music was really good, and there are a number of totally unexpected performances--and it all made me want to travel to an upcoming World Sacred Music fest, and its accompanying symposiums on global issues. The symposium, which started after 9/11, apparently is calculated to bring together members of the international political and financial elite with the musicians and other culture leaders, in an immersive environment of listening and giving (not to mention praying).

As Olsson said, "music opens the heart to dialogue." Film, too.

Images from Blue Blood and Sound of the Soul via Tribeca Film Festival.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Finding ourselves


On the last day of the Tribeca Film Festival, I saw first-time Iranian-American director Hamid Rahmanian's Day Break. Description was:

In Iran, a murder conviction allows for the victim's family to choose capital punishment or forgiveness for the perpetrator. This harrowing, existential film shows a convicted murderer trapped in painful purgatory as his family distances themselves from him and his victim's family repeatedly delays their ultimate decision.
The film was great. Even though the screening I saw was at 10:15 on a Sunday morning, the theater was mostly full, and the audience Q&A was the most enthusiastic I saw at this fest.

The story is told in a documentary-style, and although there's some over-acting, the subject matter is so interesting and compelling that you're totally sucked in. I'm obviously more familiar with Iran and its culture than most Americans, but even I was suprised at the humanity of its justice system, as portrayed--the prisoners ate together in a communal style, individual jail cell doors were left open and the prisoners freely mingled (especially in the evening), the guards treated inmates as human.

The thing most people don't realize about Iran is that the United Nations regularly cites its government programs as a model for other developing nations to follow--it has a critical mass of intelligent, well-trained social scientists, and an engrained ethos of experimentation and humanity in its government programs.

Undergirding all of this in the film, of course, is that intriguing idea of a society saying fine, if you as a murder victim's family feel that only an eye for an eye is justified, we respect your decision--as long as you fully understand it, and the ultimate test of that is to kill the man yourself. It's the other side of Shari'a that most Americans have no clue about; yes, it may read harshly on the page (as do the tenets of all desert religions, including Judaism and Christianity), but its edge is tempered by its context of being developed in, and generally being applied in, village-like settings. In small groups, the 'rules' are not literal, and the rules are not written or meant to be taken literally--there are always conditions and assumptions and human relationships that ensure it's the spirit and not letter of things that in the end are followed.

I'm generally against capital punishment, but can understand how some who've been personally victimized in one form or another might feel differently. However, society does not allow those most interested to make decisions--that's why prospective jurors are screened for what they've heard about a case, it's why we don't just let lobbyists sit as our representatives in government. Likewise, for all the compassion we might feel for them, we can't let crime victims write our criminal justice laws. They're too biased; knowledgable, but justice isn't just based on accumulation of experience or facts.

At any rate, Rahmanian is clearly a director to watch; he's highly intelligent and sensitive, and like all the other filmmakers I've seen at Tribeca comes across as polite yet driven. The strength of his film is in how its story simply unspools, and along the way intersects with societal questions of the first magnitude. What's the purpose of our criminal justice system for starters, but also things like how do you grant the rights that someone related to a murder victim has and theirs and our interest in punishment, deterrence, vengeance, and justice, versus equally compelling and equally human qualities of mercy, hope, and sadness.

It's amazing how beautiful Iran photographs in cinema; and the faces of its people, so old world and expressive, so etched with suffering and yet also understanding. Rahmanian said afterwards that the Iranian government is considering showing his film to the families of murder victims before they decided whether to apply capital punishment to the murderer. Since his stats from 2003 show that in over 70% of the cases families choose not to go ahead with capital punishment, the government obviously is hoping to drive that rate down further--again, not necessarily how many Americans would imagine the dour Islamic Republic to operate.

Maybe Rahmanian should try to get his documentary broadcast on American television. A culture that regularly produces films like this has more common with us than many might think, or prefer.

Image from Day Break via Tribeca Film Festival.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Four films, one day





So I went to four films at the Tribeca Film Festival today. Two were exceptional, the other two were very good.

First, at 10 a.m., was The Yacoubian Building, directed by Marwan Hamed and based on the novel by Alaa Al Aswani (who I saw on a panel last week). The film fest described it as:

A record budget, an all-star cast, a script based on a best-seller: Most 28-year-old novices aren't handed this kind of project, especially in Egypt, where the novel's subjects-government corruption, Islamic fundamentalism, homosexuality-are taboo onscreen. But the gamble pays off in this sprawling, compelling, and watchable epic set in a downtown Cairo building that's a symbol of modern Egypt.
Before the film started, Craig Hatkoff, the festival's co-director, talked about how jammed and great the other screenings of the film had been and how happy they were to have it here at the festival. He pronounced the Arabic names well, you could tell this wasn't just another part of the job for him. The movie started... and about a minute in, ground to a halt. They said parts of the first reel had gotten tangled up from the previous showing, so it'd take a little while to fix.

Which was fine, gave me more time to talk to the person next to me, a grad student from Germany who studies human-computer interaction. She was in D.C. for a conference, had come up to NYC to see some friends before going on to Boston; saw the fest was going on, and was going to catch a couple of films. She was really interesting, spoke: Germany, English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Indonesian. And was learning Mandarin. Reminded me of two friends I have who also each speak at least five languages; like them, she seemed like oneof those people who good and interesting things happen to, maybe because they've all traveled quite a bit and have this friendly and open air about them that made it easy for strangers to talk to them. At the same time they all give off this vibe of being intelligent people who think about things, so there's complexity there. (It was funny, before I started talking to her she pulled a sweater and pants outof her backpack and put them on over her dress, all within the confines of a theater seat).

They finally restarted the film--it definitely had high production values, and although it was a little soap-operay, because it was about a culture that I really know nothing about but have some interest in (last year I picked for my book club Naguib Mahfouz's Palace Walk, the first book in his Cairo triology; we all really liked it, so I went on to read the other two books, which I liked as well). After all, Egypt's 80 million people make it the largest country in the Arab world; it's the second-largest recipient of American aid (after Israel, the level of Egypt's aid actually is tied to how much Israel gets), and as the home of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood it's safe to say that as the 'clash of civilizations' goes in Egypt, so it will in the rest of the region.

This film is definitely a victory for those who support a secular Mideast--it's surprisingly frank about what we think of as taboo topics in the Arab world, both sexually and politically. Hatkoff said at the start that the film hadn't yet received distribution in Egypt--even though the book it's based on has smashed best-selling records throughout the Mideast, and the cast is apparently a who's-who of Egyptian cinema royalty.

I guess in absolute terms the film isn't super-great; it's a little obvious with its themes, and even has an overly-stagey final bloody scene. But taking everything into context, I found it really interesting--people are not the same the world over, and it's always fun seeing national quirks writ large on the screen, not to mention the deeply-lived-in faces of the actors, many of whom looked nothing like Hollywood stars, with their old country faces and bodies. And the woman--saucy, sexy, strong, willful, crazy, beautiful, manipulative, sad, and unveiled in every sense of the word.

Unfortunately I couldn't stay for the Q&A afterwards, had to dash off to what turned out to be one of my favorite documentaries of all time, even without seeing the first 15 minutes of it. It was When the Road Bends...tales of a Gypsy Caravan, directed by Jasmine Dellal (who apparently a co-worker of mine has met, she said she was a bit fussy in person, but perhaps that quality serves a filmmaker well) and shot by the famed Albert Maysles. Description is:
Part concert film and part sociological study, this doc (shot by Albert Maysles) travels between concert venues and cultures to give us an inside look at Romani (Gypsy) music. Dellal follows five top Romani bands during their tour of the U.S. before accompanying the musicians to their home countries, where she captures the joys and struggles of their domestic lives. In English, Spanish, Romani, and Hindi.
Gosh, it was so beautiful and well-done. Maysles on a later panel said the best advice he ever heard was from the photographer Robert Capa, who said most important of all, get close.

And they did. So close to the people in the bands it's at times uncomfortably intimate, in the way that family gatherings can be. But that's how you feel about the bands by the end--they're one big, melded family, and we're lucky to have been able to peep into their world of amazing music (ah, so indescribably emotionally affecting--gypsy music may be woven into our DNA, even if you've never heard it you have, they're responsible--because they were persecuted and forced to always move on--for much of the cross-pollination you hear in the world's music, although very few are aware of that, and even fewer want to give them proper credit).

The documentary also shows all the passion that comes from being driven by their twin touchstones of music and famiy, in a world that for the most part hates, fears and despises them; the dire poverty yet natural beauty of their homelands in India and Romania; and even a bit of the wonderful food that's part of this world, too.

I could write more, but instead have just been telling people to see it, if they can--the director afterwards said they're working out the final details of a commercial release, and also a soundtrack/DVD deal.

The only other thing I'll say is some may leave remembering the images and personalities and dynamics of the gypsies as this literally motley band takes an extended road trip through the heart of America (there are some funny moments, some scenes that make you cringe for America, but more that remind you what a great country this can be). Others may take away the sounds and colors and camera angles and lighting excellence of the documentary.

But I'll most remember the scene when the legendary Esma Redzepova (whose amazing voice is known everywhere but here it seems and who mentions that with her husband she's taken something like 57 kids into her home to raise over the years) says right before she's shown singing at a benefit concert she put on for Kosovo refugees, and in hopes of stopping the soldiers from fighting: that there are some men who cry when they hear her voice, because they understand.

After that, I went to an all-you-can-eat Latino buffet, and had three plates of platanos, rice, chicken, salad, and other assorted non-bland food.

Then, off to see Two Works-In-Progress: The Gates and The Dalai Lama in Central Park. Description reads:
In 1979, legendary filmmakers Albert and David Maysles began shooting The Gates as Christo and Jeanne-Claude began pursuing their dream of adorning Central Park with miles of saffron-colored cloth-a massive, controversial, and ultimately successful public art project. The artists will join Albert Maysles in a discussion of the film. An HBO documentary film. Another Maysles work-in-progress, The Dalai Lama in Central Park, will also be screened.
Even though both works were unfinished and each was only about 20 minutes long, I was surprised at how 'complete' they seemed. The Gates documentary started with film they shot in 1979, when the project was first proposed to the city of New York. It's so interesting seeing how the city was back then--those really were the bad old days, and not surprisingly they run into all sortsof problems--from shouting community boards to clueless but stubbornly adversarial socialites, much of it caught on scratchy period film. With great natural sound; and a whole array of funny and telling side glances and little facial expressions.

The film then jumps to the opening of the project in 2005, made possible by their "good friend" Michael Bloomberg being elected mayor. The video captures the project over its two-week span, everything from crowds of people wandering through the bright orange flapping against a brilliant blue sky, to the hush of still fabric against a placid snowfall. Since I lived a block away from Central Park when the Gates opened I went through it about a half-dozen times, I remember one morning walking toward the Met and passing group after group of European tourists--Germans and Brits I think--and then some Japanese tourists, and thinking how nice that Christo and Jeanne-Claude stuck with the project for over 25 years and finally made it happen.

They talked after the film about how their passion for art and love for each other (and innate stubborness) kept them going; and also how this is par for the course, the wrapping of the Reichstag apparently took about 24 years to arrange, and they've been working off-and-on at their river project in Colorado for two decades as well. Bureaucratic red tape and the innate tendancy of people in power to say 'no' to anything new and seemingly-foreign accounting for most of the delays.

They weren't terribly insightful on the panel, some language barriers and also the fact it was in a huge auditorium got in the way I think; Maysles was on the panel too, I was trying to figure out why he's such a great filmmaker. I think it's because he's very determined, and has no problem getting down and dirty in pursuit of those moments when someone's face reveals all. He seemed like a good-natured traditional liberal, who likes talking to people and listening.

They then screened the Dalai Lama film, which was okay--it bothers me that Americans are so awed by him, I think actually they gloss him with a beneficence outof an ignorance of Buddhism. In other words they attribute to him all the good qualities they've heard Buddhists possess, or in Richard Gere's case they imagine Buddhism to have (he doesn't understand his self-professed faith any more than Madonna knows Judaism, I'm not sure why Gere's seen as an expert on Buddhism--you don't see Madonna testifying in front of Congress on suicide bombers). It's actually patronizing, I think, like oh, isn't he wonderful, he's so exotic and cute, let me touch him for luck. Like how non-Catholics see the pope; the difference being in this country much of the pope's image is shaped by how American Catholics react to him, so there's a much higher level of understanding and whatever holiness is attributed to him is earned and authentic.

At any rate, the second documentary was fine, if it wasn't the Dalai Lama at the center of the shots I'm not sure people would've thought it was all that great. Essentially, he came to New York, 200,000 people came to hear him speak, and not once did anyone ask how come when Tibet was ruled by monks it was literally a feudal society, with a 95% illiteracy rate and serfs (this was in the 20th century!)

I almost went home after the documentaries, but luckily decided to go see Dear Father, Quiet, We're Shooting...., directed by David Benchetrit.
When war crimes are carried out under orders from officers, military commanders, and political leaders who is responsible? This film allows former members of the Israeli Defense Forces-now conscientious objectors-to recount their experiences in both Lebanon and Palestine, and to question the limits of state power.
This was an absolutely tour-de-force; filmmaking at its most basic, using compelling interviews with strong personalities to change people's minds. It pulls no punches from the get-go, with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

As Benchetrit, who's made over 25 films looking at that bundle of contradictions that is Israel from his far-left perch, said afterwards, he's waited a long time to make this film, and although he didn't know it he was really waiting for a pilot. A member of Israel's elite, guardian of the nation, revered in a way that is hard for massive, never-threatened-with-extinction America to understand.

And did he ever find him, Lt. Col. Yoel Peterberg, a square-jawed, archetypical combat pilot who at one point was an elite among elites within the Israeli Air Force. And then, he led a group of pilots who signed a letter refusing to fly combat missions over the Palestinian territories (it was a huge deal in Israel, to get the same punch here our entire joint chiefs of staff would have to resign in protest over something).

Ah, so much in this short film. Besides Petersberg, another decorated Israel warrior--a tank battalion commander--will also be seared into your head afterwards. They speak so directly about how they came to their decision to oppose the very military they've always loved and been loved back by, and are now cast out of with cries of 'traitor' by some, but surprisingly loud echoes of support from others. For the most part the five ex-military men Benchetrit talks to are not your stereotypical anti-war crowd.

They're all remarkably thoughtful, and are honest to the point that Petersberg says he himself may even have committed war crimes, he's not just going to take the easy way out and put it all on the generals and higher-ups who pursued what he calls a cynical and ultimately base 'strategy' that benefitted a small group at the expense of greater Israel and all of humanity. And not to mention the souls of the soldiers who were forced to drop bombs in crowded refugee camps and shoot at anything that moved as they made their way through the warren of Palestinian cities--as the ex-tank commander says, they all the decision to turn to urban warfare meant large numbers of civilians would be killed, but they pretended otherwise and called them 'targeted assassinations'.

Afterwards, probably the most educational and honest Q&A I've ever seen a filmmaker give. Benchetrit in the audience's midst and took about 10 questions, most supportive but a few not, from Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians (all on a Friday night!) He's so tenacious, and has the self-confidence that comes from a lifetime of living and studying his chosen topic of Israel and its people (and neighbors), not to mention the burning passion of someone who knows he's right and all he has to do is get the message out in front of enough people and he can change reality.

Benchetrit is gonna get his chance, his documentary is being aired in prime time on Israeli television later this month. It's gonna create a huge firestorm, in a way that we in this country cannot imagine. At root Israel is small--it's only got 6 million people, crowded into the liveable areas of an inhospitable country that's smaller than New Jersey. All the elites know each other, and since it's only been around since 1948 its 'founding fathers' aren't exactly long-gone.

This family has been forced to get used to Benchetrit's searching self-examinations; but this time, it's different, it's not just his voice and his ilk in the wilderness. As he says, he's been waiting for the pilot; and his documentary is gonna be a torch thrown into the tinderbox that is Israeli politics. Benchetrit said the title comes from a traditional Hebrew lament, a 'what are you doing to me' rather than a term of endearment.

Ultimately, although some Israelis may not see it this way, Benchetrit's documentary is of course a tribute to how great Israel's democracy is. There aren't any other countries in the Middle East, and very few in the world, that go through the kind of self-examination and debate that is woven into Israeli society, under circumstances where it's not just blowing smoke to pass the time, and with the full participation of artists and intellectuals, in addition to the usual military-industrial-political complex.

Heck, how often does a filmmaker get to change history?

Images from The Yacoubian Building, When the Road Bends, The Gates, and Dear Father, Quiet, We're Shooting via Tribeca Film Festival.

Man in the back


Mystery Bidder Spends $95 Million on a Picasso

Carol Vogel in the Times:
A man appearing to be in his mid-40's, wearing a blue blazer and a cream-colored shirt, persistently waved paddle No. 1340 from far back in Sotheby's salesroom last night to spend $95.2 million on a Picasso portrait of his mistress Dora Maar. It became the second highest price ever paid for a work of art at auction, after "Boy With a Pipe (The Young Apprentice)," a 1905 painting from Picasso's Rose Period, which brought $104.1 million at Sotheby's in May 2004.

The buyer, unrecognized by the crowds who kept craning their necks to get a glimpse of him bidding, was said by those who sat near him to sound Russian. Refusing to identify himself, he was escorted out a side door by a Sotheby's staff member after the sale to avoid the throngs of television cameras and reporters.

He was obviously new to both Sotheby's executives, who would never have seated him in such a remote spot had they realized what a big spender he would be, and to the auction process, as evidenced by the relentless and unsophisticated manner in which he waved his paddle. (More seasoned buyers would have been more discreet and wily.)

And he did not come just to buy the Picasso. Earlier he snapped up an 1883 Monet seascape for $5 million and later a 1978 Chagall biblical scene, "Paradise," for $2.5 million, spending a total of $102.7 million.

The anonymous buyer ended up supplying nearly half the revenue of the entire evening in a sale that totaled $207.5 million, above its high estimate of $190.8 million. Of the 55 lots, only 7 failed to sell.

Five bidders would have been happy to own the 1941 Picasso, which had not been seen in public for more than 40 years. "Dora Maar With Cat" is a large canvas — 501/2 by 371/2 inches — that depicts Maar in a large wooden chair with a black cat perched on her shoulder. The $95.2 million paid was nearly twice the $50 million low estimate.
Good to know not everything's predictable these days.

Detail of "Dora Maar With Cat" from Sotheby's via the Times.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

PEN ends

The final event I saw at the PEN World Voices New York Festival of International Literature was A Believer Nighttime Event. Described as:

A literary “variety show” presented by The Believer—a monthly books and culture magazine published by McSweeney’s—and hosted by writer and performer John Hodgman. In addition to a conversation between artist Matthew Ritchie and novelist Ben Marcus, a panel called "The Secret Life of Secrets" and surprise guests guarantee an eclectic night of entertainment.
John Hodgman got things started with a hilarious deadpan introduction. Audience was rolling; something about his delivery is just funny, plus he had a well-written text. He knew he was being funny, but it was still funny.

Next was an odd power-point presentation on something related to theories of time, by someone who's name isn't in the official program. It was like 15 minutes, about 1:40 of which was funny. People at first thought the whole thing was gonna be funny, when you're in the mood to laugh it really is too bad when you can't.

Then a panel, on Secrets (kindof). Hodgman briefly introduced each author with some true biographical facts, then an over-the-top line from a 60s-era spy novel. Panelists were:

Samantha Hunt, who doesn't appear in the PEN program. Her weird website says she's a writer living in New York; I felt bad for her, it was a totally packed auditorium and people like Salman Rushdie were there, almost felt like someone defending their graduate thesis. She really tried hard to be a good moderator, and actually I think she was, just turned red every so often and the strings were a little too visible. All the panelists addressed their remarks to her, instead of the audience--either because they really like her question, or maybe because they were for the most part young panel members, or because there's something about someone who earnestly wants things to go well that makes you want to help out somehow.

Israeli Etgar Keret, an intense young guy who I liked instantly, maybe because it was obvious writing was really important to him and he really liked talking about it. His line from Hodgman was he knew over 200 ways to kill someone using what was in a typical hotel room... Keret said he was still mentally trying to add it all up, only had like 20, and was already using soap as a weapon. Hunt, who seemed to really know the panelists' works, asked him about his past comments that he's not a political writer. He said well, given the way Israel is, to be a non-political writer in an intensely political society is itself political. Near the end he said for him, it was like he embedded personal experiences in his writing, but in a code--aka everything was slant--so he knew, but nobody else did, which saved him much embarrasment.

Chinese now American Yiyun Li, who said she came to writing late and whose bio says she came to the U.S. originally to study medicine was good-natured, but underneath you could tell she was made of steel. She responded to Hunt's question about if our society today is losing imagination by saying she didn't think kids in general every really had much imagination, relating the story of how she asked her son how come he didn't play with this girl whom apparently everyone also ignored, to which he replied because I don't have time. She then asked him if he could imagine what it'd be like to have no friends, and he said 'No.' I think she's right in one sense, actually, it's hard for kids to have a feel for others in a realistic or authentic way, unless they themselves have had an experience to base it on. Not much empathy among kids, although there's a lot of natural niceness. She later said there's this Chinese saying that everything happens twice; she's more interested in how things mirror or slant the second time through.

Argentinian Rodrigo Fresán seemed like your typical wound-up author, letting statements loose in little bursts. He, also in response to a Hunt question about doubles in his writing, said by the way, I have a double out there--a guy on the Internet who pretends to be him, and writes a blog about 'his' experiences. He gave a little laugh, said it was bothersome, but also sometimes good since the guy online seems to have a much more boring life than he does.

Nigerian/British Helen Oyeyemi, who's a Cambridge student who wrote her book at age 19 had a lot of cool energy, wonderful accent and a joyful feel; she clearly was just floating through the whole thing, really made me think wow, anyone with something real to say can be a novelist. It's like how democratic marathons have become. She talked about the genesis of her book in an imaginary friend she had growing up, until one day he was hit by a car. No follow-up to that comment, unfortunately. I didn't get the feeling she's someone to watch, necessarily; seemed to me to be a happy person, studying political science and finding out about the world. Then again, she may have been hiding her light under a bushel.

Croatian/Dutch Dubravka Ugresic, an older, kindof sour-faced woman who didn't quite fit on this panel of mostly fresh-faced, certainly free-spirited authors. She was blunt, and apparently takes writing quite seriously. You get the feeling she writes to get it out.

Salman Rushdie got up after the panel to read a selection from his novel Shalimar the Clown. I like Rushdie's writing, quite a lot--I count his Midnight's Children trilogy (Shame, and Satanic Verses) as among the best books of the past--100? 200? years. I also liked Haroun and the Sea of Stories.

But in the political realm, the guy's very inconsistant. As the leader of PEN, and the person who came up with the idea for this festival and personally made it happen, he's great. But his op-ed pieces on topics like Islamic fundamentalism tend to be preachy and politically ill-informed.

I don't begrudge him that side, though--he obviously has had personal reasons to speak out on these topics. It's just another example though of these almost autistic geniuses, who can be so subtle in their chosen field and yet totally tone-deaf in others.

And I don't think genius is too strong a word for Rushdie. He has an immediately recognizable style that's complicated in its seeming-stream-of-consciousness. He has a really good feel for words, for rhythmns; plus he's funny, and cutting and quite insightful in his fiction. His books make you laugh, and think, at 80 mph going around hairpin curves.

At any rate, his reading was interesting--he's good at it, does vocal inflections and other little things to keep the listener entertained. His prose, though, begs to be reread, and he didn't obviously do that, so the delightful savoring had to be done in your head, by which time he was already on to 50 other flights of fancy.

Still, it was appropriate for me to end my PEN fest marathon with the man who started it all. Curious to see how, with all of Rushdie's pet topics in the news all the time, what he writes next.

Maybe something about the fashion world.

A real race


They're painting this as hippies vs. Joseph and Monica. Perth, Australia. Frats off first, 11:47 p.m. To Swan Bells tower, bells given by England for Aussie bicentennial. 11:48, MoJo off, yammering about the hippies. Four of them work as a team. 11:56, hippies off. And everyone's all bunched up, and they lie to the hippies--no cabs for them. They get one right away; 12:34--R/Y going. They get lucky, grab a cab that's dropping other people off. Duh, place opens at 8 a.m. Monica gets hit on in front of an unhappy Joseph. Hippies strategize how to point out to Jo that Eric's been flirting with Monica....

Ray does something smart, gets a cab for the next morning; then hippies, then frats; then they cancel the hippies' taxi, and then they cancel Ray's cab. Hippies first, then R/Y, gotta go to Darwin, Australia. Joseph throw hippies out of their cab. Frats can't find theirs, either. Ray finds out somebody canceled their cabs. They blame MoJo. Ray's not happy, at all, he may beat them up. Hippies get a cab; R/Y finally get in a cab, the second one they called; the frats can't get one, bad karma I guess; Eric says that himself. Heh-heh.

Frats get a cab at the hotel, off to the airport. JoMo talk more about how much they hate the hippies. Ray's rippin on Monica, calls her a barbie doll. Monica says she'll give the reservation clerk a kiss, if he doesn't tell anyone else. Hippies confront them about cab, weridly enough they don't deny it. Frats show up, say they never denied it. Hippies say rumor going around that Monica/Eric getting close.

Everyone's on the same flight to Darwin, travel guy never gets his kiss. Hippies get visitor info, then 3rd in cars, R/Y are last. Crocodylus park, not open until 9 a.m. Joseph's not very happy, listening to people talking about his chick. They have to get into suits to go into croc cage, get tips from guides. Monica's freaked. Hippies get their clue, off they go. Gotta drive to Batchelor, find an airfield, Yield ahead....

MoJo out next. Frats 4rd, R/Y as always are bringing up the rear. Everyone gets out and are traveling convoy-style. MoJo just blasts past them. Skydiving sign.... Hippies are ready to run. It's gonna be a foot race, hipies take a shortcut, and yield MoJo. Roadblock, somebody's gotta skydive outof plane. Monica all upset about being there first. Frats yield nobody, nor do R/Y. Monica obsesses over losing the footrace, and they snipe at each other. She starts crying.

BJ up first. Then Eric in another plane, then Ray in a third. Monica's still crying. BJ jumps, loves it. Jeremy starts flirting with Yolanda. Hippies off to national park, need to find magnetic termite mounds and search for cluebox. They say bye to MoJo on their way out; the time's already run out, they're still bickering and still waiting. Ray comes down, off they go. Hippies at park already, start looking for cluebox, find it pretty quickly.

Detour: Wet--swim 1-mile course down jungle river with spiders and poisonous plants; or Dry--6-mile off-road drive, to 'Lost City', must find nearby aboriginal who matches the pattern on their instrument. Hippies do swim. Monica's having a blast coming down.

Frats at mounds, find it quickly, choose wet. R/Y find cluebox fast, doing dry. Hippies show up on course, they seem to be having fun doing it. Frats not far behind, race behind them. JoMo ask for directions to termite fields, Monica's saying they're doomed. I hope they lose here, I could see them in the finals doing whatever it takes to sabotage hippies, even if it means screwing themselves over.

Back, Monica's going off on hippies, says yielding them was sleazy, that's eactly how hippies are. And if MoJo had gotten there first.... They find cluebox fast, off to dry. R/Y find their instrument; first guy, they don't match. Hippies swimming, amonst the spiders. It's taking hippies forever, they say. R/Y match with second guy, Ray can't make the tone at first. But then gets it, pretty quickly; it's her turn, she's laughing. This is pretty cool, actually; she gest it quickly too. Off to Lake Bennett, freshwater lake--and pit stop. Or it might continue, not sure of timing of sweeps.

And they nearly run into MoJo on the way back. Meanwhile, hippies are still swimming, frats are wooried too. And they're nearly up to the hippies. R/Y say they know exactly where they're going. MoJo doing their task already! Hmm, what's with the editing.... And they're done quickly, in second. Hippies finally at cluebox, in 3rd but think they're winning. Frats right behind them. Hippies are out a few minutes faster, at most.

R/Y finish--first! Guy with whips welcomes them. And they're totally happy. R/Y are totally happy, winning solves everything. MoJo on dirt track; they say their map has resort on it, the other maps don't. Hippies ask frats, not ambulance driver--and MoJo pull out, right behind hippies, who are behind frats. Wow, another footrace here.

And Joseph gives them the finger, which they blur out. Wow, this is exciting. Everyone's bunched up, driving as fast as they can. Hippies park at the end, and Monica's last, by quite a bit, one hippy for some reason takes a shortcut which doesn't work out for him, MoJo beats him! It's a non-elim leg, again! And MoJo are not happy, after gloating a few minutes ago. And Monica goes off on the hippies.

Off to Thailand next. MoJo freak out, it looks like.

Photo of Ray and Yolanda from CBS.

Bye-bye, American Idol


Blogging live for all but the first few minutes. 45 million votes last night, Ryan says at the top. Asks the Idols how everyone's doing. And they're gonna sing together, which should be interesting. Ryan promos the upcoming tour. Doing 'Together we are one'.

Chris kicks things off, good start; Tyler comes in nice and sweet, then Katharine off-key as usual. Paris and Elliott join for the chorus. And a choir troops on stage behind them. Elliott's solo is nice, then Paris takes over, big notes for her.

Car commercial dumb as ever, except at end when they show Idols walking toward camera in ridiculous outfits. Clips from last night's show, late. They oddly start with Paris and portray her negatively; then Chris and Taylor, who get praise (except for Taylor's dancing). Instead of focusing on Katharine's horribly bad performance, they pretend Simon's going back and forth on her. And they end with Elliott, mixture of praise and bad.

So bottom two should be Paris and Elliott, based on how they're setting it up. Wow, so next week is some sortof Elvis workshop at Graceland.... Taylor's safe, of course. Chris should be too. Not so for Paris, I'm afraid. Ryan asks her to sing--with no prior notice--she gives him her gum. Off she goes, a bit hoarse, maybe. But she's a pro, you know, it's actually maybe her most impressive performance, considering the circumstances and how she just knocks it off. Even ignores dropping her body mike, Ryan comes over to give it back to her.

It's obvious Paris is going home, only 3 minutes left in the broadcast--kindof a dumb way of doing it, maybe testimony to how they wanted to make sure she got a song in. Then Elliott--ah, I guess he's also got to sing. They're really cutting this close.

Ugh, and it really is good-bye to Paris Bennett. She's not crying, yet. Her clips are all famous people saying how great she is, it's unprecedented actually. Hmm, she looks like Oprah in some of the shots.

And she sings again at the end, which I don't think we've ever had. The other people come out behind her; I think it's pretty clear who the biggest star in 10 years is gonna be.

At the beginning of February, I listed Paris, Tyler, and Kellie, and Garet Johnson and Mecca Madison as my favorites; a week later added Chris, and Patrick Hall and Lisa Tucker. Amazing that three of my favorites made the final six....

Too bad my favorite's now gone.

Photo of Paris from her first audition via Rickey.org. More photos of her are on the site, here.

Glimpse into a life

The third panel I saw at the PEN World Voices New York Festival of International Literature was The Global City. The panel was structured around this:

With the majority of the world’s population now inhabiting urban areas, what is the future of the global city? Writers from six very different cities—Bombay, Rome, Cairo, Istanbul, and Mexico City—talk about constructing the metropolis with words.
I'm not sure I've ever liked a group of panelists more, everyone came across as warm, thoughtful, and interesting. It made you feel at home. They were:

Moderator Suketu Mehta, an earnest and totally likeable guy who's oneof those genius Indians. He wrote Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found, and his bio says: "He is currently writing an original screenplay for The Goddess, a Merchant-Ivory film starring Tina Turner. Mehta also cowrote Mission Kashmir, a Bollywood movie." I mean, wow! When he went to the lectern and started his remarks, I almost cringed, fearing it was going to go on too long and be too thorough. But it was really interesting; said for the first time in human history more people live in cities than villages; cities have stratified into being either for the rich--New York, London, Paris--or the poor--Bombay, Mexico City, Cairo. And that literature about the world's cities matters more now than ever, since the next generation of New Yorkers is being born in Lagos today. He quoted Woody Allen--a city dweller is at two with nature--and mentioned Jane Jacobs.

Plus, he introduced each panelist with a quotation from their work or an interview, several of them expressed astonishment that he'd been able to find the quote, which all seemed to fit really well. Unfortunately, the structure of this panel had each panelist reading for 10 minutes from their work--which was great for five minutes, but really dragged after a while, the pace was made especially glacial since English was clearly their second languages.

Egyptian Alaa Al-Aswany, who's also a dentist apparently, and is a large, jovial guy, not like his photo. He read from The Yacoubian Building, a novel about the residents of an apartment building in Cairo. It made me think, of course, of Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo trilogy, just like every book about a boy magician will always be compared to Harry Potter. The excerpt he read was about the old European part of Cairo, formerly forbidden to ordinary Egyptians, later transformed into a warren of illicit and increasingly shabby bars. His voice was rich and commanding, but also warm.

Brazilian Paulo Lins is a slight, wiry man with a shaved head, who had an interpreter. Lins came across as gentle yet also made of steel; he read from Cidade de Deus, City of God, a novel about the slums of Rio he came out of that was made into an astonishingly gripping movie and is now being translated into English. The excerpt he read was about the aspiring photographer who contemplates crime as the only way to get out of poverty. His voice had a light, playful quality to it, but you could feel his sharpness and drive. His translator, incidentally, spoke into a little hand-held mike that connected to an earpiece Lins had; the translator only translated the remarks and asides of the other authors, not their reading of their work. Testament to how densely packed the written word is, in contrast to speech.

Italian Melania G. Mazzucco was the only panelist I wouldn't call extraordinary--she was a curly-haired woman who seemed to me to have found a nice niche for herself, writing about Rome and New York City. It was like a panel of intellectuals, and her; she seems like a good writer but in the way people on the best-seller lists might be, rather than someone who'll be read 100 years from now. She read from Vita, about a group of Italian kids growing up in turn of the century New York City.

Mexican Carlos Monsiváis, an elderly journalist and author with large glasses who came across as a salt of the earth type you'd trust about anything. He said he was so nervous he was just going to take recourse in reading his poor article, but that was just him being modest. His article was about Mexico City, a sense of the amazing squalor yet sheer scope of the place. Two lines in particular stuck with me: describing the hurry of the harried city he said humans are "a species hoping to arrive late at the Last Judgment". And he called Mexico City "the post-apocalyptic city", "the worst has already happened, but somehow the city functions".

Turk Orhan Pamuk, the famous novelist and now political figure, looking suave and distinguished--not at all like his goofy picture. Also a bit nervous, I think, he kindof wasn't paying attention when the others were reading, like a kid anxious to get his turn over with. He apparently lives and writes in the same building that he grew up in; he read an excerpt from a memoir, Istanbul, that was essentially one long, amazing sentence, very Walt Whitman-esque in that it was just one phrase and image after another, each preceded by 'Of', describing his beloved Istanbul. My favorite was: "of everything being broken, worn-out, past its prime." He started out wanting to be an artist and photographer, can totally tell, each phrase was like a little photograph.

He also said he thought a word that summed up the Turkish people was their equivalent of the word 'melancholy', but the Turkish word apparently connotes also a 'nobility of failure' meaning, essentially the entire country was living in the ruins of an empire, but it was somehow okay, not to be celebrated, but nothing to be ashamed of, either, just sad.

After everyone read there wasn't much time left, Mehta had asked the audience to write up and pass in questions that he'd select from, but as it was the panel only had time to answer two of his questions each. He asked Monsiváis about the ongoing immigration protests in the U.S. and what he thought of it, quoting him as once writing that "the heart of the Mexican dream is Los Angeles." Monsiváis was astounded he'd found the quote but said it fit to a T, calling L.A. the second Mexican city, after Mexico City. He didn't seem that concerned about the protests, I think at this point it'd be like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

Lins was asked how he started writing City of God--he said originally, in college he wanted to be a poet. But he said the novel was because of the U.S. Embassy. At the time, he was one of only four students at his university who came from the slums of Rio--where at the time there were 150,000 people; the U.S. government, as part of it's Partnership for Peace program in the 60s and 70s, had created the slums, having moved them out of downtown Rio to outside the city, 60 kilometers away. An anthropology student had asked him to help her with an oral history project on the slums, since he was there--he said he didn't want to do it, but she was cute, so he did.... He had no interest in anthropology, but his job was to interview people and then transcribe the interviews; for the final report, he tried writing up some of the interviews as a long poem, which eventually he reshaped as a novel.

Al-Aswany then jumped in that his novel also owed its birth to the U.S. Embassy--apparently in Cairo the embassy wanted to clear the ground next to its building, and as the demolition of the neighboring building began Al-Aswany walked by and saw that the entire front wall of the building had been taken down, leaving all the interior apartments--whose residents had in their haste to leave left many items behind--totally exposed. He started imagining what events must have taken places in these buildings, from arguments to quiet dinners to parties, and wrote the novel from there.

The other panelists related other anecdotes about their novels; unfortunately, with the lack of time we never got to hear them talk more about their cities, or how they compared or didn't compare to each other.

Nevertheless, although it's hard to describe precisely, I think everyone left the panel feeling like we'd seen something special. All these great authors from such different places who obviously didn't know each other beforehand, up on stage discovering each other and interacting, all played out in front of us. You got the sense that they had a lot of respect for each other--it was the camaraderie that veterans have.

Somehow the chemistry on the panel meshed; I really wish it could've gone on for hours. This was definitely my favorite panel in terms of which one I'd most enjoy having dinner with afterwards--I imagine everyone being generally mellow, with lots of interesting insights and unexpected knowledge, and just a cool vibe. And good manners.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Doing her own thing


A big night for the final five. Everyone sings two songs--one from the year of their birth, the other from the Billboard charts this week. If you haven't already, check out the New York Times' long piece, How a Hit Almost Failed Its Own Audition. It's just an illustration of how stupid television executives can be.

Elliott first, 1978, Lights of Broadway. Struts--oddly--down the catwalk at the start, in camel-colored suit top and jeans. Not a great song choice; doesn't have that sweet tone, an element of pressing. Randy is like rough start, got it together, nice. Paula just echoes Randy. Simon says not your best, a bit disjointed, lucky you have another shot. They're just speeding through, both songs and comments.

Next Paris, in chic dark jeans and cream top. She needs to do really well tonight. Born in 1988, doing Prince's Kiss, totally different song for her she says. Cute baby pictures. Wow, such attitude in this song, very Fantasia-ish, and fun. Not vocally-stretching, but definitely plays to her perfromance abilities. Curls hide her face from some camera angles. Jiggles and dances a little, it's cute. So confident, so well-done, not oneof those wow! songs, but definitely good. Randy doesn't like it that much, just says it was nice. Paula doesn't say much. Simon says it was screechy, and annoying. Uh-oh.

Chris' song from 1979, not sure if they say what it is; in his usual black. Slow, stretched-out start, then it kicks off. His usual rocking performance, powerful and all that. Randy loves it, Paula says outstanding etc. Simon says a million times better than first two, great choice of song, too.

Ugh, Katharine, in tight brown leatherish dress. From 1984, Take a Look at Me Now; she's off, missing notes. Controlled, powerful voice but it dips and fades. It's oneof those powerhouse songs, she's much more sophisticated than Paris so her song choices tend to be better for her voice, just not that enjoyable. Randy says some problems, was okay, key too low, not quite right for you. Paula says not her favorite performance. Simon says it was a mess, song ran away from you. Apologizes for being wrong last week? She admits she didn't do well, says I always know. Simon adds at end he may have mispoken, not one of your best performances, not it was one of your best performances, it's all confusing.

Taylor, 1976, Play That Funky Music, White Boy. Oooh, crazy Taylor is back, paisley shirt, and just dancing. If he's gonna go down, he's gonna go down his way. Fun, energetic--not great vocals, but song is limited too. That could be like his anthem. Totally 'dancing,' Paris has gotta be watching this and just laughing. Ryan is cracking up. Paula says you're back. Simon says like a bad wedding performance.

Back, a commercial for Billboard. Funny, they mention the top song, Bad Day, which totally owes its spot to AI since it's played when someone goes home (maybe someone will sing it). Promo ex-Idol Kelly Clarkson. Elliott first, singing Home, just sitting on a stool. Boring; it's nothing special at all. Some nice tone moments towards the middle, but it's like he's in an old folks home. At the end he forgets to stand in front of the judges for comments, the panel's cracking up. Randy likes the tender side, says nice choice. Paula likes the richness of his voice. Simon says he's worried about the song--and its 'I wanna go home' lyrics, not enough of a wow factor. Then dismisses him, run back to Ryan. Hmm....

Paris, doing Being Without You. Costume change, cami. Hmm, she's--bleeped?! Crazy. If she's going out, she's going out on her terms, it's an aggressive song. She tells crowd to come on, but nobody does nuttin... no audience response really. Too black, too strong, maybe. Randy says some pitchy things, but you rocked it, hard to take on Mary J. Blige. Paula wanted her more of her own take on it. Simon says he thinks she did rather well with it. It's sometimes hard to go crazy for Paris, she's so much her own person and is so different from performance to performance, is probably the most real artist out of all of them.

Chris does I Dare You. Well, more of the same, it's just okay for me to borrow Randy's phrase. Randy's laughing, voice is giving out a bit, song is a little high, song not quite right. Paula still loves him. Simon says your voice was really going, gotta watch yourself, not good. Long day, says Chris.

Third song in a row, Black Horse and Cherry tree, Katharine. Starts out sitting, in turquiose top. It's like a novelty song; fun, but I don't know. She's off-key too, and so playing to the camera. Still on her knees, this has gotta be a first. Song kindof boring, and she's just like shouting the words. Randy's like that's more like it. Paula likes the choreography. Simon says it's a strange show... liked it better than first, more personality, different. Bare feet and all.

Taylor, after break. Doing Something, the Beatles song. Slow, and tender, to show another side. Hmm, I like it--soulful, and he's like totally in control. Really playing to his fans tonight. Wailing though, not on-key at all. Sedate, almost boring performance. And so off. He does look like George Clooney. Randy's like good song choice, but that's it. Paula says it was tender. Simon says clever song choice, easy to forget with all your barminess that you're a very, very good singer.

At the end, they all say it was erratic. I don't know, think Paris is probably gone--don't see too many of Kellie's voters going to her. And she didn't hit it out of the park, tonight. Oh well, for the first time this year, I'm voting. 1-866-436-5702/07.

Paris I, 2
Taylor I, 5
Paris II, 7
Chris I, 3
Katharine II, 9
Chris II, 8
Taylor II, 10
Elliott I, 1
Katharine I, 4
Elliott II, 6

Photo of Paris by C. Gomez via Flikr.

Monday, May 01, 2006

And a Pole shall lead them

The second panel I saw at the PEN World Voices New York Festival of International Literature (which can be heard here) was Whose News?: A Global Perspective on What Makes News and Why. The panel was structured around this:

How are journalism and news media influenced by cultural and political factors that vary widely from one region to another? Do media moderate or reinforce these differences? What responsibilities do these factors impose on journalists reporting for an international audience?
The panelists were:
Moderator Nicholas Lemann, a calm and slightly detached man who's the dean of Columbia's journalism school; he took everything in stride, and seemed to be beyond passion--for him, it was just the night's gig. He informed us at the start there would be no opening statements, he was just going to start throwing out a question to each panelist. It worked well, although really, his questions were nothing special.

Adam Michnik, the editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza, which his bio lists as the "first independent Polish daily newspaper," founded in 1989. He was great, in a very particular way--he had an interpreter, and much of the panel consisted of him going on harangues, in the stereotypical gruff Slavic way, followed by her translating, and then him going off again. Lemann's first question for him was basically what kind of pressures does your paper face--he said economic and political, and that it was easy to resist when it was your enemies attacking you but harder when it's your friends making 'requests'. He said things like a real journalist must never have friends in government; and freedom and truth are in permanent deficit. No wonder communism fell, the guy was like a force of nature.

Juan Luis Cebrián was on this panel as well; he took some ribbing from his friend Michnik about all the friends he has in government. He talked about fighting commercial pressures, and how at least in his case he has right of veto over advertising content as well.

Åsne Seierstad, a pretty Norwegian journalist and novelist who wrote about her experiences in Afghanistan in The Bookseller of Kabul and her time in Iraq in 110 Days and her stint in Serbia in With Their Back to the World. She said she doesn't think there's any such thing as neturality, and aspiring to it would be boring. She was kind of a lightweight on this panel and knew it, several times deferring to others to answer a question first. She recounted how the bookseller she wrote about was unhappy with the way he was portrayed and thus has now shown up in Norway, where he's suing her and also writing a book, about her (well, actually, 6 chapters about his true story, 3 about her--he's apparently going around interviewing her colleagues and friends).

Gianni Riotta, a neat and kind-faced Italian newspaper editor who had the audience laughing at all sorts of things even while he'd protest "you're not supposed to laugh". He said to Seierstad that she was the hero of the clash of civilizations, while the audience laughed he said no, seriously, the fact that this guy is suing you and writing his own book is great, we want Osama to sue us. In response to Lemann's question about Italian politics, he said "the biggest defeat of my life" was how objectivity and firmness, what he called the classic virtues of American journalism, were losing in Italy (and here). He also empahsized how hard it is to find common fabric nowadays.

So the second round of questioning focused on how journalists can present truth. Cebrián said as someone who studied philosophy (I challenge you to find an American editor who could say that!) earlier in life, truth is a very strong word--he preferred to focus on printing facts. It's tough though, he said, since the largest newsroom in the world is the secret services of the U.S. government; and that government lying in general is a huge problem.

Michnik said only God is objecitve, which is why humans need the commandment not to lie. He also said that he supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, unlike everyone else on the panel, because he always picked democracies when they're up against totalitarian regimes. It's interesting, Poland was like our staunchest ally--I wonder how much of it had to do with his paper, or if it was the other way around.

Riotta said about truth he doesn't underestimate the intelligence of his readers, but doesn't overestimate the lack of information they have. He agreed with Cebrián (who everyone looked to as an elder statesman) and said you have to make a stab at truth in order to try and get at the facts. Life is tragic he said... followed by "don't laugh." He ended with a tangent, that the Internet was supposed to be the great bridge, but instead has become a divider, with everyone seeking out what confirms their beliefs.

Seierstad picked up the Internet thread, saying everything happens so fast now--which is why we need books, where you can digest and dig deeper. She contrasted searching for facts with finding knowledge.

Third question was whether the Danish newspaper editor did the right thing in purposedly seeking offensive Muslim cartoons. Cebrián asked for whom? His paper? Even if it was a mistake, you're allowed to make mistakes in a free country.

Michnik said he didn't publish the cartoons for "lowly" reasons, namely he didn't want Polish embassies to get attacked. But he strongly defended the right of any newspaper to print them if they had wanted to.

Final question was how newspapers handle political correctness--both in response to the left and the right, Lehmann specified. Michnik said in his days they didn't discuss certain things, but less self-censorship, more good upbringing. Funny, I noticed a lot of people reacted to his interesting comments before the translation, he must really be a big deal among Poles.

Nobody else really had much to offer on this question; Michnik jumped in on an audience one about China, saying Polish papers once published their front page as it would look under censorship in Belarus, with lots of blacked-out words and sentences; he thought the Times and the Post should do the same one day, with what it'd look like in China. He asked people to talk to Chinese dissidents--they may be bitter, they may exaggerate a bit, but they know the truth... which journalists who can't even speak the language can't get to. He ended by saying that democracy in China was the #1 question for the world's future.

It was interesting, an annoying woman behind me who talked to her faux-intellectual friend throughout actually started yelling "No!" when Michnik jumped in on questions. I guess she didn't like his blunt, excitable style, that with the translator did go twice as long as everyone else.

But journalism needs more people like him, who care and work in plain, straightforward ways. Lehmann at some point said we probably didn't realize how illustrious this panel was--he was right, it's hard to grasp the importance of journalists living in a country that isn't undergoing much in the way of revolution.

I mean, for all our issues and problems, we're not facing the fundamental problems that even Europeans are. And American journalism is caught up in issues that fundamentally boil down to whether media companies can keep making 20-30% profits every year, or whether they're going to join the ranks of the world's non-oil companies.

Photos via PEN.

Doing without


What a great day... Rush Limbaugh's been arrested, and immigrants have taken over the streets!

The pictures already from a Day Without Immigrants are astonishing--businesses closed down, thousands of people on the sidewalk linked arm-to-arm. And it's just the beginning, this afternoon's mass marches will probably draw millions.

Not sure why immigrants are protesting and boycotting? Just take a look at the major news websites at 12:16 p.m.

New York Times, 3rd story
Employers Gird for Immigrant Boycott Today
Companies set out a wide range of plans and braced for a new wave of immigration demonstrations today.

CNN, lead
What's the cost of illegal workers?
Illegal immigrants are gathering across the nation for "A Day Without Immigrants," a protest meant to show the economic impact of immigrants. Many experts agree the economy is stronger because of illegal immigrants, but some see a negative impact on low skilled U.S.-born workers.

MSNBC, lead
Immigrant Anger
Nation braces for day of boycotts and rallies.

Los Angeles Times, lead
City Prepares for Effects of Major Immigration Protests
Mayor warns of gridlock as huge crowd is expected along Wilshire. Other cities around nation brace for marches.

USA Today
Immigrant boycotts underway

Wall Street Journal, 5th story (right below Playboy Playmate ruling)
Illegal immigrants gathered
with their allies on a planned national day of protest to show their importance to the U.S. economy.

Washington Post, 3rd story
Rift May Shrink Boycott's Impact
On eve of national economic protest, immigrant groups remain divided on whether to participate.
It's pathetic the Washington Post story and front-page callout is still from yesterday; but even worse is the tone of the nation's major news websites.

Look at the word choice--Nation braces; city prepares; employers gird. Yo, guess what--illegal immigrants are part of the nation; they are part of our cities; and they're employers too.

This is exactly why immmigrants are so mad--it's time to stop casting immigrants as them, as something outside the national fabric.

They are us.

Photo of NYC demonstrators by Thomas A. Ferrara/Newsday.

They saw it coming

Sometimes, it's just funny seeing the pain of other fans, as this compilation of Jets fans reacting to their team's (mostly) ill-advised draft picks shows.