Oh, look, another movie review. I’ll keep it short.
Go see Amélie.
More fun is discussing the minority of critics who chastise the film for not accurately portraying Paris circa 1997. I’m just baffled at the thought that realism should suddenly become a hallmark of a good film. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet uses all the special advantages of filmmaking precisely in order to bring us into the heroine’s subjective world and away from the strain of the constant reality check. I’d even go further: To Jeunet reality is a collective psychosis, and the symbol of this is the Lady Di hysteria to which Amélie is blissfully oblivious.
In that vein, here is what I like:
The taste of water when you’re really thirsty. A new city and a map. A clear dark sky. Beating people at Scrabble on the last turn. Bragging about it.
What I don’t like: Companies that misspell the words in their name and company names that are meaningless. The words “just kidding”. Badly poured beer.
[Wed, Nov 14 2001 – 09:55] Unglish (email) On that moronic review: Only a Brit (popmous, self-important) would compare Woody Allen’s films about New York with Richard Curtis’ films of London. (Who he?).
[Fri, Nov 16 2001 – 10:26] Charles (email) Was a good film. But happily sat through it without thinking about collective psychosis once. Am now v. worried about being voted off the tribe as the weakest link. Have now decided to start writing amateur film reviews so that I can sound witty in front of my tribe and to take up scrabble to improve my word power.
[Tue, Nov 20 2001 – 11:07] uppington (email) hello charles. yes, you are the weakest link. goodbye.
no only joking. check out stefan’s latest above. his balcony, a “perch suspended between earth and sky” blah blah blah, and “staples of the rural night”. i thought most country office supply stores closed in the evening. it reminds me of dylan thomas in its lyricism (the welsh poet, not that bloke from school, the one who snogged anna hiddleston). what do you think?
[Sat, Nov 24 2001 – 06:17] uw pep (email) Re your list of dislikes?: being misquoted or misrepresented in the press, such as:
A senior media personality told “As-Sennara”:
The Belgian ambassador does not dare to give Sharon the call to go to the court
The attempts to amend the Belgian law is a game to prevent sentencing Sharon
By Ahmad Hazem, “As-Sennara[2]” correspondent in Berlin, 23/11/2001, p. 12
The correspondent of “As-Sennara” learned from a senior media and well-trusted personality in Belgium that the Belgian ambassador in Israel was asked officially to call the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to attend the Belgian courts, for the accusation of making the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, but the ambassador did not dare until now to give the call to Sharon.
The personality mentioned also that there are current preparations to amend the Belgian law in order to create obstacles in front of having Sharon in front of the Belgian judicial system, which was considered by political observers as a game in the law for Sharon’s sake.
It is important to mention that more than twenty Arab parties approached the Belgian courts to sentence Sharon, according to Belgian law which contains an article regarding the sentencing of criminals in Belgium, regardless to the places, in which the crimes took place.
The Palestinian victim, Soad Srur, who was interviewed by “As-Sennara” last September, on the 19th anniversary of Sabra and Shatila massacre, is considered to be one of the most known victims of this massacre which attracted the world.
My reply:
Letter to the Editor
Dear Sir:
I am referring to your article by your Berlin correspondent Ahmad Hazem, which appeared in As Sennara on 23/11/01 entitled: “The Belgian ambassador does not dare , to give Sharon the call to go to the court”
The “senior media and well trusted personality in Belgium ” in whom your correspondent apparently placed complete confidence, -unfortunately for your correspondent- is completely wrong-. I can give you my fullest assurances that this embassy never received any summons for PM. Sharon to appear for an audience in front of a Belgian judge in Brussels. Neither should it receive such communications.
Mr. Sharon and the State of Israel each have appointed competent lawyers, Mrs. Hirsch and Prof. Mattet, in Belgium. As a result the embassy is not needed as a circuit for communication in this matter : any documents pertaining to the complaint by the 23 Lebanese-Palestinian citizens regarding the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, are being handed directly to these lawyers in Brussels.
Before launching unfounded “scoopy” accusations, you may urge your correspondent to adhere to the seasoned professional standards of journalism, which advise that “as a service to your readers- one should at all times double-check one’s sources, however trustworthy they may appear at first glance. It’s a rule, we in the diplomatic profession rigourously apply as well in our communications to our governments!
I would greatly appreciate your publication of this rectification in your next edition.
Yours sincerely,
Wilfred Geens, Ambassador of Belgium in Israel
[Sun, Nov 25 2001 – 12:56] Inky Scribe (email) Journalists, pshaw.
[Mon, Dec 10 2001 – 17:23] Charles (email) Ah, just read your comment on my comment, John. Anna Hiddleston. Brings back memories. Last I know, she was in Paris, working in the Pompidou center as a curator, which with a bit more work could probably be linked neatly back into the Amelie thread (they had somewhat similar hair stylings, too, though through the rosy specs of time I think Anna was cuter. She certainly had a longer line in conversation). But as to Dylan Thomas and Stefan, Milksop and Milkwood are two different things.