Cap ou Pas Cap?

As advised by Nada, I got the awesome French movie Jeux D'enfants, and I watched it a couple of days ago. I absolutely love it.

A rom-com, starring Guillame Canet (who seemed awfully familiar, like really REALLY familiar...and I still can't figure out where I've seen him before!) and Marion Cotillard. The direction by Yann Samuell was very imaginative (reminded me of Science of Sleep [sorta] if any of you've watched that one.) It is a love story. And this is what brings me to todays DEBATE! :P Last time (Experience is Vital) it was pretty much just Nada and I discussing the issue at hand (and Moos adding a couple of really neat comments here and there too) so I urge you guys to join in this time.

Using her own words, Nada describes herself as being "emotionally crippled" and therefore enjoys love stories with not-so-happy endings. Stories that involve impossible love, love that leads to disaster, one-sided love...etc. She thinks Jeux D'enfants is that kind of movie. I watched it, and frankly, I think, that in the end, it is no different than any down-right mushy, lovey-dovey love story that exists on this planet. And that's why I loved it myself! The two protagonists are in love with each other but might not fully know it, they don't get together for different reasons, they live a "regular" (i.e. nothing special) life without each other for years...then they meet once more and choose never to go their seperate ways again (I am obviously over simplifying a great movie...watch it to get the big picture.) In what way is this love story different than your usual, let's say, Jane Austen type romance?

True, there's the whole issue of the "jeu" or the dare game that they play through-out the movie. But is that much different from the game of concealment that Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax play in Austen's Emma? (for example.)

Overall, highly recommended. Thanks to Nada for recommending it to me. Oh and sorry for the excessive use of brackets (or parenthesis, for those of you who prefer the American way of things!)


Singing in the Rain

I was watching the National Assembly's first meeting today. As usual, they are voting on all the different committees and their members. Something struck me as bizarre and so I just want to comment on the MP's who choose not to vote on any article or committee or whatever they might be asked to vote for/against.

"Mumtani3."(I refuse to vote.)

Who came up with such an option?! What does it tell us when an MP refuses to state their opinion about a certain issue? What's the point of them being in the Assembly if they refuse to vote? They are basically refusing to make a difference, refusing to do their jobs! And what excuse could there be for this kind of behaviour other than the fact that they hope not to displease any party; neither their electors nor their fellow MP's or the governemt. Fear of being blamed for anything that might go wrong later on because of their decision...

If you strive to become a member of parliament, you are expected to have a certain line of thought, and when you get to the "green chair" you are supposed to fight for those beliefs which your electors chose you for (perhaps not in reality, but ideally speaking.) And so you are not doing your job when you sit there and you deny your right, your duty, when the time comes to make the decision.


On a lighter note, here's a fantastic video for you. It's a commercial for a VW automobile. A remix (by Mint Royale) of the famous "Singing in the Rain" scene in which Gene Kelly is apparantly...poppin' it! Enjoy.


Here Comes the Sun

She was tired of reading on the couch, and she had read in bed for too long she was starting to get worried about bed rash. So she decided to sit on the carpet, with her head resting on the sofa behind her. Very soon she realised that she loved this spot. It would be her new reading spot, the sunshine coming in from the large window behind her flooding the pages of the novel, and surrounding her with a lovely warmth.


She realised her book was not shining anymore. She put it down and stared at the carpet infront of her. Lying across it was a small rectangle of golden light. The carpet had stolen her sunshine. How good had I been to the carpet, she thought. Treading on it softly and never spilling anything on it, ever. And now, how rude of it to rob me of my sunshine. She snapped out of this reverie and looked back at the carpet, puzzled. The size of the sunshine had shrunken considerably so that it was now a mere strip of light. She watched as it continued to get smaller and smaller, until finally it was gone altogether.


She pushed her book aside and thought she'd write instead. The sun would be back tomorrow.


Experience Is Vital

Becoming Jane. An autobiographical film that depicts the budding romance between not-yet-famous writer Jane Austen and a young Irishman Tom Lefroy.

Tom has a reputation. Let us just say that when a man has a reputation in late 18th century England, it is generally speaking not considered as being a compliment to his character. Barely staying awake during a reading performance by Jane soon after they are introduced, the two are off to a bad start. Tom later explains why Jane's writing failed to amuse him and gives her and the viewers his take on women and fiction.

If you wish to practice the art of fiction, to be considered the equal of a masculine author, experience is vital.

Tom here is referring to the kind of experience which has earned him his renowned "reputation". He suggests that in order for a female to be able to rise to the level of expertise that males have reached in the art of fiction, she has to forget all types of manners, all notions of propriety and decorum so she can gain the sort of experience needed, and considered absolutely necessary by Tom, in order to be able to write fiction that is worth reading.

Experience is, undoubtfully, crucial. But what type of experience are we really talking about? What are the modes through which a female is to aquire this experience? Most importantly, how has an unmarried English country girl, whose financial and social conditions were not of a high status, been able to produce 6 of English literature's most renowned novels? Surely, a female that falls under the labels listed above, can never be capable of doing, seeing, hearing anything, or capable of going anywhere that would finally render her "experienced".

Was Tom wrong in his presumption? Or was Jane Austen an exception to the rule? Or could it be, that Tom (along with the rest of the world) was blind to Jane's unruly ways, and that she indeed was, though in total secrecy, as experienced as any man in England?

Your thoughts please. Chop chop!

template by suckmylolly.com