The Pensieve

also finally, i watched this show… loosely translated, it means ‘dog lovers’… erm but there isn’t really much about dogs and lovin’ going on in the movie… it’s about how three stories (that have got dogs in them) and how they are intertwined by a motor accident. this movie won a major award… but i am really not too good at appreciating it. the director shows a myriad of emotions, of how love leads to pain and suffering and from within, a certain sort of enlightenment. the movie’s a tad too long… at 2h40min… of nothingmuch going on.
here’s a closer take: the first is the story of a teenager (who has a kid) trapped in an abusive marriage. her husband is a burglar and beats her up periodically. meanwhile, her brother-in-law, who takes care of the family dog, loves her and keeps asking her to : vete conmigo (go away with me). in an attempt to raise money, he brings his dog to dogfights… and soon, cofi (the dog) is winning him loads of money (enough to buy a car!). the second story revolves around a man who divorces his wife and abandons his children to be with his mistress, the ‘most beautiful model in iberia’ (northern spain) at that time. the third is the story of an ex-guerilla, now homeless and drifting in the streets, occasionally ‘off-ing’ someone off for some money. his only companions are the wild dogs.
ok… then… bam! the accident happened while the brother-in-law was fleeing from a dog fight with his friend, because the opponent had unfairly shot his beloved dog… and he had retaliated by gutting their leader… the model is also involved in the accident… (her dog was in the car too) she becomes seriously injured, and her leg eventually had to amputated! the ex-guerilla’s trash cart was a bit smashed up as well. after the ambulance rescued all the people in the accident, he brought cofi home. eventually, the model is discharged and returns to her new home, having to cope with the devastating news… and to top it off, her dog falls into his hole in the parquet… cofi soon recovers and one day, after the ex-guerilla came home, realised that he had killed ALL his other strays!!!!! meanwhile, the brother-in-law discovers that his sister-in-law and abusive husband had taken off with all his money! finally, the ex-guerilla realised how wrong he was in abandoning his family for his ‘quest’ and calls up to apologise to the daughter he had never spoken to before. and instead of killing the man he was asked to off, he detained him in his home and soon was glad that he didn’t kill him, cuz the man who actually claimed that his man was his associate is actually his half-brother…

anyway…

now that everyone’s very confused (me included) the credits finally start to roll…

sheesh this is one gooooood film! it’s revived my ambition to become a forensic scientist… u know like angelina jolie in this film… and in the books of kathy reichs and patricia cornwell… hehe but i know that i probably won’t end up as that… cuz i dun think i could live a life surrounded by dead people and their photos… my desire to ‘make the world a better place’ isn’t strong enough for me to give up something close to sanity to do such a job. i think it really requires such strength of mind to do it. anyway, haha… i think i’m not too bad myself cuz i just intuitively knew who the murderer was even within the first 15 minutes of the film… heheh so i just waited and waited to see how he would finally reveal himself! :) angelina jolie’s so beautiful haha… i like her a lot… the bad guy’s really quite twisted… as usual… it’s really like those biographies i’ve read… i guess whoever’s the director really did his research!

anyway… damn cool… things inside… though lots of people probably won’t agree… the gist of the film is a guy who’s gone thru kinda abusive childhood (where his mum favours his twin brother instead of him) and then he takes off at 16 and starts to kill people and take over their lives… well, this isn’t the creepiest part of the film, there’s just one more creepier thing but i can’t say it here, it would just ruin the whole thing! hehe… this is probably the most ‘fulfilling’ film i’ve watched these hols! yippeee!

PS: if u want to know, ask me… haha…

finally, i watched chicago, starring the sizzling hot catherine zeta jones, the equally chilli padi-hot renée zellweger and a sexy (but very old) richard gere. i really would have preferred this to be a musical rather than a movie-broadway mix. the songs are all quite nice, and the dance movements are exquisite. sometimes when i watch these shows… or watch people dancing (especially like tango and salsa) i get a very tiny little wisp of inspiration and desire to dance like they do. muahaha… in other words, to take up dancing lessons… erm but i’m quite paiseh to do that… hehe will put this thought into my long list of KIVs. what i’ve learnt from chicago is: the power of the media is limitless and that fame is a very very fickle lady.

Genre: philosophy

‘We The Living’ was one of the first books written by Ayn Rand (upon her arrival in ‘the land of the free’) and it is the closest to an autobiography. Not one of her life but of her beliefs and vision for the future. Cool isn’t it?

To put it simply, it’s about the story of a bourgeoise Kira (what a pretty name!) Argounova in the few years right after the success of the October Revolution. It talks of the turbulent times and the uncertainty that abound every single person in the ‘liberalised’ city of Petrograd. The language is so real it proves that we do not need ‘a picture to tell a thousand words’! Take for example, the opening paragraph:

Petrograd smelt of carbolic acid. A pinkish-gray banner that had been red, hung in the webbing of steel beams. Tall girders rose to a roof of glass panes gray as the stell with the dust and wind of many years; some of the panes were broken, pierced by forgotten shots, sharp edges gaping upon a sky gray as the glass. Under the banner hung a fringe of cobwebs; under the cobwebs - a huge railway clock with black figures on a yellow face and no hands. Under the clock, a crowd of pale faces and greasy overcoats waited for the train.

But what i admire most about the writing style is her uncanny to be able to portray a person’s character simply by choosing apt words to describe the persons’ physical appearance:

“Kira Argounova entered Petrograd on the threshold of a box car. She stood straight, motionless, with the graceful indifference of a traveler on a luxurious ocean liner, with an old blue suit of faded cloth, with slender, sunburned legs and no stockings. She had an old piece of plaid silk around her neck, and short tousled hair, and a stockingcap with a bright yellow tassel. She had a calm mouth and slightly widened eyes with the defiant, enraptured, solemnly and fearfully expectant look of a warrior who is entering a strange city and is not quite sure whether he is entering it as a conqueror or a captive.”

Hmmm I must attempt to learn from this. In one of my blogs to follow, I shall attempt to describe various ppl I know and perhaps u guys could guess who I’m referring to?

The other two main characters in the novel are Lev Kovalensky and Andrei Taganov. The former a bourgeoise and the latter, a communist revolutionary. Both are in love with Kira. Through the mesh of entangled relations and emotions, we’re able to get a rare but realistic glimpse into life in the Soviet Union (who better to tell us but Rand, who suffered at its hands?) Apart from that, we learn how flawed the theory of communism is and how it destroys the lives and willpower to live of the people it promised to liberate from oppression and poverty.

Yet, this novel does not merely condone communist policies and thoughts, it censures those who adopt a communistic/self-sacrificing attitude towards their own life. Even in a democratic nation, you’d be surprised at how many are behaving ‘like communist’s in the way they live their lives…

It’s hard for me to explain just what I mean…

Read this:

No one can tell men what they must live for. No one can take that right - because there are things in men, in the best of us, which are above all states, above all collectives! … Every honest man lives for himself. Every man worth calling a man lives for himself. The one who doesn’t - doesn’t live at all. You canot change it. You cannot change it because that’s the way man is born, alone, complete, an end in himself. No laws, no Party, no G.P.U. will ever kill that thing in man which knows how to say ‘I’. You canot enslave man’s mind, you can only destroy it. … Look at those whom you allow to triumph. Deny the best in men - and see what will survive. Do we want the crippled, creeping, crawling, broken monstrosities that we’re producing? Are we not castrating life in order to perpetuate it? … What is our goal, comrades? What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?

Well, what this novel brought out in me was a strong desire to live life meaningfully and to the max. I loathe the people who do not know how to live. Those who immerse themselves in ‘fun’ activities such as clubbing, boozing, gambling, sleeping around, and all the other meaningless, time-wasting ‘hobbies’. Do not be mistaken, I’m not saying that all men must work to their death, and spend all their free time working more… what I am exhorting all to do is to make the fullest use of their life to achieve what their potential will allow them to, to improve, to grow and to embrace life.

Sigh, it’s probably the Aquarian in me… I set such high standards for myself and all around me. I’ll probably be doomed to spend my life alone… Or as they said, lock myself up in an ivory tower in contemplation of such intangible values that I end up like some kind of Rapunzel.

Interesting insight: (in the form of quotations, not gonna analyse it here though. heh heh heh… )

How cities or principalities which lived under their own laws should be administered after being conquered: ‘When states newly acquired as I said have been accustomed to living freely under their own laws, there are three ways to hold them securely: first, by devastating them; next, by going and living there in person; thirdly, by letting them keep their own laws, exacting tribute, and setting up an oligarchy which will keep the state friendly to you.
- it was mentioned that when a new prince takes over, he should wipe out ALL the family members of the ex-rulers… depending on the nature of governance in tt kingdom, he should then govern as suited. eg. if the people are used to freedom, then he should establish laws, tribute and so on… then there are other examples, some using settlements as the basic way of maintaining control over the area, others, require annihilation of all the people there or simply have the prince settle there.

‘One must never allow disorder to continue so as to escape a war. Anyhow one does not escape: the war is merely posponed to one’s disadvantage.’

‘Whoever believes that with great men new services wipe out old injuries deceives himself.’

‘Violence must be inflicted once for all; people will then forget what it tastes like and so be less resentful. Benefits must be conferred gradually, so in that way they will taste better. Above all, a prince must live with his subjects in such a way that no development, either favourable or adverse, makes him vary his conduct. For, when adversity brings the need for it, there is no time to inflict harm; and the favours he may confer are profitless, because they are seen as being forced, and so they earn no thanks.’

‘When men receive favours from someone they expected to do them ill, they are under a greater obligation to their benefactor…’

‘David offered Saul to go and fight Goliath, the Philistine champion, and Saul, to inspire him with courage, gave him his own weapons and armour. Having tried these on, David rejected them, saying that he would be unable to fight well with them and therefore he wanted to face the enemy with his sling and his knife. In short, armour belonging to someone else either drops off you or weighs you down or is too tight.’
- moral: to achieve our own ends with what we own… or what is really ours. rather than wht is bought/borrowed.

‘A wise prince must observe these rules; he must never take things easy in times of peace, but rather use the latter assiduously, in order to be able to reap the profit in times of adversity. Then, when his fortunes change, he will be found ready to resist adversity.’
- yay! this is what i’ve always believed in.

‘Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. For love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.’
- is tt why we’ve got all those fines in sg? hahaha…

‘There is no doubt that a prince’s greatness depends on his triumphing over difficulties and opposition. So fortune, especially when she wants to build up the greatness of a new prince, whose need to acquire standing is more pressing than that of a hereditary ruler, finds enemies for him and encourages them to take the field against him, so that he may have cause to triumph over them and ascend higher on the ladder his foes have provided. Many, therefore, believe that when he has the chance an able prince should cunningly foster some opposition to himself so that by overcoming it he can enhance his own stature.’

‘A prince also wins prestige for being a true friend or a true enemy, that is, for revealing himself without any reservation in favour of one side against another. This policy is always more advantageous than neutrality. for instance, if the powers neighbouring on you come to blows, either they are such that, if one of them conquers, you will be in danger, or they are not. In either case it will always be to your advantage to declar yourself and to wage a vigorous war; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself you will always be at the mercy of the conqueror, much to the pleasure and satisfaction of the one who has been beaten, and you will have no justification nor any way to obtain protection or refuge. The conqueror does not want doubtful friends who do not help him when he is in difficulties; the loser repudiates you because you were unwilling to go, arms in hand, and throw in your lot with him.’
- yea i really learned something useful from this paragraph. hmm…