Surprising Turnaround

…from me, that is.

I’ve made fun of that skinny little Brit actor with the fey name, Timothee Chalamet, currently the bonker of one of the Kardashian coven (Kimmy, Kluless, Kunty, whatever).

But the other night I watched him play a young Bob Dylan in  –Out Of Nowhere   A Complete Unknown  and his performance blew me out of my socks.  And I’m not even a fan of Dylan’s, to put it mildly.

Not only did Chalamet nail Dylan’s speaking voice and attitude, he also got the singing voice almost perfectly.  And the movie was a gem:  a little time capsule of the early 1960s — the best compliment I could pay it is that I wished it was longer.

Do yourself a favor, and watch it, and him.  (I can’t remember which channel it’s on, but whatever.)

In Defense Of Nudity

I read this article at The Federalist (“The fact that celebrated works from the past contain nudity doesn’t justify us including it in our films, literature, and other mediums”) and much of what Meg Johnson says — and what Tolstoy said — is true.

However, as someone who enjoys nudity in art and pretty much everywhere else, allow me to come to its defense (so to speak).  The problem is that people (like Tolstoy) conflate nudity with its effect on the viewer’s libido, but I’m not sure I agree.

Michelangelo’s Statue of David:  art.
Michelangelo’s Statue of David Sporting A Massive Erection:  not art.

In times when nudity was rare, or frowned upon by the pezzonovanti  in the Church or government [some redundancy], then yes, the sight of a nude buttock or breast might have been titillating or arousing.  And yes, with the relaxation of those rules, simple nudity became much less so.  One has only to compare early Playboy  magazines with modern-day Hustler  to see the truth of that.

People always thought that publishing nudity was the thin end of the wedge, the start of the slippery slope and all the other clichés.  I’m not going to argue with that, because one inescapable fact of nature is that humankind will always push boundaries, whether it’s nudity in art or legal confines.  (Not all that long ago, theft used to be punished by hanging;  now, even murder isn’t always faced with the same consequence.  Speed limits are always tested, to the point where enforcement has had to apply a 10% “grace” allowance so as not to appear too tyrannical.)

Similarly, while “prurient” artistic nudity was banned in the past, “classical” nudity — i.e. nudity drawn to depict a Classical morality tale — was grudgingly accepted, an allowance that almost all classical artists took advantage of.  The example used in Meg Johnson’s article, Bernini’s Rape Of Proserpina in Rome’s Galleria Borghese,  is an excellent example:

It is, of course, exquisite — as much for Bernini’s skill as a sculptor as its reticence.  Note that Bernini is showing the act of rape by displaying Pluto’s massive muscles compared to Proserpina’s slender feminine ones, the violence of her abduction revealed by her breast, rendered naked by her clothing having been ripped off, and Pluto’s brutally-joyous facial expression contrasting with her fearful one.

Bernini is not depicting the act of rape by showing Plato’s erect phallus plunging into Proserpina’s tender vagina — although he was quite clearly perfectly capable of sculpting it.  But that would have been pornography;  what he did is Fine Art.

I don’t have to show any examples of this comparison, because were I to do so, that would be showing pornography by using artistic criticism as its fig leaf.  (See what I did there?)

But by displaying nudity in art and acknowledging that this could inevitably lead to pornography, does that mean society’s moral ruin is inevitable?

Of course not.  And Johnson’s premise of “The fact that celebrated works from the past contain nudity doesn’t justify us including it in our films, literature, and other mediums” is in fact fatally flawed because it is denying that modern films and literature are themselves forms of artistic expression.

Where a movie director, for example, draws the line is the defining characteristic.  I’ve often deplored the modern movie trend of showing love scenes as sex scenes, instead of simply hinting at it — you know, a close-up of a passionate kiss fading to black and the next scene showing the couple lying together in bed the following morning (or not even that explicit).  To me, showing the sex between a couple denies us, the audience, the opportunity of using our imagination — and that’s a primary artistic flaw if ever there was one.

But simple nudity?  I’m all in favor of it, if for no other reason that it upsets those who insist on their womenfolk wearing maxi-dresses, burkas or niqabs.

The hell with them.

Wallpaper

This one got my attention, so up it goes:

It’s funny:  you think it’s just a rendition, and then you go to London’s King’s Cross or the Gare du Nord in Paris on a chilly misty morning… and it looks almost exactly like that.

R.I.P. Val

I’m sorry to see that the Big C finally ended the life of Val Kilmer, who I’ve always thought was a fine actor.  If he’d played no other part, his role as the dying Doc Holliday in Tombstone  would make a hell of an acting legacy.  In The Saint, Heat  and even the silly Real Genius:  likewise brilliant.

As for the rest… pick your favorites.

(Apparently, according to some directors, Kilmer could be a total asshole to work with, but I don’t care about that.  Sometimes, talent excuses a few peccadilloes, a.k.a. the Barrymore Exception.)

Depends On Your Definition

Oh look!  another one of those “foreign country” lists, only this time it’s all about “friendliness” towards newcomers — specifically expatriates — to the country.  (I’ll talk about that definition further down the page.)

Here’s the list in its entirety.

Let’s just talk about that “friendliness” thing.  The article states:

The result comes from a survey by InterNations, an expat guide, which asked foreign residents in 53 countries around the globe to rate their new home. 
Expats were asked about their social life, whether they felt at home, how easy it was to get used to the culture and the friendliness of the local population.

Right away, I’m going to disqualify from the list any Muslim country — e.g. Turkey and Kuwait — because if you ain’t Muslim yourself (and follow their specific brand of Islam withal) — your treatment by the locals is not going to be that friendly.  That Qatar (22), for example, ranks far ahead of the United States (38) makes the whole list suspect.

Other than religion, which is an obvious speedbump, let’s see how friendly the locals are when you don’t speak — or don’t attempt to speak — their language.  At best you’ll get a shrug;  at worst, you’ll encounter withering xenophobia.  This is especially true of nations for whom English is not the de facto  language of government, or where English is hardly spoken outside a few places in the cities.

I’m not going to re-rank the listings because it’s a big job, and I haven’t been to most of the countries on the list anyway.  But from what I’ve seen…

The only countries I’d even consider moving to — becoming an expat — on the basis of the likely friendliness of the locals, anyway, are the following (in no specific order):

Chile — been there, loved the place, loved the locals that I met when I was there, and I’d make it my first order of business to become fluent in Spanish within a few months, by crash courses, immersion, whatever.  I’m pretty sure I could fit into the culture without much difficulty and I’m pretty sure I could make a go of living there for the rest of my life.  And I love Chilean food, all of it.

Czechia — never been there myself, but everyone I’ve spoken to who has been there for longer than a year has had nothing but good things to say about living there, and that’s good enough for me.  I’d need a lot longer to learn the language because it’s not Anglo-Romantic or Germanic but Western Slavic, although written in Latin script and not Cyrillic.  (This latter factor would disqualify several of the other countries, such as Greece, because I’m not interested in learning how to read as well as to speak.)  I don’t think that immersion would work because there are no points of linguistic similarity between the European languages I do speak and Czech.  So:  a struggle, but probably worth it.  As for Czech food:  like German, it’s apparently heavily weighted towards pork, which does get a little tiring after a while.  That said, I want to try their pork knuckle (koleno)  because apparently it’s incredible.  And there’s always goulash, which I could live on quite easily, and schnitzel, although I prefer the Austrian veal dish to pork.

Poland — same as Czechia.  I have never met a native Pole (and there have been quite a few) whom I’ve not liked immediately, but I realize that learning the language would be hellish difficult (it’s close to Czech, actually).  But I’d be willing to give it a shot.  The only (minor) problem might be the Polish cuisine;  I’ve eaten more than a few Polish dishes in and around Chicago and Milwaukee in places where I was the only customer not speaking Polish, and on the whole I found the food to be bland and kinda tasteless.  And I don’t care much for pirogi…

Netherlands — I’ve been there a couple of times, and I’m pretty sure I could fit in there.  I found the Dutch to be warm and friendly people — in the cities, anyway — and while parts of their culture jar me a bit, they are cosmopolitan enough to where I could adapt quite easily.  The cuisine is likewise quite cosmopolitan and if I wanted, I could always get something familiar — possibly the only advantage to having grown up Afrikaans is the Dutch-like food I had as a kid.  (Pannekoek, yum frigging yum.)

Belgium — just not in Brussels, which I hated.  I could handle Flemish without too much problem — it’s reasonably close to Afrikaans, actually — and the food is lovely.  I know someone who moved from South Africa to Antwerp, and she and her husband fitted in without any trouble whatsoever.

In passing:  one thing I have learned is that Chile, Czechia, Belgium and Poland all have pretty reasonable attitudes towards personal gun ownership;  the Dutch rather less so.

Missing from the above list is Argentina, perhaps because not that many people have moved there and the sample was too thin, but I might be persuaded to look at Buenos Aires.  At least they and the Uruguayans have the right attitude towards beef… and I’ve been ordered to put Buenos on Ye Olde Bucquette Lyste by someone who said she’d move there tomorrow if she could.

In a lot of these countries, I’d never even try to move there because one of my absolute must-haves is the ability to drink water from a tap without suffering any short- or long-term physical illness.  (Bye bye, India.)

As for pretty much all the rest:  pass*.


*Some people might be wondering why I no longer wish to live in Britishland, but the reason is simple:  the cities and larger towns are too crime-ridden, and in the country a newcomer mostly faces at best indifference and often withering xenophobia.  Maybe I might be persuaded to try a few places in the UK, but overall the quality of life Over There is no longer as attractive as it once was, despite sausage rolls and Wadworth 6X.  Of course, I have several friends in England, which might make it easier to settle in;  but all in all, that’s not enough to sway the argument.  (Sorry, Sorensons and The Englishman.)  I should also point out that I have somewhat fewer friends in Britishland than I once did, because quite a number have moved abroad and have no intention of ever coming back.  In fact, there is a far greater chance of several more coming Over Here to live with me… because they absolutely hate what Britain has become (neo-fascist).  And I’m pretty sure that my ummm speech would not be to the liking of the fuzz.

*Also, France.  There are parts where I could settle in quite easily from a cultural perspective, but let me tell you, the Frogs are not that friendly towards strangers.  Some expats have lucked out in this regard, but it’s not the way to bet — hell, I’d be speaking French fluently within a month or so, and still I’d struggle.  And like with the Brits, French TV really sucks.  And Man shall not live by French bread and cheese alone, although I’d give it a college try.

And you all know how I feel about Strylia.

And About Damn Time

I’ve gone on and on about this topic so many times I’m starting to bore myself, but this is indeed a welcome development:

You might have thought the United States had an official language, considering it was founded by British colonizers who were looking for religious freedom and wanted to distance themselves from the overbearing English monarchy. Virtually all official documents in our republic have been penned in the English language, from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on down, but for some reason, it has never been designated as our official national tongue.

That all changed on Saturday, as President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order mandating that we now have one unifying language tying us all together.

Nothing repeat nothing has the power to divide a society when we aren’t able to communicate with each other.  I speak here after having grown up in an officially bilingual country and seeing for myself how bitterly divisive that can be.

And I absolutely do not care if newcomers to this country are unable to understand what’s going on because they don’t understand English.  The English expression for that is “tough shit”, and that might as well be the first expression — and concept — that should be learnt when the huddled masses arrive here.

I’m not going to hold up other nations as examples — although try conducting any kind of official business in France without understanding French — and considering that our republic’s foundation was laid upon the English language, we have been foolish in not establishing that principle from the outset.

And frankly, Margaret, I don’t actually care if that seems cruel or uncaring to the newly-arrived.  If we choose to accommodate foreigners by posting signs that read Itt magyarul beszélnek  or whatever, it is purely an accommodation and not an obligation.

To quote POTUS:

From the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language.  Our Nation’s historic governing documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have all been written in English.  It is therefore long past time that English is declared as the official language of the United States.  A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language

Accordingly, this order designates English as the official language of the United States.