Sticks and Stones

My mother and father snuck me into Lost In Translation in 2003. It was a wet London evening, I had come home from school and was not very excited about seeing the film. I had homework to do, and I fretted about missing something on TV that night. But at 8 PM we went to the Odeon in Swiss Cottage, and sat down waiting for the room to darken. What followed changed my life.

Over the new hour and a half I sat silently, totally captivated by what was unfolding in front of me. Every scene was rich with colour and sound. Time was artfully divided between the sensuous (Charlotte at the Buddhist temple) and the practical (Bill on the phone in the jacuzzi). Space was divided between the crowds of Tokyo and the peace of the Park Hyatt. It was these decision by Ms. Coppola that ensured the film was so tightly knit and so well balanced.

Lance Accord’s cinematography accurately conveyed the required meaning of each scene. The warm lighting in the Hyatt tells you that the two are awake, but the dark lighting in the Hyatt tells you they are struggling to remain awake. The harsh sunlight outdoors signals the bewildering affront Tokyo’s rapid culture hurls at the sleepy Americans. The throbbing red lights atop buildings refer to the time-bound nature of their timeless connection.

The music direction by Brian Reitzell and Kevin Shields, puts you in place, and ensures you know how to feel about each scene. But by not forcing it down your throat, you have room to interpret the scene as you wish. And by introducing just the right mood at the right time (instrumental music while Charlotte travels in a bullet train) you’re saved from misinterpreting the scene. It guides you to understand what Ms. Coppola and Mr. Katz want you to see, while leaving you free to see something new each time.

These separate elements of the movie are difficult to extract from the movie because it works so well as an entity. Just as slicing life up into themes is unsatisfactory, slicing this movie into chunks does not make sense. These elements melt into the movie and affect each other such that taking them apart is only useful when presenting individual members of the crew with awards.

Their real achievement was not in excellent lighting or well-timed music, but in creating a movie that becomes a series of emotions. Their success is in creating all that was necessary to turn Lost In Translation from 105 minutes of film into a real week, in which real things happened to real people.

A parting anecdote: Ms. Coppola says she hounded after Bill Murray, and after leaving hundreds of voicemail messages got a verbal agreement. On the first day of shooting the crew wasn’t even sure he would show up. He did, and today calls Lost In Translation his favourite film. So do I.

No Comments

The United Nations is often (although not always) ineffectual, time wasting, spineless and bureaucratic. We all know that. But perhaps the United Nations would do better for itself if it actually sought to solve the real issues facing our world and not waste a disproportionate amount of its time slating Israel.

Issues such as genocide in Sudan, covert nuclear proliferation in DPR Korea and Iran and the ruins of Iraq collectively occupy a fraction of the UN resolutions passed on issues surrounding the Syrian Golan, the Palestinian territories and the future of Jerusalem.

Sure, these are questions that need dealing with. But why do they merit any more UN time than any other issue at all? Israel is one of the most diplomatically isolated countries in the world, and the UN instead of being an international forum to build closer links between nations with differences has become an instrument of unfair isolation and condemnation.

1 Comment

Senator Hillary Clinton won the Israel vote in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, but was defeated in the international race by Senator Barack Obama, who captured the majority of the votes cast by American expatriates who voted in the Democratic Global Primary held earlier this month.

Israel, which is home to an estimated 200,000 U.S. Citizens, is considered to be an important overseas vote, not least because of the view that the concencus of opinion in Israel may very well be reflected in the Jewish and ‘Israel lobby’ vote in the U.S.

As Clinton’s campaign has seen a sharp decline since Super-Tuesday, the race between Clinton and Obama has sharpened and a number of Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama’s relations with Israel, according to Newsweek. The emails have been said to attack notable Obama advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who endorsed a a book, called “The Israel Lobby,” which blames many U.S. foreign-policy problems on Washington’s ties to Israel.

In addition to Brzezinski, other Obama advisers such as Rob Malley, a negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks (who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view) has been mentioned. Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama’s Trinity Church in Chicago has also been cited too, given that he is a notable critic of Israel. A publication run by his daughter, called ‘Trumpet’ gave an award for “greatness” to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “bloodsucking religion.” That said, Obama has stated his objection to the award since talk of the matter surfaced.

An advisor to Obama commented that “there’s an increased number of these attack going around in direct correlation to Barack’s strength in the primaries and caucuses.” Obama has successfully fought off Clinton, to gain support among Jewish voters in California, Connecticut and Massachusetts whilst Clinton has won in New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Obama also has responded to recent attacks linking Obama to Brzezinski, saying: “I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally. He’s not one of my key advisers. I’ve had lunch with him once. I’ve exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times.”

Whilst AIPAC have maintained that Obama’s voting record and public pronouncements paint him squarely as an Israel supporter, Senators Clinton and Republican front-runner, Senator John McCain as well as possible independent candidate Mayor Michael Bloomberg are considered to be more pro-Israel, according to Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.

Senator Clinton has been keen to remind voters that Obama has stated his willingness, if President, to engage in talks with the Iranian regime whilst Danny Ayalon, Israel’s former ambassador to the USA, says Iran would exploit Obama’s gullibility and race ahead with a nuclear program.

Obama’s campaign looks set to face questioning on the issue of Israel, unless he can dispel rumours, being circulated by Clinton and her advisors.

2 Comments

We were delighted with the recent declaration of independence by the fledgling nation of Kosovo, and glad that the major European countries and the US lost little time in recognising it. The reactionary reaction from the Serbs was as predictable as it is contemptible (strange how all of a sudden Serbia is so interested in international law, isn’t it?), especially with recent announcements that display a certain childishness inappropriate to international discourse. The idea of a democratic pro-Western moderate Islamic European (says their declaration: “we believe our future lies with the European family”) country is a promising one to say the least.

One country, however, that has conspicuously failed to recognise Kosovo is another young state, whose declaration of independence was met with even worse threats and acts of violence: Israel. It is not hard to see why this might be from a political angle. Supporting Kosovo would alienate Russia, whom Israel has been trying to court as part of their bid to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, though I personally don’t see that bearing fruit. Nor does it want to create a precedent whereby disputed peoples declare independence unilaterally, as the Palestinians have thought of doing in the past, while in the middle of peace negotiations - indeed, the comparison has been made.

This is the wrong attitude to take, for several reasons. For one thing, the above reasons are deeply flawed: Russia has never been a friend to Israel, and certainly isn’t on their side when it comes to Iran; and Abbas knows better than to declare independence not only when major powers will not recognise it, but when he has a willing partner in negotiations, which was not the case with Serbia. Rather, Israel should display camaraderie with its true friends, which includes Kosovo.

Hashim Thaçi, Kosovar prime minister, recently revealed the following to JTA: “I love Israel. What a great country. Kosovo is a friend of Israel. I met so many great leaders when I was there—Netanyahu, Sharon — I really admire them.” If nothing else, it seems exceedingly churlish and cynical for Israel to act in the way that it has.

But even from a political standpoint, a friendly Muslim state in SE Europe can hardly be a bad thing. Israel should not only be rushing to support such an effusive admirer, but should, along with Jews all over the world, be pouring investment into Kosovo to capitalise on this unique opportunity to improve Islamo-Jewish international relations. Kosovo has not forgotten Israel’s generosity, both in terms of aid and support during the crisis at the end of the last millennium, and nor should Jerusalem.

Israel would do well, as it approaches its 60th anniversary, to think back to the days of its own newly-declared independence. If Jews needed a Jewish state back then, how much more do they need a friendly Muslim one today?

3 Comments

It is tempting to think of Castro’s recent announcement that he will go gently into that good night in terms of a redemptive fable, in which the passionate-revolutionary-turned-cynical-autocrat is reminded of his socialist roots; perhaps he saw a starving child on the streets, or a political prisoner evoked memories of himself as a young man. So tempting, in fact, that one is almost inclined to believe it.

Castro is the architect of one of the few true revolutionary states of the 20th Century. He can be said to have breathed life back into the socialist movement after the disaster of Stalin and the USSR; to have revived hope among socialists around the globe. Indeed, his first two significant changes, in the fields of literacy and health care, were, and remain, astounding successes. They do not, of course, justify the executions and other human rights abuses, nor the one-party state that was established, but they at least indicate that Castro was working on behalf of the people - that he was a man of socialist principle and conviction.

Personally, I am willing to give the early Castro the benefit of the doubt, though some might understandably be more cynical. For me, however, the turning point came with the Prague Spring revolution, when Castro expressed support for the invading Soviet troops even when European Communists, including Nicolae Ceauşescu, the Romanian leader, denounced it. Suddenly, he was on the opposite side of the fence: the Prague Spring, boosting hopes for true socialism, echoed his own revolution, yet this time he makes the politically motivated decision to support the Old Communism represented by the USSR.

And yet here we see him voluntarily surrendering his premiership. As I have already said, it is tempting to see it as repentance of some sort, some sort of realisation that he has lost sight of the principles with which me once inspired a nation. Alternatively, one could interpret it as nothing more than the inevitable result of having a prosthetic anus.

As far as I’m concerned, the answer lies in what happens next: the younger, beardless brother, Raúl will accede to the throne. I’m afraid that it’s hard to read any redemption into that fact, and one is forced to accept that socialism in Cuba is well and truly dead. As Trotsky said, socialism needs democracy like a human needs oxygen, and Castro’s egocentric autocracy is a prime example.

No Comments