Power of Purpose

I've got some purpose for all of you. How would you like to get paid $28 a word to write a modest 3500 word essay. Go check out Power of Purpose. You'll find details about an essay competition with a 100,000 grand prize. This isn't in your inbox, it's not a joke. Go win some mad cash, find your true purpose.

Update

The links have been update. In addition to the Alfred Hitchcok links, I've added a link to Textism and Philsophy. Both are blogs of sorts. I haven't really explored the latter, but it seems interesting. I came across the former last night while not doing my paper that was due today. The reason I've posted a link to it is because it has a very nice overview of the 20 excellent type faces/fonts.

Life is good. School is nearing its end for the year. Two more weeks, then exams and then I'm done.

Dyl is heading to Oman, and then perhaps to Madagascar.

Hope all of you are doing well.

A Contrast

I had a most wonderful film class this afternoon. We began with a very animated discussion of an article by Arlette Farge about the relationshp between History, film, the subject, and history. From there we moved onto a general discussion of the New Wave. We'd all read an article by Antoine deBaeque that situates the New Wave in a very specific historical context, 1957-1962. As part of this dicussion we watched a few excerpts from some classic new wave films. Most notably, we watched a wonderful scene from Godard's "Band of Outsiders". The scene begins with the three main characteris seated at a table in a brasserie. They are having a conversation that is at once mundane and profoundly philosopical. At some point, the conversation moves into a discussion of silence and then, whoopp!, all of the sudden the sound dissapears, and we the viewers enjoy a 'minute' (actually around 40 seconds I think) of silence. Dialogue, and sound, then return with an invitation by one of the three to dance. A very cheerful, upbeat, dance routine then begins. At some point however, all the onscreen sound stops, and we hear Godard's (off-screen) voice narrating what's going on between the characters. It then returns to dancing, then to Godard, then dancing, till the scene ends. I couldn't stop tapping my fingers and humming for quite a while after we'd stopped watching. The song the dance to is great (I'll have to look it up). The reason this post is titled contrast is because after this jovial movie watching experience, we quickly finished the discussion and the prof screened Alain Renais' "Nuit et Brouillard" (Night and Fog) for us. I don't want to hasard a description of this film. It is a very well done documentary of the Holocaust. Very painful. Very sad.

Maynard Loves his Wine

It's not often that I find my different interests crossing paths in this way. A recent article on the Winespectator website details Tool singer, Maynard James Keenan's passion for wine. I can't say that the article is particularly interesting (though you should check it out for the picture of Maynard), either from a musical perspective, or a wine perspective. It's one of those human interest stories that doesn't really say much of anything, at least in and of itself. There is perhaps something interesting in watching the counter-cultural become not quite so counter. But I don't think it's really that big a surprise. We all remember Zack and his Ford explorer don't we. Well, Maynard is the proud owner of near complete verticals of Grange, and in his own words, "A page and half of Sassicaia [very good, very well known, Italian Cab Sauv with a little Cab Franc] on one wine list is enough to make my heart stop." Now I quite agree with his sentiment, and I would be most delighted to have verticals of Grange in my cellar. But it just goes to show you how rare trully revolutionary discourse really is. I guess I should add that I don't think Tool has ever really sold themself on more than their particular aesthetic (unlike RATM). So I don't begrudge Maynard his wine. It's just funny to see how he and Tool get presented to the public and, in turn, how the public chooses to receive them.

Friday Night

It's Friday night down here in the United States of the Americas. What the hell is that? Isn't Canada a part of the Americas? How 'bout all those South American countries? God damn american hegemony!

I'm too tipsy to be talking about politics. Spearhead is currently playing. I'm in the middle of a radio show. I'd like to say the crowd is bumpin' in front of me, but alas, that is not the case. It has been, but not tonight. There seems to be something going on in the SU that is more enticing than my music. What has this world come to. We're now moving to the "Seed 2.0"; just a little soundtrack update.

This week has been good. Uneventful, but interesting. My lit theory class has moved on to Marxism. Thus far, we've been looking more at it as cultural theory/critical theory, though I guess the two are in many ways inseperable from lit theory. Marxism seems to make the point, or at least maintain the hope, that there could be something better. Modern day capitalism on the other hand, views us humans as inherently self-interested; sadly, it seems to have proven a more accurate description of reality, but perhaps that is just because it has dominated the discussion. Aha, the Marxist conceit. Ahhhh! somehow my not so sober mind made it back to politics, and I haven't even been very eloquent.

I'm drinking bourbon. That's about the extent of my life at this present moment. Ohh, I'm also listening to MC Solaire.

But I think this is enough for now. I hope all of you are having as much fun as I am.

Robert Bresson

I recently watched Bresson's "A Man Escaped from Death or The Wind Will Blow Where it Wants". It's a wonderful movie, one of the most memorable I have ever seen. The film very nicely straddles the fence between an existentialist view of reality oriented towards individual action, and a christian view where Providence has great import. If time allows over the weekend, I may say something about it in a little more depth. For now, I must be off. I have to come to some sort of understanding of Deleuze's "Image-mouvement" for my presentation tomorrow.

Amnesty International Toes the Wrong Line

In a recent report entitled "It's in our Hands: Stop Violence Against Women", Amnesty International has come out in favour of voluntary censorship. As an article from the Globe and Mail online says:

Amnesty says it is not officially condemning Kill Bill, a film about an ex-assassin betrayed by her boss who swears revenge on her former master, or calling for censorship of Hollywood films.

Instead, the human-rights group, which also lobbies for freedom of expression, is calling on filmmakers, entertainers and the media to be more responsible in their depiction of women.

"People should think when they compose music or lyrics how their attitudes towards women may contribute to violence against women," said Gita Sahgal, who is with Amnesty's international secretariat. "We are not calling for a ban on films, or for more controls. The film industry contributes to a tolerance of violence towards women. We urge those in popular culture to think about ways they might be stereotyping women."

My problem is this:

I don't believe we need anyone handing Lieberman, Gore, and their future ilk (Liberal and Conservative alike) anymore fodder for pushing through censorship legislation (or anthing similar in Canada). In supporting the view that popular culture determines peoples' belief structure (I'm just making up terms here) and, hence (to some extent), their consequent action, Amnesty has given that movement (pro-censorship) greater credence and a larger voice. The problem is that politicians tend not towards voluntary arrangements, but to legislation and its consequent laws. As conceivable as it is that Amnesty and other censorship minded politicians may be right about the deleterious effect of pop culture on morality, the risk of government censhorship is a far greater evil than the possible consequences of any cultural artifact (books, movie, music, etc.). Though Amnesty states that they "are not calling" for censorship, their position on the underlying issue cannot but advance the cause of the would be censors.

An afterthought:

Having stated the case as I believe it needs to be, I am willing to admit that I was perhaps too polemical in arguing the above. Though I did admit that it is conceivable that art has a direct influence on morality, I didn't give any reasons as to why. This is in part because I haven't the faintest idea myself, at least not in any coherent articulable manner. But I will at least add here that some notable philosophers believe art to have a rather powerful ability in the domain of moral education/analysis. Both Martha Nussbaum and the late Iris Murdoch have written about the literary text as a focus for ethical issues. The former has asserted, controversially, that novels can themselves be works of moral philosophy.

If a text can elucidate morality, can it not then also obfuscate it, perhaps hampering it and bringing about a regression in moral aptitude? Could this not also be true of other mediums of communication (other arts). It seems rather odd to speak of moral aptitude. Being that I am not ethicist, I may have framed the question wrong, though in Mrs. Murdoch's view it would be my ignorance of metaphysics that has left me unable to formulate the proper question. If the question interests you, here are a couple of journals worth looking at (I haven't read them, but they were cited more than occasionally in my cursory research):
"Symposium on Morality and Literature" in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 2 (January, 1988)
"Literature and/as Moral Philosophy" in New Literary History, Vol. XV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983)