Archives for February 2010

How on earth did I miss hearing about Lourdes?

“Jessica Hausner’s strange, mesmerizing Lourdes approaches this religious mythology with an ambiguousness that can be deeply frustrating at first, as Hausner refuses to take a position on whether the town is a wellspring of spiritual gifts, or a gaudy, exploitative tourist trap. Then the story shifts, and the film becomes an inquiry into miracles—who gets them, who doesn’t, and how it all fits into God’s inscrutable plan.”

This was a very good movie, somewhat reminiscent of Groundhog Day in its portrayal of an alternate universe, very much like our own and yet strange beyond belief – I mean this quite literally. In the universe of The Invention of Lying, however, people by nature tell the truth, are incapable of deceit, and fiction of any kind – movies, books, whatever – would be utterly incomprehensible to its inhabitants. It’s an interesting, if obviously impossible premise explored with great humor by the great Ricky Gervais, creator of The Office and the founder of that 80s pop sensation, Seona Dancing.

A lot of jokes work on the simplest of levels, as when Mark Bellison (Gervais) simply tells the bank teller he has more money than he actually does, or tells a beautiful woman that the world will end unless she sleeps with him. The poor naifs believe him, as they must, and we all have a good chuckle. Much worse is when people simply blurt out what they’re thinking; apparently they are as incapable of discretion as they are deceit:

ANNA: I was just masturbating.
MARK: That… makes me think of your vagina.

“Ha ha”, as Nelson Muntz says.

But the movie verges on greatness as Mark tries to use his invention to win the woman he loves. What exactly are the implications of lying for the pursuit of love? If sexual love were pursued without seduction and manipulation, what would it be like? If love seems to require more than seduction and psychological manipulation, why is this? Likewise, if the world of human interactions is entirely truthful, what can we make of the value of honesty? What are we to make of values in relation to honesty; indeed, is it possible to speak of “values” at all? If there are no lies, does truth even exist? If “Truth” casts no shadows, what is the importance of such intangibles as courage or compassion? This complete lack of scale and proportion in these intangibles is perhaps best portrayed by the drab, utilitarian surroundings everywhere; while taking note of the utterly mundane furnishings, the clothes – even the advertisements – I could only think, “Of course!”

The religious and, uh … spiritual dimensions of Mark’s invention are portrayed less satisfactorily, although there are some fine gags. As Mark’s more profound lies about the reality of death and the possibility of an afterlife become the previously unrealized aspirations of everyone, he understands that he can’t simply appear before everyone reading from a script on flimsy paper. They need to be on tablets of some kind, and since granite isn’t readily available, pizza boxes will have to do. When he begins to crack under the strain of this all “spirituality”, newfound success, and lost love (but is it love?), he naturally begins to look like Moses. Or Jesus. A drunken Jesus, maybe, but again we can only say, “Of course!”

The movie points towards romantic love as a new and perhaps higher form of truth as the guarantor of the natural truth that nobody except Mark understands as vulnerable. If the full implication of that isn’t worked out to a higher dramatic purpose, well, it is a romantic comedy we’re watching, and we understand how that has to end. Life isn’t often like this, but who can stop wishing it were?

If we are to atone for this kind of guilt, would it not be better to follow the path of peace? And if it’s peace we want (“Peace be with you!”), would it not be be better to just … submit? After all, Islam is the religion of peace.

But to how do we submit? It’s really not all that difficult. Conversion comes pretty easy to a lot of us, and if the search for integrity and conforming to an increasing social trend isn’t enough, there’s always the dress code.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and producer of the documentary Fitna, is on trial in the Netherlands for insulting Islam. “Hate Speech”, in the parlance of our own legal code.

Wilders lives under armed guard because of explicit death threats against him by Mr. Bouyeri and other Muslims. But he’s the one put on trial for incitement. His movie about Islam, Fitna, is deemed to be “inflammatory,” whereas a new film by Willem Stegeman, De moord op Geert Wilders (The Assassination of Geert Wilders), is so non-inflammatory and entirely acceptable that it’s been produced and promoted by a government-funded radio station. You’d almost get the impression that, as the website Gates of Vienna suggested, the Dutch state is channelling Henry II: “Who will rid me of this turbulent blond?”

One question:

Since Wilders “lives under armed guard because of explicit death threats,” is he not therefore guilty of inciting violence? And pretty obviously guilty at that?

This song features Branford Marsalis playing one of the happiest saxophone solos I have ever heard. Not that I’ve heard that many. But I like this one. It starts at about 2:23.