John R. Saul and Bollywood? In the same entry? nooo !
Hi again!!
So - um, I'm not great at this updating business am I? Aha, sorry everyone, school has started and thus, I am busy.
But there are a couple of things I wanna talk about: firstly, bollywood movies specifically their songs and a bit of a response to John Raulston Saul's "A Fair Country".
And so we come to bollywood. Alright I love bollywood films; their unapologetic drama, romance, betrayal and passion are something reminiscant of 1900 silent films. But bollywood films' greatest strength is in exactly the opposite; the music. They are famous for their amazing, elaborately choreographed dances and songs. Though many actors are also fantastic dancers, almost none are also great singers.
But singers such as
Shreya Ghoshal
A.R. Rahman and others take the credit for the songs. And wow, should they ever.
A lot of people think of most Indian singing as shrill or nasal; what they don't realize is that almost every culture around the world reverse a less "pretty" or "american" voice, but instead cultivates voices that have character and strength. Traditional Scottish and Irish singing, sean nos, stylizes heavily and demands a natural, fiery voice. Same goes for many oriental styles of singing, native american styles...it's everywhere.
That said! I love Shreya Ghoshal she is my favorite singer! Check her out on youtube, she does great live ; every single trill hits all the right notes, her tone is pitch perfect to match the song, and she sings with great emotion. I really like Barso Re, watch that, it rocks.
*sips tea*
And we come to John Raulston Saul. I know I talked about him before, and this book, but now that I'm more than halfway through it I think it's time to re-visit some of the premises and arguments this book makes.
Argument one: Canada is a Métis nation, and only recently have we've tried to really model a ideal, british colonies view, which has taken a huge toll on the psychology of the country. This is one that I had a hard time understanding initally, but once he went through and explained just how much ideology we borrow from the Native Americans it became much clearer - our tendancy to "middle way", wanting to negotiate and not fight, our distrust of capitalism, our easy acceptance of nationalities. Notice too: "Métis." Not just aboriginal, more of a fusion between western and native styles. Our ties to the aboriginal are far stronger than our ties to the European.
The very best of Canada ; our tolerance we take pride in, our unease with reckless use of nature and our tendancy to favour discussion over action are all things we took to heart from native american society. The problem is we don't acknowledge it, and our leaders try and pretend we have nothing to do with it. This self-denial causes a huge rift in our society, consciously or not, and we can see it's effects. What used to be so clear is muddled, what we once understood our leaders now tell us is wrong.
Argument two: Colonial mindset has ruined the past 30 years of Canadian politics. This, I totally agree with. He doesn't just bash at the elite for no reason; he puts out there exactly what leaders should be done, and show's how our leader's just aren't doing it. How they don't have the interest of people at heart; they're afraid to talk to the people, to open discussion and ask for new ideas. They have failed us, because they try and act colonial, when the midnest of a Canadian is instictively much more aboriginal.
Well! That's it! I'm off to bed now, gotta get up and go to painting class. I'm off to have some blueberry tea, read a bit more, draw Vinland Saga (PS - that's for next time.
I totally big-heart that manga) and then sleep. G'night!!
