(no subject)
Watched The Interpreter tonight... we were going to go see The Upside of Anger, but we ended up getting the wrong tickets and then switching for this one, which is fine with me, since I wanted to see it anyway.
I really liked it. Really liked how delicately the relationship between Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn's characters were played, how there was tension but how it didn't tip over into romance.
I don't know. The movie just got me thinking about things, about how little I know about African history. I took a class called "The World Since 1500" in college -- mostly it was on the effects of colonization and imperialism and how it shaped the world today, and it was fascinating. One of the profs. who taught the course was an expert on African history, and although we touched on it a little for the class, I've forever wanted to know more afterwards, because there are so many things happening there and I don't know the historial backdrop at all, so I feel like I am not informed about it at all. Yah, that's me... I never feel like I'm informed until I've had about 5 centuries worth of historical context so I know how all the ideas and whatnot developed.
And it just seemed to be a very idealistic movie about the UN, about the power of words and diplomacy, which I particularly appreciated, especially since the movie seems to be marketed as a thriller, and usually thrillers have a more conservative political stance. I am a horrible idealist, and while the boy used to argue all the time that the UN was ineffectual, it is still something I believe in, and there is still something rather inspiring about so many nations gathering under one roof to hear something and to discuss things. I also liked the movie because of how it made the political personal, and how it felt so international.
This is me just making gigantic generalizations, but I feel that thrillers, particularly political thrillers, tend to have a very nationalistic bent to them at times. Air Force One, the Tom Clancy adaptations, etc. It's about saving the president, saving the reputation of the country and such. And it's about it being ok to use guns and violence as long as it's to protect the country, and this is a concept that does disturb me. Of course, this is me, and I really dislike violence. I liked that even though there were the trappings of a thriller about this movie, in the end it was about words and about putting down guns. And I can hear the quiet whispers of Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn's voices in my head still, and for a thriller, it's got a remarkable amount of dialogue about some rather abstract things, and I don't think it's a coincidence that there is this emphasis on voices and words and speech, given that the Kidman character is an interpreter and that she stresses the importance of words and connotations in one of the beginning scenes.
This concept of words and diplomacy, of interpreting languages and of being multi-national or trans-national, this is important to me in a way that I can't quite pinpoint. I think part of it must have something to do with not feeling like I'm a part of any nation, and so this gathering of nations is something that I like. And while I understand the love of nation, I am wary because love of nation often leads to polarization, to rhetoric against other nations (the jokes about France floating around when the US first sent troops to Iraq bothered me a great deal). I don't know. I feel that underneath everything, there should be a sense of the personal, of how it is political because being human should be enough to make other people and governments care about your fate.
As I said, I am an idealist. And now I am going to go rent Hotel Rwanda and finally read the book on that event that my sister gave me, because I feel responsible, in some way. Not quite responsible for it, but responsible for knowing, for bearing witness. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone, but that's how it feels in my head.
On a lighter note, I went to Borders and was bad. Borders had a buy-2-get-one-free sale for manga. Er. Yes. Luckily, they did not have the new Connie Brockway in stock, so I was not tempted further, but I got vols. 1-3 of Angel Sanctuary and a book on the modern history of Tibet, which was on sale for $4. It's a remainder, so it's sort of beat up, but it's got a great blurb from the NYTimes on the front, and I know nothing about Tibet, and I feel I should know something. Onto the pile it goes.
I really liked it. Really liked how delicately the relationship between Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn's characters were played, how there was tension but how it didn't tip over into romance.
I don't know. The movie just got me thinking about things, about how little I know about African history. I took a class called "The World Since 1500" in college -- mostly it was on the effects of colonization and imperialism and how it shaped the world today, and it was fascinating. One of the profs. who taught the course was an expert on African history, and although we touched on it a little for the class, I've forever wanted to know more afterwards, because there are so many things happening there and I don't know the historial backdrop at all, so I feel like I am not informed about it at all. Yah, that's me... I never feel like I'm informed until I've had about 5 centuries worth of historical context so I know how all the ideas and whatnot developed.
And it just seemed to be a very idealistic movie about the UN, about the power of words and diplomacy, which I particularly appreciated, especially since the movie seems to be marketed as a thriller, and usually thrillers have a more conservative political stance. I am a horrible idealist, and while the boy used to argue all the time that the UN was ineffectual, it is still something I believe in, and there is still something rather inspiring about so many nations gathering under one roof to hear something and to discuss things. I also liked the movie because of how it made the political personal, and how it felt so international.
This is me just making gigantic generalizations, but I feel that thrillers, particularly political thrillers, tend to have a very nationalistic bent to them at times. Air Force One, the Tom Clancy adaptations, etc. It's about saving the president, saving the reputation of the country and such. And it's about it being ok to use guns and violence as long as it's to protect the country, and this is a concept that does disturb me. Of course, this is me, and I really dislike violence. I liked that even though there were the trappings of a thriller about this movie, in the end it was about words and about putting down guns. And I can hear the quiet whispers of Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn's voices in my head still, and for a thriller, it's got a remarkable amount of dialogue about some rather abstract things, and I don't think it's a coincidence that there is this emphasis on voices and words and speech, given that the Kidman character is an interpreter and that she stresses the importance of words and connotations in one of the beginning scenes.
This concept of words and diplomacy, of interpreting languages and of being multi-national or trans-national, this is important to me in a way that I can't quite pinpoint. I think part of it must have something to do with not feeling like I'm a part of any nation, and so this gathering of nations is something that I like. And while I understand the love of nation, I am wary because love of nation often leads to polarization, to rhetoric against other nations (the jokes about France floating around when the US first sent troops to Iraq bothered me a great deal). I don't know. I feel that underneath everything, there should be a sense of the personal, of how it is political because being human should be enough to make other people and governments care about your fate.
As I said, I am an idealist. And now I am going to go rent Hotel Rwanda and finally read the book on that event that my sister gave me, because I feel responsible, in some way. Not quite responsible for it, but responsible for knowing, for bearing witness. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone, but that's how it feels in my head.
On a lighter note, I went to Borders and was bad. Borders had a buy-2-get-one-free sale for manga. Er. Yes. Luckily, they did not have the new Connie Brockway in stock, so I was not tempted further, but I got vols. 1-3 of Angel Sanctuary and a book on the modern history of Tibet, which was on sale for $4. It's a remainder, so it's sort of beat up, but it's got a great blurb from the NYTimes on the front, and I know nothing about Tibet, and I feel I should know something. Onto the pile it goes.