More on Philip Pullman

Boo, hiss etc

As readers of this blog may remember, I was not overly enamoured of The Golden Compass, upon its release in the UK last December. I criticised it on several grounds in my review and concluded, "If I was Philip Pullman, I would be sorely disappointed by the treatment of my work."

Well, apropros of that comment, I was listening to a recent podcast of Simon Mayo's Book Club last night, and heard a very interesting comment by one of the reviewers. He cited Philip Pullman as saying that the first casualty of a book being made into a film is its literary quality. The characters go into the film, as does the action, but the themes and ideas that make the book literary are lost. The reviewer concluded by saying that he felt Pullman probably "felt burned." I think he must do, and I don't blame him.

Looking at Pullman's website, I note that the front page appears not to have been updated since The Golden Compass was released, for he says that "The film is out now, and if you go and see it, I hope you find plenty to enjoy. I shall have more to say about it in due course." Perhaps he has to wait until the dvd goes on sale and all his contractual obligations to be supportive of the film have ended before he says what he really thinks. It will be interesting to see.

On a lighter note, Pullman's biography is a light hearted and self-effacing read. He says that, "[I] went to Exeter College, Oxford, to read English, though I never learned to read it very well".

Winning is Habit Forming

Saracens 6 Harlequins 15

This report is a little belated as Quins played Saracens last weekend but given that I wasn't even at the game, I don't think that matters. Saracens play at Vicarage Road, Watford FC's ground, so given I live in London, why wasn't I there? I didn't go on account of the ridiculous timing of the match: 6:30pm on Sunday. I have heard two reasons for this aberrant timing: football's League Cup earlier in the day, which Sky TV was covering as well as the rugby, and the fact that Sky wanted to see if there was a market for Sunday evening rugby. I hope there isn't. Silly times for games are bad enough in football.

Instead of travelling to Watford, I joined Our Man of the Antonii and his new Cleopatra at the Old White Bear in Hampstead, where we watched the match on Sky Television. Neither of us expected a Quins win (Cleopatra being from Egypt probably being rather bemused by the whole rugbying process) on account of their recent poor form and since they are not good travellers. Thus, the first half was a revelation. Sarries kicked off the scoring with a penalty and then... did nothing allowing Quins to strike back with a penalty of their own - after last weekend's nightmare, it was excellent to see Adrian Jarvis score.

A lovely photograph of Quins' homeground, the Stoop,
from the Guinness Premiership website

Quins pushed forward and were rewarded with two tries. One from Chris Robshaw, the fearless and foolhardy lock (think Lewis Moody) and a fantastic try by Ugo Monye on the wing. There was the pack on the far side of the pitch, pushing into Saracens territory. Someone (Danny Care? who had a wonderful game) saw Monye, kicked it right across the pitch to him. Saracens nearest man was some feet away, so Monye had time to let the ball bounce, see where it was going to end up, before catching it and take off past the try line.

The second half saw Saracens come back at Quins with a vengence. But, for all the possession they enjoyed - about 80% of it, they could only add three more points by the finish. Harlequins delights in making life hard for its fans, even when winning, so, in accordance with that policy, after a half of being pushed back by Saracens, lock Chris Hala'Ufia got himself sin binned with three minutes to go. Saracens could not take advantage and so, on a rainy night in Watford, Quins came away with an unexpected but very pleasing win.

In other news, Quins' scrum half, Danny Care, has been called up by England for the next Six Nations match vs. Scotland. This is great news for him and for Harlequins. He becomes the third Quins player to play for his country since promotion back to the Premiership at the end of the 2005/6 season (along with Nick Easter and Andy Gomarsall).

Tomorrow, Harlequins play Gloucester at the Stoop. Once again, this game is on Sky. though at the more sporting hour of 2:30pm. Gloucester come to the Stoop as league leaders. They ought to leave with all the points as well, but no Quins fan will forgive the fright we gave them at Kingsholm earlier in the season! Let's hope that that first half performance can be turned into an 80 minute performance!

CSL and Smoking

I mentioned in my last post how Charles Dance bore no physical resemblance to C. S. Lewis and a couple of things about the play that jumped out at it. I forgot to mention a third. At no point during the play did Dance light up a cigarette or pipe.

Lewis was a heavy smoker all his life. Over the years, his study rug at Magdalen College lost its colour under the constant fall of ash. Despite this, Dance portrays him as a tobacco teetotaller. During the play, I wondered if this was because of the recently introduced Smoking Laws here in England which banned smoking from all public places. But surely theatres would be exempted, or able to obtain an exemption from the law, on the grounds of artistic necessity?

As I write this post, I look on Google to see if I can find an answer to the question. And, hey presto! Here is an article from the wonderful BBC On Line. In short, in England, although the final say belongs to the local council, it appears that actors can light up in order to maintain the 'artistic integrity' of their performance. In Scotland, however, the answer is absolutely no. Clearly, the Labour mini-me government there takes its nannying role far more seriously than the English version does.

Shadowlands by William Nicholson

Last night, L. and I visited the Ivor Novello Theatre to see Shadowlands, starring Charles Dance as C. S. Lewis and Janie Dee as Joy Gresham. The story of their relationship, prematurely ended by Joy's death from cancer in 1960 is the saddest I know - unless someone were to write a play about Elodie Belloc's death - but while this production was not as openly weepy as Sir Richard Attenborough's 1993 film version, it still pulled at the heartstrings.

Physically speaking, Charles Dance is quite unlike Lewis. He (Dance) is tall, slender and in good health. I can't remember how tall Lewis was, but I do know that he was overweight and in slowly declining health through the course of years. In fact, this accelerated during the period that he knew Joy (was it a coincidence that during her illness he prayed that he might take on some of her pain?) and resulted in his death just three years after hers. However, Shadowlands is about Joy's illness, not Lewis's, and as there is not even a photograph of Lewis in the programme, I doubt very much that Dance's unlikeness to Lewis's physical appearance was an issue for the audience.

What should have been an issue is William Nicholson's interpretation of Lewis's character. He changes it so fundamentally that the person called C. S. Lewis on the stage might as well be another one - not the famous author at all. Nicholson's Lewis is a lively fellow, but a little shy and inexperienced in the ways of the world; firmly entrenched in his Oxford 'comfort zone'. The real C. S. Lewis was not only lively but could be exuberant. He fought in the Great War and had seen the world. It is true that he did not travel widely, at least, not abroad, but Lewis had an enduring engagement with the world through his correspondence as well as his friends who, it should be said, included women as well as men.

Why does Nicholson so change Lewis's character? I suppose it must be for dramatic purposes. After all, the story is in part about how Joy draws Lewis out of his settled and therefore 'unreal' life and into the real one where one must not only talk about suffering but undergo it. This would be hard to do with any force if Lewis was already 'out there'.

The stage for Shadowlands was fairly minimal with the action happening underneath high walls of books. There was a desk and some chairs for the scenes set at Lewis's home, the Kilns, with a bed and curtains coming on for the later hospital scenes. Behind the book towers, the stage was backlit according to the mood of the scene. A guest appearance was made by the legendary wardrobe. Whereas in the film, Doug Gresham enters it to only find the wall at the back, however, in the play, he was during a moment of wish fulfillment permitted to step into Narnia.

Speaking of the film, a couple of things jumped out at me in watching the play. Firstly, I had not realised how funny it was, or, if that gives the inaccurate suggestion that Shadowlands is a comedy, how many jokes there are. I think all the jokes that I heard last night are in the film, but watching it by oneself does not necessarily inspire one to laugh at them all. An audience will, so I gained a good appreciation of the play's lighter side. The second thing was that the character of Whistler (James Frain) is not present in the play. In the film, he is the young student who Lewis sees stealing a book one day. He tries to help him but Whistler rejects his help. It is sad because Whistler is the one student who really cares about literature. They meet again at the end of the film, when both men are older and wiser (Whistler has become a teacher after dropping out of university). Speaking from memory, and therefore, under correction, he (Whistler) is in the film to highlight Lewis's untested idealism and then illustrate the length he has come out of it but I must watch the picture again to make sure.

C. S. Lewis and Joy Gresham

Back to the play. The actors were all very good. Dance and Dee aside, I must mention Osmund Bullock as Prof. Christopher Riley. Wonderfully belligerent and yet fragile; Richard Durden as Warnie Lewis. Every inch the former major. I am not sure I really liked his military accent, but it did not detract from his performance. I could go on - Christian or Jonah Lees as Douglas Gresham (I don't know which as they are identical twins!), Drew Mulligan as Fr Bide. Actually, he appears but for a moment but I remembered him especially as the real Fr Bide had a reputation as a healer. That reminds me that the Reverend Harry Harrington, ably played by Graham Padden is - if memory serves - the fictionalised version of Humphrey Carpenter's father, who was obliged to refuse to marry Lewis and Joy because of her previous marriage.

Before concluding, I must say that one of the joys of having read all of Lewis's books was that I was able to watch the play and try and guess which book some of the lines quote. Actually, it is The Problem of Pain which is mentioned if at all. Mere Christianity and Surprised By Joy are also used, as is A Grief Observed. Or so I thought. Reading a short interview with William Nicholson in the programme, he states that "... in fact there's only one line of the real C S Lewis in the whole play and that is, 'Pain is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world.'" When I first read this, I thought that meant that he doesn't use any of Lewis's works at all, which was manifestly not true. However, as I write now, I see he is very specific in his reference to actual lines used.

The mark of a good film is that one is inspired to find out more about the subject afterwards. The best compliment that I can pay this production of Shadowlands is that it has inspired me to return to CSL's books. I think I may even look for Attenborough's film again, though I don't think I could bear to watch it the whole way through just yet

How to Lose An Unlosable Argument

David Cameron is under pressure to apologise following the Conservative Party's accusation that the Government's policy of funding trips to Auschwitz is a 'gimmick'.

BBC On Line reports the Tories as claiming that "the government has promised funding for two pupils from every sixth form and college in the country to visit the Nazi concentration camp where millions of Jews were murdered during World War II." but has failed to live up to this promise because "schools must find £100 towards the £350 cost of every sixth formers' trip."

Now, either the Government has indeed reneged on its promise to provide free trips to Auschwitz or it has not because it never promised to provide them in the first place. Which is it? One person from whom the answer will not be found is Ed Balls, Schools Secretary. Here, according to BBC On Line, is his considered response with my comments underneath each paragraph:

"Anyone who has seen the horrors of Auschwitz at first-hand knows what a life-changing experience it is.
No doubt true, but, as far as this issue is concerned, completely beside the point. The Labour Government either promised to provide complete funding for the trips or it did not. Get to the point. Which is it?

"To call the announcement I made of £4.65m to fund visits by school children over the next three years a 'gimmick' just beggars belief.
We are getting a little closer to the heart of the matter here. Labour has given £4.5 million to fund these trips, but again, was this money to fund the trips completely or not. Which is it?

"In trying to make this issue into a matter of party politics, David Cameron has shown once again that he not only lacks judgement but also a basic sense of decency."
By declining to answer the Conservative allegation straight out, Ed Balls is also guilty of making this issue a matter of party politics. He has no right to complaint about David Cameron in that regard. And in so doing, well, he has either shown his own lack of judgement or ignorance of the answer to the Conservative allegation or both. I suspect both.

What makes the above so unnecessary is that the BBC reports a Labour Party spokesman as saying "Schools had always been asked to come up with £100 towards each trip so that they were contributing to the experience". (and indeed, this is confirmed by this BBC On Line report) Why could Ed Balls have not said the same thing instead of wasting his time and ours with irrelevant and evasive comments? And he claims that David Cameron has no decency!

What I pulled out of Ed Balls eye, earlier

The goal was open, Ed Balls missed. Luckily, a spokesman appears to have knocked it in on the rebound. Unfortunately for Labour the goal will now be remembered for the idiotic miss that just preceded it.

The Oxford Colloquium

A few days ago, I mentioned the Catholic Bloggers Colloquium that had been held in Oxford by the Newman Society. Reports of the event were slow to appear (Fr John Zuhlsdorf of What Does The Prayer Really Say was one of the first to post about it but - understandably - got distracted by the beauty of Oxford and ended up not saying anything about the colloquium at all!) but now may be found on Lacrimarum Valle, Fr Hunwike's Liturgical Notes and Massinformation. The latter two blogs are actually authored by Anglicans, which you would hardly guess reading them.

Now, the colloquium was held to "discuss the nature of blogs--who read[s] them and why; why are they written; do the bloggers have a social responsibility; and should we even care about them?" Given that all of the bloggers who took part in the event have a particular interest in the Liturgy, it was perhaps not surprising that discussion of it seems almost to have hijacked at least part of the evening. So, for example, while Athanasius of Massinformation's mention of Fr Zuhlsdorf's 'insider information' about the Vatican is interesting to read, I can't see how it is relevant to a discussion on blogs, social responsibility of the same, etc. With that said, it certainly sounds like Fr Lawrence delivered an interesting paper on the vices and virtues of the internet which, while not pertaining directly to the title of the colloquium, perhaps draws closer to it.

On the colloquium question, I bet it is not possible to nail down the kind of people who reads blogs. The answer (hopefully!) is too wide ranging. In respect of Catholic blogs, I wonder though, if liberal Catholics read (or write) them. Although my list of British Catholic Bloggers is by no means exhaustive, there must be nearly a hundred on it now, and I don't think any of them are liberal in their outlook. The question of why people read blogs must surely require a list of answers as long as your arm. Do they have a social responsibility? Catholic blogs certainly should be faithful to Holy Mother Church, but I do not see that they need to have a 'social responsibility' if by that it is meant that they ought to speak out about any given issue.

Should we care about blogs? If 'we' means Catholics then it would be good if we did as they are certainly an excellent method of bringing together like minded people in dispirit (sp?) locations. I wonder if this is not the particular gift of blogs like The Hermeneutic of Continuity and What Does the Prayer Really Say? Especially because insofar as they are written by priests, the feedback that the writers get may more easily be communicated to the bishops and so forth than by a layman.

The Oscars

Tomorrow is Oscar night. As I mentioned in my last post, There Will Be Blood could be a big winner. It is up for eight awards, including Best Actor, Best Picture and Best Director. It's main rival will, of course, be No Country for Old Men. For a film-by-film run down of the nominations, visit the official Oscars website here.

As you will see, Atonement and Michael Clayton are not far behind the above pictures. As I have not seen Atonement, I can make no comment on it. Michael Clayton, however, I saw a few months ago and I have to say that I am astonished that it has received so many nominations (7). It was a second class George Clooney film. Not in the league of Syriana, Goodnight and Goodluck, O Brother Where Art Thou or, even, Ocean's 11. It was just dull.

What has really made me wonder if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had its head screwed on right when it drew up the nominations for this year's awards is its failure to recognise The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. My review of this most excellent film is here. And here is the trailer.

Jesse James has just two nominations - Best Supporting Actor (Casey Affleck) and Cinematography. Even The Transformers had three nominations! I hope that in the year's to come, Jesse James will be recognised as a classic and one that the Academy unfairly allowed to get away!

There Will Be Blood

At the beginning of the month I was looking forward to seeing No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. You can read the review of the former here. A couple of weeks ago, L. and I saw the later. No review appeared in Cally's Kitchen on account of, Daniel Day-Lewis' performance apart, the film just didn't inspire me to write anything about it. I will say a few words here instead.

There Will Be Blood is set in the midwest of America in the early part of the (20th) century and tells the story of an oilman named Plainview (Day-Lewis) who strikes it big. Unfortunately, Plainview is a nasty piece of work and gets his oil at the expence of a small town church. A half hearted feud with its preacher follows. Along the way, Plainview acquires a dead man's son to project the image of a family man to his customers, disposes of the son when he loses his hearing in an accident and brings him back when he undergoes a false conversion after being caught killing a man.

It looks like There Will Be Blood will be the big winner at the Oscars tomorrow. Daniel Day-Lewis deserves every award going. He doesn't just act but actually inhabits the body of the character he is playing. Plainview goes through a moral degeneration in the film and a physical one, too. Day-Lewis represents this wonderfully. A broken leg early in the film leads to an increasingly pronounced limp and hunched back as the film moves on.

The other acting performances are also laudable - particularly Paul Dano as the Eli Sunday, Plainview's arch-rival - as is the cinematography. The story, however, is where the film breaks down. It just isn't very compelling. Plainview is not quite as one dimensionally nasty as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men but he is getting there. He has no real redeeming feature that might make the viewer care for him nor a equal rival who can effectively challenge him and create an epic struggle between the two. We might as well be watching a film of the Titanic bash its way through a few small icebergs for two hours before sinking as a result of the various injuries sustained along the way. Either that or old episodes of Dallas. At least it managed to make the dislikable likable.

A Win!

Harlequins 36 Worcester Warriors 15

On the surface of it, this was a straight forward victory for Harlequins. However, the Quins are not yet so good that anything is ever straight forward for them. Although Worcestor provided second rate opposition at the Stoop, Harlequins threatened to gift the game to them with an exceptionally poor kicking display by Fly Half Adrian Jarvis. What was worrying was not only the fact that he missed over ten points but the innacuracy and sheer weakness of some of his kicks. It was as if he was kicking with a dead leg. Not surprising, then, the exclamations of disgust and ironic cheers from some fans around me when he missed badly or finally managed to put the ball between the posts.

That is not the whole story, though. Although yesterday is a day that Jarvis will want to forget, it is worth mentioning that he did score a few points, including a conversion from the corner of the 22. Perhaps it was just 'a bad day at the office' for him, but at least we saw that he can up his game under pressure. Well done to him for sticking it out and well done to Dean Richards for not pulling him off when it was looking like he could not hit a barn door from five feet. For more on Jarvis, see below.

It wasn't only Adrian Jarvis who was making mistakes. Both sides lost the ball and were guilty of errant passes. The most astonishing mistake of the afternoon, though, was with Quins. We got the ball to within a few feet of the tryline - right underneath the posts; it was passed to one of our players who, admittedly, had his back to the tryline, but who only needed to turn round and dive in order to score. Instead, he stood his ground, and passed it back. It was as if he didn't want to take responsibility for the goal.

On the plus side, as is being reported on the Come All Within website, Adrian Jarvis - though awful with the ball - justified his presence on the pitch with a fine 'playmaking' performance. I think this means, among other things, that he distributed the ball well at the breakdown. Here are some more positives that one contributor at CAW mentions:

- sharp in attack
- scored 5 tries
- midfield defence
- made the hard yards
- quicker ball

As for Worcester, though they played poorly, it was with their heads up. They certainly did not look like a team that has won only once this season. Special mention must also be made of the travelling fans who were very vocal in their support. Could Worcester be relegated? They are in 11th place with 11 points - one game and 5 points ahead of Leeds Carnegie. I think Worcester will survive because I can see them scraping enough wins to stay up. Unfortunately, I can't see where Leeds might even win their first game in this season. If they do get relegated, however, I am quite sure that Leeds will be promoted at the first attempt. If this happens, it must inspire the Premier League to consider the reformation of the current promotion / relegation set up. It is a waste of time and opportunity for the same Premier League clubs to go up and down year in and out.

As for Harlequins, the team face a tough game next Sunday against Saracens. This game will be at 6:30pm. A ridiculous time for a rugby game but for the benefit of Sky TV viewers.

Of Macedonia

Courtesy of The Croydonian, I read this article in Kathimerini concerning a proposal to name The Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), The New Republic of Macedonia. Between 1992 and 1995, the FYROM national flag was the sixteen point sun:

It was a politically charged image to use because it was also the image found on a golden larnax in Vergina, northern Greece during an archaeological dig in the late 70s. Regular readers of this blog will know where I am going here. The archaeologist who made the discovery of the larnax (a box which contains human remains) claimed that it was the larnax of Philip II, father of Alexander the Great:

Greece already contested the naming of FYROM on the grounds that calling itself Macedonia implied a territorial claim on the Greek province of the same name, so when FYROM unfurled its flag, well, needless to say, Greece was not happy. As a result of this, the flag was changed after just three years use.

That the golden larnax is Phillip's final resting place is not certain. Some scholars believe it holds the cremated remains of Alexander's half brother, Phillip Arrhidaios. The one person whose remains it certainly does not hold is Alexander's himself.

Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC. His 'successor' as king was Perdiccas, who sent his body back to Macedon to be buried according to Macedonian rites, i.e., cremation. But Ptolemy, one of Alexander's marshals who was now satrap (Governor) of Egypt, stole it. This was a great blow to the ambitions of Perdiccas as one of the ways in which Macedonian kings proved that they were the legitimate successor of the deceased was by burying the predecessor.

Ptolemy buried Alexander first in Memphis and then in Alexandria. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that he was entombed as his body remained on show to the high and mighty throughout the reign of the Ptolomies, which did not come to an end until the death of Cleopatra VII - wife of Mark Antony - following the Battle of Actium.

Following his defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian visited Alexandria to pay his respects to Alexander. Several more Roman emperors did likewise. In fact, the last written reference to a visit to Alexander's grave is from Caracalla's visit in the early Third Century. From then on, there are a few references and not much else.

What happened to Alexander's mausuleum? I suspect it was destroyed during Christian - Pagan riots in the late fourth century. Hopefully, Alexander himself received a proper burial but who knows.

In the early 1800s, British antiquarians bought the Rosetta Stone back from Egypt. With it came a green sarcophagus that for a while was believed to have held Alexander's body. But when its heiroglyphs were translated (thanks ultimately to the French scholar Champollion) the coffin was discovered to belong to the last indigenous pharoah of Egypt, Nectanebo II.

But this was not the first time his name had come up in connection with Alexander's, as The Alexander Romance, claims that after being overthrown by the Great King of Persia, Artaxerxes III, in 343 BC, Nectanebo did not flee to Nubia and obscurity, but travelled to Macedon where he met Olympias and fathered her son, Alexander. It is a nice story, but given that The Alexander Romance is a collection of fanciful tales, it is not to be given a great deal of historical credence.

Bloggers Unite

It was with interest that I read of a 'Blogger's Colloquiem' which was held in Oxford by the Newman Society last night. Here are the details - as taken from the Hermeutic of Continuity:

To discuss the issue of blogs as a social force, the Newman Society is having a small colloquium on Friday, 15th February from 6-830pm in the Meeting Room of the Catholic Chaplaincy, Rose Place,St Aldates, Oxford (location) with a number of prominent bloggers.

This event will be quite informal and interactive and will discuss the nature of blogs--who read them and why; why are they written; do the bloggers have a social responsibility; and should we even care about them?

Speakers are:

Rev’d Fr John T Zuhlsdorf, author of ‘What does the Prayer Really Say?’

Rev’d Fr John Hunwicke, author of ‘Fr Hunwicke’s Liturgical Notes’

Br Lawrence Lew OP, ‘The New Liturgical Movement’ and ‘Godzdogz’

Matthew Doyle, author of ‘Lacrimarum Valle’

I am sure that it was an interesting evening and look forward to reading accounts of how it went, though I can't help but note that all of the above bloggers write blogs that are firmly Traditionalist Catholic. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to be a shame and a missed opportunity that a Catholic blogger who engages with politics and / or other wings of the Church (yes, they do exist and yes, even some of what they say is valid!) was not invited or able to attend. Of the above, after a quick skim through the recent posts, only Mr Doyle has a post that touches upon recent events outside the Church - and that, unfortunately, is a bit of Rowan Williams bashing: far beneath his dignity and that of Lacrimarum Valle.

The above notwithstanding, it is interesting that Catholic blogging has now gained such a momentum that meetings are now able to be held to discuss its influence. It reminds me of something I read occasionally on the British political blogs, which is that they are far behind American blogs which are able to exert a definite influence on the political process in the USA. I wonder if this counts for American Catholic blogs as well? And could the day of the British Catholic blog be coming? I am sure that Damien Thompson annoys the Bishops immensely, but how much influence he has is quite another matter. Well, we shall see.

The Olympic Games

"I support democracy & human rights, get me out of here!"

The Rowan Williams / Sharia Law controversy has now started to die down. Around the corner awaits another Big Issue. When I was young, we talked about Peking but one day it became Beijing. Hopefully without any loss of life, although chance would be a fine thing in China.

Anyway, the Peking / Beijing Olympics are but months away and - in line with the charter of the Olympic movement (if you please) - the medals will be competed for in a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. I wonder if the Chinese Government knows this?

That the Olympic Games are being played in China at all is a travesty and simple betrayal of the Olympic ideal, much as the holding of the games in Moscow were in 1980. Some people say that having the Olympics might help the country to 'open up'. Well, there are numerous reasons for the fall of Communism but I have not heard that the Moscow Games were one of them. So, in a country that not only does not uphold the Olympic Movement's ideal but pursues policies that are wholly inimicable to them, what does the Movement think it is trying to achieve? Let me not be cynical and call the Olympic Movement a self serving, money grabbing organisation but neither is it the idealist it claims to be.

In ancient times, a sacred truce was proclaimed by the poleis while the Olympic Games were held. It is a great shame that the same could not be declared now by China in respect of its citizens. Instead, it continues to persecute dissidents and over here we get the British Olympic Committee requiring British athletes to sign contracts to the effect that they will not make any political statement during the games. Thankfully, the resulting publicity that this disgraceful move provoked has led the BOC to review its move.

But how did it happen in the first place? After all, we have been here before. The year is 1938 and the England football team is in Berlin to play Germany in a friendly. Under orders from the Foreign Office, the team then gives the Nazi salute, thus:

The England team should not have been in Germany in the first place. Our Olympic team should not be China. Yet, it was, and politicians made them salute as above to please the home nation. And the BOC wanted to silence our athletes in order to do the same.

Come August, the minute the Olympics begin, I shall turn the television over or off with a prayer for the fall of that despicable regime in China that is the ruin of a fine, fine country.

The Premier League overseas

herein is contained many a bad idea

So, it looks like Trotsky's dustbin of history is about to be rolled out for the Premier League's idea of playing a round of games overseas, and I am glad. The notion that the Premier League should - or even more absurdly, needs - to play games overseas for the benefit of the game has everything to do with money and nothing to do with whether it is a good idea or not - which it isn't.

The Premier League was formed in 1992 and if memory serves, the intention was to reduce the number of clubs in the top flight from 20 to 18 perhaps even to 16. But as the money flowed in, common sense drowned and as a result we still have a 20 team league playing too many games as it is.

FIFA doesn't like the idea, the FA has now come out against it; let's hope the Premier League bins the idea and gets to thinking about how to make the game better at home and less of how to please Rupert Murdoch, who, it seems, was the original source for the idea in the first place.

The Sharia Debate Continues

In my post Rowan Williams and Sharia Law I referred to what was a very disappointing and unsatisfactory engagement with this subject by a Catholic blog. I concluded by saying 'If that is the quality of posting in the Catholic blogosphere, then I can only be grateful that I have not found any other references therein to the Archbishop, yet'. Well, British priests, Father Tim Finigan and Father John Boyle have now commented on the debate and I am pleased to see that not only do they not resort to cheap jibes but are actually in agreement with him. Father Finigan comments that having read the lecture '[t]here certainly seemed to be little justification for the tabloid headlines.' while Father Boyle says that he 'think[s] it is an excellent speech. It is very philosophical and the Press have, in my humble opinion, been grossly unfair to him.' Yet, even if the good fathers had disagreed with what the Archbishop of Canterbury had said, the mere fact that unlike too many people they have read what he said would be a welcome move.

Manchester's Finest - David Hall

This morning I am off to Mass and then to the pub to watch the Manchester derby. United vs City on the anniversary of the Munich air crash. United will be playing in the same strips as those worn by the 'Busby babes'. There will be the minute's silence and black armbands.

Ahead of the game, I have just finished reading Manchester's Finest by David Hall. He was a young boy at the time, but has a vivid memory of how he found out about the crash on the afternoon of 6th February 1958 and the days afterwards. Mancheter United were already a successful team in 1958, but were on the cusp of greatness - Bobby Charlton, who survived the crash - believes that had it not happened, United would have gone on to be the first British club to win the European cup.

There are many sad stories within the pages of this great book. Saddest of all, if only for the promise that he had, is that of Duncan Edwards. Charlton believes him to have been the best player he ever saw. Better than Eusabio, better than Di Stefano, better even than Pele. That is some praise. But one minute he was there, the next, gone. Edwards' death is all the more tragic as he fought for 15 days in hospital - in and out of consciousness - before succumbing to his injuries. And Charlton went from being a fun loving, song singing youngster to a solemn man, older than his years, who now played football to remember his fallen comrades.

The book highlights how football has changed out of all recognition since the 50s. The Munich disaster was felt all the more keenly because the players lived within the community. No one was locked behind high gates in the secluded, leafy spots of Cheshire. They took the bus to Old Trafford and frequented the pubs after games. Well, footballers still do that now, but back then, they managed to do so without causing trouble. Reading this, and about the Corinthian spirit of the post-Munich United team - determined to carry on despite the decimation of the side - reminds me of how good football really can be and how money has truly fogged its greatness. If only, somehow, we could recover some of that past.

Manchester's Finest is a heart rending read, but an absolute must for sports fans. It takes you to a worse place, but also to a better one. A place where the game was truly beautiful.

Cardinal Cormac on the Sharia Debate

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor has given an interview to The Daily Telegraph in which he talks about the Rowan Williams debate. He says,"When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land."

Firstly, Rowan Williams was not talking about people who had just turned up in Britain. He used the example of Muslims in his lecture, but I believe it is true to say that they have been here for sometime. That aside, Williams also pointed out that what he was saying that relevence within Christianity and Judaism.

Secondly, I am quite sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury would agree that the law of the land must be obeyed.

Thirdly, what Williams was talking about was the relationship between British Law and religious law. Does the Cardinal think that the latter should bow and be silent before the former? If so, why did the Catholic Church ask for an exemption from the Sexual Orientation Regulations? Why does she seek the lowering of the abortion law?

The Cardinal continues, "There are aspects of sharia that are practised that we certainly wouldn't want in this country. The laws of this country don't allow forced marriages or polygamy.". I think Rowan Williams would agree with this. In fact, I know he would, because in his Radio 4 Interview, he says, "nobody in their right mind I think would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well."

Regarding the reference to polygamy, it is ironic that last week (as it mentions in the interview) The Telegraph revealed that the Government had decided to grant extra benefits to men with multiple wives. Where was the furore over this? Where were the doctored photographs on blogs showing Gordon Brown with multiple wives? We have clearly missed a trick here.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor has the impression, or has been given the impression, that Rowan Williams has given his support for a multicultural society where the cultures are sundered from one another. Quite correctly, he is against this. But, of course, this is not at all what Rowan Williams argued for in the first place. Misunderstanding heaped upon misunderstanding. It is a very poor level of discourse.

A Quick Note

Last week at Mass the sacristy bell rang to indicate the arrival of the priest into the church. Two notes, ever so brief, hung in the air just long enough to remind me of the opening keys of the first song on the Pride and Prejudice (Joe Wright version) soundtrack. It is interesting when sounds remind you of a song that is apparently unrelated. For example, when one of our local buses comes to a halt at the bus stop, it makes a brief crying noise that is very alike the call of the horn (?) at the start of "Bagoas's Dance" on the Alexander soundtrack. Granted, I don't need much to remind me of ancient Greece or Rome, but it is still very interesting. Back at Mass, I have no comment to make regarding the accusation that I spent the rest of the service thinking about Elizabeth and Mr Darcy!

It Ain't Proper!

I have discovered a new trend in the English language! It is to refer to things by prefacing them with 'proper'. So, for example, 'The weather today was proper bad', 'That's a proper awful picture'. Four people of my acquaintance have now used this phrase. Three of them know each other but one doesn't. It may be that I am witnessing just a local variation, but let's see...

Rowan Williams and Sharia Law

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been hit by a firestorm of protest following his lecture to the Royal Courts of Justice on Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective. From the blogosphere:

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of my blog that I am spitting blood at the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his call for sharia law to be adopted in Britain... If muslims want to live under sharia law or a caliphate they are of course free to do so - outside Britain. (Donal Blaney)

... I never thought I would see the day when the Archbishop of Canterbury would actually advocate the implementation of another religion's so-called 'laws' in what remains a predominantly Christian country. (Iain Dale)

We cannot have a system in this country where it is one set of laws for one culture and another set of laws for another. (Mars Hill)

Blaney and Dale are Conversatives, Mars Hill is Labour but they are united by a common thread - disagreement with something that Rowan Williams didn't actually say. In his lecture, Williams uses the example of Islam to demonstrate how in a society that seeks to be diverse, it is not such a good idea for the Law (that comes from one strand of that society) to seek legal dominance over every person within that society, whatever their background. He suggests that we might have a system of "'transformative accommodation': a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters." So, for example, Muslims who wish to settle marital or financial disputes may, if they wish, seek judgement in a Sharia Court rather than a secular one. Contra Blaney, there is no suggestion in Williams's words of his advocating (much less British Muslims desiring) the foundation of a Caliphate. Contra Dale there is certainly no suggestion of established British Law being superceded by with Islamic Law. As for Paul Burgin's comment, this is not a matter of culture but religion, and as the Archbishop pointed out in his Radio 4 interview, Sharia Law already has a place under British Law.

Catholics of all people ought to be alive to the correctness of what the Archbishop of Canterbury is saying. For example, a system of Law that took no account of where people came from would require Catholic doctors to carry out abortions whether it was against their conscience or not. As he points out, however, this is not what happens. Catholic doctors are not required to act against their consciences. Williams says that this is "a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what... its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system."

Why is Rowan Williams facing such a barrage of criticism (what one might call his Regensburg Moment) for his lecture? As he himself indicates in his Radio 4 interview, the use of the word Sharia conjours up images of beatings and beheadings in Saudi Arabia. And when it comes to Islam in general, I very much suspect that following the 9th September 2001 attacks, Western society is afflicted with a deepseated, and in many people unrealised or unadmitted, fear or loathing of Islam. At any rate, even if they are simply ambivilent about that religion, it leads them first to believe the worst of the faith whenever it is mentioned.

For example, Fr Dwight Longenecker admits that he finds it "... hard to remain calm and open minded about Islam. What I find difficult is the stupidity of some Muslims. Some time ago there were violent Muslim riots when someone suggested that Islam was not actually a religion of peace. Duuh." (post here)

It is unfortunate that Fr Longenecker's view of Islam as a whole is coloured by the actions of a few. But that aside, general statements about Islam ought to be followed up with criticisms of the religion, not individuals. But he goes on to compound his error by making the same mistake as the bloggers mentioned above and by making a fatuous joke at the Archbishop's expense (post here). Some of the comments for this post are equally idiotic. However, one bright light is 'Stephen' who bucks the prevailing trend of mockery. If that is the quality of posting in the Catholic blogosphere, then I can only be grateful that I have not found any other references therein to the Archbishop, yet.

The Toy Patient

Petrarch's Muse has seen The English Patient, but the only thing that she can remember about it is an absurd conversation between Almásy and Katharine Clifton about a plant that, if you cut out a piece of it the size of a heart then the next day it will be filled with a 'delicious liquid'. Of course, the conversation is not absurd at all but a profound though ever so brief metaphor for Amásy and Katharine's adulterous relationship. Or possibly not. Anyway, while looking for Croesus, I happened upon this spoof of the film , which, while I cannot condone its making fun of my favourite film, I thought was rather funny...

The Good Friday Prayer

Every so often, usually around this time of year and in the run up to Good Friday, the pre-Vatican II prayer for the Jews comes up for criticism by Jewish leaders who clearly believe that the non evangelical nature of their faith should be followed by others and Christian leaders who, amazingly, agree. Here is the text of the prayer.

Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness. Amen.

Apparantly wanting the best for the Jews exhibits a form of 'anti-judaism'. Well, ho hum; believe it if you want to. I don't agree with everything I read on the McCarthyism UK blog - particularly when it comes to anything he says about John Paul the Great - but I do thoroughly agree with his post on the above matter (Read it here), particularly when he says,

It should really be understood that we pray for the Jews to convert to the true Faith because we love them and not because it helps us. Not praying for the Jews for fear of offending them is actually a vicious form of anti-Semitism dressed up as multi-cultural sensitivity.

Croesus in America

I was half listening to the radio coverage of the American Presidential election on Sunday night when I heard the reporter say that one of the candidates (all of whom are wealthy) was even 'richer than Croesus'. I woke up. A classical reference! But who exactly was Croesus? His name was pronounced Kree - sus. Was he the man whose name I thought was pronounced Cro - ee - sus? I didn't know. So, I headed off to the blessed internet and by a circuitous route involving Herodotus and The English Patient, I found that Croesus (or rather, Kree - sus) was a Lydian king (595 - c 547) who was, of course, very wealthy indeed. Not that his money availed him much when Cyrus the Great and his Persians came knocking. Croesus was deafeated in battle and the kingdom of Lydia was subsumed into the greater Persian Empire.

Wikipedia has more info here.

Reducing Carbon

Mars Hill points me towards this BBC On-Line article on the Anglican bishops of London and Liverpool who have called on people to reduce their 'carbon footprint' this Lent. The article quotes the Bishop of London as saying that "individual and collective action" is necessary, because, '"A whole host of scientific studies have made clear that it is no longer possible to find excuses for doing nothing. "Nor is it enough to point the finger of blame at others and to demand that somebody should act for us."'

Well done them. However, I do regret that the global warming issue has become so controversial. That the world is warming up seems not to be in doubt, but is it because of the actions of human beings or because in the environmental cycle of the earth, we now happen to be in a warmer phase?

It it is my impression that the Humans-are-to-blame camp think that the argument is won. It isn't. Not for me, anyway. If I told someone that they should reduce their carbon count and they said 'prove to me that we are to blame', I would not be able to. Until I can, I can't fully believe in the cause & certainly could not preach it.

So, the bishops telling us that a host of scientific studies exist to show that this is the case is fine, but they and the scientists behind the studies need to increase their efforts to get the word out. This applies also for the other camp as well. And, lest it be thought that I have not considered this, I need to make more of an effort to find the truth. Thankfully, I don't own a car and often walk between destinations, so I have a head start in this.

The Gangster and the Priest

God: "Your name's on the list; welcome in"

In the latest edition of The Catholic Herald, there is a review of former bouncer cum gangster John Pridmore's spiritual biography A Gangster's Guide to God. The reviewer appreciates Pridmore's "evangelical zeal" and "enthusiasm and conviction" but also finds much to be critical about. The book lacks a "central narrative", has too many anecdotes, is episodic and so forth. be that as it may, I have nothing but good memories of the night I heard Pridmore speak at a Youth 2000 meeting. He was a big man, very imposing. He wasn't a refined speaker, but the power of his story and the force of his message meant that he did not have to be. If you ever hear of Pridmore being in the area, go and listen to him. You'll be frayed at the edges at some of his stories before you realise how frayed at the edges his storytelling is.

***

Elsewhere in the Herald, there is an interview with Fr Roderick Strange, Rector of the English College in Rome and now author of A Mind Alive - a biography of J. H. Newman. The book is "aims to be a readable and accessible, yet intelligent, introduction to Newman's turbulent life "without getting bogged down in detail."" My favourite biography of Newman is Ian Ker's. Lot's of detail in that one, though if you ever want to understand what exactly the Cardinal meant by the illative sense, you do need to batten down the hatches and be prepared for some dense prose!

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

"The wages of sin is death'. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a two and a half hour exposition of St. Paul's sad dictum and could be watched with profit by any Young Adult church group. Jesse James was 35 years old when he died. He was a young man, but as represented in this masterful film, old and sad beyond his years: the bitter fruit of a life of violence, during which he killed 17 men and caused deep pain to many others through his gang's robberies.

Jesse James portrays the life of the famous outlaw principally through the eyes of Robert Ford who is played wonderfully by Casey Affleck. He has been nominated for best Supporting Actor at the Oscars this year and if there is any justice in the world, he will win by a country mile. Affleck's Ford starts off as an obsessed and rather creepy young man. As the film progresses and he grows older, the same sadness that has taken Jesse James takes him also. By the time of his own murder at the end of the film, death is probably as much a release for him as it is for James.

Jesse James himself is played by Hollywood idol, Brad Pitt. Pitt is not a great actor. He can do happy and sad, angry and pleased as well as anyone, but then, so can I. What I could not do, and Pitt as well, is bring subtlety to my performance. Yet, despite this, Pitt was still a good choice to play James if only for the natural melancholy in his eyes. It is a great shame that the film does not at least give him the chance to build on this and either fail or prove me wrong. Proof that the film does not use Pitt enough is in the fact that it is the narrator who describes James's descent into terminal melancholia rather than Pitt who shows it. That is a little unfair to both Pitt and the scriptwriter, but nevertheless, the dialogue is there for all to hear.

Before writing this review, I watched the trailer for the film at its official website. While doing so, I thought to myself that it would have been much easier to care for Jesse James if he had shown any remorse for his actions, which he never did. But that is not true, for in the trailer there is a line from the film which I had forgotten about, and in which James says "Look at my red hands and my mean face... and I wonder 'bout that man that's gone so wrong.". Then there is the devoted family man. A killer he was, but more than that. It may be that what I have mentioned here are only scraps, but they are ways into James's life. It is a shame that we never saw how he ended up being a bank robber in the first place.

As in No Country For Old Men, the vistas of midwest America (or Canada, where the film was shot) play a role in establishing the atmosphere of the film. Fertile, wild, lonely and barren. The countryside is almost a second character in the story. Unlike No Country, Jesse James is complimented by a great soundtrack of drifting violins and solemn piano pieces.

By-the-bye, Jesse James features a scene where we see a close up of James's hand as he walks through a wheat field. It is almost a repeat of the scene in Gladiator. But there, Maximus is walking through the fields of Elysium to meet his wife and son. Is Jesse James consciously echoing that scene? I wonder.

Interestingly, not only does Jesse Jame's family live on, but his descendants have their own website. It contains a short and to the point review of the picture here. Accurately titled 'The Violence is Personal' it is well worth a read.

I said at the top of this post that Jesse James could be watched by Young Adult groups. With its 15 rating, I think school children should be invited to view it as well. Here in Britain, the news headlines have been dominated in recent times by crimes of violence against youngsters, often by other youngsters. Being in a gang is either cool or what one needs to do in order to survive. Carrying a knife is just the same. But it isn't, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford shows why. This film is deeply elegiac, not only in terms of the characters that it portrays, but for our age as well. That is a sadness indeed and can only be an encouragement to all people of goodwill to maintain their efforts to build what we Christians call the kingdom of love.

A Day Unlike Any Other

Oh, America. First, you gave us Super Tuesday. That was fine. It isn't what I would call the day on which the fates of the Presidential candidates is decided, but never mind. However, listening to Radio 5 Live this morning, I heard that (some among you, I presume) have renamed it Super Duper Tuesday. What?? A major political event and you have given it a name that only a five year old could be pleased with? Say it ain't so. Yet, not content with that, you have renamed it again. Now, we await Tsunami Tuesday. Well, I appreciate the point being made, but naming the day after an event which kills - and which only three years ago killed a great many people in South East Asia - really cannot be considered good form.

Further to the above, typing 'Super Tuesday' into Google, I found the relevant Wikipedia page. And guess what, there is another name too: The Tuesday of Destiny. Arghh! Americans and their names! Titles with '... of destiny' in their name surely must be restricted to bad fantasy films and mythology.

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

Cosmos - liturgy - Sex has the best blogroll in the Catho-blogosphere. What a privilage to be not only included on it, but to know that someone has gone to the effort of creating that unique little icon. Reading CLS yesterday, I came across this post, which begins,

The story starts out, “Not even the death of a worshipper was enough to stop Mass in a small church in the northern Italian town of Trento.” Pio Lieta, 86, suffered a fatal heart attack and instead of waiting around for an ambulance to remove the body, Father Mario Peron asked for the body to be covered with a white cloth church while he completed the sacrifice of the Mass. While one unidentified parishioner allegedly said the Mass should have been stopped out of respect for the deceased, the deceased man, priest and the family apparently knew of at least 15 reasons the Mass must go on. (From: The Daily Telegraph)

I strongly encourage you to pay CLS a visit to find out what those 15 reasons are. Further to the above, the reaction of the unidentified parishioner is, I suspect, indicative of how many Catholics see the Mass. To them, it is no more than a kind of spiritual social gathering, no different, really, from a concert, a play or sports event and therefore, to be treated in the same way if something bad should happen. Thus, just as Motherwell FC of the Scottish Premier League recently postponed a number of its games following the untimely death of team captain Phil O'Donnell, the anonymous parishioner's reaction to the death of his fellow was that the Mass should be stopped as well.

But the Mass is a life giving event, not only for the living but the dead, too. By God's grace, Mr Lieta went straight to heaven upon his death, but he may not have done and in that light needs our prayers so that he might leave the cleansing fires of Purgatory for the Lord's Kingdom. And there is no better prayer for the dead than the Mass. No mere social gathering, it is the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross, giving life to the dead as well as the living. The priest did the right thing in contuining the service. As for Pio Lieta - Requiescat in Pace.

***

Meanwhile, over at The Hermeneutic of Continuity, Fr Tim Finigan has an amusing story which offers proof of why journalists are so little trusted. Is the Pope a secret Fanta fan? Is he, er, hell. Read all about it here.

Cicero and Iskander

I am currently reading the letters of Cicero. It is a good read. Cicero was, of course, a statesman; a great orator, lawyer and thinker. But he was also vain and rather insecure - I haven't read far into the book yet, but a thread that is starting to develop are his loving references to his consulship (63BC), during which he defeated the Catiline Conspiracy. It is quite amusing but also indicative of the kind of society that Late Republican Rome was. Cicero was a novus homo - a New Man. He couldn't rely on family history of connections to win him advancement - only his own talents. Yet such was the importance of being from one of Rome's old families that even though Cicero was supremely talented, I think he could not enjoy his success because he wanted the love of those who really mattered - the Claudii, Metellii et al.On another note, this afternoon I visited the local kebab shop to buy some fish and chips for lunch. On the menu was Iskendar Kebab. Iskender? Very similar to Iskander, the Persian name for Alexander the Great. So, I asked the young man behind the counter if Iskender was another variation on the name. Sure enough! There you are - conquer the known world and get a kebab named after you.

The Inquisitive Cow on Military Investments, Hoedowns and Epochs

dúnadan: Hallo everyone. Welcome to Dorset! It is a rather chilly afternoon and I am standing in the driveway of what I thought was Farmer Bill's house. Well, I know that it is because I have made this walk many times over the last couple of years. However, I have been greeted today by a rather unusual sight: A line of fortifications that seem to surround the farmhouse! The fortifications consists of logs with sharpened ends facing the house. In the corners there are two sentry towers. And... oh, there is a surprise, there are red squirrel sentries manning both!
farmer bill: Ahoy there, dúnadan!
dúnadan: Farmer Bill! He is calling me from his bedroom window! Hallo Farmer Bill!
farmer bill: If you see that dirty red squirrel, tell him if he wants to drink from my personal supply of cider, he has to pay like everyone else!
inq. cow: (coming from round the corner) Moooh! Hallo dúnadan!
dúnadan: Hallo, Gerrie. What is going on here?
inq. cow: Well, as you can see, the Little Red Baron has laid seige to Farmer Bill's house. He didn't have enough nuts to pay for the cider so he is hoping to starve Farmer Bill into submission. I feel rather guilty about it.
dúnadan: You do? Surely you never put Tecumseh up to this.
inq. cow: No, but earlier this week, and, I should add, in all innocence, I explained to him how armies used to lay siege to cities. He had asked me what a military investment was and I didn't know, so, I did what I usually do - find out - and reported back to him.
dúadan: I see! So, what do we have here, then?
inq. cow: These fortifications that are pointing towards Farmer Bill's house are called a circumvallation. That comes from the Latin circumvallare which means 'to surround with a siege work', or, more specifically, rampart. I am afraid to say that Tecumseh was less interested in that side of things.
dúnadan: I have to say that it is a very impressive construction. Why, the logs are over twenty feet high!
inq. cow: Tecumseh Squirrel and his Legion can be very resourceful! Now, here is a door. Let's go through it. Thankfully, Tecumseh hasn't had time to dig a ditch and I never told him about booby traps!
dúnadan: But what is the point of a door in a circumvallation!
inq. cow: Mrs Farmer Bill insisted on it so that she wasn't impeded when she wanted to go shopping!
dúnadan: Riiight. Well, we are walking through the door now and--- oh--- more fortifications.

circumvallation

inq. cow: Yes, but look, these ones are pointing at us. You see, once I realised why Tecumseh Squirrel was so interested in learning about investments, I thought I better even things up by telling Farmer Bill what I had learnt about contravallations.
dúnadan: These fortifications look just the same as the circumvallation except they are pointing outwards.
inq. cow: That's right! And for that reason they are called a 'contravallation'. Farmer Bill built it with Farmer Will and Gill. It helps defend the house but, of course, makes smuggling goods in more difficult. Here is the door...
dúnadan: So, we are now walking through the contravallation door. There is a gap of a few feet between the fortification and the house. The front door is open. I can hear speaking inside. Squeeks. It sounds like (the front door is opened) squirrels!
inq. cow: Hullo! Two drunk farmers and a lot of drunk legionary squirrels!
little boots squirrel: Hello Gerrie! Hic! Thish ish great cshider!
farmer will: Arhhh... these li'l chaps be great drinkers! We were talkin' 'bout pirates!
inq. cow: Dúnadan, when I joined you, Tecumseh was inspecting his circumvallation round the other side of the house. Moo! And Farmer Bill has barracaded himself into his bedroom... (the kitchen door opens)
mrs farmer bill: Good morning Geraldine. Hallo Dúnadan.
dúnadan: Mrs Farmer Bill! It looks like the siege has been compramised by the infantry!
mrs farmer bill: Oh, yes. Well, let that dratted husband of mine and the warlike squirrel carry on their nonsense. I saw no need for everyone to have to get wet in the rain and cold in the night, so I said they could come in and have a free glass or two of my cider!
dúnadan: What will happen when Farmer Bill and Tecumseh find out about this fraternising and your role in it?!
mrs farmer bill: They will have ME to deal with!
inq. cow: I foresee that this siege will end peaceably except for a clipped ear for any recalcitrant farmer and squirrel!
dúnadan: Indeed, shall we let these good folk and squirrels enjoy their drink and go outside?

Yee-hah!

dúnadan: We are now walking across the forecourt of the farmhouse, towards the barn from where I can hear music. What is going on?
inq. cow: Practice for tonight's hoedown!
dúnadan: I am straining to look through this rather high up window... I can see Ruddy Faced Helen the Farmhand. Is she doing a kind of Irish dance?
inq. cow: Silly. That fancy footwork is a hoedown.
dúnadan: Lot's of people are joining in, now!
inq, cow: The idea of a hoedown is that one person at a time takes centre stage to dance to a rapid piece of music - 2/4 time. Each person who follows tries to outdance the one who went before!
dúnadan: Don't tell me you taught Ruddy Faced Helen how to dance!
inq. cow: Of course not, but my mummy and daddy helped her out - although they do, of course, prefer the waltz. But mainly it was Bertie Pig. The hoedown is a private passion of the Pig family.
dúnadan: Yes, I see him now. Crikey, he is fast!
inq. cow: Do you know what the connection between the hoedown and rock and roll music is?
dúnadan: I can't imagine.
inq. cow: Both were started by black people but became popular with whites or, white people, later on! Isn't that interesting?!
dúnadan: What do you think it means?
inq. cow: Before answering that question, I should like to know about the socio-economic position of the people from where the music originated as it may be that it shows how culture can be influenced by the way people live.
dúnadan: Oooh, Helen just saw me and blew me a kiss! How nice. Right, we are almost out of time, Gerrie; what else has been making you inquisitive this week?

Geological Spiral Map

inq. cow: Epochs.
dúnadan: A particular period of time.
inq. cow: That's right. I have found, however, that epoch also has a geological and astronomical meaning. In regards the former, it is the division of a Period. In regards the latter, mooooh!, it is a particular phase in the development of the universe.
dúnadan: Can you give me an example of the geological meaning?
inq. cow: A pleasure! Today, we are living in the Holocene Epoch. Together with its predesessor, the Pleistocence Epoch, it forms the Quaternary Period. However, this may not be true for very much longer as some scientists have proposed that the rise of human beings constitutes a whole new epoch which they call the Anthropocene. In my field it is the Bovinopocene Period!
dúnadan: Ha ha! When did the Quaternary Period and Holocene Epochs start?

inq. cow: The Quaternary Period started 1.8 million years ago. That is quite some lives of cows and men back! The Holocene Epoch began only 11,500 years back. If you believe in the reality of the Anthropocene Epoch, it began 8,000 years ago with the advent of farming.

dúnadan: Gosh, all these numbers make me rather dizzy! I must sit down. Gerrie, it has been a pleasure as always speaking to you. I look forward to doing so again next week. Let's hope Tecumseh Squirrel's siege has ended peacefully by then!

inq. cow: I have a feeling that it will end when Mrs Farmer Bill wants it to!

Index of Interviews with the Inquisitive Cow
Join Facebook and become Gerrie Cow's friend!

No Country For Old Men

When the Oscar Nominations were announced last week, I thought I would make an effort to see a couple of the films that will be up for awards later this month - No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Last November, film critic Mark Kermode rated The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford as his favourite film of the year, so that was added to the list too.

Last Sunday, Our Man of the Antonii and I visited the Vue Cinema in Finchley Road to see the first of these pictures - No Country For Old Men. Set in Texas in the late seventies, No Country is the story of a pitiless assassin who tracks down and kills a man who stole some money from some dead drug dealers. Javier Bardem puts in a deeply disturbing and impressive performance as the killer Anton Chigurh. Less is more. Bardem is physically unimpressive - take a look at his awful haircut and heavy eyes. But his relentless pursuit of thief Llewelyn Moss, played by Josh Brolin, coupled with an utter lack of weakness or redeeming feature in his character makes for a powerful villain.

Redemption is not a word that No Country For Old Men is familiar with. There are no significant good guys, here. Brolin is a taciturn Texan who we only ever see reacting to the events that his theft of the money has unleashed, therefore, he is only ever scared or angry or both. Ed Tom Bell, the police chief hunting both Moss and Chigurh, played by Tommy Lee Jones comes close to being the traditional good guy but instead of finding the protagonists and bringing Chigurh to justice, he quits the police force at the end, disolusioned by the state of the world.

No Country For Old Men has almost no soundtrack whatsoever. This really emphasises the bleakness of the film. As does the sweeping and endless emptiness of the Texan vistas. It is beautiful, though. A pity the sight of it does not last longer. The same could be said for Kelly Macdonald, Carla Jean Moss, Llewelyn's wife. As well as being a sweet soul, she is the only person who in any way stands up to Chigurh and shows him up for being the empty and evil person that he is.

What is No Country For Old Men about? I actually have no idea. Freewill and determinism, some say, but I didn't get that impression watching it. In fact, I am afraid to say that I only got the impression that it was a straight forward cat and mouse chase between an assassin and his victim. Yet, with that said, watching the film was not like watching a Die Hard film or any other action drama. There is something more to be found in those Texan hills, but they do not yield their secrets easily.