fosca

Моя версия "Стыда" Маккуина

об "Опасном методе" Кроненберга

статья о Quality Television в Искусстве кино №11

В топе Киноута-2011:

"У нас есть Папа" Нанни Моретти
Amore Carne Пиппо Дельбоно
"Девичник в Вегасе" 

в "Нью-Йоркере" в комментах обосрали Ремника, описывающего ситуацию в Росии и похваляющегося дружбой с Парфеновым.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/putins-television.html

"Even with all the ballot-stuffing, cyber-attacks, and manipulation.... [the] regime is a curious blend of authoritarian, semi-democratic, and brutalist features... The... regime is clever: it allows many newspapers, magazines, and Web sites to operate quite freely, but keeps a clamp on the medium that it judges to be most essential: state television. State television today is, in its way, closer to Soviet television than ever." This is barely any different than your Democratic Party of the Yoo-nited States of Amerika"

"Putin's comments about Hillary Clinton seem quite reasonable - she is demonstrating an increasingly low threshold of tolerance for behaviour by soveriegn nations of which she does not approve... As for election fraud in Russia - that it seems to me is an internal Russian affair - unless it is now a Hillary preoccupation"

The Russians who come to the streets tomorrow, if they come at all, will come in puny numbers, a minscule fraction of the giant population of Moscow much less Russia. They will come without credible leaders, they will not offer significant financial support, and they will come much too late. The time to act was when the Kremlin exluded every true opposition party from the ballot. Now, in effect, Russians are protesting that the Communist Party was not allowed to collect its fair share of the vote, perhaps a full quarter of all those cast.

Вот так повыступаете за электоральную легитимность КПРФ и вам еще откажут в визе в американском посольстве.

про The Trip Уинтерботтома. Очень славный.

В New York Review of Books открыли свой знаменитый наезд на Полину Каел 1980-го года.

Крайне поучительное чтение даже для тех, кто рановдушен к Каел, но неравнодушен к кинокритике. Очень здравый взгляд на профессию:

The simple truth—this is okay, this is not okay, this is vile, this resembles that, this is good indeed, this is unspeakable—is not a day’s work for a thinking adult. Some critics go shrill. Others go stale. A lot go simultaneously shrill and stale. A few critics, writing quietly and well, bring something extra into their work. [...]  By far the most common tendency, however, is to stay put and simply to inflate, to pretend that each day’s text is after all a crisis—the most, first, best, worst, finest, meanest, deepest, etc.—to take on, since we are dealing in superlatives, one of the first, most unmistakable marks of the hack.

А после вот этого разбора ее стилистики. возникает ворос, как она вообще была штатным автором в NewYorker, учитывая все мифологию вокруг editing-а в этом журнале:

Her favorite, most characteristic device of this kind is the ad personam physical (she might say, visceral) image: images, that is, of sexual conduct, deviance, impotence, masturbation; also of indigestion, elimination, excrement. I do not mean to imply that these images are frequent, or that one has to look for them. They are relentless, inexorable. “Swallowing this movie,” one finds on page 147, “is an unnatural act.” On page 151, “his way of pissing on us.” On page 153, “a little gas from undigested Antonioni.” On page 158, “these constipated flourishes.” On page 182, “as forlornly romantic as Cyrano’s plume dipped in horse manure.” On page 226, “the same brand of sanctifying horse manure.” On page 467, “a new brand of pop manure.” On page 120, “flatulent seriousness.” On page 226, “flatulent Biblical-folk John Ford film.” On page 353, “gaseous naïveté.” And elsewhere, everywhere, “flatulent,” “gaseous,” “gasbag,” “makes you feel a little queasy,” “makes you gag a little,” “just a belch from the Nixon era,” “you can’t cut through the crap in her,” “plastic turds.” 

про Джеймса Беннинга

По поводу благоглупостей в связи с Нобелевкой ("как здорово, теперь и у нас издадут очередную хрень прекрасного автора) , вот здравый взгляд на вещи очень мной любимого английского автора Тима Паркса (англичанина, живущего в Италии, писателя, критика, переводчика и человека, написавшего, по-моему, самые точные книжки об этой стране, например, эту) 

What’s Wrong With the Nobel Prize in Literature

Let’s try to imagine how much reading is involved. Assume that a hundred writers are nominated every year—it’s not unthinkable—of whom the jury presumably try to read at least one book. But this is a prize that goes to the whole oeuvre of a writer, so let’s suppose that as they hone down the number of candidates they now read two books of those who remain, then three, then four. It’s not unlikely that each year they are faced with reading two hundred books (this on top of their ordinary workloads). Of these books very few will be written in Swedish and only some will be available in Swedish translation; many will be in English, or available in English translation. But since the English and Americans notoriously don’t translate a great deal, some reading will have to be done in French, German or perhaps Spanish translations from more exotic originals. ,...> Remember that we’re talking about poems as well as novels and they’re coming from all over the world, many intensely engaged with cultures and literary traditions of which the members of the Swedish Academy understandably know little. 
<..>
What a relief then from time to time to say, the hell with it and give it to a Swede, in this case the octogenarian acknowledged as his nation’s finest living poet and a man whose whole oeuvre, as Peter Englund charmingly remarks, could fit into a single slim paperback. A winner, in short, whom the whole jury can read in the original pure Swedish in just a few hours. Perhaps they needed a sabbatical.

Нормальное решение рациональных агентов, максимизирующих полезность и минимизирующих затраты, в данном случае временные.