10 years on. Still not ready. People say that experiencing or witnessing the fall of the Twin Tower on 11 September 2001 is something that one will never forget. Yes that's true. I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing the moment the first plane crash was reported in the news. Then for the next half an hour, I sat and watched before rushing back to the college to really try to understand what's happening.
Everyone in the college was up. People who had TVs in their rooms were sharing their TVs. Some were in the TV room downstairs but everyone was up and every door was opened. The next day we still couldn't believe that it was a reality. As the reality sank in so was the sadness. We were not there but we were still wounded, hurt by the lack of humanity the what we called human race had exhibited.
Before we knew, it is 10 years from the incident. At that time I thought maybe the world would get better as we re-evaluate our humanity. Did the world get better? I can't really say so. I would not say that I am a pessimist but rather I would classify myself as a reserved optimist who always try to have an optimistic outlook without committing to being overly positive. For I believe, the less you expect the less you would be disappointed.
10 years from that day, I look back and look around - more people were killed in wars, politicians are still about themselves, people who lost their jobs were eventually the people who forked out their tax money to bail the riches out whom were the people who caused that situation, people said harsh things about karma when the tsunami hit Japan, idiots like Alan Jones still dominating the radio waves propagating their idiocy to the general public, some people still care about themselves more than the environment etc.
When I was a kid I was told that we study history because we want to learn from the past avoid making the same mistakes. That doesn't seemed to have helped, at least according to what I observed throughout all these years. In the last few weeks, when I saw all the promos about the 9/11 specials, it really annoys me because thousands of innocent people died on that day and the human race had not improved. Our phone got smarter, our TV got smarter, everything we created got smarter but not our humanity, which is supposed to be the essence that distinguish us from the rest of the living organisms on this planet.
Everyday when I saw idiots like Alan Jones and Tony Abott who are all about themselves saying stupid things and breaking promises while condemning other people committing the same crime, my blood boils and I wonder how did we end up with a world like this? Not only in Australia that politicians continue to increase their own pay while cutting spending on essentials for the society, that's the same thing in the States when the Republicans just want to tear down bills so that the have an excuse to accuse Obama for not being able to fulfill his promises. What kind of mad world are we living in? Did 9/11 actually make us more selfish than opening our eyes to the world?
Maybe being a reserved optimist I am still not being built for this world. Or maybe if I was not trained to think critically when I was a kid, I would be a happier person. But at the end of the day where can humanity go? For me 10 years on, the world hadn't become a better place and it seems to me that the human race will never improve. Is this God's will? If so does that mean we will be seeing the arrival of the Four Horsemen soon? Maybe it's time for me to go and watch Supernatural Season 5 instead.
9/11 is a wound that will never heal. Or maybe I am still getting too sentimental on this day. Or maybe I should just go to sleep and forget about the human race.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
No Just a Carbon Copy
The recent outrage about Cate Blanchett speaking up for carbon tax was another indication of sensation reporting in Australia.
The carbon tax issue has been a long standing argument in the recent months with all the pros and cons tossing their woks and pans in the Hell Kitchen known as the Australian Parliament. Both sides have their “points” but who is here to judge? So since we cannot judge on who’s right or who’s wrong we toss the bomb on whoever is the easiest target. In this round, it is Cate Blanchett.
It has been said that actors should restrict themselves to the stage because they are better speaking other people’s words than their own. That is so out dated. Though not everyone transit well from acting to social or political commenting but speaking up for what one believes should not be a crime. Cate Blanchett has been pushing forward the green cause for many years – she has reinvented the Wharf, where Sydney Theatre Company resides as a green complex and never hides the fact that going green for the next generation is high on her priority list. That’s why I was not surprised to hear about her speaking up on this carbon tax. Whether I agree with it is another issue, but if you believe in it what not?
The accusation mainly came from the fact that she is worth 53 million and what would she knows about paying more taxes as a general urban family? That might be true, but that does not stop her from having her own voice and going around rallying for a cause that she believes in. People have to remember that as an actor, she worked hard to build up that 53 million. Most actors started off with a humble career and she definitely did not just become “Cate Blanchett” if she hadn’t worked hard since she graduated from NIDA. So why is she being punished for her cause because of all the hard work she put in in the past decade or so?
What makes Cate Blanchett different is that she is not just an actor who can only speak other people’s work like a carbon copy of the script. She is a person who can speak and articulate her thoughts well and professionally in real life. Anyone who’s watched her interviews and press conferences would have understood where she came from. Since she became the artistic director of Sydney Theatre Company she hasn’t stopped rallying to change the complex into a sustainability powerhouse to show case how to save energy and conserve the environment. So why does she have to stop now? And why is she being the evil queen simply because she believes in what is good for the environment?
Certainly not everybody has several millions at his / her disposal to make his / her residence green and sustainable, but then no matter you believe, support or dislike the carbon tax proposal that should not be used as a weapon against other people who believe in the cause – especially it is about our environment and our future generations. It is very different from people like Tony Abott who earns a lot more than other people, prefer to buy a house he can’t afford and send his kids to expensive private schools and then come back to the Parliament and said he wants higher pay because the current pay level cannot sustain his life style. If Tony Abott can be saved from this kind of stuff it is just hypocrisy to burn Cate at stake because she is supporting something that is close to her heart and good for the environment.
The whole crusade against Cate for me is like a witch hunt. But what disgusts me more is that this is a witch hunt to sell more papers and get higher ratings. Isn’t it great that we can finally find fault for a seemingly “do no wrong” Cate and burn her alive with ink as our fuel and pens as our logs? I personally think media who are fuelling this kind of sensational reporting should be ashamed of themselves but then these are the media with no conscience built in most of the time. I wish the Australian people do have the wit and intelligence to identify the flaws with this latest witch hunt and ditch those media as karma punishment.
The carbon tax issue has been a long standing argument in the recent months with all the pros and cons tossing their woks and pans in the Hell Kitchen known as the Australian Parliament. Both sides have their “points” but who is here to judge? So since we cannot judge on who’s right or who’s wrong we toss the bomb on whoever is the easiest target. In this round, it is Cate Blanchett.
It has been said that actors should restrict themselves to the stage because they are better speaking other people’s words than their own. That is so out dated. Though not everyone transit well from acting to social or political commenting but speaking up for what one believes should not be a crime. Cate Blanchett has been pushing forward the green cause for many years – she has reinvented the Wharf, where Sydney Theatre Company resides as a green complex and never hides the fact that going green for the next generation is high on her priority list. That’s why I was not surprised to hear about her speaking up on this carbon tax. Whether I agree with it is another issue, but if you believe in it what not?
The accusation mainly came from the fact that she is worth 53 million and what would she knows about paying more taxes as a general urban family? That might be true, but that does not stop her from having her own voice and going around rallying for a cause that she believes in. People have to remember that as an actor, she worked hard to build up that 53 million. Most actors started off with a humble career and she definitely did not just become “Cate Blanchett” if she hadn’t worked hard since she graduated from NIDA. So why is she being punished for her cause because of all the hard work she put in in the past decade or so?
What makes Cate Blanchett different is that she is not just an actor who can only speak other people’s work like a carbon copy of the script. She is a person who can speak and articulate her thoughts well and professionally in real life. Anyone who’s watched her interviews and press conferences would have understood where she came from. Since she became the artistic director of Sydney Theatre Company she hasn’t stopped rallying to change the complex into a sustainability powerhouse to show case how to save energy and conserve the environment. So why does she have to stop now? And why is she being the evil queen simply because she believes in what is good for the environment?
Certainly not everybody has several millions at his / her disposal to make his / her residence green and sustainable, but then no matter you believe, support or dislike the carbon tax proposal that should not be used as a weapon against other people who believe in the cause – especially it is about our environment and our future generations. It is very different from people like Tony Abott who earns a lot more than other people, prefer to buy a house he can’t afford and send his kids to expensive private schools and then come back to the Parliament and said he wants higher pay because the current pay level cannot sustain his life style. If Tony Abott can be saved from this kind of stuff it is just hypocrisy to burn Cate at stake because she is supporting something that is close to her heart and good for the environment.
The whole crusade against Cate for me is like a witch hunt. But what disgusts me more is that this is a witch hunt to sell more papers and get higher ratings. Isn’t it great that we can finally find fault for a seemingly “do no wrong” Cate and burn her alive with ink as our fuel and pens as our logs? I personally think media who are fuelling this kind of sensational reporting should be ashamed of themselves but then these are the media with no conscience built in most of the time. I wish the Australian people do have the wit and intelligence to identify the flaws with this latest witch hunt and ditch those media as karma punishment.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
From 'SeaChange" to "Rake"
As an Australian actor, it is common knowledge that every one of us wants to be on a TV series or hit the jackpot of a great Australian movie. With the Australian movie industry not really going anywhere locally - considering all the box office bombs of local productions in the last few months - TV series seems to be the prize that everyone is going for.
Local productions are notorious for repeating the same old storyline and basing on previous materials, repackage them and thrown them onto the screen as new products. There were some good ones here and there. I totally enjoyed the first season of "The Secret Life of Us" and the first season of "Love My Way" was pretty good too. However, both of them seemed to have lost their steam after the first season. The following seasons became melodramatic and characters behaved ridiculously out of character. I tried "Tangle" but there was nothing grabbing my attention. In terms of cop shows, the subtleness of "East West 101" won miles against "Cop LAC" anyday. I'm never a fan of the "Underbelly" series because I don't believe in glorifying criminal acts on TV screens. Yes they met their demises in the end but that's because they had to since they were based on "true" stroies.
Up till this point "SeaChange" is still the Australian series that I watched again and again and still find it refreshing. I didn't get to see it when it was first aired but was highly recommended by my agent and friend. I checked it out from the library and BAM I was hooked on to it. I bought the whole series after I a job interview at ABC (a job which I obviously didn't get) and watched it all over again. It is still my favorite show to be put on my TV when I do my weekend ironing (I prefer to iron all the clothes for the week in one go) and I still tune in to Foxtel during its occasional rerun - that is how good "SeaChange" is.
What made "SeaChange" so great is its originality and the embracing of ethnicity with a bunch of colourful characters delivered by a superb cast. Chemisty among characters is just bouncing off the screen in every single scene and there is no one dull moment in the show. This is without a doubt mostly contributed to the superb writing from Andrew Knight and Deborah Cox. They created this imaginative small town and detailed it with one interesting story after another. It was just a work of magic.
After "SeaChange", there was nothing that really grabbed my attention. Writing in most shows were dramatic for sake of being dramatic, characters don't really make sense, the screen has become Anglo-centric again, ethnicity became a pinch of stereotypical comic relief. We got too many cop shows, too many medical shows, too many teenagers sleeping with each other shows and too many reality shows.
"East West 101" was a great production but sometimes far too serious that it inevitably gets you unnecessarily depressed. Life is depressing enough so if I have a choice I prefer to watch something that lightens me up at the end of the day. "Packed to the Rafters" was good but as a single guy whose friends are setting up their own families, I kinda became resistent to overly warm and cosy family dramedies. So there was a void for me for quite some time until my agent (once again thanks to her) mentioned "Rake" to me.
"Rake" is a legal dramedy about a dysfunctional lawyer who knows he is dysfunctioned but did not mourn over it. He instead tries to live the most out of it. He tries to fix problems just to find out that he complicated them more. There is no right solutions for him in life or professionally and he just lives with it. The main cast with Richard Roxburg, Matt Day and Adrienne Pickering delivered a superb performance and once again you really see an ensemble that lives off and bounces of each other. As the 8 part series proceeds, you find out more about these characters - you laugh with them sometimes, you shed a tear with them sometimes or you even despise them a bit sometimes. We used to say that audience loves flawed characters, but completely flawed characters nowadays are so cliche that when you met a bunch of characters who are lovable but flawed, you just get right into it.
"Rake" doesn't only have a great main ensemble cast, it has great guest casts such as Hugo Weaving, a never seen before Lisa McCune, Sam Neil, Rachel Griffiths etc who completely spice up your screen with firey performance that reminds you how many great talents this country has. It also has a lot more variety in ethnicity display. Yes most non-Anglo actors are still in the back e.g. among the jury, but it shows a greater diversity of people in a lot of its frames. It is completely refreshing to see something that great on Australian screen again. Oh one last thing, it is written by Andrew Knight - the guy who delivered "SeaChange" to us some years ago.
So check it out if you have a chance.
Local productions are notorious for repeating the same old storyline and basing on previous materials, repackage them and thrown them onto the screen as new products. There were some good ones here and there. I totally enjoyed the first season of "The Secret Life of Us" and the first season of "Love My Way" was pretty good too. However, both of them seemed to have lost their steam after the first season. The following seasons became melodramatic and characters behaved ridiculously out of character. I tried "Tangle" but there was nothing grabbing my attention. In terms of cop shows, the subtleness of "East West 101" won miles against "Cop LAC" anyday. I'm never a fan of the "Underbelly" series because I don't believe in glorifying criminal acts on TV screens. Yes they met their demises in the end but that's because they had to since they were based on "true" stroies.
Up till this point "SeaChange" is still the Australian series that I watched again and again and still find it refreshing. I didn't get to see it when it was first aired but was highly recommended by my agent and friend. I checked it out from the library and BAM I was hooked on to it. I bought the whole series after I a job interview at ABC (a job which I obviously didn't get) and watched it all over again. It is still my favorite show to be put on my TV when I do my weekend ironing (I prefer to iron all the clothes for the week in one go) and I still tune in to Foxtel during its occasional rerun - that is how good "SeaChange" is.
What made "SeaChange" so great is its originality and the embracing of ethnicity with a bunch of colourful characters delivered by a superb cast. Chemisty among characters is just bouncing off the screen in every single scene and there is no one dull moment in the show. This is without a doubt mostly contributed to the superb writing from Andrew Knight and Deborah Cox. They created this imaginative small town and detailed it with one interesting story after another. It was just a work of magic.
After "SeaChange", there was nothing that really grabbed my attention. Writing in most shows were dramatic for sake of being dramatic, characters don't really make sense, the screen has become Anglo-centric again, ethnicity became a pinch of stereotypical comic relief. We got too many cop shows, too many medical shows, too many teenagers sleeping with each other shows and too many reality shows.
"East West 101" was a great production but sometimes far too serious that it inevitably gets you unnecessarily depressed. Life is depressing enough so if I have a choice I prefer to watch something that lightens me up at the end of the day. "Packed to the Rafters" was good but as a single guy whose friends are setting up their own families, I kinda became resistent to overly warm and cosy family dramedies. So there was a void for me for quite some time until my agent (once again thanks to her) mentioned "Rake" to me.
"Rake" is a legal dramedy about a dysfunctional lawyer who knows he is dysfunctioned but did not mourn over it. He instead tries to live the most out of it. He tries to fix problems just to find out that he complicated them more. There is no right solutions for him in life or professionally and he just lives with it. The main cast with Richard Roxburg, Matt Day and Adrienne Pickering delivered a superb performance and once again you really see an ensemble that lives off and bounces of each other. As the 8 part series proceeds, you find out more about these characters - you laugh with them sometimes, you shed a tear with them sometimes or you even despise them a bit sometimes. We used to say that audience loves flawed characters, but completely flawed characters nowadays are so cliche that when you met a bunch of characters who are lovable but flawed, you just get right into it.
"Rake" doesn't only have a great main ensemble cast, it has great guest casts such as Hugo Weaving, a never seen before Lisa McCune, Sam Neil, Rachel Griffiths etc who completely spice up your screen with firey performance that reminds you how many great talents this country has. It also has a lot more variety in ethnicity display. Yes most non-Anglo actors are still in the back e.g. among the jury, but it shows a greater diversity of people in a lot of its frames. It is completely refreshing to see something that great on Australian screen again. Oh one last thing, it is written by Andrew Knight - the guy who delivered "SeaChange" to us some years ago.
So check it out if you have a chance.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Creativity Versus Shock Factor
As an artist I am all in for pushing creativity boundaries. However, nowadays it seems the lines of creativity and shock factor are getting more blurry every day.
We cannot deny that only with creativity that a society can continue to evolve and develop. It also helps to shape the cultural landscape of a community and not to mention it encourage the expression of ideas. However, when we are talking about expression of ideas, do we actually mean there should be no limits whatsoever? Or do artists, who claim to be the beacon holders of cultural development, get free passes to all ideas that are exempted from social scrutiny?
Bill Henson, recently know for a public spat with the authorities over the portrayal of a nude teen, is having a new exhibition opening this week. There is no doubt about his talent and he proved to be a top notch artist. One of the first responses to the exhibition is “if you don’t like about the nude teen thing in the past you will still not like this one and it will offend people”. Now I don’t know about that and can’t make any judgement on this particular exhibition as I have yet to see it. However, this kind of feedback does at times worry me. I am sure most artists, even I, will see things that are beautiful and hard to resist and want to share them with the world from our own point of view. However, we must also agree that, not everything we see is beautiful and socially acceptable for everyone. Does that mean we need to censor ourselves? No. I don’t think so, but I, personally, will think about what kind of impact would there be when these creations go public. Social convention is a complicated thing. As societies are made up by huge variety of people, conventions are developed so that these varieties of people can live together in a “mutually content” manner. There are conventions they I don’t agree and whenever possible get extremely passionate to fight against, but then at the same time I will also consider the impact on others. The issue with Bill Henson’s nude teen photograph is whether it encourages paedophilia in a public arena when people are fighting to protect children from invasive sexual advances. Bill and some other people may find them beautiful and I am sure they have their artistic values, but are they socially responsible? Or in this case, do artists need to be socially responsible?
Another thing that bugs me lately is a new show about brides competing in a reality show to be the top bride and for winning each week’s challenge they receive a plastic surgery to perfect themselves for the day. The catches are, all surgeries can be performed back to back within a few weeks and the groom wouldn’t know what their brides look like until they walk down the aisle on the wedding day. I am sure there are lots of people who are not happy with how they look like and would love to “improve” upon that. I was one of them but I never had the money or courage to do that. However, having back to back plastic surgeries within a short period of time? Even plastic surgeons said that under normal circumstances they will not do that because it is detrimental to health. The producer of the show said it is the creativity and beauty part they emphasise on and the contestants obviously are fine with that. So they don’t see a problem. Yes it may not be a problem if we don’t need to see that play it out on TV. Is this really creativity or it is just a cheap shock factor using creativity as disguise. Also how socially responsible is it to have the groom to wed a bride that could look completely different from the woman he originally proposed. One of the contestants said that she knows she can now be the “perfect” woman she wants to be for her groom. But for me, if my bride shows up at the altar looking completely different and plastic (trust me, so of them look hideous after the surgeries), I will be so shocked that I doubt whether I can marry her.
Some people may think that I am too conservative blah blah blah. But the fact is I don’t really give a damn on how other people see me and as an artists I do think I need to push my own creativity boundaries. However, at the same time I do think that artists have to be socially responsible, have the conscience to protect people who are vulnerable, instead of being so self-inflated to think that under the name of art you can be as shocking and as irresponsible as we wanted to. We may be able to do that if we run our own cult but let’s be honest, that’s not most of us. We can challenge conventions, social ideas, political issues etc. etc. but at the end of the day, we still need to be responsible so that when we push the boundaries, we have credibility under our belt to fight against the “authority”.
We cannot deny that only with creativity that a society can continue to evolve and develop. It also helps to shape the cultural landscape of a community and not to mention it encourage the expression of ideas. However, when we are talking about expression of ideas, do we actually mean there should be no limits whatsoever? Or do artists, who claim to be the beacon holders of cultural development, get free passes to all ideas that are exempted from social scrutiny?
Bill Henson, recently know for a public spat with the authorities over the portrayal of a nude teen, is having a new exhibition opening this week. There is no doubt about his talent and he proved to be a top notch artist. One of the first responses to the exhibition is “if you don’t like about the nude teen thing in the past you will still not like this one and it will offend people”. Now I don’t know about that and can’t make any judgement on this particular exhibition as I have yet to see it. However, this kind of feedback does at times worry me. I am sure most artists, even I, will see things that are beautiful and hard to resist and want to share them with the world from our own point of view. However, we must also agree that, not everything we see is beautiful and socially acceptable for everyone. Does that mean we need to censor ourselves? No. I don’t think so, but I, personally, will think about what kind of impact would there be when these creations go public. Social convention is a complicated thing. As societies are made up by huge variety of people, conventions are developed so that these varieties of people can live together in a “mutually content” manner. There are conventions they I don’t agree and whenever possible get extremely passionate to fight against, but then at the same time I will also consider the impact on others. The issue with Bill Henson’s nude teen photograph is whether it encourages paedophilia in a public arena when people are fighting to protect children from invasive sexual advances. Bill and some other people may find them beautiful and I am sure they have their artistic values, but are they socially responsible? Or in this case, do artists need to be socially responsible?
Another thing that bugs me lately is a new show about brides competing in a reality show to be the top bride and for winning each week’s challenge they receive a plastic surgery to perfect themselves for the day. The catches are, all surgeries can be performed back to back within a few weeks and the groom wouldn’t know what their brides look like until they walk down the aisle on the wedding day. I am sure there are lots of people who are not happy with how they look like and would love to “improve” upon that. I was one of them but I never had the money or courage to do that. However, having back to back plastic surgeries within a short period of time? Even plastic surgeons said that under normal circumstances they will not do that because it is detrimental to health. The producer of the show said it is the creativity and beauty part they emphasise on and the contestants obviously are fine with that. So they don’t see a problem. Yes it may not be a problem if we don’t need to see that play it out on TV. Is this really creativity or it is just a cheap shock factor using creativity as disguise. Also how socially responsible is it to have the groom to wed a bride that could look completely different from the woman he originally proposed. One of the contestants said that she knows she can now be the “perfect” woman she wants to be for her groom. But for me, if my bride shows up at the altar looking completely different and plastic (trust me, so of them look hideous after the surgeries), I will be so shocked that I doubt whether I can marry her.
Some people may think that I am too conservative blah blah blah. But the fact is I don’t really give a damn on how other people see me and as an artists I do think I need to push my own creativity boundaries. However, at the same time I do think that artists have to be socially responsible, have the conscience to protect people who are vulnerable, instead of being so self-inflated to think that under the name of art you can be as shocking and as irresponsible as we wanted to. We may be able to do that if we run our own cult but let’s be honest, that’s not most of us. We can challenge conventions, social ideas, political issues etc. etc. but at the end of the day, we still need to be responsible so that when we push the boundaries, we have credibility under our belt to fight against the “authority”.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Tsunami and the Media
The recent events in Japan reminded us how powerful the forces of nature are. In just one day, the north eastern part of Japan was turned into ruins with cries of the despair echoing in the air. The continued unfolding of the nuclear plant melt down didn’t add any optimism to the country’s wait-to-be revived economy. Pictures and videos of the earthquake and the subsequent tsunamis flooded our TV and computer screens. We all feel the horror with the people in Japan and have our thoughts with them at difficult times.
While it is supposed to be a natural human response to feel for the unfortunate and offer them whatever help they need, there are some “media personalities” that are willing to make fun of other people’s despair to elevate their own status. Two of the most notable ones were Alec Sulken who penned the animated satire Family Guy and the US comedian Gilbert Gottfried. Both paid for what they’ve done – Sulken was forced to make a public apology and for Gottfried, he lost his gig for Aflac. It seems that justice has worked this time on these people but the fact that there are media personalities publicly mocking and making fun of other people’s tragedies was just appalling. The even more appalling fact was that there were people supporting such acts claiming that “jokes should have no boundaries” and these joke “can actually cheer these people up”.
I have no idea where these ideas come from, but the fact that playing on other people’s misfortune as a funny pass time is no laughing matter at all. There are good jokes and bad jokes and the ones in question are definitely bad jokes. I wonder how these people will feel if their love ones passed away and someone cracking jokes about them in front of these people at their funerals. Or maybe we can wait till these people pass away and then tweet and joke about their deaths like “Thank God! No duck asses from Gottfried”.
We can’t expect media personalities to be saints, but if they consistently exhibit low tastes in their speeches or behaviours, they bound to pay the price for it. The whole notion of freedom of speech does not give people a free pass to go and say something to hurt others while they are already in pain. And other people’s argument of artistic expressions should have no boundaries is just an irresponsible expression of speech. How our society has become so unmoved and self-centred is something that needs to be addressed to. Is it the media or the overly tasteless artists who love controversy to earn a buck? If as media we do not condemn what is regarded as low taste, then the last frontier of decency and moral will be gone. What the human race will spiral into is beyond imagination.
I am not saying that we need to be overly politically correct either. I support freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression. However what we are dealing with at the moment are disasters that costed thousands of people’s life. Since when deaths in natural disasters like this is a good subject for jokes? I am not talking about self-censoring here too, but my point is how low can one go nowadays to be considered as a decent human being if joking about other people’s deaths like this is acceptable? Where are our moral and social responsibilities to our society in this modern world?
And really for the Chinese parents who want New Zealand to pay you out because your kid died in the earthquake (as if there are no New Zealanders lost their lives), or those Chinese people who applauded on Japan’s disasters as a natural pay back of World War II, get a life! You not only exhibit bad tastes but also extremely low life behaviours that need to be spat out by the rest of the world!
While it is supposed to be a natural human response to feel for the unfortunate and offer them whatever help they need, there are some “media personalities” that are willing to make fun of other people’s despair to elevate their own status. Two of the most notable ones were Alec Sulken who penned the animated satire Family Guy and the US comedian Gilbert Gottfried. Both paid for what they’ve done – Sulken was forced to make a public apology and for Gottfried, he lost his gig for Aflac. It seems that justice has worked this time on these people but the fact that there are media personalities publicly mocking and making fun of other people’s tragedies was just appalling. The even more appalling fact was that there were people supporting such acts claiming that “jokes should have no boundaries” and these joke “can actually cheer these people up”.
I have no idea where these ideas come from, but the fact that playing on other people’s misfortune as a funny pass time is no laughing matter at all. There are good jokes and bad jokes and the ones in question are definitely bad jokes. I wonder how these people will feel if their love ones passed away and someone cracking jokes about them in front of these people at their funerals. Or maybe we can wait till these people pass away and then tweet and joke about their deaths like “Thank God! No duck asses from Gottfried”.
We can’t expect media personalities to be saints, but if they consistently exhibit low tastes in their speeches or behaviours, they bound to pay the price for it. The whole notion of freedom of speech does not give people a free pass to go and say something to hurt others while they are already in pain. And other people’s argument of artistic expressions should have no boundaries is just an irresponsible expression of speech. How our society has become so unmoved and self-centred is something that needs to be addressed to. Is it the media or the overly tasteless artists who love controversy to earn a buck? If as media we do not condemn what is regarded as low taste, then the last frontier of decency and moral will be gone. What the human race will spiral into is beyond imagination.
I am not saying that we need to be overly politically correct either. I support freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression. However what we are dealing with at the moment are disasters that costed thousands of people’s life. Since when deaths in natural disasters like this is a good subject for jokes? I am not talking about self-censoring here too, but my point is how low can one go nowadays to be considered as a decent human being if joking about other people’s deaths like this is acceptable? Where are our moral and social responsibilities to our society in this modern world?
And really for the Chinese parents who want New Zealand to pay you out because your kid died in the earthquake (as if there are no New Zealanders lost their lives), or those Chinese people who applauded on Japan’s disasters as a natural pay back of World War II, get a life! You not only exhibit bad tastes but also extremely low life behaviours that need to be spat out by the rest of the world!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Rabbit Hole
Rabbit Hole is the adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name. The adaptation was done by the original playwright David Lindsay-Abaire and now starring Nicole Kidman (in which Cynthia Nixon won a Tony Award in the same role on stage).
Obviously Rabbit Hole is a star vehicle for whoever plays Becca and nailed it. Cynthia Nixon did it and Nicole Kidman scored an Oscar nomination for the role and brought her right back up in the Hollywood game. So how does the play hold up in its silver screen adaptation?
Rabbit Hole is about grief. In the original play, 5 different characters of equal weight played out the grieving process. In the film adaptation, the weight seems to just fall on Becca. Other characters except maybe for Howie, played nothing more than a supportive role to Becca. This change of balance in fact affected the whole structure and story telling. In the play you have a comprehensive view of the different approaches of each character in dealing with the same incident. However, in the film, these were gone, and especially for Izzie, Becca’s sister, she became a mere plot movement in the film. This drastically reduced the dimensions originally offered by the play and became really simple story telling. Also, the adaptation seems to have fragmented the original tight structure of the play and made the story unnecessarily jumpy. And the over-emphasis of the “Rabbit Holes” in the film had to a certain degree reduced its great metaphor and connotation through information redundancy. There were other scenes that were originally narratives in the play being now shown to the audience. Some worked, some didn’t. For example, the scene about Becca slapping a mother in the supermarket was super and provided a lot of dramatic elements to the film. However the side story between Howie and another grieving mother didn’t work at all. It feels more like it was placed in the film as a dramatic bomb but it didn’t go off.
Performance wise, Nicole Kidman surely had done her homework for the role and played Becca really well. It could be one of her best dramatic roles since The Hours. However, if you don’t like her, this film will still not change your views about her, as the style is very Kidman. Nonetheless, it is always good to see her display a bigger emotional range in a very lovable character. Aaron Eckhart as Howie was solid. As with other characters, Howie’s role was much reduced unless it is a plot point for Becca to shine in the current or upcoming scenes. Nonetheless, I am glad that the pivotal “Howie break down” scene was still there and Aaron Eckhart’s performance in that scene was perfect. Dianne West as Becca’s mother also had a reduced role in the film but not to the extent that Izzie suffered. Critical scenes in the play were still there and the sometimes-warm sometimes-cold relationship between her and Becca was depicted with precision. Miles Teller as Jason, the teenager who caused the grief to the family was quite wooden to be honest. There were a few good moments, but on the whole somehow his character didn’t really work for me. Tammy Blanchard as Izzie really got nothing much to do in the film version. I feel sorry for her as in the play Izzie was such an important comic relief element.
On the whole Rabbit Hole is still a solid film. However, it has become more melodramatic than its stage counterpart. The good part of the original play is that it did not emphasise on the tear-jerking factor but let the audience feel and absorb into their grief. In the film version, there was just too much crying that discredited the characters and reduced their grief into simple one-dimensional moaning. There were great performances, but the film is just not as good as the play.
Obviously Rabbit Hole is a star vehicle for whoever plays Becca and nailed it. Cynthia Nixon did it and Nicole Kidman scored an Oscar nomination for the role and brought her right back up in the Hollywood game. So how does the play hold up in its silver screen adaptation?
Rabbit Hole is about grief. In the original play, 5 different characters of equal weight played out the grieving process. In the film adaptation, the weight seems to just fall on Becca. Other characters except maybe for Howie, played nothing more than a supportive role to Becca. This change of balance in fact affected the whole structure and story telling. In the play you have a comprehensive view of the different approaches of each character in dealing with the same incident. However, in the film, these were gone, and especially for Izzie, Becca’s sister, she became a mere plot movement in the film. This drastically reduced the dimensions originally offered by the play and became really simple story telling. Also, the adaptation seems to have fragmented the original tight structure of the play and made the story unnecessarily jumpy. And the over-emphasis of the “Rabbit Holes” in the film had to a certain degree reduced its great metaphor and connotation through information redundancy. There were other scenes that were originally narratives in the play being now shown to the audience. Some worked, some didn’t. For example, the scene about Becca slapping a mother in the supermarket was super and provided a lot of dramatic elements to the film. However the side story between Howie and another grieving mother didn’t work at all. It feels more like it was placed in the film as a dramatic bomb but it didn’t go off.
Performance wise, Nicole Kidman surely had done her homework for the role and played Becca really well. It could be one of her best dramatic roles since The Hours. However, if you don’t like her, this film will still not change your views about her, as the style is very Kidman. Nonetheless, it is always good to see her display a bigger emotional range in a very lovable character. Aaron Eckhart as Howie was solid. As with other characters, Howie’s role was much reduced unless it is a plot point for Becca to shine in the current or upcoming scenes. Nonetheless, I am glad that the pivotal “Howie break down” scene was still there and Aaron Eckhart’s performance in that scene was perfect. Dianne West as Becca’s mother also had a reduced role in the film but not to the extent that Izzie suffered. Critical scenes in the play were still there and the sometimes-warm sometimes-cold relationship between her and Becca was depicted with precision. Miles Teller as Jason, the teenager who caused the grief to the family was quite wooden to be honest. There were a few good moments, but on the whole somehow his character didn’t really work for me. Tammy Blanchard as Izzie really got nothing much to do in the film version. I feel sorry for her as in the play Izzie was such an important comic relief element.
On the whole Rabbit Hole is still a solid film. However, it has become more melodramatic than its stage counterpart. The good part of the original play is that it did not emphasise on the tear-jerking factor but let the audience feel and absorb into their grief. In the film version, there was just too much crying that discredited the characters and reduced their grief into simple one-dimensional moaning. There were great performances, but the film is just not as good as the play.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Harvey Normal?
As we rolled into 2011, the first media warfare was not among media personalities but between big retailers and everyday customers. Gerry Harvey (of Harvey Norman’s “fame”) and his cohorts’ movement to call for GST for online goods purchased under $1000 had caused significant backlashes from the society. Gerry said he has expected unwelcoming responses but claiming that this is for the good of the society as people will lose their jobs if retail shops are not doing well. He even went on to condemn people who prefer to shop online “unAustralian”.
Being an international shopper (yeah I live for shopping) I have been telling my friends about how it sucks to shop in Australia all these years. You usually pay much higher prices for less satisfactory products. I was told that because Australia is far away with a smaller market so it is much more expensive to sell products – so the costs drove up the prices. If we are talking about High Street fashions and electronic products, I can understand that, but even for daily products, Australia is still way more expensive than other places. A pack of 4 AA batteries in Sydney can cost you easily up to AU$7 but in Hong Kong, a pack of 16 AA batteries – same brand and not counterfeit, is just around AU$5. The huge price differences caused me to stock up batteries every time when I visit my parents there. Another good example is video games. Video games in Australia are easily a third more to double the prices to their overseas counterparts – Hong Kong, US and Japan. So it is not surprising that people who have limited income, unlike Gerry who is a billionaire, will choose to shop overseas and online!
Another major issue with local retailers is the product model. I remember when I first moved to Sydney, I needed a mini hi-fi system as I can’t live without music. I went into a shop and asked for a multi-discs system. I paid AU$250 and got one but it was the same model that I had for 10 years back home (and of course obsoleted in the market 8 years ago). I was told at that time that it was the latest model they have. I thought it was absurd but then when I checked other stores, they were all saying the same thing. Similarly, with mobile phones, Australia is usually one or two cycles behind other markets unless it is a major product like iPhone and BlackBerry. I once tried to find a Nokia phone for a friend in Sydney when I went back to Hong Kong because it was a new model in Sydney so it was extremely expensive. I went around all the shops, all of them told me that the model is no longer available because it was phased out a year ago and replaced by newer models. So for tech savvy people who want the latest technology, of course shopping online is the best way to get the latest gadgets. If Harvey Norman or other retails stores are not stalking them, they surely cannot complain about people are not shopping from them.
Further, the range of products in Australia is far more limited as compare to overseas. In Sydney, you can only find three to four styles of soap dishes available, at around AU$10. However when you go overseas to places such as Japan and Hong Kong, you have aisles and aisles of soap dishes to choose from. They will come in different styles, sizes, colours and looks etc. And they are all a fraction of the price you pay in Australia. I usually get a lot of household items back from Hong Kong simply because I got something to choose from and they are so much cheaper even if you need to pack them into your luggage to bring them here. This is the same for skin care products where you have a lot more to choose from and at very reasonable prices.
So, with products that are cheaper, more current and with more choices, you don’t need an expert to tell these retail giants why Australians are leaving them to shop online. The claim made by these retail giants is like they are crying foul over the foul they created. Furthermore, when did these people care about other people’s jobs when they are just importing products that are made in China, India and South East Asia? If they care about people’s jobs, then they should sell more Australian made products and promote them to the world. And a bit of research would tell you that Gerry Norman was the person who in 2008 said charity is a waste of money as they help people who don’t deserved to be helped – who are usually people at the lower end of the society.
With so much hypocrisy jetting out like venoms from the fangs of a rattle snake, no wonder there are backlashes from the society. I’m amazed that these people could even come out and make those claims and present themselves as saviours for the working class. To be honest, if they are willing to cut their million or even billion dollar pay checks by 10%, we can already get a lot of products from their shops at a cheaper price, but would they be willing to do so? So don’t blame the customers for deserting your stores cos what goes around comes around. You desert the Australian workforce to get goods from overseas; customers desert you to buy stuff from overseas directly. That’s the free global market you guys have been championing in the past. You can’t just come back and say that it is wrong now because you couldn’t add another million to your bank account.
Being an international shopper (yeah I live for shopping) I have been telling my friends about how it sucks to shop in Australia all these years. You usually pay much higher prices for less satisfactory products. I was told that because Australia is far away with a smaller market so it is much more expensive to sell products – so the costs drove up the prices. If we are talking about High Street fashions and electronic products, I can understand that, but even for daily products, Australia is still way more expensive than other places. A pack of 4 AA batteries in Sydney can cost you easily up to AU$7 but in Hong Kong, a pack of 16 AA batteries – same brand and not counterfeit, is just around AU$5. The huge price differences caused me to stock up batteries every time when I visit my parents there. Another good example is video games. Video games in Australia are easily a third more to double the prices to their overseas counterparts – Hong Kong, US and Japan. So it is not surprising that people who have limited income, unlike Gerry who is a billionaire, will choose to shop overseas and online!
Another major issue with local retailers is the product model. I remember when I first moved to Sydney, I needed a mini hi-fi system as I can’t live without music. I went into a shop and asked for a multi-discs system. I paid AU$250 and got one but it was the same model that I had for 10 years back home (and of course obsoleted in the market 8 years ago). I was told at that time that it was the latest model they have. I thought it was absurd but then when I checked other stores, they were all saying the same thing. Similarly, with mobile phones, Australia is usually one or two cycles behind other markets unless it is a major product like iPhone and BlackBerry. I once tried to find a Nokia phone for a friend in Sydney when I went back to Hong Kong because it was a new model in Sydney so it was extremely expensive. I went around all the shops, all of them told me that the model is no longer available because it was phased out a year ago and replaced by newer models. So for tech savvy people who want the latest technology, of course shopping online is the best way to get the latest gadgets. If Harvey Norman or other retails stores are not stalking them, they surely cannot complain about people are not shopping from them.
Further, the range of products in Australia is far more limited as compare to overseas. In Sydney, you can only find three to four styles of soap dishes available, at around AU$10. However when you go overseas to places such as Japan and Hong Kong, you have aisles and aisles of soap dishes to choose from. They will come in different styles, sizes, colours and looks etc. And they are all a fraction of the price you pay in Australia. I usually get a lot of household items back from Hong Kong simply because I got something to choose from and they are so much cheaper even if you need to pack them into your luggage to bring them here. This is the same for skin care products where you have a lot more to choose from and at very reasonable prices.
So, with products that are cheaper, more current and with more choices, you don’t need an expert to tell these retail giants why Australians are leaving them to shop online. The claim made by these retail giants is like they are crying foul over the foul they created. Furthermore, when did these people care about other people’s jobs when they are just importing products that are made in China, India and South East Asia? If they care about people’s jobs, then they should sell more Australian made products and promote them to the world. And a bit of research would tell you that Gerry Norman was the person who in 2008 said charity is a waste of money as they help people who don’t deserved to be helped – who are usually people at the lower end of the society.
With so much hypocrisy jetting out like venoms from the fangs of a rattle snake, no wonder there are backlashes from the society. I’m amazed that these people could even come out and make those claims and present themselves as saviours for the working class. To be honest, if they are willing to cut their million or even billion dollar pay checks by 10%, we can already get a lot of products from their shops at a cheaper price, but would they be willing to do so? So don’t blame the customers for deserting your stores cos what goes around comes around. You desert the Australian workforce to get goods from overseas; customers desert you to buy stuff from overseas directly. That’s the free global market you guys have been championing in the past. You can’t just come back and say that it is wrong now because you couldn’t add another million to your bank account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)