Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

This story is a part in the group of stories by Mr. Schmitt about religion. The story in question focuses on Christianity. Oscar is a boy of about ten who writes letters to God as the Lady in Pink has told him to do. This lady in pink is an old nurse at the hospital where Oscar is bound to spend his last days. He has cancer all over him and the lady in pink helps him to be able with his very close death. Unbelieving at first, very believing at last Oscar writes to God his whole life. The lady in red comes up with a plan - Oscar has to live every remaining day of his life as if it was 10 years. So he manages to live a fruitful and long life within the last ten days he`s given. He starts off with early childhood, goes through teenage years and realising love, until passing out being about 100 years old. In the notes for this book I read that E.E.S. himself couldn`t stop tears when he read the story printed, and I have very little doubt that it`s true. It`s so sad and yet so optimistic, so realistic, so fatalistic, so everything you want it to be that you don`t even need words to describe it.

This is heavy blues influenced latino rock that has about zero hooks on the entire album, the instrumental part may be not that bad to be honest, yet there`s absolutely nothing in the record that could help me remember that I listened to it in a day. The vocalist does have a rather strong voice, yet his singing makes no sense at all - it has little to do with the actual music, I don`t know the language and his singing style is boring. The blues pattern is followed quite precisely here and blues isn`t the most memorable kind of music, yet Aeroblus is certainly far from the best examples of this genre. After having listened to the record for 3 times I can`t tell any two songs of it apart, for they are all the same. God it`s dull!

Empire of the Angels is the second part of the trilogy about life and death by Bernard Werber. Since I haven`t read the first part yet, I don`t know whether this one is better or worse than the first, and I also wasn`t already familiar with the characters at the beginning of this book. The main hero, a certain Michelle Planard (if I remember his name correctly) dies at the very beginning of the book. He goes to heaven where his soul is weighted and with the help of his guardian angel (who happens to be Emile Zola) he`s updated to an angel and three people whom he should guard are given him. His main goal is to make one of the persons reach the level of 600 points (which one should achieve in order to become an angel). Michelle can help his people on their hard way through life on earth using several tools which include: 1) intuition; 2) signs; 3) dreams; 4) mediums; 5) cats. Yet people rarely want to be guided through life by an angel. The three patients of Michelle are: 1) Jacques, a French man who becomes a writer; 2) an American top model; 3) a Russian criminal named Igor. At the beginning of their journey Igor has the best starting position (in terms of points earned in previous life), yet it doesn`t go well enough for him - he`s born to a mother that wants to kill him, first he ends up in a children`s care centrum, then in a prison for minors, then in Chechnya. Meanwhile the young model evolves into a very egoistic and dull person. Michelle doesn`t follow his "patients" lives too much for he has other things to do. What I learned from this book is the recipe for a human person: 25% karma + 25% from parents + 50% free choice. This was one of the few books that I`d lately read that had a very strong influence upon me. Maybe it`s that way because I liked what the author was writing, I liked the message, I liked the idea. I have to admit that not everything in this book was marvelous and that some episodes weren`t as bright as others, yet it`s still one of the best books I`ve read this year.

Zemāk redzams teksts, ko par šo filmu rakstīju pēc tās iepriekšējās noskatīšanās pirms četriem gadiem. Paejot laikam un noskatoties to vēlreiz, pēkšņi sapratu, ka šī filma nemaz nav tik sarežģīta kā man iepriekš bija šķitis - tās sižets patiesībā ir pietiekami vienkāršs un "filozofija" saprotama. Nav tur nekādu baigāko triku un baigāko teoriju (raugoties uz to ar šodienas acīm), un vienlaikus šī filma nav arī tik ģeniāla, par kādu biju to iepriekš uzskatījis. Jā, tā ir laba, jā, tā ir interesanta, bet tās pārcilvēciskā kino sajūtas, ko tā man radīja iepriekš, tagad vairs nav.

Having already read the novel behind the theatre performance, my expectations to it were quite high. Will the cast of my favourite Latvian theatre be able to recapture the spirit of Chesterton`s most ambitious work? Since the novel is already on this factoid, I`m not gonna go into details about the story. Let`s better discuss the performance as such. Decorations: close to none, since it`s quite complicated to recapture all the different locations and different objects on the stage there was an absolute minimum of everything - a few chairs, some piece of cloth on the floor that was sometimes elevated to be the sea or something like that, a table without legs that must be held by actors - and an image projector: that`s it. The acting was superb. No major changes were made in the plot (unlike what you usually see on Latvian stages). But one flaw was there - the performance went on for almost four hours and it was a bit too much, I guess cutting a few chase scenes would have been a good idea, thus the performance isn`t rated as high as it might have been.

One of the stories E.-M.Schmitt wrote in his cycle of religions. As you can probably tell this one goes on the subject of Islam. Moses is a young Jewish boy who has no mother and almost no father (somewhere around the middle of the story his father really stops existing) who happens to form a relationship to a local shop owner Ibrahim who`s a Muslim living in the Jewish quarter and selling stuff all around the clock. As Moses becomes very attached to Ibrahim, so is Ibrahim attached to Moses. Ibrahim becomes Moses`s step dad and they go on a journey south to the place where Ibrahim lived when he was young. By his attachment to Ibrahim Moses slowly transfers from being a Judaist to being a Muslim, he even changes his name and when he meets his mom he refuses to accept her as her son but is ready to accept her as her sons (Moseses) best friend. This story ain`t as brilliant as the Christian one but it`s still very good.

This is a very bad film from the very beginning. It has little to tell, its characters are mostly boring, the soundtrack is recorded by some fellow who performs David Bowie`s songs in Portuguese and Steve Zissou wears a silly orange cap. So why should I like this bad film? First, because it`s a tribute to the legendary Jaques Cousteau (if that`s how you write his name). Steve Zissou is a Cousteau like character - a man of the see who`s legendary for his documentaries. Still the last years have all gone downwards - as Zissou is getting older, his movies get worse very fast. His team on the ship contains mostly different kind of idiots and the only sane person around him is Eleonor, his ex-wife. Things get even more complicated when Steve decides to go an a mission of revenge and kill a tiger shark that ate his best friend. He`s accompanied not only by his great team but also by a fellow named Ned who supposedly is Steve`s son (but that`s not a fact) and whom he has just met, and by a pregnant reporter (who`s played by Kate Blanchett). Concerning the acting, I have to admit that the cast contains lots of brilliant actors - next to Kate there`s Bill Murray as Steve Z, Willem Defoe as Klaus from Steve`s team and even the son is played by the famous yet not that brilliant Owen Wilson. I doubt that it would be reasonable to go more into details about the story line for there isn`t much of that in the film, for it`s rather a film of images than a film of a story. It`s a parody of Cousteau`s work at some times, but it`s not parodic at other times. To be honest, I didn`t enjoy this film too much for the level of entertainment in it wasn`t particulary high. Yet, that`s a thing one has to expect from parodies of sea documentaries.

Anatols Franss pēc statusa ir viens no lielākajiem 19. gadsimta beigu - 20. gadsimta sākuma rakstniekiem. No viņa iespaidojies pats Marsels Prusts, "Zudušo laiku meklējot" rakstot, Fransam piešķirta Nobela prēmija literatūrā utt. utt. Jāatzīst, ka man laikam kaut kas nav īsti pielecis. "Sarkanā lilija" ir lirisks stāsts par Terēzi, kas apprecējusi parlamenta locekli tēva karjeras mīlestības vadīta un kuras dzīve līdz šim ir bijusi viena vienīga garlaicība. Viņai ir bijusi arī kāda afēriņa, kura ievilkās vairāku gadu garumā, bet tomēr joprojām viņas dzīvei uguntiņu nepiešķīla. Tagad viņa iepazīst jauno tēlnieku Dešartru, ar kuru viņa pavada neaizmirstamu laiku Florencē, pēc kā atgriežas Francijā, kur ir garlaicīgais vīrs, kurš patiesībā neuztraucas par to, ar ko saietas viņa sieva. Taču Dešartrs ir bezgala greizsirdīgs un neuzticīgs un aizdomīgs, un attiecībās viešas zināms smagums, kas beigu beigās tās iznīcina un Terēzei atliek vienīgi atmiņas. Bezgala skumji, vai ne? Tas viss, protams, notiek augstākajās aprindās, kas ir garlaicīgas līdz bezdievībai un kurās arī pilnīgi nekas nenotiek. Ko gan vairāk var vēlēties? Protams, pat man nav grūti saskatīt līdzību starp Frānsu un jau pieminēto Prustu, taču šī līdzība mani īpaši neiepriecina - kā viena, ta otra daiļrade ir manā izpratnē pārāk smaga - nevis satura filozofiskajā smagumā vai saturiskajā smagumā bet formas smagumā, gribētos pat teikt, ka no šādas stieptas un bezjēdzīgas formas neatteiktos arī kāds kārtīgs austriešu rakstnieks (pieņemot to, ka manā izpratnē vairums austriešu rakstnieku līdzinās latviešu literatūras korifejiem un tas vien kaut ko liecina). Es, protams, nevaru pēc vienas grāmatas nosodīt rakstnieku, ko daudzi dēvē par izcilu, taču zināmas šaubas par to, ka Frānss jelkad varētu mani patiešām ieintriģēt, man ir radušās.

So, so, so. Latvian soviet cinematography? Does that ring a bell in your head? It does in mine. Back in those days Riga could produce something like 5 full-length motion pictures every year. Nowadays the number has reduced to something like 0. Ok, probably if you count films done by TV and not really made for the big screen but played on the big screen because there`s nothing better to offer, there are 0.5 films that are yearly made in Latvia. Anyhow I`m not sure that quantity provides quality. What can I say about this film? First, it`s a comedy and I never found my compatriots to be brilliant when it comes to humour. In this film an old woman has won a car in a lottery and some newly found relatives of her appear hoping to get it after her death. Still it doesn`t happen that easily. The film boosts some sentences that have since that time been used in every day life in Latvia quite often, and it does have some pretty edgy parts in the script. But it has a few flaws as well. 1) the film doesn`t start particulary dynamically - the first 20 minutes last at least for an hour; 2) it`s very, very, very predictable (because it does have its share of propaganda - not only soviet but partiotic latvian "jump around the bush as if you were a freaking pagan" as well and you can always tell the ending if you know the message); 3) the ending. There are some moments when you can laugh but overall it`s just not that good.

Pagājuši pāris gadi kopš pirmās filmas par sviestaino resno kaķi un visu šo laiku laiks nav stāvējis. Stulba teikuma konstrukcija, kā sacīt jāsaka. Atceros, ka toreiz skatījāmies Ziņģa kaut kur dabūtu (ja nemaldos) skrīneri (kompānija: Liene, es, Ziņģis), kuru bija ierunājis krieviski kaut kāds ļoti dīvains tips ar dīvaināko leksiku. Otro daļu iesāku skatīties divatā ar Lieni, bet viņai kaut kā nepatika. Rezultātā noskatījos trīs piegājienos. Kvalitāte atkal klasiskā - skrīneris. Nav jau brīnums, ķinīšos šis gabals parādīsies tikai divas dienas pēc tam, kad būšu šo filmu bijis noskatījies (laba laika konstrukcija!). Ierunātājs gan nav gadījies tik labs - protams, kā jau kārtīgs krievu tulkotājs, viņš bieži kaut ko sajauc un personāži viņa izpratnē bieži saka: "vot, bļin!", taču odziņas tajā visā nav. Gluži tāpat, kā odziņas nav filmā pašā. Jāatzīst, ka pārejot no komiksa/multfilmas uz aktieru filmu, "Gārfīlda" veidotājiem nav izdevies viens: atbrīvoties no sajūtas, ka tas joprojām ir komikss. Breckin Meyer, kas spēlē Gārfīlda saimnieku Džonu, ir vienkārši nožēlojams - pat es lieliski izjūtu, ka viņš sarunājas nevis ar datoranimētu kaķi, bet skatās tukšā punktā un muld, bet viss viņa tēlojums ir tik pārspīlēts, ka neviens latviešu teātra aktieris nekaunētos tik pastiprināti atveidot emocijas, domājot par skatītājiem pēdējās rindās, kuri citādi neko neredz. Jennifer Love Hewitt varbūt ir salīdzinoši pazīstama aktrise, bet nav pārsteigums, ka viņa ir spēlējusi tikai mēslainās filmās - jo arī viņa lieliski spēj nekļūt mazāk plakana, nekā komiksa personāžs. Toties, kāpēc Bill Murray uzskatījis par vajadzīgu tizloties, ierunājot Gārfīldu pašu, man nav skaidrs. Patiesībā gan tieši Gārfīldam nav ne vainas, taču visi personāži viņam apkārt ir vienkārši nožēlojami - gan cilvēki, gan vēl jo vairāk (sic!) dzīvnieki. Kāda vella pēc te vispār vajadzēja kaut kādas runājošas peles, trušus un papagaiļus iesaistīt? Lai piesaistītu skatītājus vecumā līdz 5 gadiem? Sižets pāris vārdos: Gārfīlds ar Džonu nonācis Eiropā, tur resno kaķi sajauc ar kaut kādu karalisku kaķi vārdā Princis, kā vietu šis arī ieņem, kamēr tas kopā ar Džonu ēd picu. Prinča pilī ir ļaunais lords, kas grib kaķi nogalināt, lai pārņemtu varu pār pili un uztaisītu atpūtas kompleksu un iznīdētu visus pils dzīvniekus, kamēr dzīvnieki to nevēlas. Ja godīgi, tad jau es labāk skatītos "Babe in the big city", tā cūka vismaz bija jautra. Nu, ok, varbūt nebija. Kas gan - es principā esmu pieradis pie datoranimēta Gārfīlda - animācija šoreiz ir tīri pieklājīga un kaķi var atpazīt, ja vēl filmā būtu vēl kaut kas, izņemot Gārfīldu, to varētu pat skatīties. Starp citu, man lazanja - tā, ne visai.