Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

Monty Python`s Flying Circus wasn`t really about singing, but about sketches. Still in the fifteen years starting with the TV series until "The Meaning of Life" they created some beautiful music as well. Probably if it weren`t for the lyrics one wouldn`t care about these songs, although some of them are musically interesting as well. Let`s go through the highlights. "Always look on the bright side of life" is without a doubt one of the best optimistic songs about death, with some nice singing done by Eric Idle. "Sit on my face" is a military march with lyrics about oral sex, very patriotic indeed. "Lumberjack song" is cute, altough it starts a bit too slowly (quote: "I cut down trees, I wear high heels, suspendies and a bra, I wish I`d been a girlie just like my dear papa."), the way the choruses go bad when Palin sings about transvestitism is nice. "Penis song" gives different names for a cock, has close to no music accompanying the text. "Money song" is better than "Money makes the world go round" from "Cabaret". "Bruces` philosophers song" provides some unknown facts about philosophers drinking habit. "Medical love songs" is a romantic little piece about sexually transmissive diseases. "Every sperm is sacred" - how can one not laugh about catholics while listening to this great performance? "Brian Song" isn`t sung by one of the Pythons but the great film melody with the utter sillyness of lyrics provides a perfect combination of everything. "Meaning of life" is both deep and funny. "Galaxy song" doesn`t even need any commentaries. There`s only one major letdown in this compilation of 25 songs - it`s "Christmas in Heaven" which is boring and not particulary funny. But since the other 24 songs are in the category between good and superb I can just as well skip this disco crap.

Hey, this is a fairy-tale! It is not based on true facts, if you want to know! Like a fellow I know said: "Sweet Mushu the honey baby!" Ok, I don`t know the fellow who said that. But I do know the guy who called this film a remake of Shrek with live actors. There was no donkey, though. And that`s a big minus. Damn, how could anyone forget about the donkey? Still, there`s an elf named Slannen who plays the donkey part. I think, of course, that a donkey would have done a much better job, but it`s not me who`s opinion you`re after. No, sir-ee! Ella has a gift from her fairy godmother - she has the gift of obedience - and if someone tells her to do something she does just that. And I mean literary! Since this is a film for children nobody orders her to perform a fisting or golden rain, but she still does lots of silly stuff. She falls in love with the beautiful prince Charmont but his evil uncle Edgar wants them both to die. Yeah, and that Edgar fellow has a perfectly terrible CGI snake. Man, even I could create a snake like this for a couple of beers and a free edition of 3D Studio Max! Ok, I don`t drink beer, but you get the point. Ella has to stop Edgar from killing her and her pretty boy (who ain`t that pretty at all, if you ask me) and find the fairy to take her marvelous gift back. What`s good about this film is that despite not having a donkey (a very stupid decision) it has a Monty Python member Eric Idle. Whopee! I`d probably prefer this film not having anything but Eric Idle, and a donkey, of course, but a bit of Eric Idle and no donkey is surely better than Richard Gere having sex with Julia Roberts. So, this film is okay, if not better than that. A fairy tale with a silly plot and silly actors, but that`s all right with me.

Buttercup is a simple young girl, and her Westley is a simple young man. When he goes on a trip to gain some easy money and never comes back Buttercup agrees to marry the evil prince Humperdink. But Westley isn`t dead and he`s ready to fight the seven nations army with his bare hands in order to regain the Buttercup of his heart. This is a fairy-tale, you can be sure about that. And this is supposed to be a superb fairy-tale - it`s in the IMDB top 250 greatest films of all time and has a perfect 100% freshness in the Rottentomatoes. But somehow I don`t find this film to be that good. Ok, it has some funny moments, but they seem to be known to me. Most likely because I could have already seen this film before, I`m almost sure that it`s true. Still, it`s not more than a family movie, despite the fact that the dialogues are perfectly designed. The special effects are about as cool as they could be in a film that came out in 1987. That`s not too much of a complaint, of course, but I can`t call this film a great masterpiece of any sort. The characters are developed about as good as they can be in a fairy tale. Oh, there`s one more disturbing film - the main story happens actually in a book an old man reads to his grandson who`s sick and has to remain in bed (by the way, the grandson is played by the fellow who later became the leading star in the marvelous TV series "The wonder years"). I don`t mean to say that this film is no good, but I don`t get why it should be as good as some people tend to think. Oh, come to think of it - there`s one really weird thing - Westley turned to be Edgar in "Ella Enchanted" - you see, in just 17 years a perfectly nice young man turns into an evil uncle. God works in mysterious ways, doesn`t he?

Weird, it had been something like only 18 months since I last saw this film, but today it didn`t work for me as it did at that time. Ok, the idea is pretty interesting to show how a young man tries to stop the time and return the GDR in order for his mom not worry after she comes back from a coma, but still this film isn`t as good as I thought it to be. It probably works well for me, because I do have a certain amount of knowledge about what the GDR was like and what was happening at the time the events of the film took place. But for a person with an average knowledge of the subject it probably wouldn`t be interesting. Still I do think that this is a good film, but I`m not considering it a contender for an A or B list or whatever anymore.

Having already said it once, I shall repeat myself: Roald Dahl is one hell of a creator of horrific and very masterful stories. There`s 11 stories in here. And not one of them is a stinker or a filler. So I guess I`ll spend a whole sentence for every single one of them. "The Landlady" is a sad yet funny story about a woman that specialises in taxydermy of her loved ones. "William and Mary" is a tribute to "Professor Dovel`s Head" - a soviet sci-fi - where a woman finds out that her husbands brain is artificially kept alive after his death and she at last has a chance to repay to him everything she didn`t like about him. "The Way up to Heaven" is about a woman who was always afraid of getting anywhere too late and how her husband took advantage from that, but in the end it was him who died in the elevator. "Parson`s Pleasure" is a funny story about a guy who buys antiques for peanuts and sells them for zillions - he accidentally finds a buffet done by Thomas Chipendale but he`s too miserly and he fails badly. "Mrs Bixby and the Colonels Coat" - I read this at school some years ago - is about a woman that gets a precious coat as a gift from her lover and comes up with a plan to keep the coat without receiving questions from her husband about the coat (you can guess that she also fails). "Royal Jelly" is somewhat of a horror tale where a man feeds to his newborn daughter bee jelly thus turning her and himself into bees. "Genesis and Catastrophe" is a weird tale about how Adolf Hitler was born. "Edward the Conqueror" tells us how composer Liszt was reincarnated as a cat and how he died. "Pig" is a very tragical story about a man who becomes meat. And finally there`s "The Champion of the world" - an optimistic (slightly) tale about steeling pheanants. Overall: this will make you laugh, this will make you shiver, and you won`t feel no sympathy for the poor unlucky people. Dahl is for your joy not for making you feel miserable.

This is an artsy film, for sure. You probably have never heard about anyone participating in the film. But does fame always mean quality? I don`t care whether it`s true or not. Amelie gets a job of an interpreter for a huge Japanese company - which has been a dream of hers for quite a long time. At first she finds out that she has no work to do - the only work she does is bringing coffee to the other workers. She has a positive relationship with her direct boss Fubuki, though, and even thinks that they are friends. Everything ends when Amelie accidentally meets Tenshi who gives her some real work to do and she gets a chance of being promoted. Fubuki doesn`t accept that for she has worked many years in orded to get into her position and she doesn`t want Amelie to succeed that quickly. So she starts giving her work which Amelie isn`t capable to do. First it has to do with numbers but in the end Amelie ends up working in the toilet of the company, listening to Fubuki`s cynical remarks the whole time. In the end Amelie`s contract with the company expires and she doesn`t go on, especially when Fubuki admits that the only work she believes Amelie is capable of doing is picking rubbish. So she goes back to her native Belgium and becomes a writer. As you can guess, this film is based on an autobiographical novel. What`s weird is that in the first 30 minutes you think that you`re watching quite a nice little comedy, but actually it ends up as a nightmare. Amelie would have probably left sooner, hadn`t she fallen in love with Fubuki. The film was interesting to watch, despite the fact that the subtitles for the film didn`t work perfectly and some of the monologues in French I didn`t get (althoug a part of them I could guess).

First, let me put it out clear, why I decided to take this book from a public library - the title about escaping into a piano seemed to promise a bizarre tale not making very much sense - and it`s what I like in books. Later it proved though that there`s nothing strange about the book - it`s written by an old Austrian female writer and tells a story of a man who leaves his native Czechoslovakia because of the comming of the communist regime. Is it innovative? You gotta be kidding me - there`s that fictional writer who hears the story of Jirzi`s life and writes it down in the most casual manner one has ever experienced. Does it keep ones attention? At least partly, for the book is certainly good written but there are no big revelations comming up. What about the piano? Jirzi`s family owned a piano fabric once and he himself was keen on playing piano and did it in all his wanderings around the globe - slaughtering rabbits in Australia, cleaning a hospital in the States, living in a monastery in the USA, learning to become a priest in Rome, being a priest in Texas, retiring in Austria and finally visiting his homeland after the fall of the communism. And to give my final word - it`s one of those books that you read and later don`t remember a single thing about them.

"The Who" turpina pēdējā laikā ļoti populāro tendenci sešdesmito un septiņdesmito gadu leģendām atgriezties jaunās skaņās un mēģināt atkal iekarot pasauli. Šo daudzu "atgriezēju" vidū The Who izceļas īpaši - pat Deivida Gilmora pēdējais solo albūms iznāca nesenāk nekā "Kas?" ir spējuši izdot ripuli ar jaunām kompozīcijām. Pagājuši 24 gadi kopš iznācis diezgan drausmīgās kvalitātes "It`s Hard" un būtu vietā pajautāt - kas tad tāds ir noticis, ka grupa pēkšņi izlēmusi atdzīvoties? Šai laikā jau sen mūžībā aizgājušajam Kītam Mūnam piebiedrojies arī, iespējams, visu laiku labākais basģitārists Džons Envistls, atstājot The Who bez ritma sekcijas. Protams, tāda kalibra grupai nav grūti atrast jaunus dalībniekus, līdz ar to pie bungām viņi piesēdinājuši paša Ringo Stāra atvasi Zaku Stārkiju, bet basu uzņēmies visnotaļ leģendārais Pino Paladino. Tomēr ne jau grupas dalībnieki nosaka to, vai albūms būs veiksmīgs, bet gan tas, vai Pīta Taunshenda spēja radīt atmiņā paliekošas majestātiskas melodijas līdz ar vecumu nav gājusi mazumā. Un te jāsecina tas, kas ir patiess attiecībā uz gandrīz jebkuru vecu mūziķu grupējumu. Mūsdienās, kad "dinozauri" ir sapratuši, ka pusaudžu sirdis viņiem vairs iekarot nebūs lemts, klasiskie rokeri reti izdod albūmus, kas būtu dramatiski slikti. 80. gadu mēģinājumi ar sintezatoriem un bungumašīnām piesaistīt sev jaunus fanus vairumam no viņiem izrādījās katastrofāli ("The Who" it īpaši), līdz ar to mūsdienās viņi vairāk uzticas pārbaudītām vērtībām - cenšas neizmantot nekādas "krutas" mūsdienu iespējas, bet spēlēt tādu rokenrolu, ar kādu viņus pasaule ir iemīlējusi. Līdz ar to parasti ļoti labi var paredzēt ieraksta kvalitāti - labs, bet nekas īpašs. Arī "Endless Wire" šajā ziņā neizceļas. Taunshends (kas tagadējos apstākļos palicis par vienīgo dziesmu autoru grupā) bieži atsaucas pats uz sevi, izmantojot fragmentus no klasiskajiem "Baba O`Riley" un "Won`t get fooled again" un zināmā mērā tās ir jautrākās skaņas ierakstā. Brīžiem parādās gan arī Who mazāk raksturīgas kompozīcijas, piemēram gandrīz Toma Veitsa balsīti dziedātā "In the Ether", taču grupai neapšaubāmi pietrūkst enerģijas, un diemžēl es saprotu, ka tur neko padarīt nevar - gadi prasa savu. Kā nekā no 60-to milžiem tieši the Who visvairāk bija atkarīgi no savas praktiski neierobežotās enerģijas, bet tagad no tās ir atlicis visai maz. Rodžera Daltrija balss varbūt joprojām ir spēcīga, tomēr tajā ļoti viegli var nojaust arī viņa vecumu, kas neizbēgami liek atcerēties to, kāds viņš bija pirms gadiem 35 un skumji nopūsties. Patiesībā tieši Daltrijs ir tas, kas man šajā ierakstā patīk vismazāk. Taunshenda pirksti varbūt nav vairs tādi, kā tie bija agrāk, bet viņš joprojām ir izcils ģitārists, tikām Paladino un Stārkijs ir salīdzinoši jaunāki nekā "īstie" the Who dalībnieki, līdz ar to viņiem arī ar vitalitāti viss ir kārtībā, bet Daltrijs, kas ar savu lauvas balsi kādreiz spēja "izvilkt" arī salīdzinoši neveiksmīgas kompozīcijas, tagad lielākoties ir tikai traucēklis. Albūmā ir dziesmas, kuras man noteikti būtu ļoti patikušas, piemēram, tā tituldziesma, ja tajās būtu jauneklīgāks un enerģiskāks vokāls. Tipisks piemērs Daltrija 2006. gada modelim ir dziesma "We got a hit", kas izklausās pēc kāda no vecajiem labajiem gabaliem, bet - pēc kā izklausās Daltrijs? Pēc veca nodzērušās pirāta. Loģiski, ka arī Taunshends neko lieliski tagad padziedāt nevar. Vispār - protams, šis albūms ir galvas tiesu pārāks par citiem "The Who" pēc-Mūna perioda produktiem, taču dabiski, ka tas ir arī galvastiesu vājāks par gandrīz visiem Mūna perioda albūmiem.

I guess not without a reason I consider myself quite a fan of Mr. Murakami`s writing style which bears very little from his Japanese culture and very much from everything else. As I read on the back cover of this book this novel was the one that brought Mr. Murakami recognision of the world. To be honest, I don`t agree with the world in that case. Vanatabe remembers the days of his youth, the time he knew Naoko. She was once the girlfriend of his very best friend, but after the friend died he sorta got the girlfriend from him. After they had sex the first and only time Naoko went to a rehabilitation hospital because her mind wasn`t quite right. Meanwhile Vanatabe met Midori - a completely perverse girl - at the university where he studied. They also had something like a relationship. Later on Vanatabe visited Naoko at the place of her curing and met Reyko - her roommate, another weird person. In the end Naoko died but Vanatabe couldn`t manage to stay together with Midori. After having read this do you know why I didn`t like the book? I don`t think so, because I didn`t mention it yet. The book is too "erotic" - description of genitalia, masturbation, oral sex, many different sex scenes, a woman of 31 getting wet when touched in her private parts by a girl of 13 - you name it. And I, despite being quite edgy sometimes on the outside, don`t like something like this in a book. I gotta admit that things like these can`t make a good book become a bad one. But if life is really like this I don`t have too much sympathy for life. At least the ending where Vanatabe and Reyko spend a night together just so she can "have practice" - damn is that imho nasty. (I still don`t rate this book particulary low because if Murakami hadn`t gone into details of love-making the book would be quite good)

(valoda: krievu) Viljams Tērbers, ja var ticēt aprakstam uz grāmatas aizmugurējā vāka (kam, protams, ticēt nevar, tāpat kā nevar par elektroprecēm spriest pēc to ražotāju atsauksmēm), esot leģendārs amerikāņu satīriķis, karikatūrists un vispār unikāla humora tips. Ja var ticēt manam spriedumam (un tam, protams, ticēt nevar, jo zināms, ka mani ir noalgojuši tumšie spēki, lai es izsmietu jebkuru ASV radītu mākslas darbu, kā jau normālam interneta teroristam klājas), tad Viljama Tērbera humors ir visai otršķirīgs. Šajā grāmatā ir apkopoti viņa labākie darbi (nezinu pēc kādiem kritērijiem) no dažādiem stāstu krājumiem, kas tapuši vairāku gadu desmitu garumā. Pirmais, ko nevarēju neievērot, bija izteiktā līdzība ar Džeroma humoristiskajiem stāstiem - tā pati mazliet ironiskā un mazliet pamācošā noskaņa. Protams, varbūt pie vainas ir krieviskais tulkojums, taču Džeromu esmu krieviski lasījis ļoti antīkā tulkojumā, kamēr Tērbers krieviskots ticis salīdzinoši nesen, līdz ar to diez vai piestrādājis viens un tas pats tulks. Pirmais stāstu kopums nāk no stāstu krājuma "Mana dzīve grūtos laikos" (1933), kurā Tērbers pasniedz it kā smieklīgas epizodes iz savas (iespējams, izdomātas) bērnības. Ko smieklīgu iespējams saskatīt stāstos "Nakts, kad nokrita gulta" vai "Diena, kad pārrāva dambi", es patiešām nezinu, turklāt šie abi stāsti ir principā vienādi. Proti, ir kaut kāds notikums no kura visi baidās, bet kas reāli nenotiek, bet saceļas panika un notiek daudz visādu tizlumu, lai gan centrālais ļaunais notikums nemaz nav iestājies. "Suns, kurš koda" ir izteikti līdzīgs Džeroma stāstam par suni, kas ļoti mīlēja naudu un tiem abiem ir viena kopīga iezīme - tie nav smieklīgi. Nākamais stāstu kopums, kas nākuši no krājuma "Vīrietis vidējos gados uz lidojošas trapeces" (1935), šķiet labāks par pirmo. Stāsts "Misters Prebls atbrīvojas no savas sievas" par vīrieti, kas izlemj nogalināt savu sievu, aizvedot viņu uz pagrabu un klausās sievas lamāšanos par to, cik slikti viņš ir ieplānojis slepkavību, ir patiešām interesants, gandrīz vai Roalda Dāla kvalitātē. Stāsts par "Veiksminieku Džedu Pītersu", kuram allaž paticis stāstīt, kā viņam noveicies neiet bojā dažādās situācijās, bet kurš beigās pavisam stulbi nositās, arī ir ok. Daži stāsti gan atkal ir izteikti bāli, bet tādu vismaz nav vairums. "Mūsu laikmeta fabulas", kā es nojaušu, ir kalpojušas par iedvesmu mūsu pašu tautiešu pasakām par Jamuleju un Tupu, un līdzīgi kā SWH večiem, arī šeit kvalitāte ne vienmēr ir vienāda. "Princese un skārdene" ir klasiska fabula par princesi, kurai jāizvēlas labākais no preciniekiem ar paredzamu, bet perfekti nostrādātu iznākumu. "Vienradzis dārzā" labi izmanto skatu punkta maiņu. "Meitene un vilks" arī ir labs gabals. Tikām "Truši, kuru dēļ bija visas bēdas" ir tik bērnišķīgi realizēta situācija ar nacistiem un ebrejiem, ka pat 10 gadīgs bērns būtu spējīgs tādu uzrakstīt. Arī "Aitas vilku ādā" ir bezjēdzīgs audzinošs stāsts. Neapšaubāmi labākais stāsts atrodams krājumā "Mana pasaule. Laipni lūgti tajā!" un tam par godu nosaukta arī šī izlase. Tajā Šekspīra "Makbets" tiek interpretēts kā detektīvromāns un tajā tiek veiksmīgi (vairāk vai mazāk) atklāts īstais karaļa slepkava (kas, protams, nav Makbets, jo Šekspīrs tak nerakstītu tik stulbu detektīvu, ka slepkava ir acīmredzams). Krājumi "Tērbera valsts" (1953) un "Tērbera karnevāls" (1962) neko īpaši saistošu nesniedz. Papildu visam manā rīcībā nonākušajā krājumā iekļauta viena Tērbera pasaka bērniem "Baltā stirna". Patiesībā, vai tā ir īsti pasaka bērniem vai pieaugušajiem es nezinu. Sižets - mežā atkārtojas laiku pa laikam, ka balta stirna mednieku priekšā pārvēršas par princesi. Tā ir atkārtojošās burvestība, ka princese-stirna var palikt par cilvēku uz mūžu tikai tad, ja viņai nenākas vairāk kā 2 reizes vilties cilvēku mīlestībā. Parasti viņai tā sanāk. Slinkums ieslīgt nopietnākās detaļās. Pasaka patiesībā ir pat diezgan amizanta ar zināmu humoriņu, tomēr novelkot svītru un savelkot visus saskaitāmos rezultāts nav Tērberam labvēlīgs. No aptuveni 40 stāstiem šajā krājumā kādi 10 ir patiešām veiksmīgi, vismaz 10 - katastrofāli bezcerīgi un pārējie - aizmirstībā grimstoši. Secinājums - zināms talants Tērberam, protams, piemita, bet ja jau viņa labāko darbu izlasē dominē neizteiksmīgi darbi, es labprātāk pat neiztēlošos, kādi ir pārējie stāsti viņa krājumos. Bet varbūt tomēr būtu vērts pārbaudīt?