Thursday, 30 March 2017

Movies - and Meditation?

Hi there!
I have used this blog to talk (mainly) about movies, but I am also a Meditation and Mindfulness trainer.    I have been running groups in County Clare for the last four years, and I was asked by those who attended them to produce a CD of the exercises I use,  the stories I tell and the neuroscience I explain.  So I did.   The CD is called Being Still and lasts for 66 minutes.  


If you want a copy please go to my other blog;  Being Still with Bob at WordPress, where you will find more details and a PayPal button.   I am selling these for £10 in the UK, or 10 Euros in the Eurozone, post free.    Ask for postage outside the UK and Eurozone.  

You can order a revbobvernon@hotmail.com, or via BobVernon on Facebook

Arrival; the second and first time round.

I saw Denis Villeneuve’s film Arrival  last November.    As soon as the credits rolled I wanted to see it again.    Not simply because I had enjoyed it so much but because I wanted to go back and hear the opening words again.     I knew I had not fully understood them the first time round.   No-one would.  You need to see the film to the end to understand the beginning.  

I am glad I didn’t see it again straight  away, but had to wait until the DVD came out,   because  that gave me more time to reflect on that first viewing, and prepare myself for the second, this time knowing.  

A long time ago I was running an international exchange and took the young adults taking part in it to see  Out of Africa.     As Meryl Streep said the opening line  Once I had a farm in Africa’ the young English woman sitting next to me burst into tears.  Are you alright?” I asked.  “Yes,’ she replied ‘its just that I have seen this film before, and I know what those words mean.”     By the end of the movie knew what she meant.  Seeing Arrival the second time did not move me to tears,  but it did move me profoundly as line after line resonated with new and deeper emotional and intellectual meaning.       


The script was adapted by Eric Heisserer from  The Story of Your Life’  written by the multi-award winning science fiction writer Ted Chiang.    I have now read that too, and understand why Heisserer was so keen to get it filmed – and why Hollywood was so reluctant to do so.     For a start it has a female lead.  She does not take her clothes off.   There is no sex.  She is not another Ripley.   There are no fights.  She is a linguist.   There are aliens but they are not monsters.     Their is really very little action.   The film is determinedly thoughtful.    It  is however profoundly moving while not being in any way sentimental or melodramatic.   Its emotional punch is long delayed and relies on us on following the slow intellectual reveal.   I really do  not want to issue any spoilers.    But I do urge you to see it, and then to see it again.   My original review is below. 

I was underwhelmed by Denis Villeneuve’s Prisoners (2013)  Despite impressive performances I thought it really took itself far too seriously.  Sicario (2015) impressed me much more – but again I was not sure what it’s moral pov was.  It seems that Villeneuve wasn’t sure either.  He is quoted as saying that ‘Sicario is about the alienation of the cycles of violence, how at one point we are in those spirals of violence and ask ourselves, 'Is there a solution?' My movie raises the question; it doesn't give any answer. (IMDb)  But his new film Arrival engaged my mind and moved my heart.

This movie tackles the well worked theme of first alien contact, but does so in a remarkable and original way.   It avoids the lazy shortcuts taken by so many sf books and films (the Carl Sagan inspired Contact excepted)  of gifting our extra-terrestrial visitors with our language.    Way back in the 1960s’ SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) and NASA commissioned John B. Lilly to find out how to communicate with an alien mind - using dolphins as his research field.    So in Arrival our unlikely – and sensibly chosen -  lead researcher is a linguistic expert, Doctor Louise Banks (Amy Adams.)  She has a physicist as a colleague in case math is a basis for communication – as on the plaque of Voyager.    But it is Louise who takes the lead, trying to find a common vocabulary to discover the visitor’s intentions.

The first words of the movie can actually alert us to the fact that this movie is about time;  beginnings and endings.  Language, our language, is about  beginnings and endings.     You may have come across text in which the order of the letters of each word are jumbled, but as long as the first and last letters are correct our minds sorts out the rest almost instantaneously.   But what if the visual record of a language was not about alphabetical or phonetic sequences?    Asian ideograms work in a different way, presenting the whole idea in one image (I wonder if dyslexia is a problem for those who read Chinese). 

But if a picture is worth a thousand words, and even a thousand words could not in fact communicate the reality of a reasonably complex picture,  how might that language work -  not only in practice but in and on our minds?     Arrival follows Chomsky’s notion that language shapes our thinking even more than our thinking shapes our language.    A radically different kind of language might radically change not only our thinking but how our minds work. 

And so we come back to the concept of time.  Physicists, it seems, have no way of fitting the concept of ‘now’ into their work.  In Rudolf Carnap’s Autobiography he recounted a conversation with Albert Einstein in which  “Einstein said that the problem of the now worried him seriously.   He explained that the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past or the future, but that this important difference cannot and does not occur within physics.  That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation.”  ( The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Chicago; Library of Living Philosophers, 1963).

It has been suggested that the ‘flow of time’ from ‘now’ to ‘now’ is simply a construct of the mind.   We receive so much information via our senses that we need filters in order to focus.  We  ‘deaf out’ the many voices in a restaurant in order to hear the one person we are paying attention too.  Maybe we cannot cope with any overload of information unless it is parceled into packets of time, a series of ‘nows’.     What if they are all happening at the same time?   Could we cope?     This filtering could shape our experience of time.   But if, as Einstein believed,  the fact of now cannot and does not occur within physics  then maybe a language that imparted huge amounts of information in one instant, rather than in sequential parcels, could reshape the receiving mind, and allow time itself to be experienced differently.

Most of this lies under the surface of Arrival, but not far below.   Ted Chiang, the multi-award winning science fiction writer who wrote the source Story of Your Life, is also a professional physicist, but it seems that like Carl Sagan he has a deep interest in humanity.    It has often been said that sf is never ultimately about aliens, but about ourselves.   So this story has a human being at  its heart.    And she is truly brave.  Politicians and members of the Military  are governed by fear; fear of any failure that could cost careers or lives.  But true scientists are not afraid of failure.    Every failure is a learning experience.   When the politicians and military are pulling back – or wanting to attack -  Louise is willing to go forward, to expose herself and reach out.   Later, much later, we discover that there is another  dimension to her courage – remembering that the word’s root is coeur, the heart. 

So what about the sf hardware?   There is a ship, in fact 12 identical ships arrive and hover over seemingly random points around the globe.   They are beautiful in their simplicity and seem to be hewn from raw rock rather that molded from polished metal.     The fact that they may come from another dimension is suggested by the way gravity behaves rather differently within them.    (String theory suggests the possibility of 11 other space-time dimensions – space time dimensions).  

The aliens themselves are properly alien.   They might not challenge the radical alien-ness of those in China Mieville’s wonderful novels (his creatures are also philosophically as well as physically utterly different), but they will certainly do. 
And of course their difference is shown, crucially, in their written form.

And so at last to the actors.    In Sicario Villeneuve cast Emily Blunt in the lead role.  Here he cast Amy Adams.      These are two highly versatile and gifted actors.  Consider Emily in Edge of Tomorrow (aka Live Die Repeat) and The Girl on the Train.   Consider Amy in American Hustle and Enchanted.     Villeneuve has said that he would not have made the film without her in it. I can see why.  She underplays so well that under the clear undemonstrative surface we see so much.    She is the still centre of the storm,  and we understand why  Jeremy Renner’s character, the physicist Ian Donnelly, stands back to let her lead.    Michael Stuhlbarg and Forest Whitaker have rather under developed roles as the leaders of the CIA and military on site, and do their best. 

Eric Heisserer  wrote the script from Chiang’s story, and it is clear and clean.   Rather a change from his usual horror fare.

Bradford Young’s cinematographer’s pallet is suitably subdued (he also filmed Selma and A Most Violent Year.)

Johann Johannsson wrote the score (as he did for Prisoners, Sicario and The Theory of Everything)  and it suits both the visual and emotional content. 

In the end we find out that this is not your standard SF movie, it is not about a hostile alien invasion – or even the Close Encounter’s benignity.   We have been expertly misled, and the reveal carries a heavy punch to the heart.  Like a good detective story we had been given all the clues, in fact the biggest clue came right at the start.   And while we are being led along our way we are exposed to some heavy duty theory presented cleanly and unpatronizingly.    This is good  hard-core sf, and then more.  Much more.  



Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Tell me, what is my daughter's name?

I put this story of mine here as part of a conversation about the subjugation of women by, and in,  the Bible. I think the Biblical tale is shocking at so many levels.

And Jephthah swore and oath to God (Judges Chapter 11. verse 30)

Jephthah, Scion of Gideon, Mighty Deliverer, Judge of Israel, my comrade in arms, my dearest friend, my Brother Bastard; farewell.
Jephthah.   How well I remember those days when you brought us together.  Each of us kicked out of our homes, out of our family homes, as the children of concubines, despised by our ‘legitimate’ brothers, tolerated until the day our fathers died, when we took to the hills, running for our lives.

Alone and desperate we crossed the Jabbok, roamed the barren hills, until you found us, united us, and named us. “If are called bastards led us be A Band of Bastards.”   And so we were.   Banished from the fertile valley, scratching a living from the thin hillside soil, we were swords for hire when that was needed.   We were oft times brigand raiders too.   But we only took our swords east, to hit the idol worshippers, the Amalekites and Midianites, ancient enemies of God and of the People of God, of Isra-El.  We only took what was needed, when it was needed.  And of course we needed women, so we took them.   Never the wives; only the concubines or daughters of concubines.   We are bastard bandits, yes, but we were honourable bastard bandits.  And some of us, like you, found love with the women we took.   Some of them loved us simply for making them wives.   No concubinage for them now.   We knew what it was like to be second class.  So we were with wives, and then with children.    Legitimate children.  We might have been born bastards, but our children were not.

I remember, Jephthah, when your beloved wife died, in first child-birth.   And how you turned the fierce energy of your grief into tender love for your girl-child.   My wife wet-nursed her, yes, but you were her real mother as well as father.     You, a man of iron with hands shaped by your plough and sword, found gentleness within you as you held her, as you raised her. And as she grew she shone, as only a beloved child can shine.   She never missed the mother she had never known. She was full of joy.   And we loved her too. She was our princess.     How we delighted in her smile, and in her voice as light as the wind that stirs the barley or the sound of the bubbling brook.    We named her after it.

We knew you had noble blood in your veins, the blood of Gideon.   Gideon who put the Amalekites down, but would not be King in Israel.   I may be your Judge he said, but only YAHWEH is our King.    And when the call came for us fight, not for money or for plunder, but to defend his tribe against the invading Amalekites again, you claimed your heritage.  When we win I am your Chieftain you declared, and they gladly assented. There were no leaders among them.

What were the rest of our band fighting for?   For our reputations? For recognition?   To be legitemised?   To be Bastards no more? For a way back home?   For all of these. And surely victory would bring us rich farms in the plain for our reward, away from the unforgiving rocks and parched hills.   No more banditry for us. So none fought harder than we that day.    And none of us fought harder than you, our Commander, our warrior in chief.   Your blade shone red.

But when the battle turned against us you called to the Lord, and swore to him a mighty oath. “Give me victory this day, O Lord, and I will sacrifice……I will sacrifice to you the first living creature that greets me from my homestead on my return”.
I heard that, and in the heat of battle a cold river swept down my spine.   But the Spirit of The Lord came upon you, mightily, and you waded back into the fray. None could stand against you then, and we followed, trampling their bodies before they broke and ran like cavies from a wolf.

We won.    We wiped our blades and headed home.

I was by your side, Jephthah, when your beloved girl, our beloved princess, ran to greet you.     You shuddered to a halt.   You fell to your knees.   For the first time in my life I saw you weep. For the first time in her life she heard you shout – at her.   “What have you done! What have you brought upon me!”    And you told her how you were bound by a solemn oath to the Lord, an oath that had brought us victory, had saved our lives, and would now cost her hers.

She did not argue. She did not dispute. She did not rebel.  “Just give me some time, my Father, to say farewell to my friends, to lament with them.  I am not yet a woman, I will never have a lover, a husband, or children of my own, so give me three months to mourn my virginity.”

Did she think that given time you might change your mind, or hear your Lord release you from your vow?   I do not think she did. She accepted her fate as unquestioningly as she had accepted your love.
Once, by some miraculous alchemy you had turned your grief for her mother into love for your child. But your grief for your daughter?  That turned to rage.   The sharp blade of your rage needed a target.   And eventually you found one.

The Ephraimites, our cousins from across the river, were ashamed and angry that it was us, not them, who had been called on to fight the Amalekites.   After all, they were legitimate. And so when they felt bold enough they came and challenged us. We were armed with anger too, anger at their presumption, at their assumed superiority.   

And they soon discovered who really were the better men when iron met iron.   They too scattered and ran, running westwards for their homes.  They had to cross the Jabbok, the Blue River, before they reached safety, but we knew the hill country better than they and with you in the lead we cut them off at the ford.

Of course we knew who was one of us and who was not, but still you questioned each man we grabbed when they reached the ford, as if you did not know. “Tell me’ you asked, so calmly, ‘tell me, what do they call my daughter?”

And did they know? And if they knew could they even pronounce her name? The name we had given her, naming her for her voice, a voice like the sound of the bubbling brook?

Jephthah, farewell.   I have fought with you for what we needed to survive. I have fought beside you for gold and for honour.   But I cannot fight for you again, nor be your friend.

At Jabbok the Blue River ran red with the blood of those Ephraimites as you cut their throats.  They died for your daughter’s sake, for the darling girl you slew with your own hand.   Those proud and foolish men paid the price for that desperate oath of yours, a promise your Lord never required of you, and one you never sought remission from.   Who did you hate most that day?   Those men, your God, or your self?

So farewell Jephthah, Scion of Gideon, Mighty Deliverer, Judge of Israel, once my comrade in arms, once my dearest friend, but now no more my Brother Bastard. No more. Farewell.

For at the ford of Jabbok you did not kill those men, Jephthah, you murdered them.   Just as you had murdered your daughter, your beloved, our beloved, the girl we called Shibboleth.

© Bob Vernon. 2015.

Loving.



The Irish actress Ruth Neggar has rightly attracted a lot of praise – and an Oscar nomination- for her role in Jeff Nichols’ film ‘Loving’.    I think this is a fine film, telling the true story of Richard Loving – a white man – and a Mildred –  a black woman-  who married in the late 1950’s in the State of Virginia – breaking that State’s ‘miscegenation’ law forbidding inter-racial marriage.
Richard and Mildred were ordered to leave the State under pain of imprisonment.   Their case was taken up by the American Civil Rights Union and after nine years, in 1967, the USA’s Supreme Court affirmed their right to marry.   This was a landmark decision that has since then positively affected many Americans.   It was also an important victory in the whole Civil Rights history.

But I want to draw attention to Joel Edgerton, the Australian actor who played Richard.     Edgerton was a convincing US SEAL in Zero Dark Thirty, and produced a nuanced portrait of Tom Buchanan in Baz Lurmann’s Great Gatsby.

I think that film was vastly superior in just about every way to Jack Clayton’s 1974 version, which had Robert Redford as Gatsby, Mia Farrow as Daisy and Bruce Dern, as Buchanan – who was a simply rich oaf.   We had no idea why Daisy would have married him – apart from his ‘old’ money.   With Edgerton we could see that Daisy could indeed love him, and that he loved Daisy – even as he was unfaithful.   He gave us the swagger and arrogance, but we also saw his insecurity, loneliness and fear.    Gatsby’s fortune might have been nefarious but he had made it himself, whereas Buchanan’s had been inherited.   And he was physically afraid of Gatsby.    So much of this happened behind his eyes where all the best film acting is done.

Tom Buchanan and Richard Loving could hardly be more different.   Here we see a working man, a builder and car mechanic, a modest man of few words.  He knows fear, but quietly does what needs to be done out of love for his wife.  Edgerton inhabits this man, with his slow physicality, his gentle voice, his watchful wary eyes.   Richard is not a campaigner. He simply wants to do what his wife wants – to live alongside her family back in Virginia.  It is an ambitious lawyer who takes up their case, and put’s the couple at risk by doing so.


Edgerton’s performance mirrors the qualities of the movie. Understated, honest, careful, loving.  I applaud them.