the pod bay door

Well, here’s a switch: I saw three movies yesterday (five in total all weekend), and one of them hasn’t been released anywhere in North America yet, including LA and NY, where it opens on Dec 27. John Cusack is one of my favorite actors (the other is Robert Duvall). Cusack has made smart choices in his career (exceptions include Con Air, but everyone needs a payday, right?), the results being a set of films that are mostly interesting, challenging and rewarding to the viewer. Plus, we share the same birthday, June 28.

Max is his latest film, a movie already being protested by the Jewish Defense League. The movie takes place in 1918 Munich, just as Germany begins to recover from having lost WWI. Ostensibly, the picture is about Max Rothman (Cusack), having returned from fighting less his right arm, but of a wealthy family and the owner of an avant garde art gallery. Having lost his arm, he has also lost his ability to paint. He has a beautiful wife and mistress, children, and the best living conditions. One day he meets a corporal in the German army, who has come in hopes of showing Rothman his artwork. When asked his name, he replies, “Hitler…Adolph Hitler.” It is a numbing scene just for hearing those words.

The film explores the relationship between Hitler and Rothman, suggesting that the cultural and political milieu of Munich contributed to his decision to move his abilities and talents from art to politics, or perhaps to meld the two. The JDL is objecting to the movie on the grounds that it humanizes Hitler. I believe it does, but does it without prejudice and with no favours. We see how Hitler began his orating, and how he struggled with his burgeoning hatred of Jews and his grudging respect for Rothman, not only because of his art gallery, but because Rothman continually challenged him to improve his art.

Noah Taylor, robbed of an Oscar nomination for the movie Shine, plays Hitler convincingly. Small, wirey, and often filthy and poorly dressed, he is the opposite of Rothman in every way, yet they are attracted to each other intellectually. The scenes of Hitler learning to become on orator are chilling. Cusack, meanwhile, gives his best performance in years. Recommended.

Later that evening…
Read more »

The first batch of photos, all digital, are up. It looks like Gallery won’t run on my server. And I’m not finished with CIBC. Grrr…

I’ve been banking with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) since 1968. Why? They were the closest branch to my house when I was a kid in St Boniface, Manitoba. Throughout the decades, the service in branches has been excellent. However, on the U of A campus where I work, it’s gone from good to poor to SBT: Sucks Big Time.

To wit: 1) many years ago: CIBC shuts down its campus branch and moves it five blocks off campus; 2) shortly thereafter: CIBC removes its two Instant Tellers from the Student Union Bldg; 3) sometime later: CIBC removes one of its two Instant Tellers from the entrance to my bldg (both heavily used); 4) this morning: CIBC removes the other, very heavily used Instant Teller for reasons unknown. This is a bank machine that has a long lineup most times during the day. It’s now boarded up with a hand written note advising customers to call a number and complain – duh. My first e-mail of complaint to the imaginary customer service suits is below. My advise: don’t bank with them if you haven’t. Now it’s time for me to consider my alternatives. What’s sad is that the service I get in my branch is penultimate – the people there genuinely seem to care about their small change customers like me. But the Suits must think differently – I guess students, the bulk of the users of machines like the ones outside my library, aren’t worth their time.

Here’s the text of my e-mail to the faceless wonders at CIBC:
Read more »

All I want for Christmas is a nice photo management program like Gallery.

A fascinating interview with Jessamyn West, creator of Librarian.net, is available in the latest issue of Library Juice.

I saw Solaris on Saturday, and the film moved me considerably. It’s a remake of the 1972 film of the same name, based on the book by Stanislaw Lem, which I’ve not read. The film is about a psychiatrist who is summoned to a space station orbiting the planet Solaris, on which strange events have taken place – each member of the crew has a “visitor”, someone from their past.

The film begins as a straightforward narrative, but then moves away from a linear story line. Despite the sf setting, it feels more like a love story, and it moves at the same pace as 2001: A Space Odyssey, my all-time favorite movie. Fifteen minutes into the film I was smiling, feeling the heavy influence of that film on director Stephen Soderbergh (which he has also acknowledged). Like 2001, it does not answer any questions, leaving the viewer wondering what just happened. For me, the film’s feel was very much 2001, and I loved it for that reason. The music, feel, (even a line uttered by Natasha McElhone taken right from 2001), the pace, all evoked Kubrick’s masterpiece for me. The non-obvious ending is puzzling and frustrating, but the film is worth the effort. There are no fast-moving spaceships, no aliens per se, no phasers. Expect the unexpected.

I had an otherwise quiet weekend. I attended a apartment warming party on Saturday night at my friend Elan’s place, and it was nice – I knew no one there, yet found her friends to be warm, delightful and interesting. I also hung out after work on Friday at the Power Plant with friends, and I enjoyed that a lot.

There are some beautiful and amazing women in this town…