no view


from the cool outside,
the party was unviewable.

there was no direct sightline from
street level,
as well as drawn curtains, even if the curtains were translucent.

inside and upstairs, they saw each other,
men and women
sating on eggs
potatoes, chorizo, rosy salmon,
and perfect, cheap vodka.

sometimes they raised
their glasses for toasts:
to the past, future, possibilities,
and the everlasting splendor of friendship.

someone smiled, more smiles,
some caught on digital photography.
smiles that were perfect,
peeking from a gold throne, and enthralling.

one headlong, afternoon smile,
minted across the table,
was given to the friends free
and forever - if they hold it fair forever.

more boozy refills,
and an elliptical plate overstated with crisp bacon strips.

they came from different places: not only from
across neighborhoods, but state lines even.
they arrived separately:
early, slowly, late, and later yet.
winter awaits.
saturday, with the skylight
rolling the sun's quiet amber light
into the dining room, they sat
horseshoed around the perfect, cheap table.

the check arrived. they paid twenty
dollars each, and left
friend to friend, friend by friend
together into the everlasting city streets.

crossed out de kooning letter


... some kind of closet
and closed the door, you're inside
and I will not
let you come
out. I love and nobody knows you're here.

....

The Egyptians named the painter the maker
of outlines. Day after day

I have you in front of me. Even if
I closeted you
away I see your beautiful face. I see
you in all other
women. Your outlines
are in my heart. The more

I see beautiful women, other women
on television and advertisements,
I mean they are
just photographed then.
I see you in all of them.
And when one
of them is slow

motion swaying her dark
hair, in my heart I know it's you
and I see a big
green tree...

moon waist, wind fists, stars wrists

Oddly enough, at my former site, I hardly ever refer to my experience at school. Here, it's practically all I do. Of course, the situation is helped by the fact that I don't have any time to write. And, I have small writing assignments (too small for my taste) in one of my classes. It's not hard to figure out what's coming next, is it? Here we go!


Kenneth Anderson(*1) writes in The Limits of Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy: Unsolicited Advice to the Bush Administration on Relations With International Nongovernmental Organizations,(*2) well, he writes a lot of things, not the least of which is a long, long title and the gist of which is that international NGOs, and the international organizations they commingle with, blow.

Opinion is fine, but Mr. Anderson oversteps in his "unsolicited advice." Even if this is obvious enough, I think it bears noticing: discussing international NGOs and lumping them together reeks of dishonest. He deviates once from "international NGOs" with a solitary mentioning of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (and derisively, Greenpeace) as examples of international NGOs. At the same time, international NGOs, he asserts, are the great fomenters of riots, fire, and tossed rocks in Seattle during the WTO/IMF/World Bank meetings, and better yet, later on, international NGOs "despise" US politics and its democratic process. We are talking about HRW and Amnesty International, right?

Seems like a minor point, but Mr. Anderson stating that international NGOs do not operate with democratic legitimacy or they are "strange and remote elite[s]" while also connecting them with the protesters in Seattle is suspicious. I do not know who specifically rioted in Seattle in 1999.(*3) A partial list of NGOs who protested (as oppose to rioted) were: Citizens' Trade Campaign (CTC)--a broad-based national coalition including Public Citizen; labor groups like the United Auto Workers, AFL-CIO; environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and Clean Water Action; farm groups like National Farmers Union, National Family and Farm Coalition, Northern Plains Resource Council, Western Sustainable Agriculture, the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, and the Campaign to Reclaim Rural America, Zapatista-originated Peoples' Global Action.(*4)

Other NGOs present (who I cannot verify as protested or rioted) were: Chicken Farmers of Canada, Church of Sweden Aid, Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports, German Bar Association, Idaho Barley Commission, Learning and Development Kenya, Mark Twain Institute, Motion Picture Association, and Transparency International Canada.(*5)

Back to my point, which certainly was not to draw attention to my Google prowess. Mr. Anderson use of "international NGOs" as a blanket term or identifying HRW and Amnesty International as prototypical international NGOs is classic bait and switch. My casual survey of the NGOs there that fateful week in Seattle give some support that many NGOs are not of the "strange and remote elite" variety, but unmistakable stakeholders in the matters of WTO/IMF/World Bank discussions.(*6) While not negating his arguments, Mr. Anderson does not identify United Auto Workers, Transparency International Canada, or Chicken Farmers of Canada -explicitly farmers and union workers- as NGOs he criticizes is because to do so weakens his claims of a nefarious elite international NGO conspiracy. Muddling the specific international NGOs, their membership, and who and what they represent as only blank "international NGOs" serves Mr. Anderson's claim that these organizations operate without a colorable claim of representative-ness or democratic legitimacy. This is intentional dishonesty.(*7) Instead of international NGOs and international organizations locked in a powerful romantic embrace, it is boogey man "international NGOs" and the conservative agenda that have found the near perfect match.

Another thing I found funny about Mr. Anderson's article was:

"Yet, I imagine ... I believe firmly that the United States ought to give up its deployment of anti-personnel landmines because they are an indiscriminate weapon. It should do so without special regard for the fact that it has also been the subject of an intensive international campaign and treaty, but it should do so."(*8)

Funny firstly because Mr. Anderson's former employer HRW(*9) with Physicians for Human Rights were the international NGOs kicking off the call for the landmine ban way back in 1991.(*10) But even funnier is the assertion that the US should sign the mine ban treaty,(*11) without regards to the international campaign. Without the exhaustive work and pressure of international NGOs, and Mr. Anderson should know better than most, no one and no nation would care or be aware enough to ban this deadly and indiscriminate plunderer of life, youth, sight, and limbs. International NGOs put the issue out there and made it an issue. To suggest it may be feasible to give up deploying land mines without special regard to international campaign (and international NGOs) is sort of like ratifying the US Constitution without special regards to the Philadelphia Convention and the Federalist Papers. It does not make sense!

I also intended to write a little bit specifically about Samantha Power. In her book, "A Problem From Hell" America in the Age of Genocide, she included HRW, Oxfam, and Red Cross as the major media, along with New York Times and Washington Post, which warned of the terrible genocide in Rwanda.(*12) My purpose was to highlight the belief that many international NGOs would more likely claim a watchdog role/function rather than the representative-ness that Mr. Anderson too cleverly attempts to impose on them. But that would tax the page limit much more than I already have.


------------------------------------------------

1: Mr. Anderson also keeps a blog: http://kennethandersonlawofwar.blogspot.com/, who doesn't these days?
2: 2 Chicago Journal of International Law 371 (2001).
3: I might go out on the limb and say some were "anarchists" or "black bloc", whatever those terms mean.
4: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wto99/protst99.htm.
5: http://www.wto.org/English/forums_e/ngo_e/ngoinseattle_e.htm.
6: I have to wonder what degree of representative-ness is required to dealing with organizations like the WTO or UN which operates and was formed with slim, if any, democratic pedigree.
7: To Mr. Anderson's credit, he does describe WTO as "not truly square with the principle of democratic accountability." However, by seeking to engage the world community through WTO or the United Nations, I believe the US can no longer claim refuge against other world organizations. If US action/policy/decisions (and to a certain extent, once it engages the world community, inaction and indecision) affect individuals in another nation, it cannot deny actors from outside of the United States from responding.
8: 2 Chicago Journal of International Law at 381.
9: As mentioned in class, Mr. Anderson, I suppose, famously turned to the dark side of the force.
10: http://www.icbl.org/campaign/history/chronology. Google again. Though I have to admit Google failed me when I was seeking two poems by John Wheelwright, Slow Curtain and Quick Curtain. Ultimately, I had to resort to my school's undergraduate library.
11: My understanding is that President Bush had squashed United States signing on to the landmine ban on February 27, 2004. http://www.banminesusa.org/. In all fairness, President Clinton did jack shit as well, as the treaty was presented to the US during his terms in office.
12: Harper Perennial, 2003 Paperback, page 356. And thankfully I am almost done with the book.

One Love, Two Hearts

The outcome of HKSAR vs. Ng Kung Siu ("HKSAR")(*1) is hardly surprising. Who would figure that the "one country, two system" Hong Kong ("HK") highest court, the Court of Final Appeal ("COFA"), would come out any differently in a case where freedom of expression is pitted against restriction on flag desecration? If you ask me, HKSAR is just another example of judges' cherry picking case law. And even worse, cherry picking some cases(*2) despite them "coming out the other way."(*3) Crazy.

Equally crazy is trying to understand the case in the context of HK. As was noted, "the Court cited no English precedents from HK's colonial past and still less any Chinese principles from its uncertain present."(*4) On the other hand, the cites of the COFA majority and concurring opinions globetrotted and raided not just the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS"), but also the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Italy's Supreme Court, and Germany's Federal Constitutional Court to aid in interpreting People's Republic of China law, HK's Basic Law, International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, public order (ordre public), and more. The thing that boggles my mind is, yeah, that is fine for maybe the highest court, even the intermediate appellate court too, but how the heck would a trial level court incorporate such broadness in its adjudication? I do not think the HK Court of First Instance would ever be expected to do that type of analysis. And wow. I am imagining including a section titled "Other overseas nations" that cites Mexican and Egyptian cases in the brief I am currently working on for the Federal Litigation Clinic. Or more precisely, I am trying not to imagine the inclusion because it would certainly involve bedlam and my expulsion from law school.

I do not mean to be tongue in cheek about the briefing, rather I meant to be mindful of the practical application for the courts. The docket is full enough as is, and the judges take long enough as is in their deliberation. Increasing the complexity of cases present real and daunting issues. In one case I have,(*5) the federal district judge took a better part of a year to decide on a motion, and that's just from briefs citing chiefly 2nd Circuit decisions. Not to knock the intelligence or sophistication of our judges, it is not merely the number of cases but probably also the intricacy of the issues that slows our court system.

Returning to HKSAR, and with a little help from Google, the sitting justices were:

1. Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang born in HK of Chinese descent born in 1948;
2. Justice Syed Kemal Shah Bokhary born in HK of Pakistani descent in 1947;
3. Justice Henry Litton born in HK of mixed descent(*7) in 1934;
4. Justice Charles Ching born in HK of Chinese descent in 1935; and
5. Justice Anthony Mason born in Australia of presumably Aussie descent in 1925.

That was the first thing I checked after finish the HKSAR decision: who was on it. Firstly, to see the diversity: seems like a nice mix of Chinese, White, and Pakistani. I wonder how long it will be before a Hispanic or Asian gets appointed to the SCOTUS. Nice mix for the COFA until I double-checked for women justices, zero.(*7) A partial point for the SCOTUS then.(*8)

Secondly, about the resistance to including international and comparative law as authority(*9) in the USA judiciary: why stop at questioning the national origin of the text? Why not call into question the national origin of the author too? If German case law is no good, a circuit court case decided by a judge, naturalized but of German birth, should be equally suspect. I know Americans love their parochialism, but foreign-ness does not equal faulty analysis. Judicial decision-making is serious business; everything that might help should help.(*10)



-------------------------------------------


*1 - 2 HKC 10 (1999) (where local ordinance criminalizing flag burning was upheld as constitutional).
*2 - Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1988), and United States v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1989) (SCOTUS striking down state and federal statutes, respectively, that criminalized flag burning as unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression).
*3 - Martin S. Flaherty, Aim Globally, 17 Constitutional Commentary 205 (2000).
*4 - Id. (referring to the lower court's decision that local ordinance was unconstitutional).
*5 - Again, for the Federal Litigation Clinic.
*6 - From pictures, certainly part White (Google failed me in providing more information).
*7 - Out of 21 Justices!
*8 - Currently one women, New Yorker Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, but until recently with a high watermark of two (Texan Justice Sandra D. O'Connor retired and was succeeded by Italian and Jersey boy Judge Samuel Alito).
*9 - No matter the degree of authority: binding, persuasive, or even informal and private assessment authority.
*10 - Which reveals a Jekyll and Hyde stance on judicial globalization. I'll be kind to myself and say: not sure for now.

Brotherly Love, Shangri La, etc.

This was a mixed week for me. It's been one of the first time this school year where I haven't felt totally pressed by school and outside-school work. Because of this, I had a chance to catch a couple of extra school things. The first was a panel thingy on and for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Who's Mumia and what's the big deal about him? If you don't know, I don't know either, even after sitting through the majority of the panel talk. The simple version is that he's a black dude who alleges that he was wrongly convicted for killing a cop. I can't deal with the truth or not of that assertion. (*1) I can't time travel, so I don't know.

I did interrupt with an in-speech applause when one speaker (Robert Meeropol, I believe, but he's more important for his bloodlines than anything else) blurted something about the death penalty. Something about it being a violation of human rights or an outdated barbarous punishment. Which, for you tally taking people, means I'm against capital punishment. Mumia has been on death row for 28 years, by the way. (*2)

The gal next to me was going strong with her uh-huh, that's right, and such exclamations for most of the program. The speaker (probably Deborah Small, and I paraphrase here): the prison system is just a current form of slavery or slave labor. The gal next to me: mmhmm! The speaker (paraphrasing again): America's strict and severe drug penalties are just another way to keep the black community down. The gal next to me: right on. You get the idea. My manual cheer, on the other hand, was more pensive. Less an exclamation, more a distant clumsy splatter: clap. clap. clap. Then a brief hesitation before others picked up to surge a similar denouncement of the death penalty. As you might guess for an audience there to listen to Mumia's lead attorney Robert Bryan (among others) speak, it was easy picking for that sort of liberal endorsement.

The thing I would like to say was that some things change and some things don't. It was great that there were a lot of chicks in the audience; more visually entertaining for me, that’s for sure. So diversity on the gender front gets a check plus. But color wise, it was mostly snow white.

Don't get me wrong, not only are some of my good friends white, I'm also always receptive to acquire more white friends. But for a panel alleging the wrongful conviction of an ex-Black Panther and the associated implication for the racial (black and brown) problem that is pervasive in America, to see a mostly white audience is fairly disappointing. Disappointing that more young black and Hispanic (not to mention all other minorities) men were not taking an interest. (*3) And disappointing that the organizers did not reach out to get more color folks interested.

The next day I attended the latter parts of a Nepal conference. The quick and dirty on Nepal is that (a) the Maoist rebels (or in typical post 9/11 fashion, terrorists) are seeking to take control of Nepal, (b) recently the king disbanded parliament, staged a coup and declared a state of emergency, and (c) the democratic parties hope to establish dialogue with anyone to somehow regain control, all with (d) the military forces, ostensibly loyal to the crown, but certainly a x factor as they are the sole real and stabilizing authority in Nepal. I caught the last two program.

The penultimate program, with its four speaker panel, was quite swell. The first speaker (Smita Narula) addressed the untouchable/Dalit situation. The untouchables (or Dalit segment in Nepal) represent 20% of the Nepalese population, and true to their caste designation, they are treated like shit. The Maoist cause originally appealed to them because the Maoists were likewise dissatisfied with and originated from the social, political, and economic nether realms. For the record, discrimination of the untouchables was outlawed by parliament in the 1990's, except the prohibition was hardly enforced. The Maoist, for their part, failed to deliver on their equality promise, as even while the untouchable were absorbed into the Maoist ranks, the untouchables were treated as the untouchables were always treated, - like shit, and used as a sort of human shields and slave labor, and abused otherwise.

The second speaker (Arzu Rana-Deuba) talked about women issues. The neat thing was the acknowledgement that the civil war had help lead to some advancement for gender equality. With few men around in the villages, the work traditionally assigned to men were now performed by women and their broaden responsibilities have also become more socially acceptable. (*4) The latter is more significant because as we know, chicks already do a lot or most of the work in society, it's getting acceptance for their contribution that is the tough part. The end results have been that women have taken a greater role in religious ceremonies and gained more financial control of the village/family/themselves. One tell is where, in the past, the status of and the very word widow was a severe social stigma, now widows are referred to as single women. The significance? You decide.

The third speaker (Deepak Thapa) and the first dude was a bit dry. His 10 minutes focused on ethnic discrimination. In short, it happens.

The last speaker (Sam Zarifi) arrived fresh from Nepal with an up-to-date assessment, and brought some life back to the crowd by interjecting some personality in his delivery. Thank goodness for the relatively outdated weaponry employed by both sides, or else the devastation would be much worse than it already is. Thank goodness (sort of) Nepal is not petro rich, or else Iraq, part 2. Thank goodness I don't remember much else from this speaker and we can move on.

I didn't mean to write so expansively on this, feigning an attempt to drop some knowledge on y’all. I like the program because it was more nuanced and sophisticated than I anticipated. And at the same time, they introduced issues for post-conflict Nepal that might not have been on the radar. When (I'll be optimistic and avoid the if) the fighting ends, that would only be a new beginning for the hard work of peace.

The last program featured a speech by Nepal's former Prime Minister (Sher Bahadur Deuba) who also was a popular political prisoner (just released a month or so ago). He and his conference closing speech was a downer because he was not the leader I expected. My complaint starts with his attempt to deflect responsibility from himself and the political parties by stating early on, "I would like to bring attention to the fact that all nascent democracies are marked by infighting and instability and this is part of the maturing of the system. If you turn the pages of history to the times right after the establishment of democracy in the United States you may find it not so dissimilar." First of all, the nascent democracy of the United States would hardly be a favorable comparison as slavery, genocide, and gender and class discrimination defined the young America. Second, shut the fuck up and just say you failed, and you will try to do better. For the record, this dude had served three terms as prime minister, in 95-97, 01-03, and 05 till the royal coup. And more for the record, the Maoist insurgency started in 96, right in the middle of his first term.

Another complaint is that, also early in the speech, he described the advancement made under democracy. Not surprisingly, advancement focused on economic strides, like road construction, communication network, hydro-power development, economic growth, exports, and increase in foreign exchange reserve. Fine, I get that economic progress really does positively touch all aspect of a society, I'm not a luddite. (*5) Pride in Nepal's economic achievements is one thing, but to follow with, "However, the growth of the rural and informal economy as well as the agriculture sector was quite sluggish. Political reform to include the traditionally excluded was also slow to be realized by the political parties across the spectrum. The Maoist took advantage of this fertile ground to feed their insurgency." That is just being out of fucking touch. It's Bush-ian. And thankfully, I half tuned out the rest of the speech, although the rest did not improve on the early parts.

During the Q&A, someone did put some pressure on the former PM and asked about his failed leadership and even more pointedly asked if he would step aside if offered again the head of state position. Not surprisingly, he answered with a dodge. For myself, be hopeful for the process, not the leaders.

There were some rather serious cuties in the audience for the conference. I assume most of the attendees had a Nepal connection. So in summation, Nepalese babes are hot. See, I did learn something at the conference!

Oh right, the mixed part, which I completely neglected, is... it's hard out here for a pimp?

------------------------------
*1 The not simple version includes self defense, biased jury and judge, corrupt prosecutor and police, ineffective counsel, among many more.
*2 Currently, Mumia’s case is on habeas review for three issues in the Third Circuit.
*3 I'm saying men because what few blacks present were of the fairer sex.
*4 The menfolk either were conscripted or ran away for fear of conscription/suspicion of being either royalist/rebel sympathizers.
*5 That I am not on Friendster does not mean a thing.

The fire out from the wire

In an earlier class, Prof. Flaherty offered that democratic countries do not wage war against one another, as a common argument in support of democratic development. This might seem un-American, but I do not believe in democracy being necessarily or essentially good. When I think of the United States' fledgling democracy, I associate it with slavery (blacks) and genocide (Native Americans).(*1) In time, democratic USA flexed its muscles rather questionably outside its borders to subjugate various parts of Latin America and Asia, and continued internally with segregation, inhumane work conditions, union busting, Chinese exclusion, red scare, and more Native American "removal". The beneficial difference American democracy made (and makes) to people living in and outside of USA seems rather limited. The "democratic peace" argument to me, even if it is fairly accurate, mistakes correlation with causation. So if the United Nations moves, as Richard Falk described in his essay The United Nations and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bad Dream, Utopian Fantasy, Political Project, closer to having democracy as an element of political legitimacy for a sovereign state, I am skeptical.

On the other hand, greater democratic participation, via cosmopolitan democracy or otherwise, within the UN is an amazing development.(*2) Which seems contradictory: democracy is not necessarily or essentially good on a state level, but good in the UN. My reason would be because the UN is not a technically a law making body. If the UN made laws, it would have to be accountable to constituents of some sort, and like USA's democracy, these constituents would be dollar bills, or "market forces", "business presence", and "globalization", and not the constituents of human people.(*3) Without the stranglehold of big business, the UN can act for and embrace a much wider audience, or actually be democratic in a way a state's legislative body cannot. The UN does this in part by (a) engaging in discussion via conferences, summits, working groups, (b) the work of the UN Development Program and various monitoring/observer programs, and (c) relying on consensus rather than votes; most of these UN activities include heavy particpation by Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like Amnesty International, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Radda Barnen, ICRC, etc. Otherwise, to borrow what Falk wrote about the UN but inverting and applying it to states, democratic states, whose legislative bodies do not address the needs of those who are not beneficiaries of market operations, is itself an expression of an undemocratic character, withholding attention to the concerns of peoples already not adequately represented.

Falk says "what happens after the global conferences is often indicative of the persisting role of geopolitics and statism in the implementation phases of the global policy process. UN conference 'plans of action' that read impressively are cast aside or selectively applied." In a sad way, the impotent plans of action shows democracy working. A true law making body would not touch any of those plans of action in the first place, nor invite NGOs as participants. The conferences, summits, UNDP, and so forth are Trojan horses of sort, not only providing an outlet for NGOs and the underrepresented, but bolster and developing their vital voices in general. (*4)

Democratic developments within the UN must have evolved while the economic interests were napping.(*5) Okay, that is unfair, because economic interests rarely nap. But the small idea of cosmopolitan democracy was somehow allowed to spark in the UN and it caught on fire. The backlash with the accompanying accusations of cultural imperialism and socialism are probably just the start as the economic interests catch up to close up democratic space opened in the UN.


---------------------------

*1 In fairness, no matter what political structure the USA decided on, the treatments of the non white/male/propertied population would have likely remained the same; in other words, shitty.
*2 I don't believe the article gave a straight definition of cosmopolitan democracy, but googling suggests it means democracy where organizations like NGOs participate.
*3 At this point, I should say that I believe business interest should have and do offer a valuable voice in the democratic process, except, and this is the main problem, its voice and interests are disproportionately represented to the detriment of other interest groups.
*4 Simply, participation of NGOs (and therefore cosmopolitan democracy) is controversial in the sense that they supposedly are representative (for woman, for children, for environment, for workers, etc.) but at the same time they aren't elected. So questions of accountability as well as true representativeness arise.
*5 I'm using this very general term, economic interest, because I believe it is always about the dominant group's greediness; whether it is multinational corporations finding new venues to continue its race to the bottom or patriarchal structures keeping property rights from chicks.

Another 10

The below is my friend David's best of list. His taste and enthusiasm has always been a good guide for my movie exploration, and we often watch movies together. Last year, as previously mentioned, I watched about 1/2 the # of movies I normally catch, which means I also watched a lot less movies with David. And I didn't join him in his Japanese and Naruse binge.

Because we frequently watch movies together, our mutual top/favorite lists typically share several movies in common. This year, however, reveals a fairly stark divergence. Even with the few flicks we did catch together, Nobody Knows in particular, our opinions split. I don't believe his list is preference ranked but Nobody Knows still is top 10 material for him. Yet I included Nobody Knows in my Not Honorable Enough, my sort of anti group (this category is in somewhat honor of Andy Sarris, who annually lists movies in a movies-others-like-but-he-didn't list). I don't even recall the ending that still haunts David. Nobody Knows may be a somewhat controversial diss by me, because among the mainstream critics as well as many lay viewers who were fortunate enough to catch the movie it was well regarded. I thought Nobody Knows was well done, but even freshly leaving the theater, I remember feeling underwhelmed.

Here's David.


Here's Just for Laughs 05 or my Top Asian films formulated in just 5 minutes for 05 . This year I decided to take a different approach. Instead of spending significant amounts of time thinking about all the films that I saw over the past year I decided to just give myself 5 minutes to formulate this top 10. The movies that came to mind were mostly Japanese and specifically Naruse-sensei's. It was in junior high when I first saw Seven Samurai and Mifune and I just love the fact that I'm still discovering cinematic masters like Naruse or legendary actresses like Takamine Hideko. All 35. No videos.

**********Possible Spoilers***********************

2005 Top 10

Daremo Shiranai - Nobody Knows (Kore-eda Hirokazu, 2004) - I'm still haunted by the musical interlude towards the end of the film. Music video masterpiece if you ask me. Plus the most convincing performances that I've ever seen from kids. Then again they were probably just being themselves.

A Family or Where Spring Comes Late (Yamada Yoji, 1970) - Chieko Baisho shines in this one as does Ozu regular Chishu Ryu. Heartbreaking.

Carmen Comes Home (Kinoshita,1951) - The first movie that I got to see Takamine! Little did I know at the time that I'll be seeing more of her in the Naruse films.

Lightning (Naruse Mikio,1952)

No Advice Today aka Doctor's Day Off (Shibuya Minoru, 1950)

Mother (Naruse Mikio, 1952) - Cecilia Cheung Pak-chi is a splitting image of Kyoko Kagawa! Another fine actress.

Sudden Rain (Naruse Mikio, 1956) - It was cool to see Setsuko Hara working with Naruse. Funny how in the Naruse films she does less smiling whereas with Ozu her character's are always smiling.

The Approach of Autumn (Naruse Mikio,1960) - The two kids in this film are great. Why can't Hollywood make movies like this where the kids aren't annoying.

When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (Naruse Mikio,1960) - Naruse seemed to have taken to scope much more then Ozu and this is one is an excellent example. Takamine is just as beautiful in this one as in Carmen.

Yearning (Naruse Mikio, 1964) - Practically 2 movies in one with a beautifully shot which will stay with you forever.

Going over this list it just occurred to me that they are all pretty similar in that they are shomin-gekis or films about the working class/those in the struggle.

5 for 2005

From the start, it was because my friend sent me his top ten list, and that's why I made mine. That exchange continued for a couple of years. This year, however, I'm only doing a top... 5 favorites. For one reason or another in 2005 I watched roughly half the movies I normally catch, and therefore coming up with a top 10 list felt a little laborious.

Here goes...

1.
- La Nina Santa or The Holy Girl, Lucrecia Martel, Argentina: I admit that this movie probably might not deserve the top ranking treatment it's getting here (I am sure Chrissy liked this flick too, but even she would be surprise I put it at the top), but it's fun and engrossing, and a very different sort of moviemaking than what's generally out there these days. That it ultimately ends up working on a more minor scale, rather than as a "statement", is... well, ok. Early-teens are such an awkward time period.

2.
- Terrorizer, Edward Yang, Taiwan: This movie was where, years ago, I realized that Mr. Yang was special. Images are pulled together and built up and molded until they become amazement.
- Professione: reporter or The Passenger, Michelangelo Antonioni, USA: Anything Antonioni is special. Many exceptional sequences and moments in this journey.

3.
- Good Men, Good Women, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Taiwan: The finale to Hou's masterful history of Taiwan update/cycle.
- Masculin/Feminine, Jean Luc Godard, France: I don't know, the fact that this movie has dated less than perfectly may have led to my overcompensation for its good intentions and the parts that do work well.

4.
- Cinevardaphoto, Agnes Varda, France: Idiosyncratic, playful, and somewhat precious. Perhaps a little lacking in apparent "gravity"; it's charming and perceptive nonetheless.
- L'intrus or The Intruder, Claire Denis, France: Ms. Denis brings her viewers to learn about and experience the mysteries of this movie together.
- Kung Fu Hustle, Stephen Chow, HK: Buddha Palm's newest follower.
- Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas, USA: At last, a good Star Wars prequel.

5.
- Born into Brothels, Ross Kauffman and Zana Briski, USA: Serviceable doc technique by two do-gooders. All kids are precious and cute, even kids of whores.
- Nenette et Boni, Claire Denis, France: Gregoire Colin with hair and screened for free too!
- The Squid and The Whale, Noah Baumbach, USA: This movie reveals why kids spending time in the library might not be the best idea.
- 2046, Wong Kar Wai, HK: Retro pop cool, dipped in color, chain smoking, - must be WKW.

Honorable mentions
- Vital, Shinya Tsukamoto: A little slow, but that it's a sincere love story of sorts, I'll put it here.
- The Constant Gardner, Fernando Meirelles: I like Rachel Weisz, and the love story is interesting enough. Though I still think Meirelles sucks.
- Upside of Anger, Mike Binder: Binder shows some promise and the largely chick cast worked nicely.
- In Good Company, Paul Weitz: Another Hollywood flick, but I do like Weitz's earnestness (more so than the actual execution).

Not honorable enough mentions
- Nobody Knows, Hirokazu Koreeda – I wasn't amazed enough, the artsy touches and tone didn't go well with the relative gravity of the subject, and at the same time the subject was sort of tv-movie-of-the-week-ish.
- Taipei Story, Edward Yang – A lot of Ed Yang signature touches, but I don't feel his full style came together enough in this early movie.
- Head-On, Faith Akin – Turkish immigrant story. It was sort of promising, but didn't feel good enough.
- OldBoy, Chan-wook Park – Stylish, sadism, & nihilism. No thanks.
- Izo, Takashi Miike – I should give extra credit for Miike's boldness, but I think the experimentation and concept might simply be beyond my comprehension.
- Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan – This could have been good, but it wasn't.
- The Beat That My Heart Skipped, Jacques Audiard – I don't like vanity vehicles generally, so I wasn't too impressed by Romain Duris' star turn.
- Jarhead, Sam Mendes – Certain images reminded me of Beau Travail, that was cool. Otherwise, this movie was sort of whatever.
- South of the Clouds, Wen Zhu – That I barely remember any detail about this Chinese movie (even if I remember liking the movie generally) sort of forces this movie into the also-ran section.

Wishlist

I've been waiting since forever for an Agnieszka Holland retro. I think she's a terrific director, with a small but extremely strong three movie run (Europa, Europa, Olivier, Olivier, and the Secret Garden), and a sort of extended late collapse, whether from picking the wrong projects or losing some inspiration, I don't know. Anyway, the movie of hers I most want to catch is Olivier, Olivier. I think she is as on top of her game here as anywhere else. And the movie stars a young Gregoire Colin, who has since been the lead in many top French movies, such as Dreamlife of Angels (which I haven't seen) and Beau Travail (which I have seen), which perhaps not coincidentally were directed by chicks. Go grrrl power!

I had previously seen snippets of Olivier, Olivier on VHS. And I guess my belief that it's a great movie might be unqualified. Anyway, I know that the movie isn't available on DVD, which led me to think of other flicks I would like to see, and own, on DVD. Some I have never seen in any format, others I have. Either way, for me, it feels like a comfort to have them accessible. To tell the truth, I am one of those snobs that feel the only proper way to watch movies is sitting in a theater, - for my soul grows in darkness, embossed by silvery images, - gratuitous bags of popcorn optional.

Here's the list I made, divided in regions: Europe, Asia, and America, with some brief remarks and explanations and such things. Overall, I do think all these movies are "important" in the art and film history sense, and deserve preservation in a DVD format. But for me, it's just that I want to have them on my shelf.

Europe

Olivier, Olivier: See above.
Cold Water: This is just about one of my most favorite movies ever. I think it's Olivier Assayas at his best and with the incomparable Virginie Ledoyen.
Les Miserables: The French version, with, and mainly for, Virginie Ledoyen as Cosette. Of course, many have said this is the definitive version of Victor Hugo's epic. Just put subtitles on the thing for us non-French speakers.
The Double Life of Veronique: I would love a Krzysztof Kieslowski retro as well to see this movie in the theater once, too.
Inquietude: My initiation to Manoel de Oliveira, who is amazing.
Doomed Love: I want more Manoel de Oliveira, particularly this of which many view as a masterwork.
Celine and Julie Go Boating: I haven't seen many (perhaps any) movies from this founding member of the French New Wave.

Asia

Late Spring: My friend David, as well as other critical viewers, say this is the Ozu masterpiece.
Drunken Master 2: The action sequences are so damn out of this world elegant.
Bullet in the Head: A definitive version has yet to be put together, and I really want to see this in the theaters.
My Sassy Girl: The Korean theatrical, and the best, version needs to be packaged as a DVD.
Mahjong: The hope for a complete Virginie Ledoyen collection continues. But I otherwise really dig Taiwanese New Wave'r Edward Yang.
A Brighter Summer Day: An important as a director as Edward Yang needs to have more of his shit on the retail shelves.
Terrorizer: See A Brighter Summer Day comment.
A Confucian Confusion: I have yet to see this, otherwise, see A Brighter Summer Day comment.

America

Night Zoo: If you didn't know, I couldn't have a higher opinion of Leolo. Night Zoo is Jean-Claude Lauzon's other, as well as debut, movie.
Make Way for Tomorrow: The inspiration for Tokyo Story, and David suggests that it's terrific.
Rancho Notorious: Fritz Lang is a favorite of mine. I like Westerns. Therefore, I have been dying to see Rancho Notorious somewhere.

hello

hi, welcome to here.