Keaster added 1 item to Read in '20 list
A required reading for a school course. An interesting little book that, in summary, is basically about a) our relationship with the past and b) the relationship between the past and the present. The main points the author wants to make clear are, firstly, that the past is always essentially tied to the present and doesnât actually even exist without it; secondly, that we can never be certain if the past, or rather, events that took place in the past, actually existed as we think they did or we think we know they did, because essentially history and the past is all about interpreting the sources, and interpretations are always interpretations â however, there are methods that we can use to be as sure as possible that what we think about the past is true, but we can never be absolutely certain, because the past is not here anymore, and never will be; thirdly, that when interpreting the past, we have various more or less implicit filters that are in use and that are simply impossible ever to turn off, because we as human beings, our culture and our language are so inherently a construction of and tied to the past and our surroundings (which, of course, are created by the past), that an absolutely neutral observer of the past does not and can never exist. What we can do, however, is to become conscious about these filters that are in action, and thus do our best to avoid the bias they have the potential of creating, or even use them in our advantage; and fourthly, to acknowledge that the goal of the historian is precisely in the Great Objective Absolute Truth, but while trying to reach it, he or she has to understand, that it can NEVER be reached. But if oneâs focus is directed at there, the results are more likely to be worth something and closer to the truth, whatever that truly cryptic word may signify.
4 years, 3 months ago
Keaster added 1 item to Watched in '20 list
11.12.2020, YLE Areena
Aikaansa nÀhden erittÀin kunnioitettavan rohkea teos on kuitenkin niin lÀpeensÀ tahmaisessa melodraamaliemessÀ uitettu, ettÀ vain reippaan tunnin mittaisesta kestostaan huolimatta elokuva tuntuu vÀlillÀ laahaavan aivan hÀmmentÀvÀn tarmokkaasti paikallaan. Propsit kuitenkin siitÀ, ettÀ naisen seksuaalisuutta ei suinkaan kÀsitellÀ pelkÀstÀÀn lipputuloja nostavasta eksploitatiivisesta nÀkökulmasta, vaan ihan oikealla ymmÀrryksellÀ ja jopa kunnioituksella.
Eilen asiaa funtsittuani ja omaa cinefiilihistoriaa reflektoidessani muuten huomasin ensimmÀistÀ kertaa, ettÀ itse asiassa yllÀttÀvÀn monet varhaiset ÀÀnielokuvat tuntuvat mulle aika raskailta, sillÀ niissÀ on usein aivan omanlaistansa kankeutta ja tökeryyttÀ, kun huippuunsa hiottua mykkÀelokuvan taikaa ja siihen niin oivasti soveltuvaa kerronnan tyyliÀ ja visuaalisuutta yritetÀÀn pÀivittÀÀ seuraavalle levelille, vaikka tÀhÀn vaadittava tekniikka ja ymmÀrrys ei vielÀ ole aivan tÀysin hallussa, usein loistaen oikeastaan lÀhes tÀysin poissaolollaan. Poikkeuksia, kissoja ja koiria on jne.
4 years, 3 months ago
Keaster added 3 items to their collection
4 years, 5 months ago
4 years, 5 months ago
Keaster added 1 item to Watched in '20 list
19.7.2020, YLE Areena
Monessa suhteessa hyvin mielenkiintoinen tapaus. PÀÀllimmĂ€inen huomio on, ettĂ€ tekijĂ€t ovat laittaneet niin paljon painoarvoa erikoistehosteille, ettĂ€ tĂ€stĂ€ syystĂ€ ihan kaikki muu elokuvassa on aivan armottoman KĂKKĂĂ, siis herranjumala sentÀÀn. NĂ€yttelytyö, dialogi ja kĂ€sikirjoitus yleensĂ€ ovat aivan hĂ€kellyttĂ€vĂ€n amatööritasoista matskua ja kuin suoraan jostain ö-luokan Kuinka tehdĂ€ elokuva âoppikirjasta. Erityisesti elokuvan kliimaksissa korostuva uskonnollinen lataus on hĂ€peilemĂ€ttömĂ€ssĂ€ tökeryydessÀÀn verratonta, ja laittaa pohtimaan tuotantotiimin mahdollisia kytköksiĂ€ fanaattisiin maailmanloppulahkoihin. YleistĂ€ ilmapiiriĂ€ hallitseva kylmĂ€ sota & apokalypsi âparanoia on myös itsessÀÀn kiehtovaa, mihin liittyen on muuten mielenkiintoista huomioida, ettei VenĂ€jÀÀ/Neuvostoliittoa mainita kertaakaan, vaikka maailman valtioita ja niiden vĂ€lisiĂ€ kytköksiĂ€ noin muuten kyllĂ€ luetellaan oikein olan takaa. LisĂ€ksi elokuvan lĂ€peensĂ€ penetroiva pommi/armeija-stondis on aika luotaantyöntĂ€vĂ€.
Ylivoimainen suosikkihetkeni oli kuitenkin noin 36 minuutin kohdalla, kun tĂ€ysin moitteettomassa kunnossa oleva sotilas panikoi ja juoksee pĂ€istikkaa muutamaan orastavaan tulipesĂ€kkeeseen syttyen ÀÀnekkÀÀsti palamaan. Darwin Awards âkamaa.
4 years, 8 months ago
Keaster added 1 item to Watched in '20 list
16.7.2020, YLE Areena
Kompakti, dynaaminen pikkuelokuva, jonka olemassaolosta ainakaan minÀ en ollut koskaan kuullutkaan, vaikka tÀssÀ kuitenkin on ihan Lino Venturaa ja Charles Aznavouria messissÀ. Kansallisten ja kulttuuristen rajojen ja lokeroiden kuvitteellisuus on hyvÀ ja tÀrkeÀ aihe, eikÀ sitÀ kÀsitellÀ elokuvassa kuin vain aavistuksen ylikorostetusti, mikÀ suotakoon anteeksi kun kaikki muu toimii aivan mainiosti.
4 years, 8 months ago
Keaster added 1 item to Read in '20 list
It's not a bad book by any means, but honestly I was expecting far more from this, Good Omens being, after all, frequently mentioned in many interesting book lists and as a personal favorite of people who like good books. Also Sandman-era Neil Gaiman is such a fucking interesting mind, that it also naturally puts quite a lot of expectations for anything coming from him at that time (or later, for that matter).
But I do have to admit, that the biggest problem for me with Good Omens is that I found it often to be annoyingly quirky and full of itself. Not in an arrogant way by any means, but the writers just seem to get such enormous kind of kicks from writing it and playing with the sentences and making jokes after jokes after jokes, that they kinda lose the dynamic red line that keeps the thing solid, compact and going. This could also be fine if the jokes were really good, but most of them I just found to be in the class of mildly amusing, but nothing too spectacular really. What I enjoyed more was spotting out the various references to popular culture and history here, there and everywhere that Neil seems to like, and I do too.
And hey, what's wrong with the fourteenth century from the perspective of Crowley? It was the century when the Black Death hit Europe after all, I would imagine that a demon would get quite a lot of enjoyment from something like that.
4 years, 8 months ago