Clásico en cuatro movimientos: Preludio

Hoy empiezan 18 días fascinantes.  Ah sí.  Termino mi primer año de doctorado, lo cual en si es bastante estresante.  Pero al otro lado del océano atlántico, donde se juegan algunas de las ligas más importantes del deporte rey, allí, se juega algo que pocas veces ha sido visto: cuatro superclásicos en 18 días.  El F.C. Barcelona y el Real Madrid F.C. se encontrarán en cuatro ocasiones en este corto tiempo para definir su posición en las tres competiciones en las cuales toman parte en el presente año (Liga, Copa del Rey y Champions), dándole al final de la temporada futbolística del 2010-2011 mucho de que hablar, y bastante diversión. 

En primera instancia, se juegan cosas muy importantes en este cuatro partidos, pero seguramente más para el Madrid.  En liga, el Barça está a ocho puntos del Madrid, y aún si pierde este partido, todavía estarán a cinco.  En copa, se encuentran en la final. El Barcelona ya ganó la final hace dos años, pero el Madrid no lo ha ganado en 18 años.  En Champions, es la primera vez que el Madrid llega a semifinales desde la temporada 2002-2003, y no ha pasado de octavos de final desde la temporada 2003-2004.  El Barça ganó hace dos años, y llegó a semifinales el año pasado.  Josep Guardiola no tiene nada que demostrar en el Barça.  Ha ganado casi todas las competiciones que ha disputado, con excepción de una copa del rey y una Champions en la temporada 2009-2010.  Mourinho, quien ha ganado un sinnúmero de competencias, en su primer año en el Real Madrid quiere intentar ganar algo para demostrar que vale la pena.  

Bueno ya teniendo los antecedentes a la mano, hablemos del partido en si.  Y para hacer eso, veamos las posibles alineaciones:

F.C. Barcelona: Valdes, Maxwell, Busquets, Pique, Dani Alves, Keita, Iniesta, Xavi, Afellay, Villa y Messi.

Real Madrid F.C.: Casillas, Marcelo, Albiol, Carvalho, Sergio Ramos, Khedira, Xabi Alonso, Pepe, Di María, Benzema, C. Ronaldo.

Bueno, hablemos ahora del Barça: una de las grandes dificultades que tiene el equipo para este partido es que no puede utilizar a dos de sus grandes jugadores: Puyol y Abidal.  Puyol estaba lesionado, y lleva así hace tres meses, y aunque está recuperado para el partido, es muy probable que no sea titular.  Eric Abidal tuvo una intervención quirúrgica dado a que tenía un tumor en su hígado.  Esta en recuperación, y volverá al campo, pero no hasta la siguiente temporada.  Estos dos jugadores son fundamentales en el dibujo técnico de Guardiola puesto que Puyol es la base central de la defensa bleugrana y es el capitán del equipo.  Abidal es un jugador que tiene ida y venida, corre bastante, a pesar de sus 31 años, sigue en excelente condición física, y tiene excelente quite de balón.  Con la formación posible, el problema es que Maxwell no es tan bueno como Abidal en la recuperación, y es un poco inconsistente en las salidas, además de esto es un jugador que Mourinho conoce muy bien porque jugó bajo su mando en el Internazionale.  Busquets ha mostrado criterio para jugar como central, pero no es su posición ideal, y esto podría ocasionar problemas en jugadas de rápido devenir, y en jugadas de fuera de lugar, puesto que estas ideas no las tiene tan claras, a mi parecer.  Definitivamente, tiene mucho control del balón y será un gran acompañante.  Busquets es alto, pero no es muy corpulento, y Benzema le podría ganar en fuerza física constantemente.  En el medio campo no estoy nada preocupado.  Keita es fuerte, y aunque puede verse un poco solo porque Xavi e Iniesta jugarán más volcados al ataque seguramente, creo que es un recuperador ideal, y con mucha salida.  Por la izquierda problablemente estará Afellay, aunque Pedro ya está recuperado de su lesión porque todavía está fuera de ritmo.  Afellay es un jugador rápido, pero no tiene experiencia en los clásicos, y todavía me parece que no se acopla totalmente al DNA bleugrana.  Villa no lleva anotado gol en nueve partidos.  Lo cual, aunque no lo crean, es muy peligroso para el Madrid.  Para un jugador de la talla de el Guaje, entre más partidos lleves sin marcar, más posibilidad hay de que marques en el siguiente.  Para Villa ya estamos en una probabilidad demasiado alta.  Yo digo que el Guaje marca hoy.  Messi está en su mejor temporada y va a querer marcarle a este Madrid, ya que nunca le ha marcado a ningún equipo en el cual Mourinho sea técnico.  Pero ya vimos todo lo que dio volcado más hacia el medio campo en el clásico que se jugó en el Nou Camp.

Ahora el Madrid: La verdad, las dos ausencias del Madrid, que la verdad no considero fundamentales, son Lass Diarra y Granero.  Son dos jugadores con perfil ofensivo, pero que no son fundamentales en el dibujo técnico de Mourinho, no como lo son Di María, y Ozïl.   Lo curioso de este Madrid que posiblemente veremos es que Ozïl precisamente va a ver el comienzo del partido desde el banquillo.  Este jugador, quien ha sido la joyita que ha conseguido el Madrid en el verano, es uno de los jugadores que más ha marcado diferencia en esta temporada.  Pero Mourihno decidió volcarse con un trivote ultra defensivo.  Pepe y Khedira, el primero central y el segundo mediocentro defensivo, serán acompañados por Xabi Alonso, uno de los mejores centrocampistas del mundo, y probablemente el único de los tres que tiene calidad para salir con el balón en los pies y apoyar al equipo ofensivamente de manera categórica.  Con la pegada que tiene de media distancia, el Barça tendrá que cuidarse a cerrar los espacios rápidamente para que el no pueda disparar.  La opción de laterales es curiosa, porque podría marcar a Messi con un lateral izquierdo como Arbeloa que tiene más labor defensiva que ofensiva, pero escojé a Marcelo el cual es un jugador que se volca determinantemente al ataque.  Puede dejar muchos espacios para Alves y Messi.  El Madrid va a jugar a tener el balón en los pies.  A cerrar espacios en el medio del campo, y a jugar a un rápido contragolpe donde pueden capitalizar la velocidad de Di María, y la pegada de C. Ronaldo.

Las claves del partido: decir que las claves del partido serán C. Ronaldo y Messi no es decir mucho la verdad.  Siempre son las claves del partido.  Son los jugadores más importantes en el campo.  Y por eso, todo estará pendiente de que hacen, y por donde están, y los dos equipos harán todo el esfuerzo posible para cerrarles espacios, y para hacerles marcación escalonada, y para que no corran en espacio abierto, porque la velocidad de estos dos jugadores dejará a los defensas sin oportunidades.  A mi parecer, para Madrid, la clave será Di María.  Di María es un jugador rápido, con mucho criterio, y un jugador al cual Alves no estará marcando mucho, porque este último estará preocupado por acompañar a Messi.  Me parece que Mourinho peca demasiado poniendo tantos defensas en el campo de juego.  Esta en su campo.  Con su gente. Su Bernabeu.  Su Cibelles.  Para el Barça la clave estará en ordenar su defensa.  El ataque del Barça es casi invencible.  Romperán las barreras que se presenten, de eso estoy seguro.  Con el balón en los pies, la movilidad de sus delanteros, y el motorcito de Terrassa y Don Andrés en el medio campo haciendo de las suyas, lo importante es que mantengan criterio atrás.  Si Busquets, Keita y Pique hacen lo suyo.  El partido es del Barça. 

Pues eso.  Este es el preludio.  Y lo llamo así por las razones obvias.  Es partido primero.  Pero también, el preludio es un movimiento de corta duración, y en el caso de este partido, me refiero a que es el partido con menor importancia en cuestión de puntos, o de trofeos.  Especialmente para el Barça.  Pero como todos los preludios, lo importante es lo anímico.  Los preludios son muy importantes porque preparan la composición.  Exponen los temas, los patrones, la visión: los preludios deben ganarse al público.  Y veremos que nos regala este preludio.  Y nos vemos.  Coda al Fin. 

Antonio Ungar gana el Premio Herralde

Hace algunas semanas se hizo público el anuncio del ganador del Premio Herralde para este año, quien es el colombiano Antonio Ungar.  Pueden encontrar la nota de el periódico madrileño El País aquí.  Antonio Ungar es un joven escritor colombiano quien ha publicado algunos libros, y quien no ha tenido mucho reconocimiento en Colombia aunque hace parte de un grupo de jovenes escritores colombianos que han tenido algo de buena prensa.  Aunque los nombres de Mario Mendoza, Juan Gabriel Vazquez, Santiago Gamboa y/o Efraím Medina Reyes son mucho más comunes, a mi parecer, en la boca de los "conocedores", y también creo que sus libros tienen bastante más difusión que los de Antonio Ungar, es este último quien gana el preciado Herralde.  Le he seguido, y por supuesto que no soy el único, la trayectoria desde que publicó Zanahorias voladoras en el 2004 en la Editorial Alfaguara, y por boca de alguno de mis queridos amigos peruanos se que este libro tuvo buena prensa y presentó su libro en varios lugares de latinoamérica.  Igual creo que sus libros no se consiguen fácilmente y es una pena. 

Sus dos primeros textos publicados en Norma a finales de siglo, Trece circos comunes y De ciertos animales tristes son imposibles de conseguir, y su penúltima incursión en la ficción Las orejas del lobo (Ediciones B) tampoco es de fácil acceso.  A contrario de esto, su último libro, Tres ataúdes blancos que saldrá muy pronto (o tal vez ya salió) posiblemente cambie totalmente la difusión del autor, al cual considero uno de los mejores narradores colombianos contemporáneos. 

Afortunadamente parece que los dos libros de Norma fueron compilados este año también en una edición de Alfaguara que lleva el nombre de Trece circos y otros cuentos comunes para los interesados.  Me gustaría decir más de esa narrativa cortante y melancólica; de los extraños pero delicados perfiles psicológicos de sus personajes, y de la aparente fácil lectura de sus relatos, que esconden honduras del alma profundamente exploradas.  Pero será en otro momento con algo más de tiempo.  Por ahora les dejo la inquietud, y ojalá, las ganas de leer a este joven y genial escritor.

De adioses y silencios.

José de Sousa Saramago, mejor conocido como José Saramago, murió hoy despues de una convalescencia que lo había tenido enfermo por mucho tiempo. Recuerdo el primer libro que leí de él: Ensayo sobre la ceguera. Despues de leer aquel libro, leí muchos más. Lo empecé a leer en el verano del 2000, cuando mi madre me vino a visitar despues de que me mudara a los Estados Unidos. Ese libro viajaba en sus maletas, y me lo regaló. Me acuerdo del absoluto silencio de alguna que otra tarde veraniega de la sala de mi tía Lucero en miami cuando lo empecé a leer, y recuerdo el frío invierno del 2000-2001 en NY cuando lo terminé.

Le debo mucho a Saramago en mi vida literaria. El, más que cualquier otro autor, hizo que yo me enamorara de las palabras, de su poder, y de sus falencias. El hizo que me enamorara de novelar fantasias y realidades por igual. De leer y escribir. Que son parte de la misma cosa.

Su último libro, Caín, mucho más corto de a lo que nos tiene acostumbrado, parecía esconder un secreto. Parecían sus últimas palabras. Recuerdo comentarselo a algunos de mis amigos. Sí, no es dificultad alguna augurar que un libro es último, cuando el escritor tiene 87 años. Pero en el caso de Saramago, algo me decía que estaba dejando un último testamento (ya escribiré sobre esto en otra entrada).

¡Saramago! Adios. Buen viaje, si es que hay alguno. Ahora perteneces al reino de los silencios. De las ausencias. Ahora hablarás más que nunca. Y yo seguiré (re)leyendo.

ND/NF: La Pivellina: A story of compassion

This was probably the sweetest movie out of the festival. I didn't watch all the movies in the New Directors/New Films Festival of 2010, but I can probably say that this movie is in fact the sweetest of them all. I said it twice because I want you to notice.

It is the simplest out of all of the movies that I watched, and it plays out in a documentary fashion, which is in fact, the background that Tizza Covi and Rainer Frimmel bring to the table (In fact, this movie has become much more interesting after watching it and doing a bit of research, and it has to do with this very point). It has a very simple narrative structure that follows the life of an older couple that have a very modest (if not poor and decrepit) ambulant circus which they set up in parks, and parking lots alike, hoping for anyone to come and watch and give them some money. They live in tents and trailer homes with their goats and other animals that are part of the show. The story starts when Patty, the female of the couple, is walking her dog in the park, and finds a toddler girl, probably 2 or 3 years old, left alone in her swing. In the girl's jacket pocket, Patty finds a simple note that just says to take care of her, that she will be back soon for her. So Patty, not knowing what to do, decides to take the girl in, and assumes the copy is from her mother. Tairo, her husband, is not very happy with the situation, and urges Patty to call the cops. Tairo is worried that if the cops are to find out they are keeping a young girl that is not theirs, they will be accused of kidnapping, and because of their particular situation, or "otherness", the cops will not be sympathetic to their cause. I don't think cops are sympathetic to circus gypsies that keep little girls that don't belong to them. But if it were that simple. Patty does not want to call the cops because she hopes that her mother will come back, and she does not want the little girl to be taken away from the little mother, even if in fact, she doesn't know who this person is.

The movie plays out in poor neighborhoods of what appears to be Rome, and it is the simple story of Patty, Tairo and the young teenager (probably 13 or 14) Walter who falls in love in a fraternal fashion with the toddler, and is happy to take care of her, feed her, and keep her close to him to have the girl have a good time. All that Patty, Tairo and Walter are trying to do is to have Asia, the little girl, have a good time, and not be afraid that her mother is not around. Patty hopes that the mother will show at one point or another and claim the girl back. This finally becomes an ambiguous feeling as Patty starts feeling attached to Asia, her delicate smile, and her beautiful presence. Asia is indeed beautiful. I imagine it would be hard to capture the charisma of a three year old in film, and try to make it look as if it is not a film, as if it is in fact reality. Or maybe it's very easy. Maybe toddlers in movies, like Asia, don't know exactly what's going on, and just manage to have absolute fun. But Asia's happiness and sadness are both captured in this film which makes it absolutely beautiful, and devastating at times.

Walter is, by far, the strongest character in the film. He has a mix of naivete, good manners and boyish attitude that cannot but be absolutely natural. He gives a tremendous "performance" and by his young age and devoted care to Asia wins the audience easily. Nothing is more charming than a young boy taking care of a toddler. It's probably an old and stupid stereotype. I accept it. But boys are roudy, and careless and immature. And this boy is that, sure. Plays soccer, has a girlfriend and is mean to her, but also lives by himself in a trailer, cooks his own meals, and manages to care for this little girl in his innocent ways.

This is a poor, circus, gypsy, filthy, and ignorant family that lives in the outskirts of society. Struggling for money, with not even a "proper" home to live in, but they have something that is much more meaningful than any capitalistic consummer gain, whether it is money, a home, good clothes, a good education, a proper bath and a good family, they have compassion, for a stranger like Asia.

What seems very interesting about this film after having watched it, and after having done some research is that this is not the first film that features Patty, Walter and Tairo. The directing couple Covi and Frimmel had already featured these three characters in a DOCUMENTARY called "Babooska" in 2005. Babooska, if I don't remember incorrectly, is a minor character in this movie ("La pivellina"), I believe it is Walter's grandmother that appears from time to time, or maybe, does not appear, and she's just merely mentioned. "Babooska" was a documentary depicting the life of this circus act, and of all of the different aspects of Babooska's life and the lives of those that were close to her.

I don't think "La pivellina" is also a documentary. I believe it is a work of fiction, because of some of its narrative techniques. However, the fact that Patty, Walter and Tairo stop being real people, to play themselves as characters in this new movie is very interesting. I did not want to anticipate a post that I was planning later on where I was going to pull together all of these film reviews that I am doing, but I seem to be needing to give a little heads up by saying something here. This is a tremendous play on the idea of the "other". Patty, Walter and Tairo who function as "others" for society (because of the fact that they do not belong to the consumer-based capitalistic normative), take on the role of a person who is not really an "other" but an integral part of modern society (and probably some ancient societies as well), the "actor" in order to play that role of "otherness" that they originally represented. It's almost as if they stepped out of their own reality in order to see it clearly. And the audience now sees that we are all "others" that don't belong, or partially belong, but at the same time that we are not "others" because perhaps we are all capable of what this family was capable of, even if we don't practice it as much as we should, even when we forget day to day about how easy it is and how helpful it can be to "others". That thing that we are capable of doing is to have compassion for others. Strangers, foreigners, or friends. It's all the same thing anyway.

ND/NF: I am love: An affair with Tilda Swinton

Tilda Swinton gives an spectacular performance in this Italian film by the young director Luca Guadagnino. Her Italian is probably not the best, but since she's playing a russian immigrant who married into the family of a textile factory empire, it's probably not very important in any case. This film, as all the others I watched in the 2010 version of ND/NF was a film that had me pondering over it for many an hour (partly the reason why I have not posted about them until now, two months after the festival). I am Love is an outdated sort of film. It's a story of love, deceit, desire and lust. And there are plenty of those. In Hollywood and outside. But perhaps it is much more than that. There are lots of things happening in the background, things that are said, and in my opinion, others equally interesting that are left unsaid.

The Recchi family is all you would expect of an upper class Milano family to be, and to look like. They have an air of entitlement, but they are respectful, mindful of their wealth, sophisticated, chic, and absolutely beautiful. The third generation, Edoardo, Elisabetta and Gianluca, are three young angels. They are stunning and very nice to look at. But they have their share of problems. The story of "Io sono l'amore" revolves around Emma (Tilda Swinton) and the infatuation that she starts developing over one of her son's Edoardo's friends, Antonio, who is an adept chef. Food takes in important role in the movie (Is that supposed to be very italian?, I don't know what to think...). There's cooking food, and enjoying food, and eating it, possibly, becomes a metaphor for consumming the phallus and for knowing that which is not oneself, for bridging boundaries, but it also has a taste of hedonism.

Yes, this family is the epitome of hedonism. They are the burgeoisie. Rich, powerful, sophisticated, the makers of culture. They are the embodiment of what society should be like. Families should be patriarchal, the power passed down from grandfather to fathers and sons (and this actually happens in the movie, when, grandpapa Recchi gives his son Tancredi and Edoardo ownership and control over the family business to continue on the dynasty, with the appropriate speech, of course), women should be pieces of furniture, adequately smart, of course, and beautiful, but they operate in the pheriphery of business, and they don't quite care much for it. Not that I care about business either. But if my family seems to be doing quite well in this whole textile company things, whether man or woman, I'd care to at least make sure that it continues, I suppose.

The only remark where one sees that women actually care to even comment on the business is when, after the company is passed down to Tancredi and Edoardo, Tancredi and his other son Gianluca decide that the company should not longer exist as tradition has perhaps set way and are trying to sell off the company so that it will become some sort of financial conglomerate and make the Recchis richer than ever. The person overseeing the process is a British Sikh, played by Waris Alhuwalia (who I have not seen playing main roles, but seems to me a very decent actor), and I point this out because I think it is very important for the movie that it is a British Sikh, and not anyone else who is assisting them in this financial move. The remark, to go back to the original point here, is made by Elisabetta who after hearing from worried Edoardo about what Tancredi and Gianluca are doing, just says "Well, we'll be even richer than before." Not without its mark of sarcasm. Edoardo loves his company, the legacy which was placed under his care, loves a particular way of life. One of the scenes features him, walking with his wife, around the company that he loves so much, mingling with workers somewhat, but at one point says something just fantastic, "Oh my grandfather used to eat in the cafeteria, with the workers, to make them feel as if he belonged with them." Right. He didn't. It was a charade. Like this whole movie seems. A charade of wealth, of money, of power. A charade about to be broken, dismantled, and a way of life to be exposed.

Two of the instances of the destruction of the burgeoisie way of life, of the idyll depicted in the movie, were already mentioned (Emma's infatuation with Edoardo's friend, and the selling of the textile company). One of the other moments where the perfect, idyllic, adorable milano family breaks apart is when Elisabetta confesses to her mother that she's gay, and is in love with another woman. Emma ends up cheating on her husband, and the infatuation with Antonio leads to a secret relationship between the two. Antonio does not want Edoardo, who has just financed Antonio's new restaurant in the outskirts of Milan, to know about his affair with Emma, and Emma, of course, does not want anyone in her family to know about Antonio.

Something very important to point out, and perhaps the foreshadowing moment for the emplotment of the movie happens when grandpapa Recchi is about to give the speech where he will pass down the company's control to Edoardo and Tancredi. It is the grandfather's birthday and Elisabetta, who had promised some of her artwork as a gift, gives her grandfather a photograph she has taken. Her grandfather does not seem very pleased, and asked her why she didn't paint a picture, and ends up dismissing the photograph and thanking Elisabetta and telling her that she still owes him a painting. Old art against new art.

The climax of the movie develops when Antonio prepares an important dinner at the Recchi Mansion for the Recchi family and Mr. Kubelkian (Ahluwalia), and Antonio makes the family a soup (again, food is very important!) that he has learned to make from Emma, revealing to Edoardo (the only one who catches on) his relationship with Edoardo's mother. Edoardo realizes instantly, looks at his mother and walks away from the table, shocked. Emma runs after him, and tries to speak to him. Edoardo is furious, disappointed, confused. They are speaking right outside the house, near a fountain pool, and in a freak accident, when Edoardo pulls away from his mother, he trips and falls hitting his head on the pool. Edoardo dies in the hospital, leaving behind a pregnant wife. It is not clear what is going on, or why Edoardo reacted exactly the way he did, but there had been a sexual tension built up between the two friends (Edoardo and Antonio), especially in Edoardo's looks toward Antonio, and although it is left unsaid, one can imagine that Edoardo was in love with Antonio. His resilience to let go of the past, let of go of his family's business legacy, becomes his resilience to accept himself, to accept the love that he clearly had for Antonio (Antonio probably loved him too...when Edoardo was getting married, Antonio didn't look too happy).

Perhaps the movie is some sort of analogy for Italian society. Not sure. A society that in the hands of Prime Minister Berlusconi (and AC Milan's owner) has been notorious for its nonacceptance of others, such as foreigners, and for its extreme right wing conservatism. It's perhaps too much to conclude, as my knowledge of Italian politics and culture is very limited. But as an outsider, this is my small commentary.

What's very interesting about this movie is that the relationship with those "others", with that "difference" that ultimately breaks down the Recchi dynasty is not absolutely clear. In one instance, Edoardo's resilience for the financial move (now, you see my point about the British Sikh?) seems to be honorable, Elisabetta's fear of not being accepted by her father and family is expected, and Edoardo's love for Antonio is not even mentioned. So it is not clear if the movie wants to sponsor an acceptance of that which is not tradition, of that which is an "other", of that which is "difference" in the world, or if in fact, is advocating against it. At the end, the movie seems a big parody. A parody of a perfect 20th century rich, traditional, powerful italian family. But it's the 21st century and it's not clear if the movie has a particular stance. And that's what makes the movie fantastic. It keeps its ambiguity and by doing that, shows the difficulty about a postmodern, globalizing, capitalistic, gender and sexually mixed world. There are no clear answers, and the power of tradition is awfully strong.

Emma, after Edoardo's funeral and her confession of her love for Antonio, takes off for her house, packs up (with the help of her loving maid, who cries as she helps her pack) some of her belongings and runs away with all of her family in the living room watching as she goes. She embraces Elisabetta for a last time, who is happy to see her leave, finally free from the Recchis, from herself.

ND/NF Films: Dogtooth

This is one of the quirkiest films I have ever watched in my life. But it is also one of the most suggestive films as well. It is a story about a family that is absolutely controlled by the patriarch of the family. The film combines dark humor with a strange perversity that makes it very odd to watch. The family is composed of five family members. Two young girls and a young guy probably in their mid-twenties, the mother and father. The father works in a factory near their place of residence, and the mother and children remain in their home all the time. They are kept inside by a preposterous lie created by the father and mother that makes them fear the outside. It is not clear what this lie is, but is a tantalizing lie that makes one of the girls fascinated with the idea about outside.

There is no clear story line to the movie, it is just a jumble of different happenings surrounding, mainly, the life of the three "children". In this sense, it is very clear that the movie is allegorical, because it is more preoccupied with creating a scenario, than by telling a story. This is not necessary a negative aspect of the movie. I suppose the teleological characteristic that is inherent in movie-making would suppose that there should exist a distinct story line with a distinct purpose, but plenty of bad movies are made that have distinct story lines and distinct purposes. Pick any Hollywood film and it will most likely be a great example of this.

The main point of Dogtooth is control. How ares lives controlled? The patriarch manages to control the lives of his children (and his wife as well but in a different way) by creating a paradigm that they understand and makes sense to them. The idea behind this paradigm is to keep the "children" inside the house. The outside is a terrible world that they are not ready to manage or to deal with. The father does this by many different means. The most important mean that he uses to control their lives is language. He uses language in a variety of ways. For example, objects are called by different names so that a "chair" may be called the "sea" or a "sofa" might be called "salt". I still don't quite understand why there is a need to use "wrong" names for certain objects, but it is part of the father's plan to control every aspect of his children's lives. One of the telling scenes of this control comes when the father, after having dinner with his family, asks the children if they would like to hear their grandfather sing. Then, he puts an old LP of Frank Sinatra in English (I should mention now this is a Greek movie in Greek, watched by me in translation) and translates the song as saying something like "Family is very important, children should be respectful and follow their parents' orders" etc. I don't know what the song was that played in the movie, but I think it is clear that the lines were "accurately" translated by the father for the purpose of ideological brainwash.

However, like in all apparatuses of ideological control, and the dogmas that are transmitted by these paradigms, there are things that don't make sense, and that create differences that translate to injustices. The father brings in a woman that is a security guard at the factory where he works to sleep with his son. It is left partially unsaid, but it is clear that it is believed that the boy has some certain sexual impulses that must be satiated; an impulse that is not shared by his sisters (right...). The movie fails in one point here...there is a scene in the movie where the sisters seem to be encountering, dealing and acting on those sexual impulses, and in a moment where one of the sisters wants to "lick" her sister, the movie shies away from having them experiment sexually. The sister ends up licking her sister's leg or shoulder but not other interesting spots that may be more...impulsive. It is not that this would satisfy my impulses as a viewer (ahh, possibly), but it makes the sisters look naive, and kind of ends up reinforcing the boy/girl difference and hierarchy.

The movie is disturbing at times. All the women in the movie are victims of psychological and physical violence that is, if I may, absolutely disgusting at times to watch. The mother is seen suffering throughout the movie for the lie that she's imposing in her own children. Why does she continue with this? It is not really answered. In a scene when the father meets the security guard (that has been sleeping with the son) after she has possibly jeopardized the idyllic nature of 'home' by lending some Hollywood movies to one of the sisters, the father beats the woman with a VCR in her apartment. It is an extremely violent scene. People in the theater were laughing, as the woman was violently beaten. I won't try to distinguish myself from other viewers. I wanted to laugh too, I controlled myself and I didn't. But this was intended. My whole reaction was intended by the director. Or so I think. And this is where this movie is brilliant.

The movie is called 'Dogtooth' because "only when one of the dogteeth (canine teeth) is longer than the other, will they be allowed to go outside", or so goes a saying that the sisters and brother talk about. One of the sisters then takes a five- or ten-pound weight to her face, breaks her dogtooth, leaving blood and tooth pieces al over the sink and runs away. Someone will always want to run away into the unknown.

The implications of this movie are very interesting to think about. Home, outside, outsiders, insiders, immigration, boundaries, borders, foreignness. All of these themes, and ideas, are in question here.

More pseudo film reviews to come from ND/NF....

See you soon in our Cafetin!

Tumblr!!! and Twitter!

So, I've just started another blog at Tumblr for random media or pieces of information that I find that I would like to post, and share with the world. That blog is called "De todo y el silencio" or "Of Everything and Silences". I have linked this Tumblr as an RSS feed to the Coffee on the upper right hand corner...where it says "Xfilosofo Tumblr"....enjoy!!!

Also, I've added the RSS for my twitter right above that...Enjoy that too!!!

My tweets...

ND/NF Festival

La versión 2010 del festival de New Directors/ New Films nos empieza a acompañar desde el día de hoy en NYC. Espero poder regalarles algunas criticas sobre algunas películas. Creo que será un festival muy interesante este año.

Algunas películas que se ven interesantes...pero no se olviden de mirar el website!

I Killed My Mother. Dir: Xavier Dolan

Dogtooth. Dir: Yorgos lanthimos

The Father of my Children. Dir: Mia Hansen-Love

Nos vemos pronto!

Felices Fiestas

He estado en hiato por razones varias. En enero se renueva la conversación sobre García Márquez y la contemporaneidad literaria latinoamericana, más entradas sobre eventos musicales en NYC, más entradas sobre fútbol, y mucho más.

Felices fiestas y Feliz año. ¡Que se nos viene el 2010!

Agro Ingreso Seguro y los pobres en Colombia

¿Por qué empezar esta entrada, este ensayo, este escrito con los zapatos de Van Gogh? Pues sí, obvio, porque los tengo en la cabeza. Los tengo metidos, y me estan carcomiendo un poquito el cerebro. Llevo mucho pensando en ellos. ¿Y que tienen que ver estos zapatos con el programa de Agro Ingreso Seguro en Colombia (AIS? Pues, ese ensayo de Derrida, que habla de la restitución. Porque de esto se trata todo esto, ¿A quién le pertenecen los zapatos? ¿de quién, fantasma no presente? ¿Será como nos dice Heidegger, de alguna campesina trabajadora? ¿O pertenecerán al mismo Van Gogh? Pues este es el asunto que nos lleva hoy por los caminos de las palabras. Esás preguntas son, de alguna manera, parecidas a las que hoy en día se hacen los Colombianos en relación con el AIS. ¿A quién le pertenecen esos subsidios? ¿A a oligarquía Colombiana, mejor preparada para la presentación de un proyecto feasible, concreto y que demuestre la puntuación necesaria para su aprobación? ¿o al campesino, solitario, que dedica sus días, al sol, con su haz y su brazo acanelado pero con el castigo moderno de su poca educación? ¿y que finalmente, le sirve más a Colombia?

El proyecto de AIS se fundó con la idea en mente de renovar, mejorar, tecnificar los modelos de producción agrícola en Colombia para desarrollar mecanismos de competividad que pudieran obtener el resultado de seguridad alimenticia para Colombia, y para sus vecinos. Dentro de esta idea, el proceso de subsidios se haría a aquellos individuos que pudieran demostrar que pueden crear un proyecto viable de mejora de producción, ya sea en tecnología o mecanismos, para cumplir con estos objetivos. Pueden leer este artículo para ver la idea que tiene Andrés Felipe Arías, Ex ministro de Agrícultura, apodado con mucho cariño de parte de sus disidentes como ‘Uribito’ no por su parecido físico sino por su similitud en materia política, del AIS, y de su razón conceptiva del proyecto.

Desafortunadamente, AIS a logrado que algunas familias adineradas de Colombia lograrán hacerse recipientes del subsidio, con nada módicas sumas de dinero para acaudalar impetuosamente sus largos bancos de dinero adquirido. Intempestivamente, la revista Cambio publicó este artículo que demostraba un inherente y sistémico sindrome de inequidad en la aprobación y debito de estos subsidios. La realidad es que díficilmente el pequeño agricultor puede llegar a demostrar el puntaje adecuado para ganarse el subisidio. Es cierto que no es imposible, pero por razones de tiempo, dinero, y difusión de la información, los pequeños agricultores y los campesinos son los menos beneficiados por este tipo de propuestas. Arías dice, como comenta este artículo, que el subsidio debe ayudar a ricos y pobres, pero la realidad muestra algo totalmente distinto, y Como nos dice este otro artículo, quedan muchas cosas que explicar. El mismo Arías nos dice que los subsidios a los ricos pueden ayudar a erradicar desigualdad. Esto lo pueden leer en este blog (Ahí pueden encontrar una discusión bastante interesante, y bastante informativa sobre el tema).

No alargo mucho esta entrada en mi blog, ya que puse muchos hipervínculos a artículos para que pudieramos leer, y pues con poco tiempo para esto, los dejo finalmente con el artículo de Rudolf Hommes, ex-ministro de Hacienda durante el gobierno de Cesar Gavíria, probablemente uno de los mejores ex-presidentes dentro de todos los malos de los últimos 25 años. El problema es de restitución, y de cuales son las metas. El gobierno de Colombia quiere una mejor Colombia dándole más dinero, más derechos y mejor vida a los ricos, porque eso, al final del asunto, también va ayudar a los pobres, dicho en simples palabras. Creen que al enriquecerse ellos, y por lo tanto Colombia, en realidad se está enriqueciendo el país. Pero somos cada vez mas pobres, menos educados, mas hambrientos, y menos humanos. Los indígenas siguen siendo desplazados, las universidades públicas desposeídas, la salud es un negocio y no un derecho, y la vida un paradigma de sumas y restas. Para la mayoría de Colombianos es un paradigma de muchas restas, y pocas sumas. “En surcos de dolores el bien germina ya”, dice el himno. Surcos que solo los ricos van a poder labrar.