Thursday, December 31, 2015

New Year's Greetings from a Reader. Writer, Philosopher

A Reader, Writer, Philosopher

I am a force to be reckoned with, an irrepressible will power, and a restless mind and soul. Of course, I am also a narcissist, but not as much as less than astute and more than likely asinine onlookers and observers would like to think. 

When asked what I do for a living, I reply with a challenge, "Use your imagination". I used to be well-off, then I squandered most of my fortune to find out who I really was and who really loved me. I am now back to almost of where I was, 17 years ago when I had a low 7-figure in savings, stocks, and bonds. I am wiser now. I'm better at managing my finances, and I have stopped giving money to women. I don't date penniless women anymore. And I'm weary and wary of Love, although my heart still throbs and dances whenever I think of Cherry, my fantasy extraordinaire. I'm tired of vicious, aggressive, loud-mouthed women. I'm sick of stupid and poor women who think they are smart. 

I used to be condescending to folks of lesser intellect and intelligence, but not anymore, at least not openly. Cherry has changed me. I am getting softer and kinder, thanks to her. I smile more often now. My resolution for 2016 is having pity instead of contempt for assholes and ignoramuses. Upon deeper reflection they have amused me for their brave attempts to assert their very meager intellect and dismal intelligence. It's funny to see a frog trying to fly or a caterpillar attempting to race with a cheetah. How pitiful! How sad at the sight of a monkey which does not know its place, and wants to compete with a very smart and well-read human! One must know his place in this world, where he is in the order of things. Know thyself!

When I pray for something, I do not pray
When I pray for nothing, I really pray 

                            Anthony de Mello

But amigo, I don't pray. I never have, and never will. That's an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. I meditate. I sing. I dance. I run. I cry and laugh. But I don't pray. I'm one of the most intellectually honest persons you ever met. Take that statement to heart, if you care to get to know me. 

Somebody asked me the other day how my book was going. I laughed. He asked why I laughed. That prompted more laughter from me. 

The sun is out right now. The air is crisp and cold. It is really a beautiful morning. The sky is completely and utterly blue. There is no fluff nor wisp of cloud. And there's no wind, making the ambient temperature bearable. We are in the thick of winter. Blood is coursing strongly in my veins. And I feel like killing some scumbags. But why? I shouldn't harbor such unhealthy fantasies. I just had a wonderful encounter with my new banker who adopted an autistic son, knowing that going in. The son is six years old, on the retarded side of the spectrum, and just now exploding with language, about 3-4 years late. The night before, the banker confided, the son kept him up until 1:30 in the morning. I shook the banker's hand, telling him that it was a honor for me to meet him who brought love into this world, who believed in giving and doing what he could to make the world a better place.  He and his wife already had two normal biological daughters, 16 and 13. The boy's biological mother was a drug addict. The banker proudly showed me the family photo taken on his smart phone. The daughters and wife and even the son were good-looking and happy-looking. Life makes sense when Love is given and shared. Life is Hell when Stupidity and Ignorance run amok. 

After being pestered as to how I would identify myself as a person who has to make money in order to keep body and soul together, I coyly replied that I am a " life liver", that is to say, I live life to the fullest, hungrily and avidly and intensely as if I had only 7 days left on this planet. I absorb and savor every living experience; I take risks; I push myself and go out on a limb every five minutes; and I fall in love with every nice, friendly, decent woman that crosses my path. Belatedly, I've stopped wasting my time educating or showing off my intellect to idiots and scumbags and assholes. 

(To be continued) 

Why is Buddha still relevant?

Trong Tăng Chi Bộ kinh (III. 539-43), thường được biết là Bài kinh Phật thuyết cho người dân Kalama như sau :
         “Một ngày kia, đức Phật đi qua một thị trấn nhỏ, tên là Kesaputta, thuộc vương quốc Kosala.  Người dân tại đó gọi là dân Kalama liền tới thăm đức Phật và trình bày sự hoang mang của họ trước sự kiện các sa-môn và tu sĩ Bà-la-môn đi ngang qua đây, đều đề cao tôn chỉ của mình và chê bai tôn chỉ của người khác.  Như vậy, họ đâm ra nghi ngờ, không biết người nào nói thật, người nào nói sai, không biết nên tin theo ai.
Đức Phật bèn giảng cho họ về mười nền tảng của một niềm tin tốt – niềm tin chân chánh, và khuyên họ luôn giữ tinh thần phê phán, không chấp nhận một điều gì là thật trước khi tự mình kiểm chứng và thực nghiệm...
Đức Phật nói: Này các thiện nam tín nữ Kalama, nhân đây Như Lai sẽ giảng giải về 10 nền tảng của niềm tin chân chánh:
     - Một là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều đó là truyền thuyết.
- Hai là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều đó thuộc về truyền thống.
- Ba là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều đó được nhiều người nhắc đến hay tuyên truyền.
- Bốn là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều đó được ghi lại trong kinh điển hay sách vở.
- Năm là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều đó thuộc lý luận siêu hình.
- Sáu là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều đó phù hợp với lập trường của mình.
- Bảy là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, khi mà điều đó được căn cứ trên những dữ kiện hời hợt.
- Tám là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều ấy phù hợp với định kiến của mình.
- Chín là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều ấy được sức mạnh và quyền uy ủng hộ.
- Mười là, chớ vội tin một điều gì, chỉ vì điều ấy được các nhà truyền giáo hay đạo sư của mình tuyên thuyết.
Này các thiện nam tín nữ, khi nghe một điều gì, các vị phải quán sát, suy tư và thể nghiệm, chỉ khi nào, sau khi kiểm nghiệm, quý vị thực sự nhận thấy: "Lời dạy này tốt lành, đạo đức, hướng thiện, chói sáng và được người trí tán thán, nếu sống và thực hiện lời dạy này sẽ đưa đến hạnh phúc, an lạc ngay hiện tại và về lâu, về dài" thì lúc ấy quý vị hãy đặt niềm tin bất động và thực hành theo”.
          Có lẽ trong suốt lịch sử nhân loại, chưa có một triết gia hay một giáo chủ tôn giáo nào có một thái độ tự do, cởi mở, đề cao lý trí và thực nghiệm như vậy.  Ngoài đức Phật ra, ai có thể nói với người khác được rằng:  Đừng tin vào kinh điển, đừng tin vào lời dạy của chính mình!
     Niềm tin chân chánh trong đạo Phật phải là những gì đem lại kết quả lợi ích thiết thực và hiện tại, không thêu dệt hay hứa hẹn, bởi:  “Tất cả những điều Như Lai dạy cũng như ngón tay chỉ mặt trăng.  Hãy đừng lầm lẫn ngón tay với mặt trăng” – kinh Viên Giác.  Ngoài ra, đức Phật còn cảnh báo thêm:  "Ai tin tưởng Như Lai mà không hiểu Như Lai, tức là phỉ báng Như Lai vậy–  kinh A Hàm.

Housewife, Writer, and good Poker Player

“You realize, of course, this is actually a fight club,” Helen Ellis said, as she took my coat.
She spoke in a sweet Southern accent. Behind her were four members of her weekly bridge group, wearing cashmere cardigans or fitted black dresses with chunky jewelry.
At 10 on a Tuesday morning, we stood in the living room of Ms. Ellis’s spacious Upper East Side apartment. She had set out a pot of tea, a tray of pastries, berries with cream. Nearby was a white Christmas tree nine feet tall, decorated entirely in insect ornaments: gold glitter dragonflies, glass ladybugs, brightly colored beetles.
Each December, her tree has a different theme. She includes the previous year’s ornaments in the gift bags she gives to the 150 guests at her annual holiday party.
Ms. Ellis, 45, calls herself a housewife. But that only begins to describe her. She is also a shrewd poker player who regularly competes in high-stakes tournaments, and the author of a forthcoming story collection, “American Housewife,” that focuses a dark and humorous lens on the domestic. Early reviews have been glowing; Booklist compared her to Shirley Jackson and Margaret Atwood.
Ms. Atwood herself recently tweeted: “Reading ‘American Housewife’ by Helen Ellis. Pretty ferocious! (And ferocious about ‘pretty.’) Cackle-making.” Weeks before the book’s release, Ms. Atwood named it one of her favorites of the year in The Guardian.
“When you meet Helen, at first you think: president of a Southern college sorority,” said one of her bridge guests, Jean McKeever. “What you find is she’s this hilarious, twisted, many-layered person.”
Midway through the game, one player accidentally showed her cards. Ms. Ellis sneaked a peek.
“She’s a cheater,” said her bridge partner, Erica Schultz.
“It’s not cheating if someone puts a little kitten in your lap,” Ms. Ellis said.
After bridge, she sat down in her bright orange den, eating a leftover croissant with jam and talking about her life.
Raised in Tuscaloosa, Ala., Ms. Ellis moved to New York in 1992, on her 22nd birthday. She wanted to be a writer.
“I arrived dressed in my finest, which at the time was Talbots,” she said. “The long plaid wool skirt and the turtleneck. I kept walking by that store, trying to get a job in publishing. I ended up getting a job at Talbots.”
Later, she was hired as an assistant at Individual Investor magazine. While there, she applied to, and was rejected by, several M.F.A. programs. But eventually, New York University took her off the wait list.
The day after she got the news, a reporter named Lex Haris walked into her office.
“I had the biggest smile on my face,” Ms. Ellis said. “He thought it was for him, but really it was because I had just quit.”
The misunderstanding was fortuitous. She had been trying to flirt with him for weeks. (“I would bring him People magazines, wrinkled because I had read them in the tub. I just put that image in his mind.”)
They went out that night and were married six years later. Mr. Haris is now the executive editor of CNNMoney. Happily child-free, the couple has two cats, Tang Tang and Big Boy, who, true to his name, weighs 25 pounds.
Throughout graduate school, Ms. Ellis worked as a temp. During her last semester, she became a secretary in the chairman’s office at Chanel, a job she would keep for a decade.
A year out of school, in 1998, she sold her debut novel, “Eating the Cheshire Cat.” The book earned good reviews and solid sales. But a follow-up proved elusive. Ms. Ellis spent six years writing a second novel that was never published. She wrote another after that, which also failed to find a home. Then her husband suggested that she quit her job to write full time.
“So I quit,” Ms. Ellis said. “I wrote another book. Nobody wanted to buy that one either.”
She wrote a young adult book “for hire,” about teenagers who turn into cats. The sales were dismal.
After that, she stopped writing altogether. Most people she met had no idea she had ever been a writer. Upon learning that she didn’t work or have children, they often asked what she did all day.
“I settled into what became a very happy life,” she said. “You ask yourself, ‘What happens if I stop writing?’ First of all, nobody cares. And you put on 10 pounds. That’s all it is.”
She collected paintings by emerging artists, cleaned her home religiously and hosted fund-raisers for her favorite causes, including One Story, a literary magazine edited by a friend from her N.Y.U. days, Hannah Tinti. (Along with the novelist Ann Napolitano, they have met monthly over dinner for the last 20 years. “That has been a marriage for me,” Ms. Ellis said.)
She also had more time to devote to a lifelong passion: poker. Her father taught her seven-card stud when she was 6. Ms. Ellis started entering tournaments in 2008. In 2010, she played at the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas for the first time. She won nearly $20,000.
“Some of the most interesting people I’ve met, I’ve met through poker,” she said.
One of her regular games is attended by both Broadway pit musicians and high-ranking members of law enforcement, all but one of them male.
In 2011, the writer Colson Whitehead hired Ms. Ellis to be his coach at the World Series of Poker. He immortalized the experience in his book “The Noble Hustle: Poker, Beef Jerky and Death.”
“In a male-dominated game, where female players often affect an Annie Oakley tomboy thing to fit in, the housewife-player was an unlikely sight,” Mr. Whitehead wrote. “The dudes flirted and condescended, and then this prim creature in a black sweater and pearls walloped them. ‘A lot of people don’t think women will bluff,’ Helen said. She was bluffing the moment she walked into the room.”
Ms. Ellis was thrilled by Mr. Whitehead’s portrayal of her. “I thought at the time, ‘If this is the last that I’m published, I’m very happy letting that be what anybody thinks.’”
But the urge to write remained. So she started an anonymous Twitter feed. She gave it the name American Housewife and the handle @WhatIDoAllDay. She tweeted about her life.
When Ms. Ellis tweeted, “Inspired by Beyoncé, I stallion-walk to the toaster,” she was retweeted over a hundred times and earned dozens of followers. The tweet became the opening line of what would eventually be her new book.
Slowly, she began to write again. Short stories this time, in the voices of housewives. The stories are addictive and full of pitch-perfect observations like, “the only thing with less character than Chardonnay is wainscoting” and “Delores was as fertile as a Duggar.” They are populated by, among others, neighbors in a co-op whose fight over decorating turns deadly; women in a book club trying to seduce a new member into carrying their babies; and a chilling series of dead doormen.
Ms. Ellis placed the stories in literary journals. Last spring, her agent sent the collection to publishers. The book received multiple pre-empt offers and sold in three days to Doubleday.
Fifteen years after the release of her first book, she said, “I am very aware at 45 that this is special.”
She displays none of the neuroses of most writers on the cusp of a book release: “The worst-case scenario is that this fails terribly and I go back to a very nice life.”
It does sound very nice: after we parted ways, she took a nap, she said, then met up with a friend to see “Hamilton.” The next day, she planned to attend a book signing by Dita Von Teese (“My spirit animal”) in the lingerie department at Bloomingdale’s. Ms. Ellis’s email signoff when making plans is a single word: “Enjoyable!” At this point, she has no interest in doing anything that isn’t.
Asked if she fears that the book will offend friends or acquaintances, she said, without blinking, “I don’t care.” Then she added, “Though I’m curious to see what my doormen will think.”
Continue following our fashion and lifestyle coverage on Facebook (Styles and Modern Love), Twitter (Styles, Fashion, and Vows), and Instagram.

Correction: December 23, 2015
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled the last name of Helen Ellis’s bridge partner. She is Erica Schultz, not Shultz.

Encounter with Death by means of Soothing Music. Life is Brief, Cherry Baby

Have you ever been there when someone dies?” people ask when they find out I play the harp and sing for dying patients. It is the same tone I hear when someone asks, “Do you think you will have more children?” They want to talk about it, but they worry that the answer might be a secret. When I tell them I have been there at the moment of death, though not as often as they might suppose, they ask, “What is that like for you?”
I tell them it is intense. I wait to see if they would like to hear more, or if they have their own story to tell. I am a music thanatologist, trained to offer music in a prescriptive way, to create a calm space for dying patients and their families. I focus on the patient’s breath as I play the harp and sing. With this rhythm as my guide, music can echo and reflect the dying process. The patient leads the music vigil with his or her breath, right in the middle of the hum of machines, the trill of cellphones, and the voices and nose-blowing of family. It often feels to me as if the room becomes larger, warmed by music and filled with the courage of families preparing to say goodbye.
The people I play for are incredibly gracious. They say the music is relaxing and beautiful. They invite me in to their moments of vulnerability. I once played for a patient who was struggling with complicated symptoms. She was uncomfortable and having difficulty speaking. But she asked me to stay, and at one point during the music vigil she mouthed the words, “You are blessing my soul.”
The first time I was there when someone died, I was surprised by how peaceful it felt. The patient was on hospice in a nursing home, and we were alone in the room. I sat at her bedside and sang while resting my hand lightly on hers. Her breath slowed.
When I moved my hand away to reach for my harp she made a small movement. I returned my hand and continued to sing as her breath slowed, then stopped. It was just the two of us, in the late afternoon silence of her room. I did not feel frightened or distraught. I felt honored to be there and humbled by her connection to the music. I sat with her until a staff member walked in and spoke, and the bustle of phone calls began.
I feel pure astonishment in the presence of death. Who am I to be there? I feel the stillness of time and also its relentless push forward. As they leave, these patients remind me of my own body’s fragility and willfulness. By inviting me to witness their death, they teach me to live, to craft a life with joy and attention. They call me to be bold. What are you waiting for? I imagine them asking, as the door of their life gently closes.
My wonder and bewilderment at death has evolved. Thanks to good training and my practical nature, I do not get freaked out. But I am not entirely comfortable either. Even with years of experience, it doesn’t get easier to confront mortality, my own or that of the patients I meet. I never stop feeling like a beginner. Perhaps we are all beginners in times of profound human transition, no matter how much we have seen it before.
The cycles of human mortality seem especially vivid at this time of year, as the tide of the past year sweeps out and the new one is about to be born.
One thing I know for certain is that the presence of another person, even a stranger, can be transformative during transitions. It can turn an unendurable moment into an opportunity for meaning and awe. This is not something I could have learned in my training, or even in years of music vigils. I learned it giving birth to my son.
When my water broke three weeks before my due date I was on vacation with my family. We talked to the doctor at the local hospital, then made the three-hour return trip to Boston. My husband ordered Chinese food and my stepchildren binged on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”
After I checked into the hospital, my husband slept while I tried to cope with the contractions. This was my first pregnancy and I assumed it would be a long labor. When the pain became overwhelming, our doula arrived and began to coach me to breathe slowly and deeply. She made low noises along with me, showing me how to relax. When the contraction finished, she said, “Now lower your shoulders, and let a deep breath out. Let that contraction go.”
Her attention to my suffering calmed me down and made me feel deeply cared for. I focused on her quiet voice and clear instructions. Breath by breath, the doula accompanied me. This dynamic was familiar from my role in end-of-life care. She was an outsider providing help and experience at an intimate, vulnerable time. But I had never been the patient before. It was my first time as the one in the hospital bed.
I needed my husband’s love, kindness and good humor in order to endure the pain. But I found I also needed the doula’s confidence and wisdom. She had seen birth before, and knew strategies that could help. She couldn’t take the pain away, but she stayed with me. This companionship gave me the courage to relax and accept a process that was already underway, until my son was in my arms.
In those first days home from the hospital, I understood something new about my work with the dying. I realized that when families express their gratitude, when they say they feel blessed or that they will remember me, they are not just talking about the music. They are also grateful that I was with them through their suffering, as a witness to their grief.
Playing music for dying patients is not about giving a concert to distract them, or even trying to make them feel better. Perhaps it is not about music at all. It is about cradling a family with beauty as they end the conversation with someone they love. It is about helping them bear an impossible transition which — like labor — is both painful and unstoppable. It is about staying close and trying to do something useful, until they have the courage to say goodbye and leave that room, into a world where one precious voice has gone silent.
Jennifer L. Hollis is a music thanatologist and the author of “Music at the End of Life: Easing the Pain and Preparing the Passage.”

To Find Love: Don't Hide in the Bathroom

Sometimes I play a kind of shivery game in which I think about how different my life would be if I had made other choices. One thing leads to an unforeseeable other.
After spending my 20s as a would-be musician, I attended law school in New York City. I graduated owing about $100,000 in student loans. Luckily, I found a job at a terrific but demanding law firm, where I was assigned to share an office with an associate named Daniel.
Daniel and I bonded as soldiers who share a trench during wartime do. We were both shy, but working together on days, nights and weekends has a way of breaking down reserve. He would send me fake emails from terrifying law partners, and I’d jump out of empty offices and startle him.
We had no romantic connection, but we talked each other through our relationship messes. We agreed that socializing in unstructured settings was particularly frightening. Thus, we hid in our office and avoided the firm’s weekly cocktail hour. The prospect of schmoozing with unfamiliar co-workers put us both in a defensive crouch.
But even the best of wartime alliances eventually weaken. After three years, Daniel left the firm and moved to another city. It took me another two years to pay off my loans. About five seconds later I fled the battlefield and joined the legal department of a slower-paced publishing company.
With more free time, I gathered my courage and signed up for a singles event run by a group that held regular mixers. I was 37, at my life’s midpoint, and it looked like a dull, downward slide from where I stood. So I squashed my misgivings and showed up at the next mixer.
It had nine attendees — five men and three other women besides me. We each spoke about ourselves into a microphone. Then came the part I always hated: the mingling. The event’s organizer gave the usual admonishments. None of us were to be rude. If someone approached us, we should talk to them for at least a minute.
Chairs scraped and we rose. I spotted an attractive guy and approached him. He beamed, came toward me and then swerved to speak with the woman he really had in mind. I saw a second guy and scooted over.
“Hi there!” I said.
“Sorry,” he replied, and kept walking.
I left, vowing never to attend a singles mixer again. I emailed Daniel, who wrote back that the same group was sponsoring another mixer in a month, and I should go. Ha ha, I thought. I began to research single-parent adoption and signed a contract for a small co-op apartment.
One Friday afternoon some weeks later, I was sitting at my desk at my blessedly quiet job. Here no one urgently needed a memo summarizing legal research. No one expected me to work that night. This was peacetime lawyering.
I decided to clean out my email inbox. And there it was: Daniel’s email about the singles mixer. The event would start at 6 that very evening in Midtown Manhattan.
I was dressed in a flannel shirt, jeans and sneakers. But what did it matter? I wouldn’t meet anyone. And who needed love anyway? Then again, maybe it would be fun. But wouldn’t I have to talk to people? I can leave at any time, I reminded myself.
This mixer had about 80 attendees, who sat on chairs in the meeting room of a high school. It took an hour to pass around the microphone. I scribbled notes of what certain men said about themselves: This one was a contractor who liked Shakespeare, that one was a lawyer who liked opera.
Then came the dreaded mingling. An angry-looking man stomped over and demanded to know how I was doing. Moments later, another man, this one with a fixed grin, asked what kind of movies I liked.
The mingling was to last for 30 minutes, but I couldn’t pretend to be perky and relaxed for that long. If I didn’t leave soon, I’d start telling inappropriate personal stories, such as the one about the nun in elementary school who told me I’d never amount to anything because I spoke so softly. After I chatted with a few more men, none of whom interested me, I hurried out to the bathroom and locked myself in a stall.
Why was I putting myself through this again? It was exhausting. Maybe love was overrated. Maybe love was just what people claimed to feel for anyone who’d put up with them. I leaned against the wall and closed my eyes. I could hear the chatter of women, turning on faucets, flushing toilets. I’ll just wait here, I thought, until the mingling is over. Then I’ll go back and see if anyone has written down my ID number as someone they’d like to date.
I returned to the meeting room, only to discover that the mingling session wasn’t quite done. Immediately the lawyer who liked opera positioned himself in front of me. He was immaculately dressed in a suit, his dark hair clipped short, his brown eyes penetrating. Meanwhile, I could have played the part of the stablehand who groomed his horse.
“Hi!” I said. “I remember you. You’re a lawyer.”
“Yes,” he said, and his face remained a closed door.
“I’m a lawyer, too. I used to be a litigator. Now I’m in-house at a publishing company. What kind of law do you practice?”
“Real estate,” he said flatly.
“Ah. And you like opera. What period do you most like, or what composer?”
His expression eased just a bit. “I like Puccini.”
A dim memory came to me of sitting in a music library a decade earlier, listening to an opera that I thought was terrible. “I remember listening to ‘Tosca’ once, years ago,” I said. “It was so overblown.”
A rather long pause ensued. Somewhere behind the lawyer, organizers urged people to take their seats.
“‘Tosca’ is my favorite opera,” the lawyer said.
It was all so deliciously awful: the mingling, how I was dressed, the futility of trying to meet anyone. Even when I tried to show interest in a person, I unwittingly flung an insult instead.
I couldn’t help it: I laughed. “I’m sorry,” I said. “It was probably a scratchy recording. Or I was in a grumpy mood that afternoon.”
“No doubt,” the lawyer said.
All of us took our seats, dutifully wrote down the ID numbers of people we liked and handed in our scorecards. Then we waited for the computer to sort the results.
I matched with the lawyer, whose name was Richard. A week later, we enjoyed a nice dinner at an Italian restaurant. Richard wore another impeccable suit, and I wore a dress. I asked him, “If you hadn’t talked with me during the mingling session, would you still have written down my ID number?”
“Oh, no,” he said. “I would never date someone I hadn’t at least spoken with first.” He tilted his head, remembering. “It was hard to get to you that evening.”
Yes, I thought, because I was hiding in the bathroom.
“You were surrounded by men,” he continued.
You poor deluded one, I thought.
“I had to get through a wall of men,” he said.
I decided to opt for honesty. “There was no wall of men.”
“Yes,” he insisted, “there was!”
“I was hiding in the bathroom,” I said.
“There was a wall of men.”
That’s probably the beginning of love: when you see someone in a way that defies reality, but which makes perfect sense to you.
On our second date, we went to the Metropolitan Opera and saw “Tosca.” We emerged with the throngs into a crisp autumn night. The side streets were almost empty, though, and the two of us strolled along, talking excitedly about how evil Scarpia was, and the terrible fate that befell Cavaradossi.
“It’s nice of you to forgive me for insulting your favorite opera,” I said.
Richard gave an amiable shrug. “At least you’d heard of it.”
As we walked, we held hands and talked about musicals. Somehow we found ourselves back by the now-deserted fountain in front of the opera house. It was midnight.
“Sing something by Rodgers and Hart,” I said.
Richard considered. “I’m wild again,” he sang. “Beguiled again. A simpering, whimpering child again.”
Two years later, we married. More than a decade after that, we’re the parents of 10-year-old twin boys.
When I ask myself how I managed to get so lucky, I think: Because my life in music didn’t work out. Because I went to an expensive law school even though I had no money. Because I needed a well-paying job. Because the law firm assigned me Daniel as an officemate. Because Daniel sent me that email reminder.
But most crucial, I think, is that I stopped hiding in the bathroom before it was too late.
Susan Gelles is a writer and lawyer who lives in the Bronx.
modernlove@nytimes.com

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Assholes, Scumbags, and Human Nature


 Assholes, Scumbags, and Human Nature

What do you do if you come across/run into really bad assholes and scumbags? You don't know? I do. I would just call some friends of mine, especially Omar Tartar, over. And they will show them what "bad" is.

This world is so fucked up. The more ignorant and stupid one is, the more he tries to appear knowledgeable and smart, like the motherfucker Tamika Ito, for instance. He can't express himself smoothly in his mother tongue. Yet he talked about Rhetoric! He was so fucking ignorant that he thought Aristotle lived during the Renaissance. He doesn't know shit about Language and Linguistics. He came across one old anachronistic book by Bloomfield. Then he fancied that he now can talk about Language and Linguistics. The motherfucker is sly, stupid, and stubborn, a real combination for intellectual mockery and alligator bait. If you come across a fucked-up piece of trash like that, what would you do? Call the Neo-Nazi Squad over? Right on! They will make a good soap and fertilizer out of the motherfucker. What's the lesson for you then, mi amigo? Right, be truthful and amiable at the same time. Be smart and keep your fucking mouth shut. Be wise. Don't be stupid like Tamika Ito. You understand what I'm saying? Right on, you just don't know how people react when you act up and are insolent. 

Why has the Vietnamese race produced so many stupid animals like Jimmy Phan, Nam Nguyen, Long Vu, Trinh Ngoc Nghia, Tamika Ito, Paul Van, Linda Nguyen--a fucked-up and ignorant albeit decent and "principled" lesbian, Vananh---another fucked-up, self-righteous lesbian, Tim Nguyen---an ugly and sex-obsessed smarty-mouthed spinster, Huongsaigon69 (note the nick chosen, so stupid and so fucked up. Why the sexual allusion 69?), and the senile, severely-undereducated, plainly stupid, hopelessly intellectually challenged Tran Ba Dam, that mystify and nauseate me at the same time. They are so different from me, so animalistic, so stupid and so ignorant. They all suffered from unrelieved inferiority complex. Fuck, if you are inferior intellectually, just admit it, and go from there by trying to educate yourself. It is as simple as that. But the aforementioned motherfuckers are lazy and stupid. They don't do that. They just whine and whimper that oh, no, we are not as stupid and ignorant as you think we are. What a fucking joke! These motherfuckers are nothing but animals, deserving to be alligator bait or made into soap and handbags. As the staying goes, "Don't underestimate Stupidity and Ignorance", especially those of the motherfucker and cocksucker Trịnh Ngọc Nghĩa, the most stupid and ignorant human animal that ever walked down the turnpike. 

Theo thiển ý, ông Tường Giang (TG) sử dụng ngôn từ tục tằn vì ông quan niệm nếu đã chửi thì phải chửi cho đã, cho tận nơi, cho tận cùng, cho mình bớt giận, và làm đối phương điên tiết, chớ chửi nửa chừng thì chửi làm chi. Tôi cũng nghĩ ông ấy chửi nặng như thế vì ông cho ông là nạn nhân của những sự việc vu khống, võ đoán trơ trẽn, và phản bội.

Mỗi người chúng ta có một hệ thống giá trị riêng tư để định giá chúng ta và tha nhân. Người không có đạo đức giả thì hệ thống định giá chính mình và người khác đều là một. Còn bọn đạo đức giả, bọn đóng kịch với chúng nó và người khác, thì có 2 hệ thống riêng biệt: 

-rất phóng khoáng, dễ dãi với mình và cho mình là con người đạo đức, lịch sự, biết điều, vv...
-rất khắc khe với người khác. 

Tôi là người thường chửi khi giận và tỏ sự khinh bỉ với bọn vô lại, bọn đạo đức giả, bọn ganh tỵ/đố kỵ rẽ tiền, bọn bất tài, bọn không biết hoặc không chấp nhận cái tầm vóc và thân phận nhỏ bé, nhỏ nhoi và nhỏ nhen của mình. Tôi không chửi thì thôi, chớ chửi thì tôi chửi rất nặng, nhưng tôi khác ông TG là tôi tránh những từ ngữ thô tục, nặng mùi bộ phận sinh dục hoặc bài tiết, vì đối với tôi Chửi là một Nghệ Thuật trong sự sử dụng Ngôn Ngữ. Chửi càng tránh né những ngôn từ tục tĩu, càng châm biếm, càng mỉa mai, thì đối phương mới đau và phải nhớ rằng chọc ghẹo tôi là tôi cho ăn đòn bằng ngôn ngữ, bằng lời nói. Tôi không phải là một người nhẫn nhịn. Đụng vào cá nhân tôi, sau khi tranh luận không lại, là phải trả một giá rất nặng. Tôi không cho Chửi là một cái gì hay ho, một đức tính. Nếu tránh được thì tốt. 

Cái bản chất của từng cá nhân con người thể hiện qua lời nói và hành động. Qua văn phong của ông TG, tôi nhận thấy ông là người nhiều tình cảm, không màu mè, và chân thật, một con người tôi có thể chấp nhận được hơn là những kẻ bề ngoài ăn nói lịch sự, không văng tục, nhưng háo danh, ích kỷ, lừa thầy phản bạn, và thờ phượng đồng tiền, bủn xỉn, không biết điều, coi một đồng dollar như cái bánh xe bò. 
Tôi tin một ngày rất gần đây, ông Tường Giang và tôi sẽ không chửi nữa, dù bị khiêu khích bởi những phường vô lại thấp hèn. Chọc ghẹo người khác tức là chấp nhận mình thua kém. Chửi bọn thấp hèn thì mình cũng chả hay ho gì hơn bọn chúng nó, chỉ gây ra Khẩu Nghiệp. Nhưng trước khi ngưng chửi thì phải suy tư cái bản chất của Chửi. Càng đi sâu vào Chửi càng thấy cái khôi hài của Sự Thế: Ganh Tỵ, Cái Tôi, Trách Người mà không bao giờ lại Trách Mình, Dốt mà thích nói Chữ vì mặc cảm tự ti, trong khi người hiếu học đều sẵn sàng học hỏi bất cứ từ ai. Phải hiểu Chánh Tư Duy và Chánh Ngữ. 

Im lặng là sự khinh bỉ hùng hồn nhất. Riết rồi cũng quen và cuối cùng Khinh Bỉ thay thế bằng Thương Hại và Thản Nhiên. Tình Thương và Hiểu Biết là thuốc trị Bịnh Chửi. 

To Hate is to indulge in perpetual suffering. Try to practice silence, amigo. Life is good. There are fine things to enjoy if you know where to look. And you can always have a choice to be wise and smart and amiable. 

Meaning of God made Flesh

BECAUSE the Christmas story has been told so often for so long, it’s easy even for Christians to forget how revolutionary Jesus’ birth was. The idea that God would become human and dwell among us, in circumstances both humble and humiliating, shattered previous assumptions. It was through this story of divine enfleshment that much of our humanistic tradition was born.
For most Christians, the incarnation — the belief that God, in the person of Jesus, walked in our midst — is history’s hinge point. The incarnation’s most common theological take-away relates to the doctrine of redemption: the belief that salvation is made possible by the sinless life and atoning death of Jesus. But there are other, less familiar aspects of Jesus’ earthly pilgrimage that are profoundly important.
One of them was rejecting the Platonic belief that the material world was evil. In Plato’s dualism, there was a dramatic disjuncture between ideal forms and actual bodies, between the physical and the spiritual worlds. According to Plato, what we perceive with our senses is illusory, a distorted shadow of reality. Hence philosophy’s most famous imagery — Plato’s shadow on the cave — where those in the cave mistook the shadows for real people and named them.
This Platonic view had considerable influence in the early church, but that influence faded because it was in tension with Christianity’s deepest teachings. In the Hebrew Bible, for example, God declares creation to be good — and Jesus, having entered the world, ratified that judgment. The incarnation attests to the existence of the physical, material world. Our life experiences are real, not shadows. The incarnation affirms the delight we take in earthly beauty and our obligation to care for God’s creation. This was a dramatic overturning of ancient thought.
The incarnation also reveals that the divine principle governing the universe is a radical commitment to the dignity and worth of every person, since we are created in the divine image.
But just as basic is the notion that we have value because God values us. Steve Hayner, a theologian who died earlier this year, illustrated this point to me when he observed that gold is valuable not because there is something about gold that is intrinsically of great worth but because someone values it. Similarly, human beings have worth because we are valued by God, who took on flesh, entered our world, and shared our experiences — love, joy, compassion and intimate friendships; anger, sorrow, suffering and tears. For Christians, God is not distant or detached; he is a God of wounds. All of this elevated the human experience and laid the groundwork for the ideas of individual dignity and inalienable rights.
In his book “A Brief History of Thought,” the secular humanist and French philosopher Luc Ferry writes that in contrast with the Greek understanding of humanity, “Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity — an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.”
Indeed, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the poor in spirit and the pure in heart, the meek and the merciful), his touching of lepers, and his association with outcasts and sinners were fundamentally at odds with the way the Greek and Roman worlds viewed life, where social status was everything.
“Christianity placed charity at the center of its spiritual life as no pagan cult ever had,” according to the theologian David Bentley Hart, “and raised the care of widows, orphans, the sick, the imprisoned, and the poor to the level of the highest of religious obligations.” Christianity played a key role in ending slavery and segregation. Today Christians are taking the lead against human trafficking and on behalf of unborn life. They maintain countless hospitals, hospices and orphanages around the world.
We moderns assume that compassion for the poor and marginalized is natural and universal. But actually we think in this humanistic manner in large measure because of Christianity. What Christianity did, my friend the Rev. Karel Coppock once told me, is to “transform our way of thinking about the poor and sick and create an entirely different cultural given.”
One other effect of the incarnation: It helps those of us of the Christian faith to avoid turning God into an abstract set of principles. Accounts of how Jesus interacted in this messy, complicated, broken world, through actions that stunned the people of his time, allow us to learn compassion in ways that being handed a moral rule book never could.
For one thing, rule books can’t shed tears or express love; human beings do. Seeing how Jesus dealt with the religious authorities of his day (often harshly) and the sinners and outcasts of his day (often tenderly and respectfully) adds texture and subtlety to human relationships that we could never gain otherwise.
Christians have often fallen short of what followers of Jesus are called to be. We have seen this in the Crusades, religious wars and bigotry; in opposition to science, in the way critical thought is discouraged and in harsh judgmentalism. To this day, many professing Christians embody the antithesis of grace.
We Christians would do well to remind ourselves of the true meaning of the incarnation. We are part of a great drama that God has chosen to be a participant in, not in the role of a conquering king but as a suffering servant, not with the intention to condemn the world but to redeem it. He saw the inestimable worth of human life, regardless of social status, wealth and worldly achievements, intelligence or national origin. So should we.
Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the last three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Another Review of the same movie "The Revenant". Stay on, Baby, stay on

RR
In “The Revenant,” a period drama reaching for tragedy, Leonardo DiCaprio plays the mountain man Hugh Glass, a figure straight out of American myth and history. He enters dressed in a greasy, fur-trimmed coat, holding a flintlock rifle while stealing through a forest primeval that Longfellow might have recognized. This, though, is no Arcadia; it’s 1823 in the Great Plains, a pitiless testing ground for men that’s littered with the vivid red carcasses of skinned animals, ghastly portents of another slaughter shortly to come. The setting could not be more striking or the men more flinty.

“The Revenant” is an American foundation story, by turns soaring and overblown. Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu (“Birdman,” “Babel”), it features a battalion of very fine, hardworking actors, none more diligently committed than Mr. DiCaprio, and some of the most beautiful natural tableaus you’re likely to see in a movie this year. Partly shot in outwardly unspoiled tracts in Canada and Argentina, it has the brilliant, crystalline look that high-definition digital can provide, with natural vistas that seem to go on forever and suggest the seeming limitless bounty that once was. Here, green lichen carpets trees that look tall enough to pierce the heavens. It’s that kind of movie, with that kind of visual splendor — it spurs you to match its industrious poeticism.

If you’re familiar with Mr. Iñárritu’s work, you know paradise is generally short-lived, and here arrows and bullets are soon flying, bodies are falling and the muddy banks of a riverside camp are a gory churn. Glass, part of a commercial fur expedition, escapes with others on a boat and sails into an adventure that takes him through a crucible of suffering — including a near-fatal grizzly attack — that evokes by turns classics of American literature and a “Perils of Pauline”-style silent-film serial. Left for dead by two companions, Glass crawls out of a shallow grave and toward the men who abandoned him. It’s a narrative turn that suggests he, like so many before him, is one of D. H. Lawrence’s essential American souls: “hard, isolate, stoic and a killer.”

The movie is partly based on “The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge,” a 2002 historical adventure by Michael Punke inspired by the real Hugh Glass. In 1823, Glass signed on with the Rocky Mountain Fur Company for an expedition on the upper Missouri River that almost did him in when Arikara Indians attacked the group and, sometime later, he was mauled by a grizzly sow that may have been protecting her cubs. The bear should have killed Glass. Instead, its failure to do so — along with Glass’s frontier skills, some help from strangers and the indestructible romance of the American West — turned him into a mountain man legend and the inspiration for various accounts, including a book-length poem and a 1971 film, “Man in the Wilderness.”

The historical Glass was somewhat of a question mark, which makes him a spacious vessel for interpretation. Mr. Iñárritu, who wrote the script with Mark L. Smith, fills that vessel to near overflowing, specifically by amplifying Glass with a vague, gauzily romantic past life with an unnamed Pawnee wife (Grace Dove) seen in elliptical flashback. By the time the movie opens, the wife is long dead, having been murdered by white troops, and Glass’s son, Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), has become his close companion. The son’s name evokes James Fenimore Cooper’s Hawk-eye (“The Last of the Mohicans”), and together Glass and Hawk create an intimate, familial bulwark — and a multicultural father-and-son dyad — in a wilderness teeming with assorted savages.

Who exactly the savage is here is never much of an issue; as a sign scrawled in French spells out in one scene, everyone is. Mr. Iñárritu likes big themes, but he isn’t given to subtlety. There’s a shocker of an image, for instance, in “Amores Perros,” his feature debut, which expresses his talent for finding the indelible cinematic shot, the one you can’t look away from even when you want to, and also underscores his penchant for overstatement. One of those multi-stranded stories that he helped repopularize (“Babel,” etc.), “Amores Perros” includes a murder capped by the vision of human blood spilled on a hot griddle. This being a big moment as well as an illustration of Mr. Iñárritu’s sensibility, the blood doesn’t just splatter, it also sizzles. It’s filmmaking as swagger.

I thought of that artfully boiling blood while watching “The Revenant,” with its butchered animals, muddled ideas, heart-skippingly natural landscapes and moment after moment of visual and narrative sizzle. What makes too many of his moments, ghastly and grand — an arrow piercing a man’s throat, the beatific face of a beloved, a man scooping the innards out of a fallen horse, the enveloping softness of the dusk light — isn’t the moment itself, but that little something special that he adds to it, whether it’s a gurgle of blood in a throat or the perfectly lighted sheen of a hunk of offal. Mr. Iñárritu isn’t content to merely seduce you with ecstatic beauty and annihilating terror; he wants to blow your mind, to amp up your art-house experience with blockbusterlike awesomeness.

Sometimes, as with “Birdman,” Mr. Iñárritu’s last movie, this desire to knock the audience out pays off. “The Revenant” is a more explicitly serious, graver and aspirational effort. Working again with a team that includes the director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki (whose credits include “Birdman”) and a handful of special-effects companies, Mr. Iñárritu creates a lush, immersive world that suggests what early-19th-century North America might have looked like once upon an antediluvian time. Yet he complicates the myth of the American Eden — and with it the myth of exceptionalism — by giving Glass an Indian wife and mixed-race son. It’s a strategic move (and another bit of sizzle) that turns a loner into a sympathetic family man. It also softens the story. Instead of another hunter for hire doing his bit to advance the economy one pelt at a time, Glass becomes a sentimentalized figure and finally as much victim as victimizer.
From Davy Crockett to Kit Carson, the mountain man has long had a hold on the American imagination and recently made a revisionist appearance in the form of Katniss Everdeen, the heroine of “The Hunger Games.” The mountain men in “The Revenant” are drawn along more traditional and masculine lines, from their bushy beards to the buckskins and bulky furs that at times make them look almost indistinguishable from the animals they kill. Mr. Iñárritu is entranced by this world, with its glories and miseries, its bison tartare and everyday primitivism, which he scrupulously recreates with detail and sweep. He’s particularly strong whenever Glass, employing that old can-do pragmatism, goes into survivalist mode to cauterize a wound, catch a fish or find shelter.
But Mr. Iñárritu blows it when he moves from the material to the mystical and tries to elevate an ugly story into a spiritual one, with repeated images of a spiral and even a flash of homespun magical realism. Worse, he makes Glass not just a helpless witness to a murder that’s a stand-in for the genocide of the Indians, but also a proxy victim of that catastrophe. It’s disappointing in a movie that offers much and that actually points to another foundation story that emerges when one of Glass’s companions, Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), tries and fails to get paid for his labor. He learns too late that the system that turns people and animals into commodities is rigged against men like him. And while the simple facts of that system may be too brutal to feed the ambitions of a movie like “The Revenant,” we know that the system nevertheless helped build a nation.
“The Revenant” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult companion). Intense, at times graphic violence, including scenes involving animals. Running time: 2 hours 36 minutes. 

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Film-Making and Authenticity

A hellbent quest for authenticity produced some indelible on-set moments for Alejandro G. Iñárritu as he directed “The Revenant,” his two-and-a-half-hour opus of death, love and improvised surgery in the American West of the 1820s. But only one of those moments, thankfully, involved a bison liver.
It came during the filming of a scene in which Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, the real-life trapper and mountain man Hugh Glass, is offered his first solid food in many days by a Native American feasting on a fresh kill. Mr. Iñárritu brought two liver options: a fake, which he described as “some kind of jelly thing,” and a genuine, glistening slab of offal.
“It was his call,” Mr. Iñárritu, sitting in the tearoom at an Upper East Side hotel, recounted one recent afternoon. “And he said, ‘Let me give it a shot.’”

Mr. DiCaprio’s attempt to snarf down a giant bite of organ meat went poorly, at least judged by today’s standards of dinner-table etiquette. By Mr. Iñárritu’s standards of cinéma vérité, on the other hand, the actor’s spontaneous and messy reaction — which is right there in the film — is perfect.
“It was very helpful, because it’s the first solid thing that the character has eaten in a while,” Mr. Iñárritu said. “So it makes sense that his throat is not ready.”
Sipping a Coke and occasionally stroking his salt-and-pepper goatee, Mr. Iñárritu looked surprisingly relaxed for a man who only recently wrapped a project that seems destined to join “Apocalypse Now,” “Fitzcarraldo” and others in an unofficial Hollywood Hall of Fame for Most Difficult Shoots. At one point in the hourlong interview, he referred to himself and the cast and crew as “survivors,” and the word seemed only a bit of a stretch.

Some ordeals were imposed by nature at various locations. This includes subzero temperatures and frozen cameras in Calgary, Alberta, and torrential rains in British Columbia, wreaking havoc on equipment, not to mention makeup. In pursuit of snow, the production scrambled to Ushuaia, a port at the southern tip of Argentina — next stop, Antarctica.
But Mr. Iñárritu imposed hardships of his own. He insisted on shooting in natural light, which severely limited the production schedule to as little as 90 minutes a day; in some places, the sun set at 3 p.m. And the single-take, tracking-shot technique he made famous in his 2014 backstage theater drama “Birdman” — for which he won the best-director Academy Award — was far trickier to pull off in the middle of a forest. One scene, an attack by an Indian tribe, required a month of rehearsals with 200 extras, ultimately yielding about eight minutes of film.

There were enough grumblings from the crew about delays, safety and overall misery that The Hollywood Reporter published an article in July in which one source described the experience as “a living hell.” Ten people either quit or were fired during filming, Mr. Iñárritu said, and he will not apologize for that.
“I have nothing to hide,” he said. “Of the 300 we started with, I had to ask some to step away, to honor the other 290. If one piece in the group is not perfect, it can screw the whole thing up.”
The “whole thing” is a deeply visceral tale about a group of trappers who are attacked by Native Americans and must flee, on foot, for the safety of a fort hundreds of miles away. The story quickly pivots to a revenge drama, with Glass, who serves as the group’s navigator, chasing the malevolent and greedy John Fitzgerald, a mumbling and nearly unrecognizable Tom Hardy.
Glass pursues his foe while recuperating from a near-death encounter with a bear, and he dodges both arrows and amoral Frenchmen every agonizing step of the way. (The movie’s title refers to a folkloric corpse, reanimated to haunt the living.) The torments of life in the untrammeled wilderness of the period are so convincingly captured that you leave the theater elated to lay eyes on civilization — cars, restaurants, men without hatchets.

“I’ve heard people say the movie is violent,” Mr. Iñárritu said in his deep and resonant voice, inflected with a Spanish accent. “But there is no gratuitous violence. These guys were eating animals, wearing animals; they were threatened by accidents, diseases, tribes, wars. This is the real world. This isn’t pasteurized.”
Compared with the people whose story he tells in “The Revenant,” we are a bunch of wimps, he said time and again, though he used a more graphic term. And the challenge of recreating the experience of frontiersmen, without cutting corners — using stage sets or green screens — was part of the appeal when he read an initial draft of the script, by Mark L. Smith, in 2010, based on Michael Punke’s novel of the same name.

None of the essential players flinched in the eight months it took to film “The Revenant,” Mr. Iñárritu said. That included a producer, Arnon Milchan, who didn’t balk as the price tag soared to a reported $135 million, from original estimates of $60 million.
“Revenant”-related flinching will commence now that the film is reaching audiences. Arguably, the most unnerving, gaze-averting scene is the bear attack, which could do for the woods what “Jaws” did for the ocean. The horrors of this sequence are so rattling that Fox, in response to a preposterous report by The Drudge Report, released a statement that said, essentially, No, Mr. DiCaprio was not raped by a bear in the course of the film. (Why anyone thought the assault was sexual is confounding; as the statement noted, the bear is a mother hoping to feed her cubs.

Mr. Iñárritu would reveal little about how this chilling spectacle was confected, other than to describe it as a bit like a magic trick insofar as the “how” of it would only spoil a mystery. The film’s cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, said in a telephone interview that he and Mr. Iñárritu spent months researching how the bear should behave. They interviewed the author of a book on bear maulings and watched attacks caught on video.
“Then we rehearsed a lot in Los Angeles and in Canada,” Mr. Lubezki, who also won an Academy Award for “Birdman,” said. “But when you move the scene to the wild, it’s different. There was foliage under Leonardo, instead of a rubber net. And it didn’t really jell until we were on location. Then it started raining.”

Though cinematic sleight of hand was deployed — no humans were maimed during the making of this film — Mr. DiCaprio really is tossed around like a trout in the scene. During a separate interview, however, he said that other parts of the film were tougher to endure, even if they look tamer, because they were shot in numbing cold.
“Standing in a freezing river and eating a fish, or climbing a mountain with a wet bear fur on my back — those were some of the most difficult sequences for me,” said Mr. DiCaprio, who is considered a strong contender for an Oscar nomination for his performance. “This entire movie was something on an entirely different level. But I don’t want this to sound like a complaint. We all knew what we were signing up for. It was going to be in the elements, and it was going to be a rough ride.”
That Mr. Iñárritu persuaded actors, crew and producers to join him on this ride is an achievement in itself. The ambition of this movie, its sheer scale, as well as its demand for clockwork precision in grueling conditions, places him squarely in the tradition of madcap auteurs like Francis Ford Coppola and Stanley Kubrick — directors with vision, charisma and more than a touch of monomania. Mr. Iñárritu is known for exasperatingly high standards and fiendishly complex stagings, which in this movie included a helicopter-induced avalanche that had to be perfectly timed with several actors and a horse.
In person, though, Mr. Iñárritu has the chilled-out affect of a man who meditates every day and loves long walks. The only hint of intensity, and just a tinge of anger, comes when he discusses other movies. Too many of them today are like the products of fast-food chains, he said, ordered up by corporations that prize predictability and sameness over all else.
“What about going to a restaurant to be surprised?” he all but shouted. “That’s the risk that everybody avoids! In the context of cinema now, this movie is a bet.”

Raised in Mexico City, Mr. Iñárritu, 52, is the son of a banker who would eventually file for bankruptcy and end up selling fruit and vegetables to hotels and restaurants. The younger Iñárritu started off as a radio host, playing music and writing provocative, comical sketches with a political bent. He studied theater and learned to direct by shooting brand-identity commercials for a television station. By the time he landed his first feature, “Amores Perros,” released in 2000, he had spent hundreds of hours behind a camera. Then came “21 Grams” (2003), “Babel” (2006) and “Biutiful” (2010).
He wanted to make “The Revenant” next, a plan that was iced when Mr. DiCaprio peeled away to make “The Wolf of Wall Street.” So he co-wrote and directed “Birdman” and was taking bows for it the evening of the Oscars with production of “The Revenant” already underway.
“That night, I was getting messages saying, ‘This location collapsed,’” he said. “You ask me how winning that award changed me, the answer is, I don’t know. Because the night after I won, I flew to Calgary for this movie.”
Because the two films overlapped, Mr. Iñárritu has been working nonstop for years. Now he is eager to return to Los Angeles, where he lives with his wife of 23 years, Maria Eladia Hagerman. Asked if he would consider another movie in conditions as punishing as “The Revenant,” he was unequivocal: “Never again.”
Perhaps the setting of his next film will be a warm and beautiful country, he daydreamed with a smile, and focus on wine tasting.
“It would be a simple story,” he said, “of rooms and gardens.”

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

The MovieTalk" The Revenant". A Vision about Art and A Man Driven to Perfection.

A hellbent quest for authenticity produced some indelible on-set moments for Alejandro G. Iñárritu as he directed “The Revenant,” his two-and-a-half-hour opus of death, love and improvised surgery in the American West of the 1820s. But only one of those moments, thankfully, involved a bison liver.
It came during the filming of a scene in which Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, the real-life trapper and mountain man Hugh Glass, is offered his first solid food in many days by a Native American feasting on a fresh kill. Mr. Iñárritu brought two liver options: a fake, which he described as “some kind of jelly thing,” and a genuine, glistening slab of offal.
“It was his call,” Mr. Iñárritu, sitting in the tearoom at an Upper East Side hotel, recounted one recent afternoon. “And he said, ‘Let me give it a shot.’”
Mr. DiCaprio’s attempt to snarf down a giant bite of organ meat went poorly, at least judged by today’s standards of dinner-table etiquette. By Mr. Iñárritu’s standards of cinéma vérité, on the other hand, the actor’s spontaneous and messy reaction — which is right there in the film — is perfect.
“It was very helpful, because it’s the first solid thing that the character has eaten in a while,” Mr. Iñárritu said. “So it makes sense that his throat is not ready.”
Sipping a Coke and occasionally stroking his salt-and-pepper goatee, Mr. Iñárritu looked surprisingly relaxed for a man who only recently wrapped a project that seems destined to join “Apocalypse Now,” “Fitzcarraldo” and others in an unofficial Hollywood Hall of Fame for Most Difficult Shoots. At one point in the hourlong interview, he referred to himself and the cast and crew as “survivors,” and the word seemed only a bit of a stretch.
Some ordeals were imposed by nature at various locations. This includes subzero temperatures and frozen cameras in Calgary, Alberta, and torrential rains in British Columbia, wreaking havoc on equipment, not to mention makeup. In pursuit of snow, the production scrambled to Ushuaia, a port at the southern tip of Argentina — next stop, Antarctica.
But Mr. Iñárritu imposed hardships of his own. He insisted on shooting in natural light, which severely limited the production schedule to as little as 90 minutes a day; in some places, the sun set at 3 p.m. And the single-take, tracking-shot technique he made famous in his 2014 backstage theater drama “Birdman” — for which he won the best-director Academy Award — was far trickier to pull off in the middle of a forest. One scene, an attack by an Indian tribe, required a month of rehearsals with 200 extras, ultimately yielding about eight minutes of film.
There were enough grumblings from the crew about delays, safety and overall misery that The Hollywood Reporter published an article in July in which one source described the experience as “a living hell.” Ten people either quit or were fired during filming, Mr. Iñárritu said, and he will not apologize for that.
“I have nothing to hide,” he said. “Of the 300 we started with, I had to ask some to step away, to honor the other 290. If one piece in the group is not perfect, it can screw the whole thing up.”
The “whole thing” is a deeply visceral tale about a group of trappers who are attacked by Native Americans and must flee, on foot, for the safety of a fort hundreds of miles away. The story quickly pivots to a revenge drama, with Glass, who serves as the group’s navigator, chasing the malevolent and greedy John Fitzgerald, a mumbling and nearly unrecognizable Tom Hardy.
Glass pursues his foe while recuperating from a near-death encounter with a bear, and he dodges both arrows and amoral Frenchmen every agonizing step of the way. (The movie’s title refers to a folkloric corpse, reanimated to haunt the living.) The torments of life in the untrammeled wilderness of the period are so convincingly captured that you leave the theater elated to lay eyes on civilization — cars, restaurants, men without hatchets.
“I’ve heard people say the movie is violent,” Mr. Iñárritu said in his deep and resonant voice, inflected with a Spanish accent. “But there is no gratuitous violence. These guys were eating animals, wearing animals; they were threatened by accidents, diseases, tribes, wars. This is the real world. This isn’t pasteurized.”
Compared with the people whose story he tells in “The Revenant,” we are a bunch of wimps, he said time and again, though he used a more graphic term. And the challenge of recreating the experience of frontiersmen, without cutting corners — using stage sets or green screens — was part of the appeal when he read an initial draft of the script, by Mark L. Smith, in 2010, based on Michael Punke’s novel of the same name.
None of the essential players flinched in the eight months it took to film “The Revenant,” Mr. Iñárritu said. That included a producer, Arnon Milchan, who didn’t balk as the price tag soared to a reported $135 million, from original estimates of $60 million.
“Revenant”-related flinching will commence now that the film is reaching audiences. Arguably, the most unnerving, gaze-averting scene is the bear attack, which could do for the woods what “Jaws” did for the ocean. The horrors of this sequence are so rattling that Fox, in response to a preposterous report by The Drudge Report, released a statement that said, essentially, No, Mr. DiCaprio was not raped by a bear in the course of the film. (Why anyone thought the assault was sexual is confounding; as the statement noted, the bear is a mother hoping to feed her cubs.)
Mr. Iñárritu would reveal little about how this chilling spectacle was confected, other than to describe it as a bit like a magic trick insofar as the “how” of it would only spoil a mystery. The film’s cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, said in a telephone interview that he and Mr. Iñárritu spent months researching how the bear should behave. They interviewed the author of a book on bear maulings and watched attacks caught on video.
“Then we rehearsed a lot in Los Angeles and in Canada,” Mr. Lubezki, who also won an Academy Award for “Birdman,” said. “But when you move the scene to the wild, it’s different. There was foliage under Leonardo, instead of a rubber net. And it didn’t really jell until we were on location. Then it started raining.”
Though cinematic sleight of hand was deployed — no humans were maimed during the making of this film — Mr. DiCaprio really is tossed around like a trout in the scene. During a separate interview, however, he said that other parts of the film were tougher to endure, even if they look tamer, because they were shot in numbing cold.
“Standing in a freezing river and eating a fish, or climbing a mountain with a wet bear fur on my back — those were some of the most difficult sequences for me,” said Mr. DiCaprio, who is considered a strong contender for an Oscar nomination for his performance. “This entire movie was something on an entirely different level. But I don’t want this to sound like a complaint. We all knew what we were signing up for. It was going to be in the elements, and it was going to be a rough ride.”
That Mr. Iñárritu persuaded actors, crew and producers to join him on this ride is an achievement in itself. The ambition of this movie, its sheer scale, as well as its demand for clockwork precision in grueling conditions, places him squarely in the tradition of madcap auteurs like Francis Ford Coppola and Stanley Kubrick — directors with vision, charisma and more than a touch of monomania. Mr. Iñárritu is known for exasperatingly high standards and fiendishly complex stagings, which in this movie included a helicopter-induced avalanche that had to be perfectly timed with several actors and a horse.
In person, though, Mr. Iñárritu has the chilled-out affect of a man who meditates every day and loves long walks. The only hint of intensity, and just a tinge of anger, comes when he discusses other movies. Too many of them today are like the products of fast-food chains, he said, ordered up by corporations that prize predictability and sameness over all else.
“What about going to a restaurant to be surprised?” he all but shouted. “That’s the risk that everybody avoids! In the context of cinema now, this movie is a bet.”
Raised in Mexico City, Mr. Iñárritu, 52, is the son of a banker who would eventually file for bankruptcy and end up selling fruit and vegetables to hotels and restaurants. The younger Iñárritu started off as a radio host, playing music and writing provocative, comical sketches with a political bent. He studied theater and learned to direct by shooting brand-identity commercials for a television station. By the time he landed his first feature, “Amores Perros,” released in 2000, he had spent hundreds of hours behind a camera. Then came “21 Grams” (2003), “Babel” (2006) and “Biutiful” (2010).
He wanted to make “The Revenant” next, a plan that was iced when Mr. DiCaprio peeled away to make “The Wolf of Wall Street.” So he co-wrote and directed “Birdman” and was taking bows for it the evening of the Oscars with production of “The Revenant” already underway.
“That night, I was getting messages saying, ‘This location collapsed,’” he said. “You ask me how winning that award changed me, the answer is, I don’t know. Because the night after I won, I flew to Calgary for this movie.”
Because the two films overlapped, Mr. Iñárritu has been working nonstop for years. Now he is eager to return to Los Angeles, where he lives with his wife of 23 years, Maria Eladia Hagerman. Asked if he would consider another movie in conditions as punishing as “The Revenant,” he was unequivocal: “Never again.”
Perhaps the setting of his next film will be a warm and beautiful country, he daydreamed with a smile, and focus on wine tasting.
“It would be simple story,” he said, “of rooms and gardens.”

We're Doomed. Now What? by Roy Scranton

The time we’ve been thrown into is one of alarming and bewildering change — the breakup of the post-1945 global order, a multispecies mass extinction and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it. Not one of us is innocent, not one of us is safe. The world groans under the weight of seven billion humans; every new birth adds another mouth hungry for food, another life greedy for energy.

We all see what’s happening, we read it in the headlines every day, but seeing isn’t believing, and believing isn’t accepting. We respond according to our prejudices, acting out of instinct, reflex and training. Right-wing denialists insist that climate change isn’t happening, or that it’s not caused by humans, or that the real problem is terrorism or refugees, while left-wing denialists insist that the problems are fixable, under our control, merely a matter of political will. Accelerationists argue that more technology is the answer. Incrementalists tell us to keep trusting the same institutions and leaders that have been failing us for decades. Activists say we have to fight, even if we’re sure to lose.

Meanwhile, as the gap between the future we’re entering and the future we once imagined grows ever wider, nihilism takes root in the shadow of our fear: if all is already lost, nothing matters anyway.

You can feel this nihilism in TV shows like “True Detective,” “The Leftovers,” “The Walking Dead” and “Game of Thrones,” and you can see it in the rush to war, sectarianism and racial hatred. It defines our current moment, though in truth it’s nothing new. The Western world has been grappling with radical nihilism since at least the 17th century, when scientific insights into human behavior began to undermine religious belief. Philosophers have struggled since to fill the gap between fact and meaning: Kant tried to reconcile empiricist determinism with God and Reason; Bergson and Peirce worked to merge Darwinian evolution and human creativity; more recent thinkers glean the stripped furrows neuroscience has left to logic and language. 
Scientific materialism, taken to its extreme, threatens us with meaninglessness; if consciousness is reducible to the brain and our actions are determined not by will but by causes, then our values and beliefs are merely rationalizations for the things we were going to do anyway. Most people find this view of human life repugnant, if not incomprehensible.

In her recent book of essays, “The Givenness of Things,” Marilynne Robinson rejects the materialist view of consciousness, arguing for the existence of the human soul by insisting that the soul’s metaphysical character makes it impervious to materialist arguments. The soul, writes Robinson, is an intuition that “cannot be dispelled by proving the soul’s physicality, from which it is aloof by definition. And on these same grounds, its nonphysicality is no proof of its nonexistence.”

The biologist E.O. Wilson spins the problem differently: “Does free will exist?” he asks in “The Meaning of Human Existence.” “Yes, if not in ultimate reality, then at least in the operational sense necessary for sanity and thereby for the perpetuation of the human species.” Robinson offers an appeal to ignorance, Wilson an appeal to consequences; both arguments are fallacious.

Yet as Wilson suggests, our dogged insistence on free agency makes a kind of evolutionary sense. Indeed, humanity’s keenest evolutionary advantage has been its drive to create collective meaning. That drive is as ingenious as it is relentless, and it can find a way to make sense of despair, depression, catastrophe, genocide, war, disaster, plagues and even the humiliations of science.

Our drive to make meaning is powerful enough even to turn nihilism against itself. As Friedrich Nietzsche, one of Western philosophy’s most incisive diagnosticians of nihilism, wrote near the end of the 19th century: “Man will sooner will nothingness than not will.” This dense aphorism builds on one of the thoughts at the core of Nietzsche’s philosophy, today so widely accepted as to be almost unrecognizable, that human beings make their own meaning out of life.

In this view, there is no ultimate, transcendent moral truth — or, as Nietzsche put it in an early essay, “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” truth is no more than a “mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms.” If we can stomach the moral vertigo this idea might induce, we can also see how it’s not necessarily nihilistic, but in the right light a testament, rather, to human resilience.

The human ability to make meaning is so versatile, so powerful, that it can make almost any existence tolerable, even a life of unending suffering, so long as that life is woven into a bigger story that makes it meaningful. Humans have survived and thrived in some of the most inhospitable environments on Earth, from the deserts of Arabia to the ice fields of the Arctic, because of this ability to organize collective life around symbolic constellations of meaning: anirniit, capital, jihad. “If we have our own why in life,” Nietzsche wrote, “we shall get along with almost any how.”

When he wrote “Man will sooner will nothingness than not will,” Nietzsche was exposing the destructive side of humanity’s meaning-making drive. That drive is so powerful, Nietzsche’s saying, that when forced to the precipice of nihilism, we would choose meaningful self-annihilation over meaningless bare life. This insight was horrifically borne out in the Götterdämmerung of Nazi Germany, just as it’s being borne out today in every new suicide attack by jihadi terrorists — even as it’s being borne out here at home in our willfully destructive politics of rage. We risk it as we stumble toward another thoughtless war, asking young men and women to throw their lives away so we might continue believing America means something. As a character in Don DeLillo’s novel “White Noise” put it: “War is the form nostalgia takes when men are hard-pressed to say something good about their country”— which is to see war as an active nihilism supplanting a passive one.

Nietzsche wasn’t himself a nihilist. He developed his idea of truth as a “mobile army of metaphors” into a more complex philosophy of perspectivism, which conceived of subjective truth as a variety of constructions arising out of particular perspectives on objective reality. The more perspectives we learn to see from, the more truth we have access to. This is different from relativism, with which it’s often confused, which says that all truth is relative and there is no objective reality. Fundamentally, Nietzsche was an empiricist who believed that beyond all of our interpretations there was, at last, something we can call the world — even if we can never quite apprehend it objectively. “Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience,” he writes. “Just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins.”
Nietzsche’s positive philosophical project, what he called his “gay science,” was to create the conditions for the possibility of a human being who could comprehend the meaninglessness of our drive to make meaning, yet nonetheless affirm human existence, a human being who could learn “amor fati,” the love of one’s fate: this was his much-misunderstood idea of the “overman.” Nietzsche labored mightily to create this new human ideal for philosophy because he needed it so badly himself. A gloomy, sensitive pessimist and self-declared decadent who eventually went mad, he struggled all his life to convince himself that his life was worth living.

Today, as every hour brings new alarms of war and climate disaster, we might wish we could take Nietzsche’s place. He had to cope only with the death of God, after all, while we must come to terms with the death of our world. Peril lurks on every side, from the delusions of hope to the fury of reaction, from the despondency of hopelessness to the promise of destruction. 

We stand today on a precipice of annihilation that Nietzsche could not have even imagined. There is little reason to hope that we’ll be able to slow down global warming before we pass a tipping point. We’re already one degree Celsius above preindustrial temperatures and there’s another half a degree baked in. The West Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing, Greenland is melting, permafrost across the world is liquefying, and methane has been detected leaking from sea floors and Siberian craters: it’s probably already too late to stop these feedbacks, which means it’s probably already too late to stop apocalyptic planetary warming. Meanwhile the world slides into hate-filled, bloody havoc, like the last act of a particularly ugly Shakespearean tragedy.

Accepting our situation could easily be confused with nihilism. In a nation founded on hope, built with “can do” Yankee grit, and bedazzled by its own technological wizardry, the very idea that something might be beyond our power or that humans have intrinsic limits verges on blasphemy. Right and left, millions of Americans believe that every problem has a solution; suggesting otherwise stirs a deep and often hostile resistance. It’s not so much that accepting the truth of our situation means thinking the wrong thought, but rather thinking the unthinkable.

Yet it’s at just this moment of crisis that our human drive to make meaning reappears as our only salvation … if we’re willing to reflect consciously on the ways we make life meaningful — on how we decide what is good, what our goals are, what’s worth living or dying for, and what we do every day, day to day, and how we do it. Because if it’s true that we make our lives meaningful ourselves and not through revealed wisdom handed down by God or the Market or History, then it’s also true that we hold within ourselves the power to change our lives — wholly, utterly — by changing what our lives mean. Our drive to make meaning is more powerful than oil, the atom, and the market, and it’s up to us to harness that power to secure the future of the human species.

We can’t do it by clinging to the progressivist, profit-seeking, technology-can-fix-it ideology of fossil-fueled capitalism. We can’t do it by trying to control the future. We need to learn to let our current civilization die, to accept our mortality and practice humility. We need to work together to transform a global order of meaning focused on accumulation into a new order of meaning that knows the value of limits, transience and restraint.

Most important, we need to give up defending and protecting our truth, our perspective, our Western values, and understand that truth is found not in one perspective but in their multiplication, not in one point of view but in the aggregate, not in opposition but in the whole. We need to learn to see not just with Western eyes but with Islamic eyes and Inuit eyes, not just with human eyes but with golden-cheeked warbler eyes, coho salmon eyes, and polar bear eyes, and not even just with eyes at all but with the wild, barely articulate being of clouds and seas and rocks and trees and stars.

We were born on the eve of what may be the human world’s greatest catastrophe. None of us chose this, not deliberately. None of us can choose to avoid it either. Some of us will even live through it. What meaning we pass on to the future will depend on how well we remember those who have come before us, how wisely and how gently we’re able to shed the ruinous way of life that’s destroying us today, and how consciously we’re able to affirm our role as creators of our fated future. 

Accepting the fatality of our situation isn’t nihilism, but rather the necessary first step in forging a new way of life. Between self-destruction and giving up, between willing nothingness and not willing, there is another choice: willing our fate. Conscious self-creation. We owe it to the generations whose futures we’ve burned and wasted to build a bridge, to be a bridge, to connect the diverse human traditions of meaning-making in our past to those survivors, children of the Anthropocene, who will build a new world among our ruins.

Related: “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene”
Roy Scranton is the author of “Learning to Die in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the End of a Civilization” and the forthcoming novel “War Porn,” and is a co-editor of “Fire and Forget: Short Stories from the Long War.” He has written for The New York Times, The Nation, Theory & Event, Rolling Stone and elsewhere. Twitter @RoyScranton.