A line in the sand

While watching a tennis match recently at Wimbledon one of the commentators mentioned that a young female player of about 19 had undergone breast reduction surgery last year to advance her career. Apparently the size of her breasts limited her movement around the tennis court and caused her back pain. Apart from other things it made me think. (I won't tell you what those 'other things' are, 'least it bring a blush of shame to the cheek of modesty', to quote the wonderful P.G. Wodehouse.) Breast surgery, whatever the circumstances, is always a big decision and it made me think of the different reasons that would prompt a woman to take such a step. In my opinion, breast surgery for medical reasons, mostly to relieve back pain I would think, is perfectly sound and irreproachable. The same irreproachability would apply to plastic surgery for people who have been badly injured or burnt in an accident and people born with facial or bodily disfigurements. This is a great achievement of medical technology and skill, and a great thing of course for the recipients. Cosmetic surgery for non-medical reasons is more of a grey area. I used to frown on all types of comestic surgery but I have become a bit more open minded in my old age. I still frown a bit though. I don't understand women who have normal sized breasts undergoing surgery to make them even bigger. I don't agree with this and I think there are deeper issues that these women should address. However, breasts are an important part of a woman's identity and femininity, and flat chested women might be feel less attractive towards men because of their small breast size. A woman's body changes in order to attract men and I'm sure every woman wants to have this attractive power over men (and boy do they use that power!) As a red blooded male of course I find breasts attractive (although I don't why). So in saying that I can understand women getting breast enhancement if they are completely flat chested. In my eyes flat chested women are no less feminine than large chested women but I am not in their shoes so I don't know how it feels. If a woman's flat chest is affecting her confidence and sense of femininity then I think breast enhancement should not be automatically condemned. I can speak to a certain extent from experience. No, I have never had breast surgery, although I am tempted to go under the knife and get my man boobs reduced. As a kid I had prominent front teeth and I wore braces for a few years as a teenager. Wearing braces is not taboo and society does not frown upon improving your appearance in this way. So what is the difference between wearing braces and relying on other forms of cosmetic surgery? I am not exactly sure. I think it is normal to want to look good, there is nothing shallow or insecure about that. But I am of the opinion that it's better to grow old gracefully and accept yourself as you are. Although it is very important to look after your appearance there are some people who take it too far and become fixated on achieving outer beauty. To what extent we focus on our appearance often depends on the state of our inner self. It's strange, in that people with self-esteem problems will react in a different way. People suffering from depression often totally neglect their physical appearance. Similiarly, people with low self-esteem will put on layers of make-up and fake suntan to feel beautiful. For the record I find women like Katie Price distinctly unattractive and artifical. Ultimately, when it comes to comestic surgery and trying to improve our apperanace I think genuine self-esteem and a sense of our own self-worth will help us gain a healthy perspective and enable us to draw a line in the sand.

The Remains Of The Day

The Remains Of The Day by Kazuo Ishiguro

I feel that I don’t have the ability to do justice to this great book but I shall try my best. The Remains Of The Day is told in the first person narrative by an old style English butler called Stevens as he takes a car journey to the West Country to meet an old friend and former colleague, Miss Kenton. This journey takes him outside his comfort zone and he begins to reflect over his life, most of it spent as head butler to Lord Darlington, an aristocratic gentleman involved in foreign affairs. There are two main threads to the story: firstly, Steven’s relationship with Lord Darlington and his view that in serving Lord Darlington to the best of his ability as head butler he is serving the greater interests of humanity. Despite recurring doubts he attempts to justify in his own mind that he has been true and right in pursuing this goal. In this sense he is correct, he did serve Lord Darlington with great loyalty and devotion but this came at a terrible cost. He was so focused on this goal that he does not allow himself to fully develop as a human being and interact with others in a real and normal way. This brings us to the second thread of the story: his relationship with Miss Kenton, the housekeeper of Darlington Hall. During his years of service as head butler Miss Kenton joins the staff as head housekeeper. She is a young, attractive, strong willed woman. In the early stages of their professional relationship they clash on various things, usually concerning aspects of housekeeping, but it becomes evident that this is down to a strong sexual tension between them. They slowly grow to respect and esteem each other and this interaction with Miss Kenton is the closest thing that Steven’s has to a meaningful relationship in his life but he represses his feelings for her, often avoiding or rejecting any flirtatious behaviour or intimacy that she tries to initiate. He is not a stupid man by any means but in many ways he is very blinkered in his thinking and flawed in his character. Perhaps that is a bit too harsh on him. His father was also a butler so you can imagine that this way of life and thinking is all Steven’s has ever known. At times, as a reader, you are wanting him to just express himself outside of his usual protocol and stop pretending. But these flaws do not make him an unsympathetic character. Despite his flaws he is essentially a good and well meaning man, much like Lord Darlington. Both are misguided and somewhat naïve and they are both limited and confined by the social class they were born into. Lord Darlington seems to be more free on the surface but he too is confined to his social class, mixing only with aristocrats and prominent public figure. The novel is in some ways a damning condemnation of the trappings of the social class system. The reader could easy conceive that in different circumstances both men would have lived much happier and fulfilling lifes. The Remains Of The Day is essentially a tragedy, although not in a dramatic or extraordinary way. One reviewer described the book as ’quietly devastating’ and the power of the unfolding tragedy is brilliantly written by Kazuo Ishiguro, who thoroughly deserved to win the Booker Prize for this masterpiece. His command of the English language is superb, and the fact that English is not his mother tongue makes his achievement all the more impressive.
The Remains Of The Day - 9/10

Of Gods And Men

Of Gods And Men, based on actual events, is a French film set in Algeria in the mid 90's and centers around a small community of Cisterian monks who come under the threat of Muslim fundamentalists. I was greatly impressed by this film so I popped onto the Amazon website to see how much the dvd cost. Most of the reviews by other customers were extremely positive and many gave the film full marks but I came across one guy's review which really annoyed me so much that I left a comment on the website.

His review:

'Long,slow,uninspiring and tedious film about a bunch of ageing cistercian monks caught in the islamist uprising in Algeria in the 1990s.
I find it impossible to have any sympathy for any of the characters. These 8 christians,boring, irresponsible and selfish out of touch freaks but with a clear conscience ,lucky them, are in my eyes as fanatically dangerous and reprehensible as their muslim extremist'brothers': willing martyrs to religous fanaticism. Whether they end up basking in heaven or rotting in hell should not be any concern of mine and will leave many unmoved and exasperated.'

My response:

'I watched Of Gods And Men last night. I could not disagree with you more. I thought this was a very powerful and moving film. The cinematography was beautiful, the actors were totally convincing in their roles, and the story compelling. I found the comments about the monks being 'boring, irresponsible, and selfish out of touch freaks' and being 'fanatically dangerous and reprehensible' both perplexing and inaccurate. They lived peacefully with their Muslim brothers and sisters, never trying to convert them or undermine their beliefs (hardly fanatical). They had a medical clinic which many sick people used (hardly selfish) and the Muslim community respected and loved these men. You can see that the majority of the reviews on this website are very positive about this film, and I bet that a lot of those who gave positive reviews are not necessarily religious. You don't have to be religious or even believe in God to enjoy and appreciate this film. You are totally entitled to your own opinion on this film and free to express it but your own comments seemed 'extreme' to me.'

I was not so much annoyed that he found the film 'long, slow, uninspiring and tedious'. I disagree but that's fine, we all have different tastes in film. It was his comments about the moral character of the monks and their way of life that I found insulting and unfair. I guess I am angry because I have been going to a Cisterian monastery guest house called Nunraw since I was eight years old and I have met these 'out of touch freaks' on many occasions. I refute all the insulting and inaccurate labels that he put on the monks. I have read a bit about the Cisterian monks portrayed in the film and by all accounts they sounded exactly like the the monks I have known over the years at Nunraw. In short, very good, down to earth men. There is nothing fanatical about them. Their way of life may seem extreme to many 'normal' people but I can assure you that they are much more well adjusted and sane than some of the broken souls leading what appears to be a normal life in the eyes of modern society. I just want to defend these good men from some guy with a chip on his shoulder and what I would consider his 'extreme' views concerning their moral character.

The film itself is wonderful. My cousin described it as 'beautiful cinema' and I thoroughly agree with him.

Of Gods And Men - 9/10

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas

The iconic opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, which depicts the Allied invasion of Normandy during WWII, is probably the closest I've ever felt to actually being in a warzone. Spielberg masterfully recreates the violence, fear, confusion and horror of going into battle in such a realistic way that the viewer gains a powerful emotional insight of what the experience was really like for the soldiers who fought and died on those beaches. Terry Gilliam's Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, though dealing with a different subject, achieves a similar goal. Watching Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas is the closest I've came to experiencing a drug induced nightmare. Based on a Hunter S. Thompson novel, the film follows the misadventures of a journalist (Johnny Depp) and his lawyer friend (Benicio Del Toro) rampaging through Las Vegas while under the continous influence of a potent cocktail of drugs. The journalist is officially there to cover a rally car race in the Nevada desert but their desire and capacity to induce copius amounts of alcohol and drugs takes precedent over this and they wander from one mindbending scenario to another. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro (two of my favorite contemporary actors) are outstanding in the lead roles. My aunt once said that when she first watched the film she seriously began to wonder if Johnny Depp really was on drugs, such was his utterly convincing performance. There is a strong, almost overpowering, surrealism running through the whole film. This surrealism permeates everything - the acting, script, plot, set designs, music and cinematography. I can't say that I enjoyed this film. It was deeply disturbing and unsettling, but I can appreciate the skill and vision of Terry Gilliam. There is no moral message to the film, at least not directly. It is more an exploration of individual drug use and a portrayal of the drug culture in the late 1960's and early 1970's, which is of course still very relevant today. In that sense the film suceeds very well. The question of why these two men consume so many drugs is never really tackled but their portrayal in this film reminded me of a line in a poem by Ernest Dowson. 'I cried for madder music and for stronger wine.'
7/10

Andy Murray

Apologies for the extended leave of absence on blogworld. I've been under the weather for the past month. One of the consolations of being off work these past few weeks has been watching the French Open at Roland Garrios. Andy Murray was the sole British hope throughout the tournament and he will probably have this burden on his shoulders for the rest of his career. His previous best at the French Open was the quarter finals but the draw was kind to him this year and he reached the semi's only to be beaten earlier this afternoon by Rafa Nadal in straight sets. It was an admirable effort by Murray and he played some good tennis. Although the better player won on the day Murray still continues to fall just short in the major tournaments. He has all the natural ability, technical skill and fitness so why can Murray not make this next step up? I don't have a definitive answer but two things became apparent during the match against Nadal. Firstly, as John Lloyd commented on, Nadal won the big points at crucial times in the match. Murray had plenty of opportunties to break Nadal's serve, eighteen in all, but only won three. I am not sure why he failed in this department but I think a lot of credit should go to Nadal for raising his game when it counts. I have noticed over the years of watching tennis that what often seperates the very good players from the top players is that the top players have the knack of winning a point when they most need to. Pete Sampras used to do this all the time. Whenever his back was up against the wall he would serve a couple of aces. Secondly, I think Murray's mentality lets him down a lot. There is nothing wrong in showing emotion during a game but he gets very negative at times when he plays a bad shot. He can get away with this when playing inferior players but it is a definite disadvantage against the top ten players. I am not sure whether Murray will ever win a major. He has the ability and all the shots, of that there is no doubt, but he needs to find that something extra to overcome the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. It perhaps unfortunate that Murray is competing at a time when these three outstanding players are dominating the game but you have to play with the cards you have been dealt.