Friday, June 15, 2007
Have been wondering about the portrayal of evil and how we have been 'brain washed' to believe that some people are 'pure evil'. These people include Hitler, Osama bin Ladin and Saddam. I mean when you look at how they are usually described and portrayed in shows (especially Hitler) tends to be very negative and to a certain extend, they appear to be a mad and are so evil that words cannot describe them.
How than will the world react if a film portrays them in the reverse? I am actually most interested in the portrayal of Hitler. I am pretty sure that contrary to popular portrayal, this is likely to be a guy with some goodness. I mean he does not torture every single living thing he sees or anything (not that I am aware of at least). So what will happen if a film focuses on the goodness in him. Maybe his concern for some of his charges etc and just dwell on it. Yes, it will not be an objective film but is any film about him really objective? Most of them just focus on certain aspects of him and in particular the deeds that he done.
I am actually trying to imagine the kind of reaction that the film will come with. I do believe that the repercussion will be spectacular. The director, cast and crew will probably be arrested (in some countries) and will likely be seen as anti-semitic. There will be the certain lobbyists that will do all they can to ban the film and denounce it. Why this feeling? Well, i guess it is because of the consequence that usually comes with someone questioning the holocaust. Somehow, I think that the portrayal of the human side of Hitler will be linked back to questioning the holocaust and hence the usual consequence (but than again, I maybe wrong here).
All these things have been on my mind because of the Leni Riefensthal stuff that I have been reading and watching. To be defined by just one film in your career, celebrated and then hated for it is just amazing. Taking a step back and seeing her earlier works, it is hard not to imagine why she was not seen as a feminism icon. But taking into consideration her role in Triumph of the Will, it is easy to see why. Watching the film really make you wonder what was going through her mind when she was making it. It is no doubt really a beautiful film with excellent concept and filming. The thought and detail of it certainly will make any film maker proud. Of course, that is the biggest problem. Since it was so brilliantly thought out and filmed, it is easy to say that there is that sinister element to it.
But taking into consideration that the film was made before the Second World War, how can anyone then predict that was sinister? It is really like a case of the meaning being apparent only after it happens. Riefensthal said it very well herself when she questioned in an interview, how can a show be so celebrated before the war be anything the way it is being described today? It was only after the war that it became so controversial. Yes, it is so controversial today that it is still banned in Germany, that is after more than 60 years after it.
I know that Riefensthal defended her actions by saying that there is no political message in that film and that it is purely an art piece and she has no interest in politics. She supports the claim by arguing that she was never part of the Nazis, she was hired as an artist to make the film. The counter argument to that would be that though she was never part of the Nazi party, she was really in the inter circle of the Nazis. I mean how many people really can say that they have a fair bit of access to Hitler and that he knows them personally and all. Her relationship with Hitler and the Nazi party is also pretty shady because her words just contradicts with Goebbels's diary. So who to believe? I guess that is really a question that will continue to intrigue those interested and can never be answered.
Even when she was alive, she kept insisting her innocence, but of course, most people believe otherwise. But has the world already judged her based on what happened during the Second World War? Has her words already been filtered through the prejudiced ears and mind? Or is it just obvious that she is not that innocent?
he spoke at 8:20 pm
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
It is really nothing new but it still continues to be interesting and funny to see how Singaporeans quibble over the increase in StarHub's subscription and try to support their rant. It is even more hilarious when they compare Singapore with Malaysia whose fees are lower after it is converted to Singapore dollars (thanks to the stronger Singapore dollar). It seems that Singaporeans strongly believe that StarHub is a monopoly hence they will just increase the price in whatever ways they want. Well, according to textbooks, monopolies may not be the most effective form of market but Singapore is really small to support more than one pay television provider. The more important thing that Singaporeans fail to see or refuse to see is that this hike is really the result of the entry of SingTel. Had SingTel not come in the pay television fray, it is unlikely that there would have been such a crazy bidding war.
Is there really anything wrong that StarHub wants to maximise its profits? Seriously, there is really nothing wrong with that. That is simply because StarHub is not some charity organisation but a public listed company. What that means (among many others) is that they are responsible towards their shareholders and are no doubt profit driven. How ironic would it than be if the people whining about hike are also StarHub shareholders?
We have to be realistic about this, when it comes to money matters, Singaporeans just whinge. We whinge about anything and everything and I really cannot recall anything that Singaporeans cannot whinge about. Even when it comes to the government literally giving out money, Singaporeans still whinge because they feel that they deserve more and whatever. The argument that Singaporeans pay taxes and deserve this and that is also flawed. A more accurate statement is that most Singaporeans pay only consumption taxes. That means that we pay what we consume. Two thirds of working Singaporeans do not pay income tax and even when they do, it is pittance; probably not even enough to buy an ipod.
Consumption tax simply means that you pay what you consume and that is really very fair considering that our GST is only 7%. Vehicle tax is a common gripe too, but in Singapore where the trains come once every three minutes during peak hour (maximum waiting time), private cars are really a luxury. Yes, if you can afford, it by all means go and buy one. Back to the income tax bit, among the one third of the work force who pays income tax, around two third actually does not come from Singaporeans but from the expats and Singaporeans still whine about them.
The most hilarious comparison I have heard so far with regards to StarHub's monopoly is with the petrol companies. There are people who say that petrol companies are a good example that competition keeps prices low and they cite the occasional price war at some petrol kiosks. That is ludicrous because petrol companies are renown for inflating prices and if you step back to think, if they can charge at price at some locations (especially at prime locations), why can they not charge it around the island? Are they not overcharging at other locations? Petrol companies around the world have constantly been accused of price fixing and these giants are the ones whom are operating in Singapore too. It is already weird that Singapore petrol prices are so high considering that in countries much further, the prices (of the petrol they get from our refineries) are much lower than what is been charged in Singapore.
The whole university debacle is also blown out of proportion. There is no point building a fourth university when there are so many options available now. Singapore government promises that no one will be denied an education but they did not say that no one will be denied an education in Singapore universities. If there is the perception that correspondence studies and uniSIM are for weaker students, what makes you think that a fourth university for students who are unable to enter NUS, NTU and SMU will be able to have the same prestige as the three local universities? It is not the end of the world if you cannot enter a local university as there are plenty of alternatives out there. You can always work for a couple of years before trying again or go for any of the correspondence courses. Oh yes, it is breaking convention and it is frowned upon because Singaporeans perception is that you have to go from step one, two and then three; you cannot go from one to three and then back to two before moving on. No wonder courses offering high culture is in decline and seen as a dumping ground; which I believe is total rubbish because these courses are still very relevant and I think people whom can master them are in a whole different societal and intellectual level.
What is it also with banning cyclist on footpath? Yes, there are some reckless cyclists out there but is it not safer for them to be on the footpath rather than on the roads? The accidents on the footpaths are likely to be less serious than those on the roads. Oh, I forgot something, the ones whinging are the pedestrians and it is their vested interest that they are safe on the footpaths and it does not matter what happens to the cyclists on the roads because if anything happens, they can always send a picture to STOMP.
I also do not understand the blaming of migrant workers. Seriously, they are not the ones whom are causing all the problems in Singapore. Walk into any event like New Paper Big Walk or National Day Parade and see the amount of litter. Are the migrant workers responsible for the embarrassing amounts of litter? Or are they the ones cleaning up after us?
The whole irony about this post is that by whinging about Singaporeans' whinging, I have actually fallen into the category of people that I have just whinged about.
he spoke at 6:52 am