fiktiivistä tekstiä syksyltä 09.

Yökerhon jonossa tilaat kännykällä pikavippejä, firmasta jonka omistaja ei ajattele ihmisiä, joita hän niin pyyteettömästi auttaa joka päivä ja yö, 20 prosentin viikkokorolla ja joka todennäköisesti on samassa yökerhossa, sisällä jo tietysti, antamassa rahojaan kuin sinäkin, lateksiin kietoutuneelle naiselle joka tuo koeputkia täynnä myrkkyä ja tukkii verisuonet, jotta voisit yksin istua taksissa turtana, etkä havaitse ympärilläsi kärsivää kaupunkia, jonka kadut eivät ole vaarallisia maahanmuuttajien, kerjäläisten tai humalaisten paikallisten takia, vaan juuri näiden taksikuskien, sillä suojatielle astuessasi taxi kiihdyttää ohitsesi ja huutaa solvauksia tien tukkimisesta, ahdistuneena töölöläisestä pariskunnasta jotka hän kokee itseään paremmaksi ja haluaa palvella ja miellyttää heitä kuin koira, viedessään heidät lentokentälle matkalle Thaimaahan, jossa aurinkovoiteelta ja hieltä tuoksuva pariskunnan mies ajaa mönkijällä ympyrää trooppisella saarella ja illalla auringonpistoksen vaikutuksesta ja juopuneena solvaa paikallisia, kunnes joku heistä sivukadulla lyö tätä pullolla päähän. Nainen ymmärrettävästi kauhuissaan raahaa miehen sairaalaan, jossa näkee jonon suomalaisia turisteja, ihot sian punaisena auringon ja mausteisen ruuan ärsyttäminä, tajunta sumeana joka kuitenkin huomattiin vasta vieraassa ympäristössä.

Ostat pizzan, mausteena päällä on rasvaisia suikaleita, jälkiä eläimestä joka ei koskaan haistanut maassa kasvavaa ruohoa, lisääntynyt tai oppinut selviytymään yksin, vaan vietti aikansa pimeässä hallissa koneiden ohjailemana, hukassa puutteellisen olemassaolontajunsa kanssa ja tietämättäsi koet tällä hetkellä syvää samaistumista tuohon olentoon joka kuitenkin päätyy sinulle aamulla kylmäksi ja limaiseksi tyynyksi sohvalle, asunnossa jonka hinta aiheuttaa sinulle huonon ihon.

Lähdet töihin viettämään koko päivän sokeri- ja kofeiinihumalassa näet miten ihmiset tunkevat ratikoihin kuin sisäänpäin räjähtävässä pakokauhussa ja jalkoihin tallautuu mies kävelykepeissä, joka jää hengästyneenä istumaan pysäkin penkille hahmon viereen, joka illalla nostetaan ruumisautoon kenenkään tietämättä miksi hän siinä makasi. Jättimäiset kuvat kouluampujasta peittävät ratikan lattian, kuvatekstinä "yksittäistapaus".

Työpaikalle saapumisesi oikeutat korkealla vuokrallasi, etkä oikeasti ole vastuussa vaan vain palkattuna toteuttajana, joka tekee niin kuin käsketään ja käskyt tulevat pomoltasi joka oikeuttaa oman toimintansa sillä, ettei varsinaisesti ole vastuussa, sillä haluaa suoriutua pomonsa edessä vain mahdollisimman hyvin, joka hänkin vain tekee niin kuin käsketään, ja käskyketjulla ei ole loppua ja se muuntuu omaksi eläväksi orgaaniseksi vastuutapakoilevaksi olennoksi, joka saa energiansa tuhansien yksilöiden välinpitämättömyydestä ja lopulta tämä ei-materiaalinen olento realisoituu satojen tuhansien ihmisten pahoinvointina, epärationaalisina haluina ja ongelmina, joita ei ennen tämän olennon syntyä ollut olemassa.

Fiktiivinen kohtaaminen ruokalassa

Henkilöt ovat MM ja JR.

MM: Miksi olet kasvissyöjä?
JR: Mitenniin miksi olen kavissyöjä?
MM: Mikset syö lihaa?
JR: Miksi söisin? Kun päivittäiseen ravintooni kuuluvat suurissa määrin erilaiset pähkinät, soija ja sen monet monet eri sovellukset, siemenet, kuten auringonkukan siemenet, tofu, tempeh, vehnägluteeni eli seitan, idut ynnä muut, niin miksi söisin tämän lisäksi vielä lihaa? Täytyyhän sitä jättää tilaa kasviksille, salaatille ja sellaiselle.
MM: No heh heh, miksi siis syöt noita etkä lihaa?
JR: Vastaan kysymykseesi vastakysymyksellä. Miksi sinä syöt lihaa etkä varmastikaan juurikaan juuri luettelemiani ravinteita?
MM: Se on normaalia, noita et saa joka ravintolasta mitä äsken sanoit. Suomessa on tavallista syödä lihaa, mutta tuollaiset ovat erikoisuuksia.
JR: Eli et syö tofua koska olet tottunut lihaan? Ok. Olen lyhyessa ajassa vieraantunut lihasta täysin enkä enää voi sitä syödä voimatta pahoin. Jos tarkoitat miksi alun perin lakkasin syömästä lihaa..no, miksi joku lakkaa polttamasta tupakkaa? Tai yrittää vähentää ylipäätään haitalliseksi kokemia tapojaan?
MM: Eli olet kasvissyöjä terveyssyistä, et esim eettisistä syistä?
JR: Näin voi olla. Väitän kuitenkin että olen kasvissyöjä tottumuksen vuoksi. On mielestäni perusteltua väittää ettei lihasta saatavaa energiamäärää aikuinen tietokoneella työskentelevä ihminen päivittäin tarvitse. Mutta ei mistään voi luopua vain sen takia että ajattelee sen olevan haitallista. Luopumiseen tarvitaan todellinen havainto tavan tarpeettomuudesta.
MM: Sanoit että aikuinen ei tarvitse lihaa, lapsille kuitenkin syöttäisit lihaa?
JR: Todennäköisesti syöttäisin lapsille sitä ruokaa jota osaan valmistaa ja jota voisin itsekin syödä.
MM: Mistä voit olla varma ettet vahingoita lastasi tällaisella ruokavaliolla?
JR: Mistä itse voit olla varma ettet vahingoita lastasi omallasi?
MM: Se on perinteistä ruokaa.
JR: Suomihan on kansanterveydeltään hyvinvoiva maa? Ei sydänsairauksia tai liikalihavuutta?
MM: Väitätkö nyt että nuo sairaudet johtuvat vain lihansyönnistä?
JR: En mutta että et varsinaisesti voi perustella perinteeseen vetoamalla juurikaan mitään. On olemassa sivilisaatioita jotka elävät ilman lihansyöntiä.
MM: Niin, jotkin kehitysmaat?
JR: Kuten intia tai kiina, näissa maissa ei ole juurikaan erottelua "kasvissyöjän" ja "lihansyöjän" välillä. on vain ruokaa.
MM: Ihminen on alkujaan ollut lihansyöjä, tieteellisten tutkimusten kanssa on voitu todistaa, ettei ihmisen aivot olisivat voineet kehittyä sellaisiksi kuin ovat nyt, jos lihaa ei olisi syöty. On taantumuksellista olla syömättä lihaa!
JR: Varmasti. Jos arkipäiväsi on yhtä raskasta kuin luolamiehilä, tai edes teet raskasta fyysistä työtä tai urheilet, en tiedä asiasta niin paljon että neuvoisin sinua olemaan kasvissyöjä, vaikkakin monet kehonrakentajat ovat. Luulen, että alkukantaisella ihmisellä on ollut jokseenkin vaikeampaa hankkia tarvittavaa ravintoa kuin nykypäivän ihmisellä ja mitkään merkit eivät mielestäni osoita että juuri lihaa syömällä älykkyytemme tänäpäivänä nousisi. Pahoin pelkään että trendi näyttäisi olevan toisinpäin.
MM: Älä ala pilkkaamaan, liha on minusta hyvää, en aijo siitä vuoksesi luopua.
JR: En tullut syyllistämään sinua lihansyönnistäsi, tilanne taisi olla toisin päin. Sitäpaitsi, jotkut saavat samanlaista "nautintoa" kuin itse äsken kuvailit, eläimiin tai lapsiin seksuaalisesta sekaantumisesta, mutta se että he nauttivat siitä ei sovi perusteeksi oikeudessa taikka sitä ei jätetä hoitamatta psyykkisenä sairautena nautinnon vuoksi.
MM: Turha mennä asiattomuuksiin.
JR: Sori.
MM: Et siis ole eläinaktivisti ja kasvissyöjä siksi että kannatat eläinten oikeuksia?
JR:olisi enemmän kuin absrudia totutella takaisin lihansyöntiin, kun sitä ei selkeästi tarvitse ja sen lisäksi lihatuotanto saastuttaa ilmastoa, aiheuttaa nälänhätää viedessään tilaa tehokkaammalta viljelyltä ja on järjettömän brutaali eläviä olentoja kohtaan.
MM: Eli oletkin eläinaktiivi ja kiertelit vain aihetta?
JR: Aloitettiin kasvissyönnistä ja aloit myöhemmin vasta kysymään eläintenoikeuksista, jotka tietenkin kulkevat käsikädessä, mutta syödessäni soijaani en ajattele että teen poliittisen teon, vaikka ehkä kuuluisi ajatella. Ajatteletko itse syödessä pihviä että kannatat tehotuotantoa ja vihaat eläinaktivisteja?
MM: no en varsinaisesti, ajattelen lihan herkullisuutta.
JR: Itsekin ajattelen ruokani herkullisuutta.

Kalat ja Makkaramiehet

Makkaramies

" Makkara on nimitys, jota käytetään kuoreen tehdystä, pääasiassa lihasta valmistetusta elintarvikkeesta. Makkaran kuori voi olla joko niin sanottu luonnonkuori tai luonnonsuoli, jolloin se on puhdistettua eläimen suolta." - wikipedia.
Makkara usein yhdistetään myös jonkinlaiseen perinteiseen suomalaiseen elämäntapaan, makkaraa syödään saunassa, makkaraa grillataan juhannuksena, makkaraa syödään futis- ja jääkiekkopeleissä.

Makkaramies-termi ei kuitenkaan kohdistu suoranaisesti makkaran syöntiin. Termin ongelmana on, että siinä missä englannin kielessä "man" tarkoittaa myös ihmistä, miehen lisäksi, suomenkielessä se täytyisi korvata sanoilla "henkilö" tai "persoona". Mutta "Makkarahenkilö" tai "makkarapersoona" ei mielestäni sisällä samaa latausta kuin "makkaramies". Samoin englanniksi käännettynä "sausageman" ei myöskään omaa merkitykseltään samaa tenhoa kuin suomenkielissessä sanassa Makkaramies. Englannissa, taikka Amerikassa makkara ei sisällä samanlaista kulttuuriin juurtunutta arvomaailmaa kuin suomessa, joten ehkä täytyisi tutkia mahdollisuuksia "hamburger- tai steakman".

Tästä ei kuitenkaan ole kyse.

Sanalla Makkaramies tarkoitetaan keskivertoälykästä ihmistä, joka kykenee käyttämään älykkyyttään toimivasti ja pääasiassa tehokkaasti. Miksi sitten kutsutaan tällaista ihmistä makkaramieheksi? Koska älykkyyden laajemisen ymmärtämiseen ja luvuovuuteen estää makkara. Makkara (sisältäen siis kaikki kulttuuriset ja ruokatottumukselliset merkitykset yms) tukkii älykkyyden laajenemisen ja ohjaa sitä kapeaan, koko ihmiskunnalle vahingolliseen suuntaan.

Makkara on siis metafora pinnan alla oleville konservatiivisille perinteille, tottumuksille ja tavoille.

Ongelmana on juurikin se että monet makkaramiehet vaikuttavat päällisinpuolin hyvinkin älykkäiltä, ja sen takia he ovatkin paljon julkisuudessa, politiikassa ja käytännössä täytyy olla makkaramies jotta menestyy bisneksessä. Ihmisen ajattelu on luonnonkuoressa, kuin makkara, ja se on sidottu molemmista päistä perinteillä ja tottumuksilla.

Tällaiset makkaramiehet ovat mm. päivittäin televisiossa. He monesti hyökkäävät pinnallisen radikaalisti jotakin ilmiötä, vaihtoehtoliikettä tai mitä tahansa vastaan, esittäin päällisin puolin järkevältä kuulostavia argumentteja. Ajattelu kuitenkin stoppaa ennenpitkään makkaraan. Tavallinen makkaramies ei ikinä pysty menemään yli sen pisteen, että hänen täytyisi mahdollisesti luopua omasta makkaransyönnistään. Mikään asia ei vaikuta olevan niin tärkeä.

Useimmiten makkaramiehen tunnistaa siitä, että hän lopettaa keskustelun argumentein "on olemassa muunkinlaisia arvoja, kuten esimerkiksi elämästä nauttiminen ja rentoutuminen" tai "perinteet kunniaan" tai "välillä täytyy päästä vapaalle" tai "ei se ilmasto nyt niin paljon voi lämmetä". Pahimmassa tapauksesas makkaramies vetoaa tottumukseen tai siihen että jokin asia on aina ollut näin, tai että "se nyt vaan maistuu niin hyvälle".

Vaatii jatkuvaa valppautta välttääkseen makkaramiesten huijaukset. Makkaramiehiä löytyy myös ns. "aktivisteista" jotka aktiivisest taistelevat omien tottumustensa ja mielihyviensä saavuttamiseksi. Tämä täytyy pitää mielessä, sillä makkaramies voi myös olla tofunakkimies. Monet niinsanotut eko- , ympäristö- tai eläinaktivistit ovat puhtaita tofunakkimiehiä, jotka ovat omaksuneet viiteryhmänsa aatteet pinnallisesti ja kritiikittömästi. Se sisältää tietenkin lähtökohtaisesti, alkuvaiheessa vähemmän haittoja kuin perinteinen makkaramies, mutta pitkällä aikavälillä lopputulos on todennäköisesti suurinpiirtein sama, sillä tofunakkista on vain yksi askel makkaraan.

Kalat.

Jos huomaat jatkuvasti saavasi soittoja joiden sisältö käytännössä on "mikset ole jo tehnyt tätä mitä juuri sinulle sanon " tai "kerron sinulle tämän nyt, tämän piti olla valmiina eilen" tai "itse tajusin tämän juuri äsken, mikset sinä huomannut tätä aikaisemmin!", tiedät että olet tekemisissä kalan kanssa.

Koska ihminen on kehittynyt evoluution pitkän aherruksen kautta vedessä lilluvasta solusta nokkelaksi nisäkkääksi, on enemmänkin kuin todennäköistä, että silloin tällöin kehitys tekee meille tällaisia kepposia. Jotkut ihmiset siis omaavat vielä kalojen ominaisuuksia, myös henkisellä tasolla.

Kalat elävät hyvin hektistä elämää. Kaloilla ei juurikaan ole muistia, mutta niiden aistit ovat terävät. Ne reagoivat välittömästi ärsykkeisiin ja aistivat hyvin mitä ympäröivässä vedessä tapahtuu ja miten muut kalat liikkuvat. Tämän takia monet Kalat menestyvät mm. niin taiteellisilla elämän kuin yritysmaailmanalueilla. Kun akvaarioon tiputtaa ruokaa, kala syöksyy välittömästi sitä syömään. Kun hetken päästä tiputat lisää ruokaa, kala ei muista juuri syöneensä vaan vaistomaisesti hyökkää ruuanperään uudestaan, sillä se ei pysty hahmottamaan tulevaisuutta, että koska äsken, ja joka päivä ennen tätä, ruoka on pudonnut akvaarioon, niin ehkä se tulee huomennakin. Näin kala ei ajattele. Kun jotain tapahtuu, kala reagoi välitömästi, tulevaisuutta suunnittelematta tai menneisyyttä muistamatta.

Tällä tavalla käyttäytyvät siis monet ihmiset, he ovat kaloja. Heidän kanssaan joudut jatkuvasti tilanteisiin, jossa omista ponnisteluistasi (ennakko keskusteluista, varmisteluista ja suunnitelmista) huolimatta sinulla on jatkuvasti kiire, joudut muokkaamaan aikataulujasi erittäin lyhyellä varoitusajalla ja olemaan kokoajan valmiina juoksemaan lähimmälle toimistolle tekemään erilaisia tehtäviä ja mieluiten sinulla tulisi oppa iPhone jossa jatkuva nettiyhteys kalamaisten, katkonaisten, moneen kertaan lähetettyjen sähköpostien lukemiseksi.

Mies elokuvissa

Katsoin loppukesästä 2009 valikoiman viimeaikaisia suomalaisia elokuvia. Ajattelin kirjoittaa niistä samantien blogiini, mutta katselmus jätti minuun turtuneen ja välinpitämättömän olon, osittain aivan tyytyväisenkin, sillä jotkut elokuvat osoittautuivat odotettua paremmaksi ja monet jopa eivät läheskään niin tuskallisiksi kuin olin ennakolta pelännyt.
Tässä tekstissä en nyt pureudu siihen kuinka hyviä tai huonoja elokuvat mielestäni ovat, vaan kommentoin vain erästä sisällöllistä seikkaa, johon törmäsin elokuvia katsellessani.

Osaako kukaan sanoa, mikä (ainakin) yhdistää elokuvia: Musta jää, Käsky, Sooloilua, Blackout, Kolmistaan, Toinen jalka haudasta, Riisuttu mies - muu kuin että kaikki ovat suomalaisia elokuvia?

Kaikissa on, tietenkin hyvin eritavoin, enemmän tai vähemmän perustellusti, keskiöön kietoutunut teema miehestä kahden naisen loukussa. Varsin kummallista. Teemasta on eri variaatioita, jotka loppujenlopuksi eroavat kuitenkin hyvin vähän. Tämän epätieteellisen tutkimukseni lopputuloksena totean kuitenkin, että lähtökohta on, että miehellä on (ei välttämättä heti aluksi) 2 naista, seuraava taso on että toinen naisista himoaa miestä, mutta mies himoaa vain toista. Kolmas taso on että molemmat naiset himoitsevat miestä raivokkaasti, neljäs: mies saa toisen näistä naisista raskaaksi ja viides ja kaiken huippu on että mies kuolee saatuaan toisen tai molemmat raskaaksi.

Jäätävin esimerkki tästä on mielestäni Musta Jää, jossa näennäisesti voimakkaista naisista kertova tarina kertoo loppujenlopuksi hulttiomiehestä joka pelehtii opiskelijoiden kanssa, kun kaksi naista todistelevat kaipuutaan miehen luokse. Elokuva huipentuu näiden kahden kilpailevan naisen tietynlaiseen homoeroottiseen hetkeen, joka, ainakin yleisiin mielikuviin nojautuen on monen miehen päiväuni. Naiset siis toteuttavat miehen unelmaa, vaikkakin mies on siitä autuaan tietämätön, niin kuin mies monesti parisuhteen asioista ilmeisesti on. Mies saa kuitenkin rangaistukseksi huonosta käytöksestään naisia kohtaan kävellä pakkasessa kotiin joka johtaa miehen traagiseen kuolemaan, josta vielä kuitenkin tulee naisia yhdistävä tekijä, sillä toinen naisista on raskaana miehelle, ja toinen sattuu toimimaan sitten kätilönä synnytyksessä. Elokuvan nimi "Musta Jää" täydentyy miehisen näkökulman voittaessa elokuvan lopussa, kun jokainen mies katsomossa miettii "mitä musta jää?".

Käsky- elokuvassa miehen suvunjatke esiintyy jonkinlaisena sovinnontekijänä, valkoisen (mutta oikeudenmukaisen) sotilaan lapsi punaiselle, räväkälle ja voimakkaalle naiselle. Mies kuolee sankarina, mutta äiti ja lapsi pitävät uskon tulevaisuuteen vahvana. Olkoonkin että Käsky käsittelee valtaa ja sukupuoliproblematiikkaa syväälisemmin kuin edellinen mainittu elokuva, ja päähenkilö tekee myös jonkinlaisen myönnytyksen oman sukupuolensa puolelle, on mainitsemani asetelma kuitenkin elokuvassa vahva.

Riisuttu mies - esittää vastenmielisen kuvan pappien henkisestä rappiosta ja käyttää kahden naisen asetelmaa hyvin yksipuolisesti välineinä miehen selvittäessään omia ongelmiaan. En muista, tuliko tässä tapauksessa kukaan raskaaksi. Luulisin että tuli, ainakin sitä yritettiin pitkin elokuvaa.

Toinen jalka haudasta - esittää kahden naisen tilanteen, yhteydessä uuden elämän mahdollisuuteen, edellisten virheiden poispyyhkimisenä, vähän kuten Blackout, jossa entinen elämä ja nainen on päähänlyöty naula, joka vasta itselleen totuudellisena pysymisen seurauksena tulee ulos.

Myönnän tähän kuitenkin, etten tohtinut kuluttaa aikaani Sooloilua ja Kolmistaan elokuviin, mutta luin synopsikset molemmista jotka kertoivat kaiken tarpeellisen. Molemmista elokuvista kirjoitetut muutamat rivit informoivat katsojaa ensimmäisenä siitä että tässä on nyt mies ja kaksi naista, erilaisissa tilanteissa.

Tietenkin on mahdollista nähdä naisten aseman yliotteena miehistä, jolloin naiset riitelevät miehistä kuin villieläimet eläimenraadosta, laskien miehen osan välineeksi. Kun mies kuolee, nainen on vapaa ja parhaimmassa tapauksessa hän on saanut prosessissa elämän suurimman lahjan, lapsen. Tämä on myös oikeutettu tapa havaita asetelma. Mustassa jäässä kaksi naista löytävät toisensa hulttiomiehen takia, ihastuvat toisiinsa ja lopulta saavat yhteisen lapsen, näinollen miestä ei enää tarvita, kuin oikeastaan siittämiseen.

Väittäisin kuitenkin, että jos esimerkiksi Mustassa Jäässä tämä oli tarkoitus, olisi fokus ollut enemmän naisten kohtaamisessa, ilman taustavirettä petturuudesta ja kostosta - jota motivoi mies. Elokuvan mies on hirvittävän vähän läsnä fyysisesti, mutta se on motiivi molempien naisten toimintaan. Jos tarina olisi kehittynyt naisten syvään ymmärrykseen toisistaan, eikä toispuoleiseen hyväksikäyttöön ja kieroutuneeseen yhteyteen lopussa, olisi helpompi nähdä elokuva "naisten elokuvana", nyt se on vaivalloista.

Voi siis kuitenkin olla, että olen lukenut elokuvia kuin piru raamattua, mutta nähdessäni näin monta elokuvaa peräkkäin, jossa teema toistui, jouduin jonkinlaiseen pakokauhun valtaan, osaksi myös siksi että tarinat pohjimmiltaan muistuttivat niin paljon toisiaan, ulkoiset puitteet vain vaihtuivat.

En varsinaisesti tiedä, mitä tästä pitäisi ajatella, kuin että tunnen itseni miehenä hieman vähäarovoiseksi, sillä en selvästikään täytä elokuvien esittämää kuvaa suomalaisesta miehestä. Jossain määrin kokisin elokuvat myös hieman loukkaavana miehiä kohtaan, jos ajattelisin että elokuvat esittävät meille ihanteellisiä ihmisiä. Onneksi näin ei kuitenkaan mielestäni ole, vaan henkilöt ovat osa tarinaa joka kerrotaan jonkin ajatuksen välittämiseksi, ne eivät kuvasta suoranaisesti todellisuuden ihmisiä, vaan heillä on elokuvassa tehtävä.

Koska katselmuksestani on aikaa muistan varmaan monia juttuja väärin ja tiivistykset ovat hyvin yksinkertaistettuja, joten huomatessasi selkeän asiavirheen tekstissäni, pyydän että korjaat sen kommenttiosioon.

Pitkä kuuma kesä 2009 - loistavat esiintyjät - paska festari

Olin sunnuntaina Pitkä Kuuma Kesä - festivaaleilla Helsingin suvilahdessa. Esiintyjälista oli erinomainen; Henry Rollins veti nerokkaan spoken word keikan, jota seurasi lämminhenkinen Asa & jätkäjätkät josta torvisektion edustaja säntäsi suoraan seuraavalle lavalle soittamaan indiepopbändi Rubikin riveihin. Immortal Technique oli selkeästi huolissaan festivaalin koosta ja yritti epätoivoisesti saada ääntä yleisöstään ja myöhemmin heput palloilivat hukassaolevan näköisinä pitkin festivaalialuetta. Suomalainen Les Corps mince de Francoisen esityksen perusteella ymmärrän täysin bändin hip-statuksen joka oli myös kevyt alustus Crystal Castlesille, jonka raastava tanssimusiikki aiheutti auringon paahtaessa pienehkön päänsäryn. The Temper trap soitti lähes koko keikan tylsiä coldplay-covereilta kuulostavia biisejä, mutta esityksen kaksi viimeistä kappaletta osoittivat että bändillä olisi paljon omaakin tarjottavaa, jos vain viitsisivät tarjota. Mogwain tunnelmointia seurailin anniskelualueen puun alta varjosta ja Atmospherea en nähnyt sillä odottelin The Flaming Lipsiä, joka räjäytti tajunnan megalomaanisella, 70-luvun progepsykedelia henkisellä lavashowlla loputtomine ilmapalloineen, serpenttiinein ja teletappeineen. Lavalle tuli mm. hämmentävän hupaisasti hytkyvä, puhallettavaan aurinkopukuun pukeutunut henkilö, oranssien kaluston ja ilmeisesti ennakkoon ilmoittautuneiden teletappipukuisten fanien joukkoon.
Ja tietenkin laulajan seikkailu yleisön päällä "space bubblessa" oli mieletön avaus keikalle, joka ei kuitenkaan ollut kovin intensiivinen musiikkiesitys vaan jonkinlainen rauhallinen leikkitunti joka kasvoi erittäin tunteelliseksi loppuakohden, vaikken itse edes bändin suuri fani ole.

Nyt asiaan;
Viikonloppuna, jolloin on Tuska, Puisto Blues, Pax 09 festivaali ja muutenkin erinomaisen aurinkoinen sää, on jossain määrin sietämätöntä viettää koko päivä festivaalialueella jossa ei ole varjoa ja josta ei saa lähteä pois. Tähän kun lisätään se, että ruokavaihtoehdot ovat ns. "indie festarille" täysin ala-arvoiset, tarjolla mikroitetun näköistä kebabbia, kuivahkon oloisia kananuggetteja (nämä arvioin vain ulkonäön perusteella) ja 2 vaihtoehtoa ilman epämääräisen näköistä lihaa; currymössö 7e (jonka valmistaminen kotona ei maksa juuri mitään) ja pizza 8e, jossa oli riisiä lukuunottamtta samat ainekset kuin currymössössä, festivaalit voivat nopeasti muuttua erittäin harmittavaksi kokemukseksi.

Juomana oli jokaisessa ruokakojussa (olivat kaikki samaa firmaa ilmeisesti) tarjolla samat tylsät - jaffa,pepsi, sprite...Anniskelualueella tietenkin jo auringon tainnuttaman kansan seassa kierteli moraalittomia Jägermaister tyttöjä, tyrkyttämässä myrkkyjään festarikansan kurkkuihin, maassa, jossa ei muutenkaan harjoiteta pöytiintarjoilua, ainakaan festareilla.

Enkä nyt edes jaksa puida anniskelualueiden järjestelyä suomalaisilla festareilla, muutakuin sen että 8 euroa 2dl viinipullosta on missä tahansa liikaa.

Tarkoituksenani on sanoa, että imagoltaan jonkinlainen vaihtoehtofestivaali, joka tarjoaa hienoja esiintyjiä on kuintenkin asenteeltaan yhtä ääliömäinen kuin mikä tahansa makkara fest; Ihmiset siis viihtyvät kun saavat syödä jotain paskaa ja juoda kaljaa. Alueella, jonka istuskelumahdollisuudet vaikuttivat huonommilta kuin surullisenkuuluisessa kaisaniemempuistossa, en olisi sietänyt olla, ellei esiintyjät olisi kiinnostaneet, sillä mihinkään ei musiikka päässyt karkuun.

Varsinkin kun tietää, että festivaalialueen vieressä, käytännössä festivaalialueella, sijaitsee hieno kahvila Aaltopelti, jonne en tietenkään päässyt kokopäivänä, koska kulku oli estetty metalliaidoilla. Kahvilasta olisi saanut myös nautittavaksi jotain vaihtoehtoja kansan syvien rivien lempijuomille: sokerilitkuille ja oluelle, joista molemmista tulee huono olo.

Suomalaiset festivaalit markkinoivat lähes kaikki samaa asiaa "juokaa kaljaa, syökää roskaruokaa - se on kivaa ja niin te viihdytte." Tämä on sietämätöntä paskaa. Jos olisin ruokatarjoilun tiennyt etukäteen, olisin tuonut kotoani eväät, nyt en päässyt enää pois alueelta, joten olin voimaton ja koitin selvitä, sillä mistään ei myöskään saanut mitään pientä suolaista naposteltavaa, esim sipsiä, jota ilman on vaarallista heilua auringossa koko päivä. Ainoana plussana järjestäjille se, että alueella oli koju josta sai aurinkorasvaa. Esiintyjien lisäksi tietenkin.

Barack Obama in Prague - review

"The Czech Republic has a long history of puppetry, puppet-making, and marionettes. Czech puppets have been a part of Czech tradition since the middle of the 18th century."Today we saw the biggest puppet show ever held in Prague! The performance was not Czech, nor had it anything to do with Czech puppetry, but seems that they wanted to respect the tradition, so they arranged the only performance of this show in Europe to be held in the puppetry capital of Europe. Being "one time only", I too climbed up the hill to Prague castle and went to see the amazing show. I expected more from the script, even though the performance and delivery was amazingly good. The charisma, the Smile..all of that was there. My main problem with the monologue was, that I found it a bit unlogical and therefore hard to relate to. I understand that Barack addressed the Czech people, and not everyone in the Europe, but I feel that this concerns us all. Like he said himself: "Nuclear missiles are threat to us all." And I agree.

Barack spoke about disarming the world from nuclear missiles, thus wiping out the last remains of the cold war. This is, of course, really good thing to do. But still, the way to do it is, according to Barack, to unite with USA, allowing them to build their military bases around Europe, thus contributing to the cause of pressuring certain countries to disarm themselves from nuclear weapons. Barack also said, that it is cowardice to oppose this action, cause it takes strength and will of power to defeat the evil that lurks in the world.
He said, that USA will start, as an example, to reduce their nuclear weapons, and this should inspire everyone else to do the same. Then he emphasized that every country that "breaks the rules" (in this missile-matter, like for example North Korea just did), has to face immediate consequences, they must be punished. But, USA will definitely keep an adequate resorts of nuclear missiles to be able to protect themselves from their enemies, he said.
I don't support nuclear missiles in any way, for sure, but neither do I appreciate this attitude of "you are either with us, or against us". Because that does not differ in anyway from what Bush was preaching about few years ago. And If we want to unite against the "evil forces" why should that mean that everyone should allow USA to build their military bases around Europe? Couldn't they, just for example, build their own? I mean, who said that USA is the good guy? But oh yeah, a nation which doesn't have nc-missiles already is not allowed to have one (which of course is definitely a good thing.) but that would be breaking the rules.

For me, the country of USA doesn't look like one that everyone should follow, just looking at their internal matters, poverty, education, crime rates for example. If, say like Denmark or Sweden or something started to gather a group against the evil in the world, that group I could join.
And that the countries that brake the rules must be punished? Who makes these rules and who makes the punishments? USA? And, Barack said, that one nuclear missile in the hands of a single terrorist, could spread destruction in enormous amounts in the world, and just 5 minutes before that he had said that USA will definitely keep "sufficient supplies" of these missiles their selves..So, the ending point would be, that no one else has any "big" missiles, but USA would have them, and in addition, bases all around Europe, ready for action...? What do you think, would they get rid of them at that point?
We should fight together, as free nations and individuals, for the freedom and peace on earth, said Barack. So let's do just that, let's unite, and respect each other. It can't be that either you agree with USA or you are considered as a coward or a terrorist.
All and all, it was a good show and I am happy to have been able to experience it.

3/5

Battle in Seattle

I just stumbled on to this movie "BATTLE IN SEATTLE". Haven't heard from it anywhere, maybe because I haven't been looking, but from my point of view, this movie deserves more attention.

It is a fictional story based on the true events of the demonstrations against World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Seattle in 1999. Things went quite badly and people got hurt.

The storyline is nothing special, but I think the matter is very important and the characters are put in the right place, giving atleast a decent look to "both sides", kind of, since the sides fighting in this film are not enemies with each other, as the ending successfully tells us. This is the most important fact in the film: it is not the police force and the activists who should fight each other, or even the politicians and activists, they are just the middle men, and there will always be more of them to fight with.

For some reason I was a bit irritated by the lovestory-subplot, which seemed totally irrelevant, but I guess something like that has to be there always..even though I can't see why..All and all I like the fact that the film is obviously quite low budged, but it contributes to the atmosphere of the film. It is also nice to see the usage of archive material and fictional story, mixed together.
But, a nice film and I am happy that it was made and I saw it!

Tampere film festival 2009 4.3-8.3

UPDATED 31.1
I'm just announcing (not boasting too much) that the following films can be seen at the mentioned festival;

in the competition series:

Kaupunkilaisia / Citizens, by Juho Kuosmanen
Jalil, by Mazdak Nassir
Chabalu, by Amir Eskandari

and in New from Finland Screening:
Valon Lapset - The Illuminous ones, by Jaakko Ruuska
Suurin ja Kaunein, by Teppo Airaksinen
Saurofoniaa, by Mazdak Nassir

All films above are edited by me. In the music video screening you can see:
Goon - Taas sen täytyy muuttuu, by Jussi Rautaniemi
Saurofoniaa, by Mazdak Nassir

So, that makes it 7!
So go to the festival, cause I can't be there for I lurk in the narrows streets of Prague by then.

Just an announcement and James Bond

Haven't been writing for a while...
I'm just announcing that I uploaded all my videos again to youtube, for better quality.

So go check out the videos!

One topic I was about to write was the new James Bond film. I'll just talk about it briefly. I liked it. I know that even though Bond is now portrayed a bit confused and clearly lost person, they still are not intellectual films, and they possibly shouldn't be , but I like the way Daniel Craig makes James Bond feel like a complete lunatic from time to time. He has this crazy-look in his eyes, which is nice.
All the old James Bonds were just clean fellows who had no soul but it did not worry them, now it feels like Bond is all the time ready to fall apart, when he has no clear mission, like chasing a bad guy. But I think the new bond is a bit more real and there is some moral in his character, absurdly violent as he may be, but at least he clearly is a non-well person.

So, I can't understand why people have disliked the new Bond film. It is fast and exploding, but that is just the way an action film has to be, and since it was a clear sequel, continuing straight after Casino Royale, it is totally understandable that there is no need to stop and explain what is happening. Even though there were some plot holes in the film, or some bad writing at least, but they were hard to notice when the movie went on forward so fast..

But I think that the next Bond is hard to do, because this film worked because of the blow of Casino Royales freshness, but it wont last three films, so if Bond doesn't go mad in the next film or something, the series will fall back to the uninteresting saga of films that it was before Casino Royale.

Zeitgeist, Loose change, Earthlings and us

When movies were born, first films ever made were documentaries. Back then there was talk about people not having to travel around the world to see things anymore, cause film would bring all the wonders of the world to them. It was to be a new strong medium for education and civilization.
Now we live in a time when everyone (who has the level of wealth as most of Finns have) can buy a decent video camera and a laptop with cheap editing systems and produce films, much easier than Lumiere bros and our subjects could be examined more thoroughly, than the social commentary about workers leaving factory, by Lumiere brothers, because of the infinite material we have for filming, seemingly no cost at all.

When I look at films like Zeitgeist- Addendum, Loose Change, and Earthlings, I feel like "this is what we should all do, this is NOW". These three appear to be some of the flagships of internet distributed indie documentaries.

The internet and the easiness of working with moving images has only now, 100 years later of the first documentary film filmed, reached the level of really starting to work as the medium it was supposed to be. And services like Youtube contribute also to this cause. The fact that writing an essay or publishing an opinion letter on newspaper is not the only way to state your mind and taking part. Of course youtube in all its good has also set an example of the surplus that a good service always produces, and it struggles with not drowning to it.
The documentaries I mentioned are almost completely compiled of archive material or animated material. Only some interviews have been shot and they both work pretty much because of the strong text, read by a voice behind the repetitive images - meaning that the language of cinema they use is quite simple and old fashioned. But this only shows that you wont even have to film anything to make an important, or at least strong and interesting film.

And there has of course been films like this before, but now combining the lightness of digital cinema to the lightness of broadband internet, the information and viewpoints are free to take their place, out of the cages of: festivals, cinemas and the totally lost medium: TV.

The argumentation on both films is clearly simplified to serve the aims of the movie makers, but this is the fact that needs to be understood: There is no way around it that they tell us the things in the light as they want us to perceive them, but never think that this is not the case in all the movies, books, newspapers or news you see every day.
Meaning that they only give a new angle on things and I believe that this is their goal. Even though there is always a slight touch of mass psychology since all these films tell us to "Join" something..But since we already are members of this capitalist-religion, this can be accepted.

So I am not saying that a new age of political movie has begun because of these internet documentaries, but in my opinion there could be something to it. The only problem is that being a new interesting subculture, it won't be taken seriously in the mainstream media. It is partially a good thing, cause it aims to take the lead from the mainstream media. But also gives large amount of people the view that theses kind of docs are just conspiracy jibberish, not to be taken seriously.
The fact that there has not been, at least not to my knowledge, a public statement against the "proofs and theories" that Loose Change gives out, which are quite easy to believe, has two sides. On one hand it gives the image that these theories are ridiculous and therefore not worthy of a official response. But the other side of it is this: Now in the time of freedom of speech, internet, blogs and everything, we drown in opinions and theories. Therefore, to raise one or two from this mass of information, even to deny or criticize, is to state that it has some truth to it.

And since it seems probable that they can not explain for example about "the building 7" in 9/11 attacks, they see it better just not to answer the question. This is the new censorship of information: When asked - don't answer. The people will forget and stop asking and get on with our everyday life with money problems and jobs and entertainment.
We can write to our blogs, even make documentaries, no one says to us we can't do it. But it won't help, as long as the arguments don't get "publicly recognized" (whatever that means). But you still get the feeling that you have said what you had to say. This works only as long as there is the mainstream media that has some authority.

Of course, countries like Finland are still quite safe from this. The circles are so small that even one sms-message sent by some politician goes straight to every paperstand. But that is also a way of restricting our knowledge. Finnish news media tend to attract our thoughts in totally wrong things.

Now a film Earthlings, differs a bit, not building any theories of how governments enslave mankind. It just shows the facts behind our habits concerning our place in this planet,what we eat and so on. Make the connection.

So links at the end, for films to watch:

http://www.earthlings.com/

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/

To believe? Well, I watch them as I watch any other film..And of course there are tons of others, but just these 3 for starters.

Star Wars - the story about fathers love

Now comes an interpretation of Star Wars and an attack towards a great film theorist.( I put this back on the front page)

Some time ago I watched all the Star Wars movies, yes, all 6 of them, even the 3 new ones. I must admit, that even being an old somewhat "hardcore" star wars fan, it was quite a struggle. The new 3 movies are just bad movies, bad cinema, and there is no way around it. The most pleasurable view were the episodes 4 and 5, New hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Even Return of the Jedi was a bit eerie. But, although I´d like to, I am not going to complain about the 3 newer episodes or the changes made to the old ones, even though they make me feel sick.

But now when all the 6 Star Wars movies are out there, what is the saga about? If we look at the characters, we see that there are 3 characters appearing in all 6 of them. R2D2, C-3po, and Anakin Skywalker, although he appears as Darth Vader in 3 of them, but the core person stays the same. So I think it is safe to state that the main character of star wars clearly is not the 2 robot buddies, although they are 2 important ones.

So the the lead character of star wars is Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader. He goes trough the biggest changes, he learns the biggest lessons.
Anakins mom states to Qui-Gon, that Anakin was born without a father, miraculous birth due to the high count of midichloriants. So, wanted Lucas is or not, we make an instant connection to Jesus, and all the talk of Anakin being the chosen one makes the matter even worse and irritating. Well only thing I´m going to say about that is this; Jesus had somewhat complicated relationship with his father, don´t you think?

Originally a slave boy, Anakin is characterized in a quite cartoonie way to be lost and unbalanced kid who has mixed emotions and is quite temperamental. He longs for recognition from the Jedi council but the Jedis are not so eager to accept him to be their savior and wonder child. This strange and somewhat unexplained longing for recognition and power is not too clearly explained in the film. Anakin just is that way. Yes, he misses his mother who had to be left behind, but the emotional motives for Anakins behavior are not too clear, possibly due to bad directing. Anakin is constantly saying lines like "I am the best pilot!" and "I am the strongest Jedi!", like he had something to prove someone.

Well, isn´t there a theory about sons and fathers, and the emotional distresses they can create? Anakin, a fatherless child never had the fathers love and acceptance that he is important and adequate to full fill his place in the world. He longs for it, but can never have it. Anakin finds his father figure from the "most powerfull man" in the Galactic senate, a strong senator Palpatine who quickly rises to be the leader of the Galactic senate. This person is the only one who Anakin sees to be sufficiently great to be his replacement for a father. And he turns out to be a Sith lord. So what choice Anakin has? He has to be his apprentice, cause he is like a father he never had.. A note for later: Palpatine appears in 5 of the six movies, as same as Yoda, but has much more screen time..In Episede III Anakin is totally lost, he needs Padme, but doesn´t seem to be able to emotionally connect to her (there is something realy fake in their relationship, is it the acting or the story?), he respects and hates The Jedi´s at the same time, Padme and Anakin have this secret relationship that is unaccepted and Padme is pregnant, and it is forbidden to Jedi´s to have children. This is like a too young kid going trough life too fast, not quite understanding whats happening and ultimately unable to take the responsibility needed. (the story telling might be similar to Anakins feelings, concentrating on the wrong things, alot of extra stuff..)

The scene what we all were waiting, where Anaking finally turns in to the Darth Vader we know, is irritatingly inter cut with the scene where Padme, his fiancee, gives birth to Luke and Leia and dies in the birth her self. So we witness the birth of Luke and Leia and the birth of Darth Vader - the birth of the next(or the old)chapter of Star Wars saga. And we see the death of Anakin, Padme, the Jedis and the Galactic senate as it turns in to the Empire. Death of this trilogy. How brilliant...
But more importantly we see the transformation of a fatherless Anakin,to a father him self. Not having a father he can not become one now, without turning in to some kind of monster. Even tough he is not aware of the children surviving. Hes anger towards himself is catalyzed by the lie that he killed Padme himself. But the concrete thing we see is, that when Anakin becomes a father, he becomes this inhuman dark machine. As I heard somewhere that Darth Vader is based on Dark Father..eh.

So now, the old, good, Star Wars films tell a story about Luke, an orphan, a bit restless and rebellious. He has this unexplained longing to somewhere, which is common to teenagers, I think. He hears a tale about great wars and about how great pilot his "real father" was and how Darth Vader betrayed and murdered him. Luke starts to follow the path that eventually leads him to confront Darth Vader. This is of course told in a way much more believable way than anything in the new saga.
Luke becomes something of a hero and seems to be pleased about the fact, but something still troubles him. There is the tension that Luke must confront the man who supposedly killed his father and therefore robbed him of the love and bonding between father and son. Comparing to Anakin, Luke has a goal which he can reach for, the supposed reason for his detachment where Anakin never had any target to put all his energy to, cause there was no clear reason for his fatherless life.

Luke sees a hallucination which tells him to go to this distant planet to became a Jedi and for some reason he follows it. There he has another vision of his friends being in danger. He also fights imaginary Darth Vader and kills him, seeing that the Darth Vader was actually he himself. This is later referred as "the failure in the cave". As in if Luke just kills Vader, he fails and kills a part of himself, the chance to become complete. To reach the unity which lies in the truth about the true relationship of Luke and Vader. And also gives clues to still ignorant viewer about whats going to be revealed.

Well, soon enough Luke finds out that the reason for these weird visions was that Darth Vader did not kill his father, but is his father. Then we see a great scene where he shouts "No! That´s not true! Thats impossible!" Yeah.
"Join me, so we can rule the galaxy as father and son!" As we know, Luke jumps down from that thing, he chooses to take the chances of dying in the fall and not to join Darth. Cause the fact of Vader being his true father, his origin, is at this point seems too terrible to live with anyway. It is in incongruity with everything he had believed. This can be argued that Luke knew that he would not die when he jumped down..but then a gain..did he?

When realizing that Palpatine was evil, Anakins most precious father figure, he dropped down to his knees and pledged his obedience. And when Luke hears that hes true father was the devil, sort of speak, he dropped to almost certain death.

Comparing to Lukes situation to Anakins: Palpatine represented the "Galatic Senate" and "democracy" at that point. Jedis were there to protect them, so the revelation of Palpatine being evil was much more difficult for Anakin, cause now he knows that the leader of the Republic that he had served and the father figure he had needed so much is, what only the Jedis call evil, so there was too much mixed feelings for Anakin. Palpatine supported Anakin on purpose constantly told him that he was "becoming the greatest Jedi" giving him this feeling of importance that parents often give, so how could he deny this.. Where as Luke and his friends fight the evil Empire anyway and it represented everything that they hated. So the knowledge of Vader being his father was too much, cause all the basis for his life was suddenly gone, the target of Lukes hatred was wrong.

Luke: "I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
Surviving and unable to avoid the fact, Luke again seeks confrontation with his real father, and whats most important: with acceptance of the fact that Vader, the so-called ultimate evil, really is his father. He goes to Vader and Palpatine and again Luke chooces the almost certain death to joining the evil, for the second time, when Anakin had failed at the first try. The saga ends to the point where Anakin who never had a father, sees that his own son, who he did not raise himself, loves him enough to trust his life in front of the Emperor (formerly known as Palpatine). Kind of unconditional love that he has never experienced. At this point Anakin gets all the recognition he has ever needed, the void of never having a father is surprisingly filled from unexpected feeling of being one himself, so and decides to end the manipulative and demanding relationship to Palpatine, and saves his son, who despite all the things Vader represents, believes in him. Vader sort of accepts that hes search has been futile, but sees that he is now on the other side and has now a chance to take the place of the father he should be.

There is this close-up shots just before the act of saving, which i think is the only shot, or series of shots, that had some extra meaning with the "new saga". In that shot we see the story of Anakin gathered to this one moment. But then again, it worked without the new saga..


Like the quote above states, that even though Lukes father had become a dark lord, he had a father, therefore he has something to cling on to, he wants to be a Jedi, like his father was, there is a meaning in that. Where Anakin was to become a Jedi, cause, well, he had no place else to be. Some one told him that he must be cause he is so good at it. But in the light of the new episodes, Luke is no longer a leading character, but supportive to Darth Vader in completing his story.

A famous film theorist Zizek said that in the birth-death scene, Anakin becoming Vader, we see the ultimate nightmare, our father becoming immortal. And this is what the old saga is about. There is this Dark figure that dominates everything, until the final confrontation of father and son.

But where Zizek was wrong, was that, at first, Anaking never wanted to be immortal. Both Anakin and Luke suffer from attachment to the persons near to them. I mean they can´t bear the thought of them dying or even being hurt and are always running to help them. They don´t trust their loved ones to survive them selves, they have this kind of narcissistic thing going on, where they their friends exist only to compensate some missing feelings of importance and safety.. Of course this has to do with the person surviving himself, but from my point of view Anakin does not seek a path to immortality, he seeks only to make sure that the persons he loves stay alive, what matter the consequences. This is stated very clearly in many Anakins lines in the movies "Someday I am able to stop people from dying!" and "I won´t let you die" and so on. Actually it is the good side of the force, the Jedis that find a way to make themselves immortal. There is only talk about this some sith lord able to save others from dying, but then not able to avoid being killed themselves.

So Zizeks Freudian theory of never dying father being the ultimate nightmare is somewhat irrelevant, I think. And takes things out of the wholeness of the story and manipulates the story and character to fit the spychoanalytic analysis. This seems to be common for this sort of analysis. He should treat the StarWars saga as a whole, cause he takes the basis for his Darth Vader-theory from Episode 3 but it only aplies in episodes 4-6. So in that way it becames a bit meaningless.

Through my view, view of Vader being the main character, all of the Star Wars films seem to be about finding the lost father. Anakin does not choose to became immortal(or in a sense immortal), he needs to become, because had he died in the burning lava after Obi-wan cut of both of Anakins legs, the longing for acceptance and love would never be fulfilled, and finally he dies right after the moment it has fulfilled. In the scene where Anakin almost dies, he does not beg for anyone to come for his help he just shouts "I HATE YOU!" to Obi-wan, as if now that he hates everybody he could as well die..
This somehow connects to the scene where Luke jumps down in ESB, seeing what his father was, makes life feel too unbeareble and meaningles and he feels that he´d rather die, but Luke survies the fall for the same reason as Anakin survided the burn.
The Zizeks explanation of Darth Vader is at least totally inadequate. As we see right in the beginning of Empire Strikes Back, is that Darth Vader is no overlord, that he obeys the Emperor still as an apprentice. In episode 4 Vader is all the time under the power of Grand Mof Tarking, he orders, Vader obeys. And as we can understand with the help of the new saga, this is the only thing that Anakin has ever wanted; to obey and get recognition about the good work he has done. He tries forever to be the "good son" he never could be. That´s why Vader is constantly shown to kill his vassals, when they fail to do the jobs Vader needs them to do. The whole saga ends with the death of the false father figure, the true source of all evil!!

At Luke does not treat Vader as this dark father figure that must be defeated, in Episode 4 there is no confrontation directly between Luke and Vader, Episode 5, the firs saber-duel Luke still thinks Vader killed his father, Episode 6 They fight for a time, but Luke repeatedly says "I will not fight you father" and Vader is the aggressive one, because of the Emperors will.

In Return of the Jedi, Luke still has chance to think if he would joins his father and complete their relationship as the Emperor wants, but if he does that, they´ll both be under Emperors might, and by joining Darth he would never find his real father.

If Luke is Vaders son, therefore there must be something of Vader in him, so it must work the other way around also. And because of this the final battle is not between Vader and Luke, but Luke and Palpatine, the Empreror. Vader intervenes, he wakes up from the dream that started in Episode III, killing the younglings and all that, and now kills the false father figure that has been around for so long and finally gets to see the acceptance and love of his son. Now, when the false father of Anakin has died, he can be a father himself, for the brief moment. He asks Luke to take the Vader mask of, which he psychologically does not need anymore, or which Luke has already taken off in a way. "Let me look at you with my own eyes." Anakin becomes what he never had, the thing he could never own. The saga could have ended there: The real father and son are united for the first and the last time. Had there not been all the other characters of course.

This theory might explain why the new Star Wars saga is so badly directed. I don´t know, but if Lucas had some father-son trouble of his own, the feelings might have been too clear for him self, so clear that he could not, or forgot to transmit them to the audience. So that we would know whats going on.

End question: Do you know how many times a hand is cut off in all the Star Wars films? Everybody gets their hands cut off!?! The theme of cut-off hands? Could some one tell me whats the idea behind that?

Tools and styles

I must confess that I´ve partly been wrong about certain matters. The fact still is, that computers, cameras, steenbecks, pens and brushes are all just tools to deliver a message and if a letter is written with a quill pen or with a computer the content stays the same. Or does some one disagree?

But, when talking about art and why not letters, there is still something that the tools and the medium delivers and contribute to the wholeness of the work. At an age when it is common to write a letter with email, what would it express if someone sent you a hand written letter, written with an ink quill pen? Well, atleast that he/she has possibly written the letter many times, if the text is clean and there are no errors. Or atleast the writer has thought about it carefully before writing it, and possibly concentrated much more to the actuall writing, drawing the letters, than it would have been necessary with a computer. But does this change the message? If the letter has some bad news? If it is a love letter, then it could be understood, but almost any other letter would seem odd, don´t you think? So we live in a time when we can choose the appropriate medium for our expressions. Therefore the mediums have an effect to the content, or support it in a way.

So, the choice of editing with a steenbeck has been in line with the choice of shooting in 35mm, and unlike I said earlier, it brings a certain value to it. The only thing is that it might be a value that no one else is able to see, than me, the director and possibly other filmmakers...

Even though some might argue that recieving a love letter written with a quill pen would me too melodramatic or romanticism, this is the problem with little style nuances, everyone has their own opinion about them.

I really look forward to seeing this film on screen, without hearing the sound that the steenbeck makes, and there is a sound every time a cut is coming, cause the tapes have glued to the film while being rolled to the reels, and now they are opening and streching, so I can hear every cut. So I hope that seeing it in a digital form gives me this feel of relief, cause now when watching it, every cut feels kinda bad.


Previously posted view of the digital age-director is much due to my own way of shooting and directing. There has not been a single thing I´ve directed that I´ve hadn´t thought trough editing. I mean, during the shooting I´ve thought "Oh, this I can use from this shot, this from the other one, and lets take few more if something else comes up". And ofcourse this is the way to make an outside editor crazy. I hope there will be a day that I have a chance to work with an editor. I really look forward to it and I am planning to use an editor I ever get a film done.

And as I some time a go stated during the shooting of my own short film, shootin a lot of material is not a sign of "indecisivines", sometimes that is the only way to get the look for the film that is carefully planned. So it is not like if the is a lot of shots and variation, that it means that director does not know what he wants, usually it is the opposite. It about the style of the storytelling. But I think this kind of style has grown with digital editing.

As I spoke about the clear and unclear material before, well, the situation was that the mechanics of using steenbeck took most of my energy and I might have been a bit frustrated about it, so this may have had some effect on my creative thinking :)

But, the experience of editing with film has given me insight more about my self as an editor, than it has about editing a film. Cause editing stays the same, but my attitude and my abilities to use the tools change. This has been interesting.
But I leave deeper contemplation for later.

Trouble

No, really everything is going ok. I´m just having this illness going on right now, hope it will pass, cause I still have to edit 2 things at the same time. Jalil-film is nearing the end, it looks fine and the duration is something about 30mins 15s. Including end credits so we still have to cut about 20s. out and that is not that much.

I had some deep thoughts about editing, but right now I can´t remember them, cause I woke up with a sore troath too early.

Youtube happenings

Oh I did not realize that I hadn´t published the previous text. Sorry, well now you get 2 texts in one day. Hope you have the strength to read both...well this is short.

Yesterday I went to panic when I came home and opened my messenger and it informed me that I had over 600 new mails in my hotmail. I thought that this was some sort of spam-mail attack but went to look anyway.

Well, all the mails were from Youtube, and since I have this option there that youtube informs me always when someone comments some of my videos, these were all comments to one of my videos: Loose joints.

For some reason it was placed to the front page of Youtube- to the "Featured" section and at that time it was watched over 80,000 times. Well now the count is somewhere over 120,000 and rising..

So, now I have some new subscribers and friends in youtube! :) Here is the video:


And this is a video from last summer! The footage is from my slovenia - croatia trip with Eevis and the music is by Eevis also. Its a short fictional story about a girl travelling! Enjoy!

the almost first version

Soon I have defeated the enormously hard job of fixing the rough cut to first decent cut..but not yet, or almost. There is still some cut-fixing to do, but now the editing is much much more easier when the film is beginning to have some shape.

Few days ago I enjoyed one of the brighter sides of my work. Being at the Sputnik oy, Mr. Kaurismäki visits there occasionally and today I had a chance for a small chat with him. We briefly talked about editing and I whined a bit about this Steenbeck business, being so slow and all, to which he replied "It is much faster than a computer...or have they shot some extra material? If they have shot only what is needed and no more, Steenbeck is a much faster way to edit."

Funny man and very nice and supportive. But this made me think. When I looked at the raw material before I started to edit it, I thought "how nice, this material is really simple and clean". Meaning that it was easy to see what they had thought about in the shootings. Well, during the editing it did not appear so clear to me anymore. I could not tell by looking at the material what was intended and seemed like many shots were shot with out a clear idea where or how to use it.
Well, If I had worked with final cut it would be a clear material, but editing with steenbeck makes you think what you are going to do before you do it, and I noticed that not only is this a challenge for me as an editor, but maybe for the director and cinematographer as well..

It appears so that many directors have completely absorbed the working methods of digital editing. And why shouldn´t they? But it is seen in the material. My guess is, that if, for example all film schools made the directors edit their first film on a steenbeck, they might think an alternate way to shoot a scene, in comparision to being able to edit it digitally.
What I mean is that the knowledge of being able to twist the material to almost any form and try again and again in few seconds might give directors this feel of safety and putting the "decisions" for later, to the editing table.

So in a sense, with digital editing, the emphasis of editing has grown. I did not think like this before I edited with steenbeck. But editors now-a-days usually get all the material, eventhough the selection of shots is usually done with director, but we still have all the material and we can use bits and pieces from here and there and with digital editing the sound editing has become bigger part of film editing, being able to connect different lines to different shots already in the editing room and so on.

And I know, that all this has been possible before digital editing. But it has been much harder. Much slover. Like Kaurismäki said "If they have shot something extra, its slover". Like I assume that he is a man who knows how he wants his picture be framed and knows what he is going to use. That is the reason he often edits his own films. Cause he does not need an editor because he has done most of the editing already in the shoot.

Of course for me, this digital age with "indicisive" directors ( I don´t say this to insult any of the directors I´ve worked with, just pondering about this matter) is much more interesting for me as an editor. I guess I would not be an editor, had there not been this breaktrough in digital editing, about the same time I grew up.

The cowards way...or the smart way?

So, maybe I now ruined everything, or maybe not. If working with film has something to offer, did I neglect the chances of learning by using modern tool to help my editing? Let me elaborate on the matter.

Few days ago I looked the material and was in anguish because of its complexity. My teacher had said that complex dialogue scenes would be better to plan with a pen and paper before cutting the actual film. So I sat there, watching the raw material I had put together and wondered should I start to draw some storyboards or what.. Then my eyes moved on the table and I saw my mobile phone. Nothing happened yet but when I looked it a bit longer I realized that it has a "good quality" video camera in it.. There was not yet a thought in my mind.. I just slowly opened the videocam-opiton from my phone and pointed it to the screen of Steenbeck. At this point the idea formed in my head. "If I shoot with this the raw footage I´ve gathered and done preliminary editing on, I can do the ´demo´of the final edit using this mobilephone video material!" Isn´t that the same as doing it with storyboards?? Even better!? (in picture "the nail closet" a real life replacement for "bin" look down for more info)

So I shot some scenes and went home to edit them. The director found this really funny, but in my opinion it really gives me a big help. I can do the thinking as I would do it normally in editing, but then go there to cut the film, using the video as a reference. And it worked, today I cut one of the scenes I had edited with my laptop and it was easy and fun. So, do I now miss all the teachings that editing with steenbeck has to offer? I believe not. I just speed up the editing, cause I don´t edit the whole film like this. Only the few harder scenes. In my point of view it would be stupid not to use this method for help.

After all, in the movie Space odyssey 2001 the monkeys that learned to use tools, bones as a weapon, defeated the monkeys that did not understand to do this. So it is idiocy not to use all the help that is available. And I still work with the film and I had to overcome some problems concerning the sound. And I did! Although I´m still not using 2 soundtracks, cause I find that hard and weird. I just do edits in different places in sound than in picture. Simple, but keeping the sync wasn´t easy at first.

So, I have only one week time to do this, then I have to start editing this tv-show. So after next week I have to do this on the evenings. But now I feel that this will work, that maybe we can get this film edited someday :)These are the alternate "bins" where I collect the material which I´ve edited out..And this is what I am used to->
Or actually at first I use the nail closet, then I move the film to the bins...

Rough cut - version 0.0

So, today, after 2 weeks. I finally finished the first assembly of the movie. It is still quite primitive version, whit parts of many takes including the same action/dialogue. From this version I start to scrape the final film.
(in picture: the raw cut reels, duration: unknown)

I must say, I´ve gone through some variable emotions during these 2 weeks. The knowledge that the time wont be enough always pops to my head and if I am doing something difficult, the indignation starts to rise.

Sometimes it has been hard to control the rage that boils, but mostly I´ve been doing fine. I guess now I am at the point that every other day feels good and every other bad.

I just mostly think "Why am I doing this?" . Today I thought about development in mechanics and all these electronics. And the over all importance of all these equipments. Like a cellphone is basically totally unnecessary, but when it was invented, suddenly everyone had one and now, it is hard for me, for example, to think about living with out it. So even though the human race managed with out a cell phone for all these years, was there a need for that kind of equipment in our species or culture? Cause if it had been a totally unimportant invention, there would not be so many of them in the world. Like for example, I don´t own a tamagochi or whattehell they were, or a palm-computer...
So, before digital editing was invented, people made good films. No doubt about that. But for me, a person who has never used even an analog video-editing system, just edited some stuff with 2 normal vcrs, but basically learned editing with a computer, it seems really, really odd to be editing with Steenbeck. I mean, yes it is cool to use the old-school method. But it feels so hard. It is so ponderous to do..And I still would like to question the fact that it is somehow more real way to do it or more hard-core. I think it is just more harder.

Cause although digital editing has made editing easier and more approachable to everyone, it still requires some skill to do it well, some understanding about things that not everyone seem to understand. Using steenbeck might be the old hand way to do things and it might include some heavy thinking that "the soft generation" today can not do, but I claim that if you find an old editor who has never used Final Cut pro, he might find it quite hard. It is only a question about what have you become accustomed to. Nothing else. Editing basically stays the same.
So at this point, my claim is that I´ll just learn to use steenbeck, but that is all I am going to learn and what we achieve with this? Well, I just hope that the movie will become as good as it would have been If i´ve edited it the normal way. And I possible will be soo tired after all this.

And still, I feel that using digital editing, lets you sculpt the material in a really special way, compared to steenbeck-editing..

but I think we still sometimes miss the romanticism there was in meeting a person, and not being able to keep in touch with him/her all the time with multiple equipments (like facebook, cellphone, messenger...). So is there something in not using the latest inventions of everything? Or is it just stupidity. Sometimes maybe, not all the time.