This should be interesting. I've never seen him speak in person. I have read a majority of his texts. I also own Jay Rubin's metatext "Haruki Murakami and the Music of Words" that Harvill Press put out a few years ago in the UK. He is a fascinating author of contemporary fiction that tells odd stories of investigations into modern life in Japan.
I'd recommend arriving at least an hour early.
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Monday, September 19, 2005
Joann Sfar discusses the Rabbi's Cat - TONIGHT
Pantheon Books again leads the way in breaking contemporary comic book artists into the mainstream. Joann Sfar's book tour finds its way to Cambridge tonight. This should be fun!
The copy reads:
JOANN SFAR discusses The Rabbi’s Cat
Harvard Book Store is pleased to announce that on Monday, September 19th Joann Sfar will discuss his new graphic novel The Rabbi’s Cat.
Produced by one of France’s most celebrated young comic artists, The Rabbi’s Cat tells the wholly unique story of a rabbi, his daughter, and their talking cat, who is a philosopher brimming with scathing humor and surprising tenderness. Rich with the colors and textures, of Algeria’s Jewish community, The Rabbi’s Cat brings a lost world vibrantly to life—a time and place where Jews and Arabs coexisted—and peoples it with endearing characters, and one unforgettable cat.
Tonight at 6:30pm
The copy reads:
JOANN SFAR discusses The Rabbi’s Cat
Harvard Book Store is pleased to announce that on Monday, September 19th Joann Sfar will discuss his new graphic novel The Rabbi’s Cat.
Produced by one of France’s most celebrated young comic artists, The Rabbi’s Cat tells the wholly unique story of a rabbi, his daughter, and their talking cat, who is a philosopher brimming with scathing humor and surprising tenderness. Rich with the colors and textures, of Algeria’s Jewish community, The Rabbi’s Cat brings a lost world vibrantly to life—a time and place where Jews and Arabs coexisted—and peoples it with endearing characters, and one unforgettable cat.
Tonight at 6:30pm
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Hitchens v Galloway - the report from our man in Brooklyn
Tom Gilmore reports on the debate between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway.
"I was sitting front row in the balcony and had a pretty good bird's
eye view of what they called 'The Grapple in the Apple.'
It was very lively, as I think everyone expected it would be. The
crowd seemed very evenly split in who they supported and, as things
like this go, nobody was there to have their mind changed. Rather,
they were there to see their side supported by the most colorful and
passionate mouth-piece for their views. Strong points from both men
were always greeted with a chorus of cheers and boos. I even thought
some of the crowd was moving close to blows at certain points. I think
New York has quite a few Hitchen types - pro-war liberals, or socially
liberal conservatives, whichever works for you, because they're
ultimately the same - more seem to reside here than I expected. Unless
of course they were all in attendance last night.
Galloway's jabs were more immediate -- and let's face it, who didn't
go for the jabs? -- and he seemed like the more seasoned debater. Even
Oona King, whom Galloway defeated in the last election, conceded that
Galloway won the debate in terms of oratory skills. Galloway accused
Hitchens of doing the impossible -- turning from a butterfly into
slug, and this was probably the best of the night.
Hitchens' on the other hand seems to work better on paper - and his
style of attack was occasionally lost in front of the audience.
Galloway seemed more comfortable and much smoother, whereas Hitchens
was sweating madly before the thing even started and his hands were
visibly shaking. At first I thought he must be nervous but then he's
always speaking in front of people so, no, it couldn't be nerves, it
had to be the drink. He kept trying to steady one hand with the other,
but then they'd both start shaking. Galloway's style was direct and
aggressive and you could understand everything he said despite the
thick Scottish accent. Hitchens on the other hand mumbled and his
pitch varied and you sometimes had to strain to follow his point. I've
seen him do the same thing on television - it's almost like he's
making a point he thinks should be obvious to everyone thus the
cocksure delivery.
Galloway said you shouldn't be surprised by 9/11 or 7/7 when you
consider the US's murderous history in the Middle East. Hitchens told
him he'd picked the wrong city and the wrong month to make that point,
to which he received a mighty round of boos.
I think Hitchens' biggest error was in continually returning to what I
think is an obscure point and it seemed largely lost on the crowd --
Galloway's supposed involvement in the Oil for Food scandal. Not many
people have followed the small details nor are they intimately aware
of Galloway's alleged connections. But Hitchens thought if he could he
paint Galloway as friendly w/ dictators it would follow that he could
easily discredit the rest of his argument. Hitchens' supporters take
it as an article of faith that Galloway is guilty as charged by
Hitchens (although Hitchens is the only one who has charged him) and
the net is already buzzing with people mimicking Hitchens' accusations
-- Galloway is "the piggy eyes of fascism" says Hitchens; yes, he is,
say his supporters with their arms in the air. Yet the Bush
administration, Hitchens' heros of the moment, are known to be close
with Uzbekistan's dictator Karimov and I have yet to hear Hitchens
address this, to name but one example. What he accusses Galloway of
he'll excuse in Bush and the neo-cons.
Towards the end Galloway hinted at physically assaulting Hitchens, to
which Hitchens welcomed the threat. Galloway called him a popinjay
once again, to which Hitchens said, That is true, I am a popinjay
according to the original Websters definition of the word. The insult
was funnier the first time, and Hitchens' retort was less funny still.
For one of the last questions, Amy Goodman asked Hitchens if he found
himself treated with more kindness by the media now that he'd become
pro-war. He flat-out refused to answer the question -- he even said he
thought it was a dumb question and he didn't want to answer it --
presumably because it makes him uncomfortable. Look at him though --
he's on every single network all the time, and this surely wasn't
happening before his conversion. He's become a celebrity from his
pro-war stance and he's enjoying the attention.
At one point Galloway seemed so bored by Hitchens that he started to
shine his shoes. Similarly, Hitchens took a cigarette and lighter out
and acted like he couldn't wait for Galloway to shut-up so he could go
outside and smoke. It's this small detail that almost encapsulates the
night; it was a show as much as anything. But behind this is of course
a very serious issue -- the most serious on the table at the moment,
which is the one thing both sides will agree on. The striking
difference between the sides, I think, is this: The pro-war people
have won, they're still winning, and they'll continue to win for as
long as we can tell. Does anyone really think the troops are coming
home anytime soon? So why are they so defensive? A handful of people
are loudly making the case against the war right now and the pro-war
crowd, in reaction, acts like they've been backed up against the wall.
I suspect they're so defensive because they know, as everyone does,
that things are going horribly in Iraq. And they also know that public
support for the war is in decline. It comes down to this - the pro-war
crowd doesn't have to spend their time doing anything other than
attacking anyone who speaks against the war. No, their work has been
done for them by the 2 most powerful nations.
Who won? Like I said, I think Galloway relishes the public debate and
seemed more at home. But Hitchens' supporters will obviously tell you
Hitchens won. They're both characters - clown-like at times - but I
also think both are dead serious about their positions, and about each
other. I don't think Galloway is the perfect spokesman for the
anti-war movement, but right about now he's the making the case
against war louder than just about anyone else. And I'll take his
position over the respectable but cautious anti-war Democrats who say,
"Well, maybe we should start bringing the troops home around October
2006," a date we know from experience will soon be January 07 and on."
Thanks again to Tom Gilmore for the report.
"I was sitting front row in the balcony and had a pretty good bird's
eye view of what they called 'The Grapple in the Apple.'
It was very lively, as I think everyone expected it would be. The
crowd seemed very evenly split in who they supported and, as things
like this go, nobody was there to have their mind changed. Rather,
they were there to see their side supported by the most colorful and
passionate mouth-piece for their views. Strong points from both men
were always greeted with a chorus of cheers and boos. I even thought
some of the crowd was moving close to blows at certain points. I think
New York has quite a few Hitchen types - pro-war liberals, or socially
liberal conservatives, whichever works for you, because they're
ultimately the same - more seem to reside here than I expected. Unless
of course they were all in attendance last night.
Galloway's jabs were more immediate -- and let's face it, who didn't
go for the jabs? -- and he seemed like the more seasoned debater. Even
Oona King, whom Galloway defeated in the last election, conceded that
Galloway won the debate in terms of oratory skills. Galloway accused
Hitchens of doing the impossible -- turning from a butterfly into
slug, and this was probably the best of the night.
Hitchens' on the other hand seems to work better on paper - and his
style of attack was occasionally lost in front of the audience.
Galloway seemed more comfortable and much smoother, whereas Hitchens
was sweating madly before the thing even started and his hands were
visibly shaking. At first I thought he must be nervous but then he's
always speaking in front of people so, no, it couldn't be nerves, it
had to be the drink. He kept trying to steady one hand with the other,
but then they'd both start shaking. Galloway's style was direct and
aggressive and you could understand everything he said despite the
thick Scottish accent. Hitchens on the other hand mumbled and his
pitch varied and you sometimes had to strain to follow his point. I've
seen him do the same thing on television - it's almost like he's
making a point he thinks should be obvious to everyone thus the
cocksure delivery.
Galloway said you shouldn't be surprised by 9/11 or 7/7 when you
consider the US's murderous history in the Middle East. Hitchens told
him he'd picked the wrong city and the wrong month to make that point,
to which he received a mighty round of boos.
I think Hitchens' biggest error was in continually returning to what I
think is an obscure point and it seemed largely lost on the crowd --
Galloway's supposed involvement in the Oil for Food scandal. Not many
people have followed the small details nor are they intimately aware
of Galloway's alleged connections. But Hitchens thought if he could he
paint Galloway as friendly w/ dictators it would follow that he could
easily discredit the rest of his argument. Hitchens' supporters take
it as an article of faith that Galloway is guilty as charged by
Hitchens (although Hitchens is the only one who has charged him) and
the net is already buzzing with people mimicking Hitchens' accusations
-- Galloway is "the piggy eyes of fascism" says Hitchens; yes, he is,
say his supporters with their arms in the air. Yet the Bush
administration, Hitchens' heros of the moment, are known to be close
with Uzbekistan's dictator Karimov and I have yet to hear Hitchens
address this, to name but one example. What he accusses Galloway of
he'll excuse in Bush and the neo-cons.
Towards the end Galloway hinted at physically assaulting Hitchens, to
which Hitchens welcomed the threat. Galloway called him a popinjay
once again, to which Hitchens said, That is true, I am a popinjay
according to the original Websters definition of the word. The insult
was funnier the first time, and Hitchens' retort was less funny still.
For one of the last questions, Amy Goodman asked Hitchens if he found
himself treated with more kindness by the media now that he'd become
pro-war. He flat-out refused to answer the question -- he even said he
thought it was a dumb question and he didn't want to answer it --
presumably because it makes him uncomfortable. Look at him though --
he's on every single network all the time, and this surely wasn't
happening before his conversion. He's become a celebrity from his
pro-war stance and he's enjoying the attention.
At one point Galloway seemed so bored by Hitchens that he started to
shine his shoes. Similarly, Hitchens took a cigarette and lighter out
and acted like he couldn't wait for Galloway to shut-up so he could go
outside and smoke. It's this small detail that almost encapsulates the
night; it was a show as much as anything. But behind this is of course
a very serious issue -- the most serious on the table at the moment,
which is the one thing both sides will agree on. The striking
difference between the sides, I think, is this: The pro-war people
have won, they're still winning, and they'll continue to win for as
long as we can tell. Does anyone really think the troops are coming
home anytime soon? So why are they so defensive? A handful of people
are loudly making the case against the war right now and the pro-war
crowd, in reaction, acts like they've been backed up against the wall.
I suspect they're so defensive because they know, as everyone does,
that things are going horribly in Iraq. And they also know that public
support for the war is in decline. It comes down to this - the pro-war
crowd doesn't have to spend their time doing anything other than
attacking anyone who speaks against the war. No, their work has been
done for them by the 2 most powerful nations.
Who won? Like I said, I think Galloway relishes the public debate and
seemed more at home. But Hitchens' supporters will obviously tell you
Hitchens won. They're both characters - clown-like at times - but I
also think both are dead serious about their positions, and about each
other. I don't think Galloway is the perfect spokesman for the
anti-war movement, but right about now he's the making the case
against war louder than just about anyone else. And I'll take his
position over the respectable but cautious anti-war Democrats who say,
"Well, maybe we should start bringing the troops home around October
2006," a date we know from experience will soon be January 07 and on."
Thanks again to Tom Gilmore for the report.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
George Galloway, MP US TOUR - starting in Boston!
Stand Up and Be Counted: No to War and Occupation
The George Galloway US Tour
September 13-24: Boston, New York, Toronto, Madison, Chicago,
Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.
All the details are here:
http://www.mrgallowaygoestowashington.com/
BOSTON: September 13, Faneuil Hall, 6:30pm
Tickets available at Ticketmaster for $10
http://www.ticketweb.com/t3/event/EventListings?orgId=10553
Ticketmaster by Phone - 1-866-468-7619 ask for the George Galloway,
MP Tour
Seating is limited to first 900!
on Tuesday Galloway heads to New York City for a debate with Christopher Hitchens.
My friend Tom Gilmore will be there to cover the scene.
George Galloway is Respect party Member of Parliament for Bethnal
Green and Bow in East London. He recently electrified the United
States with his appearance at a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations hearing on May 17, when he turned the proceedings into
a condemnation of the war in Iraq. CNN's Wolf Blitzer described
Galloway's speech in the Senate as "a blistering attack on US
senators rarely heard" in Washington.
Galloway's new book is Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington (The New
Press) and will be published and timed for national release in
bookstores in conjunction with the tour.
National Tour sponsored by: The New Press, International Socialist
Review, Center for Economic Research and Social Change, the National
Council of Arab Americans
Boston Co-Sponsors: Traprock Peace Center
The George Galloway US Tour
September 13-24: Boston, New York, Toronto, Madison, Chicago,
Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.
All the details are here:
http://www.mrgallowaygoestowashington.com/
BOSTON: September 13, Faneuil Hall, 6:30pm
Tickets available at Ticketmaster for $10
http://www.ticketweb.com/t3/event/EventListings?orgId=10553
Ticketmaster by Phone - 1-866-468-7619 ask for the George Galloway,
MP Tour
Seating is limited to first 900!
on Tuesday Galloway heads to New York City for a debate with Christopher Hitchens.
My friend Tom Gilmore will be there to cover the scene.
George Galloway is Respect party Member of Parliament for Bethnal
Green and Bow in East London. He recently electrified the United
States with his appearance at a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations hearing on May 17, when he turned the proceedings into
a condemnation of the war in Iraq. CNN's Wolf Blitzer described
Galloway's speech in the Senate as "a blistering attack on US
senators rarely heard" in Washington.
Galloway's new book is Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington (The New
Press) and will be published and timed for national release in
bookstores in conjunction with the tour.
National Tour sponsored by: The New Press, International Socialist
Review, Center for Economic Research and Social Change, the National
Council of Arab Americans
Boston Co-Sponsors: Traprock Peace Center
Monday, April 04, 2005
Shake Hands with the Devil - April 28
Harvard Book Store Presents...
Romaeo Dallaire
Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda
In Shake Hands with the Devil,the legendary Canadian general recreates the awful history the world community chose to ignore. He also chronicles his own progression from confident Cold Warrior to devastated UN commander, and finally to retired general struggling to overcome posttraumatic stress disorder—the highest-ranking officer ever to share such experiences with readers.
Event Information
DATE: Thursday, April 28th
TIME: 6:00 PM
LOCATION: Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
JFK School of Government
Rubenstein Building, 2nd Floor
Harvard Square
Romaeo Dallaire
Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda
In Shake Hands with the Devil,the legendary Canadian general recreates the awful history the world community chose to ignore. He also chronicles his own progression from confident Cold Warrior to devastated UN commander, and finally to retired general struggling to overcome posttraumatic stress disorder—the highest-ranking officer ever to share such experiences with readers.
Event Information
DATE: Thursday, April 28th
TIME: 6:00 PM
LOCATION: Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
JFK School of Government
Rubenstein Building, 2nd Floor
Harvard Square
Friday, March 04, 2005
Post-Mondovino
The documentary is as they say a bit rambling but good in terms of bringing out the personalitites involved in the wine trade. It focuses on the business aspect and concepts of cultural identity. At 137 minutes it does seem a bit much, but I can sympathize with the director's objective of presenting a fuller picture of the industry. Apparently it was edited down from 500 minutes of footage and marginally shorter than the 3 hour cut that was shown at Cannes. It is all shot in DV so you needn't worry too much about seeing it on a smaller screen. I do think it will work better in televised form. A projected series for the BBC is in the works-- in smaller segments, the subject will be more digestible.
The post-film discussion with Jonathan Nossiter (the director), a professor of French, and Niall Ferguson, was exceptionally lively due to Mr. Ferguson's presence. Ostensibly he was on the panel due to his books on the history of the House of Rothschild. He primarily attempts to 'follow the money' and leave politics to the wayside-- but is it not impossible to seperate the two? Needless to say, Mr. Nossiter and Mr. Ferguson's agendas and viewpoints could not be further from each other. Mr. Nossiter was visibly irritated by Mr. Ferguson's presence as he failed to see the novelty of Mr. Nossiter's film. As far as Mr. Ferguson was concerned, this documentary presented 'business as usual' in the wine industry. He was not exactly denying the effect of globalization but rather explaining that there are historical parallels to it that should not be overlooked. Mr. Ferguson's contrarian tactics while on the one hand provided some balance to the evening's proceedings they also deeply infuriated the director, who claimed that after touring with this film in 15 countries, this has been the only place where he was verbally taken to task. I do think it is naieve for Mr. Nossiter to claim that his documentary doesn't present an argument, it shows how the wine industry has changed rapidly in the past 20 years primarily due to marketing-- and who is responsible for this. This film will encourage debate (as it already has in France) about the practices of this industry-- and how much people are willing to believe. How manufactured confidence manipulates the market. It is less an expose than a film that allows the general public to view and hear the personalities involved in the production and dissemination of wine. What really makes the film are the vibrant and dogmatic personalities involved.
(As a side note the French Professor mentioned Olivier Assays' film "Les Destinées Sentimentales", which is based on the book by Jacques Chardonne (who was a Fascist) which regards the forturnes of a family who is in the Congac trade during the First World War. Unfortunately I don't think his book has been translated into English.)
Mondovino is due to play at the Museum of Fine Arts here in Boston from April 15th onwards.
Mondovino:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0411674/
http://www.mondovino-lefilm.com/
Niall Ferguson:
http://www.makeoutcity.com/Categories/People/NiallFerguson/
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/12/phillipsfein2512.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,891477,00.html
Les Destinées Sentimentales:
http://www.wellspring.com/lesdestinees/assayas.htm
The post-film discussion with Jonathan Nossiter (the director), a professor of French, and Niall Ferguson, was exceptionally lively due to Mr. Ferguson's presence. Ostensibly he was on the panel due to his books on the history of the House of Rothschild. He primarily attempts to 'follow the money' and leave politics to the wayside-- but is it not impossible to seperate the two? Needless to say, Mr. Nossiter and Mr. Ferguson's agendas and viewpoints could not be further from each other. Mr. Nossiter was visibly irritated by Mr. Ferguson's presence as he failed to see the novelty of Mr. Nossiter's film. As far as Mr. Ferguson was concerned, this documentary presented 'business as usual' in the wine industry. He was not exactly denying the effect of globalization but rather explaining that there are historical parallels to it that should not be overlooked. Mr. Ferguson's contrarian tactics while on the one hand provided some balance to the evening's proceedings they also deeply infuriated the director, who claimed that after touring with this film in 15 countries, this has been the only place where he was verbally taken to task. I do think it is naieve for Mr. Nossiter to claim that his documentary doesn't present an argument, it shows how the wine industry has changed rapidly in the past 20 years primarily due to marketing-- and who is responsible for this. This film will encourage debate (as it already has in France) about the practices of this industry-- and how much people are willing to believe. How manufactured confidence manipulates the market. It is less an expose than a film that allows the general public to view and hear the personalities involved in the production and dissemination of wine. What really makes the film are the vibrant and dogmatic personalities involved.
(As a side note the French Professor mentioned Olivier Assays' film "Les Destinées Sentimentales", which is based on the book by Jacques Chardonne (who was a Fascist) which regards the forturnes of a family who is in the Congac trade during the First World War. Unfortunately I don't think his book has been translated into English.)
Mondovino is due to play at the Museum of Fine Arts here in Boston from April 15th onwards.
Mondovino:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0411674/
http://www.mondovino-lefilm.com/
Niall Ferguson:
http://www.makeoutcity.com/Categories/People/NiallFerguson/
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/12/phillipsfein2512.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,891477,00.html
Les Destinées Sentimentales:
http://www.wellspring.com/lesdestinees/assayas.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
