Chopin: Desire for Love

The other day I watched Jerzy Antczak's musical biography Chopin: Desire for Love on DVD. It is the third film about Chopin and Georges Sand that I have seen. First there was the dazzlingly lush and sentimenal 1945 Hollywood classic: Song to Remember, starring Paul Muni, Merle Oberon, and Cornel Wilde as Chopin. Then, Jame LaPine's quirky American independent remake starring Hugh Grant. Judy Davis, Bernadette Peters, Emma Thompson, Julian Sands, Mandy Patinkin: Impromptu. Now--Chopin: Desire for Love. The latest looks at the story of George Sand and Frederic Chopin from a Polish perspective, and is just fascinating because it is so different.

Of course, I'm biased. Jerzy Antczak was my teacher at UCLA in the 1980s. He was a superb instructor, and as part of our course he screened his 1976 historical epic Nights and Days for us, a Polish War and Peace or Gone with the Wind. It was fascinating, because the style was so different from that of an American film. There was a wildness and intensity and spontaneity that was at first confusing, but seemed to a sort of signature style. In any case, he was trying to make another film, and I felt bad for him that Hollywood didn't seem supportive. I was afraid he'd never do another picture. We lost touch over the years, as I moved away from filmmaking and into Washington, DC think-tank circles.

When I went off to Moscow to teach last year I learned that after many years, Jerzy had indeed made another film, about Chopin. That would be interesting. Well, I thought, I'll be near Poland, maybe I can visit. So I emailed him, only to find out that he was still in Los Angeles. He was friendly, and offered to send me a copy of the picture, but I hesitated. What if I didn't like it? I wouldn't want to hurt his feelings...

Last week I bit the bullet, and ordered it from Netflix. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I really enjoyed it. After living in Russia and the former Soviet Union, I found he really captured something in the oppressive relationship between the Russian Grand Duke and Chopin--something I found in the post-Soviet space when it came to personal relations. Chopin had to leave before he suffocated.

Now, it seems to me that in telling Chopin's story, Jerzy was telling his own story of moving to Hollywood. I don't know if there's a George Sand in his life, but the very end, where Chopin's sister takes his heart back to Poland, struck me as a message from Jerzy, as well as a comment on Chopin. Wherever he lived, his heart was still in Poland.

The film has outraged some music lovers and Chopin fans (not to mention fans of George Sand), because unlike other versions, this Polish film depicts Chopin as spoiled, petulant, and childish. And Georges Sand as an inconsiderate and selfish woman who sacrifices her family to her young lover. But somehow, it makes more sense than either the very cutesy lovebirds in Impromptu or the dramatically romantic couple in Song to Remember. (Though I still love the Hollywood classic).

If I hadn't watched the other films, I might have been bothered. But having seen some talented and creative people acting badly, the "warts-and-all" approach Antczak chose for Chopin: Desire for Love, made a lot of sense to me. Yes, these people had problems, psychologically and emotionally. And yet because of, or in spite of, these problems, they made beautiful music and literature together.

In a sense, you come away saying to yourself, I'd like to listen to his music, but I'm not sure I would want to live with Frederic Chopin. The beauty of his music came for his yearning for a better life--a desire for love that perhaps was never fully realized in his lifetime.

Anyway, I'd recommend this film with the warning that this Chopin is not a pleasant fellow (he's certainly no Tom Hulce as a giggling Mozart), and unless you know something of the story of Chopin's life, the dramatic montage may be a little difficult to follow. That said, it is really a beautiful picture.

Add it to your Netflix queue.

UPDATE: Through a google ad on this blog, I found a link to the Carthusian cell where Chopin composed music in Majorca, Spain, which plays a role in the film, here. It is now a Chopin museum.

Moscow? Tashkent? No--Albany, NY . . .

Empire State Plaza, 2005

The Australian on Ariel Sharon

Martin Chulov writes:

What next for Israel is a question intrinsically tied to the immediate future of the Middle East. The options for much of the Arab world are not appealing. A time of turmoil appears certain in Israel, at a juncture in the region where time cannot be spared. Gaza, the February 2005 peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, the formation of Kadima and the UN speech convinced a reluctant Arab world that Sharon had matured into a Jewish leader they could deal with.

There is no one of his stature waiting in the wings, except perhaps the perennial loser of Israeli elections, the 82-year-old Shimon Peres, who split from the Labor Party to follow Kadima after being cast aside by his partyroom. Peres and Sharon are the only two lions left from the Ben-Gurion days. Alongside Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak they are the last living historic political figures in the region.

But there are serious doubts that Peres, also a political turncoat, could unify the disparate band of political refugees that comprises Kadima. They were there because of one man's vision and presence. The group may retain the vision, but, without Sharon's presence, Kadima is set to crumble. It is not without irony that Sharon fell on the day Kadima was officially registered as a political party.

Neurosurgeons at the Hadassah Hospital will gradually try to wake the comatose Israeli giant to assess the damage his massive stroke caused. As they do so, many Israelis will be making amateur medical assessments of their own, such as why their prime minister was given blood-thinning medication known to be linked to cerebral haemorrhaging or why he was taken one hour away to Jerusalem, past an emergency ward much closer to his farm.

They will also want to know why surgeons waited three weeks to schedule minor surgery to correct the congenital hole in his heart. Sharon's stroke came less than 11 hours before he was due to be readmitted after the minor collapse he suffered on December 18. There is, of course, an outside chance that Sharon may make a Lazarus-like return to health. But even then, his authority to lead will have died. In its absence, the region faces upheaval, and a startling awakening.

The end of the line for Sharon has revealed a sign of the times. Stability had been brought to the Middle East not by Arab wise men, but by a Jewish warrior.

Michael Barone on How Blogs Changed American Politics

Writing in US News and World Report, Barone declares that blogs helped Bush and the Republicans by discrediting the mainstream media, while simultaneously moving Democrats to the fringes of the left, rather than back to the center:

The right blogosphere's greatest triumph came after CBS's Dan Rather on September 8 reported that Bush had shirked duty in the National Guard and the network posted its 1972-dated documents on the Web. Within four hours, a blogger on freerepublic.com pointed out that they looked as though they had been created in Microsoft Word; the next morning, Scott Johnson of powerlineblog.com relayed the comment and asked for expert views. Charles Johnson of littlegreenfootballs.com showed that the documents exactly matched one he produced in Word using default settings. CBS defended the documents for 11 days but finally confessed error and eased Rather out as anchor. MSM tried to defeat Bush but instead only discredited itself. The Pew Center's post-election poll showed a sharp decline in the credibility of newspapers and broadcast TV and a sharp increase in reliance on cable news, especially Fox News, and radio.

So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.

This 'n That on West Virginia's Coal Mine Tragedy

Hollywood blogger This 'n That compares yesterday's tragic news from West Virginia to what happens in Billy Wilder's classic film Ace in the Hole.(Amazon.com photo credit David Forehand)

Agustin Blazquez's New Documentary to Premiere in Miami

Just received this email today:

Dear Readers,

Agustin Blazquez and Jaums Sutton's important new documentary, Covering Cuba 4: The Rats Below, will premiere Saturday, January 21 at 8pm at the Tower Theater in Miami (1508 SW Eighth St.). It's free and will be followed by a panel discussion I'm in.

More information about the documentary is at Cuba Collectibles . I hope to see you there and encourage you to spread the word!

Best,

Myles

Presented by Miami Dade College

COVERING CUBA 4
THE RATS BELOW
(with Spanish subtitles)

US Corporate collaboration with totalitarian Cuba!
The truth about the Elian Gonzalez affair!
What the American liberal media won’t tell!
This complex story unravels through the testimonies of:

DAVID HOECH, DELFIN GONZALEZ, DENNIS K. HAYS, JAMES B. LIEBER,

JIM GUIRARD, LARRY KLAYMAN, MYLES KANTOR and the late REED IRVINE


featuring the songs “Solo Un Niño,” written and performed by
LUISA MARIA GÜELL
and “Sin Esperanzas,” written and performed by
GUSTAVO REX

Contacts: Alejandro Rios: 305-237-7482 & 305-989-1701
Beverly Counts Rodrigues, Director of Public Relations with the Press: 305-237-3949

COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below available through www.CubaCollectibles.com

also available COVERING CUBA 3: Elian the real story of injustice and deception by the U.S. government and the American media, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation is a tool to bypass the wall of censorship of the U.S. media that prevents the average American citizen from learning and understanding why Cuban Americans act the way they do in their quest for freedom and democracy for their homeland and CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles is a nostalgic visual and musical memory dating from pre-Columbian times to January 1, 1959. There is no narration to distract from the visuals or the music, just a few subtitles indicating the year and the places throughout the six original Cuban provinces. This enchanting documentary features 26 glorious melodies by the great Cuban composers performed by Cuban artists.

La Stampa on Russia v Ukraine

Today's Johnson's Russia List has this interesting article from La Stampa (translated by BBC Monitoring) explaining what Putin is up to in Urkaine:

BBC Monitoring
West forces Russia "play defence" if it is not treated as partner - analyst
Source: La Stampa website, Turin, in Italian 4 Jan 06

Text of interview with Russian political scientist Nadia Arbatova by
Francesca Sforza, in Moscow, date not given, entitled "'The West does not
understand how Putin's mind works'", published by Italian newspaper La
Stampa website on 4 January; first paragraph is La Stampa introduction

Moscow: The West's mistake? "You do not understand Vladimir Putin," said
Nadia Arbatova, director of the Institute of European Political Studies at
the Academy of Sciences in Moscow and head of the Russia in a United Europe
Committee. Much listened to in the Kremlin, but often tending in the
opposite direction compared to the ideas of the presidential
administration, Arbatova is convinced that too many post-Cold War
prejudices are still enduring between Russia and Western democracies, and
that the gas war with Ukraine - which broke out at the same time as the
first Russian presidency in the history of the G8 started - has shown once
again how much certain attitudes inherited from the past are hard to kill.

[La Stampa] Nadia Arbatova. Is Moscow's decision to shut off the gas taps
to Kiev a response to the Orange Revolution?

[Arbatova] I believe the question has to be framed in a broader context.
Moscow has not reacted against the legitimate desire of the Ukrainians to
choose their own leader, nor can it be said that cutting off the gas to
Kiev is the direct consequence of the waving of flags in Maidan
[(Independence) Square] a year ago.

Instead, Russia is worried about the enlargement of NATO to countries
traditionally in its sphere of influence and especially the fear of
remaining excluded from the big alliances. It is pointless to deny that
Moscow has special interests in the former Soviet republics - that that is
certainly not a crime - but my impression is that the Western democracies
have refused to accept this reality as a given geopolitical fact.

[La Stampa] Who has erred more in this negotiation?

[Arbatova] There have been mistakes by both sides. From the beginning, Kiev
showed itself reluctant to accept an increase based on the new laws of the
market - to which, in contrast, it gave its approval when it obtained the
status of market economy from the European Commission - and Russia, on the
other hand, made a mistake in not understanding that Kiev needs time to
build a stable economy.

[La Stampa] You must admit that interrupting the supply of gas is not a way
to facilitate a calm resumption of the negotiations on the prices. How do
you think it will be possible to go back to sitting down around the same table?

[Arbatova] What for the Western countries constitutes a reason for outrage
does not have the same importance, for example, to the Ukrainians
themselves, who in fact responded with the same language, illegally
withdrawing gas, as they have always done in the past. I understand the
bewilderment of the West, but this is about different languages, which have
to do with a long history of bilateral relations and which cannot be
replaced overnight by systems imported from Washington or Brussels. We can
debate ad infinitum about which of the two systems is the best, but in the
meantime why not recognize that there are, first of all, two different systems.

[La Stampa] So you believe that the negotiations will resume as if nothing
had happened?

[Arbatova] I think precisely that. Of course, now we are in a delicate
phase, where many sensitivities have been hurt, and there has been a
succession of mistakes by both sides, partly because at stake in this
negotiation is not only the question of the price of gas, but the future
balance between Moscow and Kiev. It is necessary to decide what type of
relationship we want to have, whether based on the laws of the market
economy or on other political objectives. If Ukraine wants to be completely
independent of Moscow, then I believe it is necessary to give it enough time.

[La Stampa] Russia has just assumed the presidency of the G8, and many
Western leaders think that Putin wants to play the energy card to put a new
power politics into operation.

[Arbatova] Russia is important for Europe and for all countries, but I
believe that the system of relations must now set itself a further goal. If
the West continues to perceive Russia as a threat, it is obvious that the
Russians will be forced to play defence; if, on the other hand, there is
the political will to start thinking of Russia as a partner, to involve it
in the decisions in an equal manner, then it is necessary for the West to
change its attitude towards Moscow.

A stroke of key

A stroke of key is a Russian blog that links to this website. I'll add it (and Netflix Fan) to my blogroll, asap. So check it out...

The Secrets of Netflix

Can be found on the Netflix Fan blog . . .

Haaretz's Q & A with Ehud Olmert

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmertanswered questions in a revealing online interview with Haaretz.com last June 15th, which noted that the former Mayor of Jerusalem and Minister for Minorities (Arabs) "... is the most prominent supporter among Likud ministers of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. He was the first politician on the right to enunciate the basic principles behind this plan..." Now, he's Prime Minster, and the interview is even more interesting than the first time round, since it gives some clue as to where he plans to take Israel.

Konstantin On Russian Ukrainian Gas War

I guess I'm not all alone after all. Konstantin's Russian Blog says Western criticism of Russia is ridiculous:

The way Western mainstream media “analyzed” Russian-Ukrainian natural gas crisis is the peak of idiocy. It simply incredible – a cocktail of logical inconsistencies, libel, juggling with fact and outright political propaganda. Just one “analytical” pearl that covers it all – Ukraine rightly refused to accept four times price hike as this price would ruin its economy. Does it mean that when natural gas prices would drop four times Russia would have the right to demand that Europeans pay the old price? Because such low prices would ruin Russian economy? Because well being of Russians depends on high gas prices? Because Evil West uses natural gas prices as an instrument of political blackmail? Because they want to put Putin on his knees? Would good Europeans agree with such arguments? I doubt it strongly. Actually I’m absolutely sure that Europeans would discard such arguments as stupid and silly. Somehow this perverse logic works well when it comes to Ukraine.

Now, if I could only find a non-Russian who saw things this way...

Where Do Our Readers Come From?

Washington Post Praises Bull Moose

I've had a link in my blogroll for a little while, and today the Washington Post is puffing Bull Moose, aka Marshall Wittman. Most of what they say is true about him being a nice guy, he's always been nice to me. For example, when he headed the Washington office of the Christian Coalition in the 90s, Marshall invited me to give a talk on Woodstock at their annual convention -- as part of a panel on the cultural legacy of the 60s. It was pretty high-level, and intellectually interesting. (That's when I saw the unfunny "comedian" Al Franken in person for the first time, but not at our panel.) Marshall moved on his way, and I moved on my way, but I've always thought he was not mean--which is a rarity in Washington. So, he deserves all the nice words in the Washington Post today. Congratulations, Marshall!

Now, will Wittmann finally get a slot on CNN?

Tucker Carlson on the Jack Abramoff Scandal

Tucker Carlson turns state's evidence against his former conservative colleagues on MSNBC:

Why were supposedly honest ideological conservatives like Sheldon and Reed and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist involved with Jack Abramoff in the first place? Keep in mind that Abramoff's business wasn't just gambling, which by itself should have been enough to scare off professional moralizers like Sheldon. Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist for Indian gambling. Over the years Abramoff and his now-indicted partner took more than $80 million from a half a dozen tribes in return for their efforts to keep Indian gambling revenues tax free.

Step back and think about this for a second. Indian tribes get a special pass from the federal government to run a high-margin monopoly simply because they are Indian tribes, which is to say, simply because of their ethnicity. This is the worst, least fair form of affirmative action, and it should be anathema to conservatives. Conservatives are supposed to support the idea of a meritocracy, a country where hard work not heredity is the key to success and everyone is equal before the law. Conservatives should despise Indian gambling on principal.

And some still do. But others got rich from it, and now they're likely headed to jail. I'll be cheering as they're sentenced. Weirdos and charlatans and self-interested hacks like Lou Sheldon and Grover Norquist have long discredited the conservative ideas they purport to represent. Their political allies in Washington and Congress may be tempted to defend them. I hope they don't. We'll all be better off when they're gone.

Russia, Ukraine: "Let's Make a Deal!"

It's all over but the shouting, according to Reuters.

I still say Russia won this particular confrontation with the West. Let's see how the G-8 summit turns out...

The Washington Post on What's Wrong with USAID

Today's Washington Post editorial about serious problems with US foreign aid programs is so good, I'm going to quote it in full. Whoever wrote it knows what they are talking about. (This seems like the tip of the iceberg, I wish the Post would run one of those multi-part investigations they do so well.).

I'm especially glad that the Post discusses the harm done by working through NGOs. I could not have said it better myself.

Here's their editorial:

Reforming Foreign Assistance

Tuesday, January 3, 2006; A16

THE BUSH administration has done more to expand foreign assistance than any administration since John F. Kennedy's. According to the measures used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. government aid came to more than $19 billion in 2004, nearly double what it was in 2000. But the government's competence in dispensing this aid is questionable, and the Bush administration knows it. The president's team deserves support from Congress in its efforts to improve aid's efficacy. Unfortunately, it may come up against suspicion and resistance fueled by self-interest.

The core problem in foreign aid is to strike a balance between legitimate oversight of how tax dollars are spent and counterproductive overregulation. In the 1980s a congressional backlash against corruption in aid triggered an increase in Washington oversight that went too far, causing a new form of waste more pernicious than the old sort. Because some aid money routed through government ministries in poor countries had gone astray, Congress insisted that future aid be routed through nongovernmental organizations with good accounting capabilities. In practice, this meant the money went to U.S.-based groups with high overheads. Many did good work, but their costs exceeded those of ministries and aid groups in the developing world, even allowing for some corruption. Moreover, the reliance on U.S. organizations undermined poor countries' sense of ownership of their development programs, damaging the long-term struggle to foster self-sufficiency.

This error led directly to a second one. Having decided to route aid money through U.S.-based groups, Congress began to micromanage how that money would be spent, depriving recipient countries not only of managerial control but also of a say in their own development priorities. The new cohort of U.S.-based aid contractors encouraged this process by lobbying Congress to protect their programs with budget earmarks; this undermined the priority-setting power of the administration as well as of recipient countries. The result was an aid program not only high on contractors' head-office costs but also low on flexibility. As if to parody its own mania for control, Congress went so far as to mandate that U.S.-financed building in developing countries should comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The result is that remote clinics in Afghanistan have wheelchair ramps; never mind that there are no wheelchairs in the vicinity.

This mess was compounded by a final mistake during the 1990s. Faced with a Congress that had grown more skeptical of aid even as it had seized minute control over its disbursement, the Clinton administration smuggled foreign-assistance cash into other parts of the federal budget. The result is a U.S. aid program that's split among more than a dozen spending accounts, some of which duplicate efforts and some of which may even work at cross-purposes.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to rationalize this situation. Her team talks mainly about setting priorities for aid rather than letting a patchwork of earmarks and scattered spending accounts putter along without central coordination, but Andrew S. Natsios, the outgoing administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, is also eloquent on the case for local ownership of aid programs. The administration should be encouraged to turn its tentative discussions into a robust reform initiative. But already there have been complaints that the administration is trying to "politicize" U.S. assistance by asserting State Department control -- an odd objection considering how political aid is already. These suspicions of politicization are likely to be compounded by obstruction from U.S.-based aid contractors, who will resent a threat to their earmarks. This resistance must be understood for what it is: special-interest lobbying that hardly serves the interests of poor countries.

Gas--the New Oil

I may the only one who believes this--I can't even convince people I know--but it looks to me like Russia is winning the Ukrainian gas showdown. Here's what the Financial Times has to say:

Gas supplies to Europe returned to normal on Tuesday after Russia restored pipeline deliveries under heavy international pressure. However, Gazprom said Europe’s gas supplies remained under threat as it would not continue to compensate indefinitely for gas “stolen” by Ukraine. “Sooner or later Ukraine will have to pay for this,” said Sergei Kupriyanov, a spokesman for Gazprom.

Ukrainian officials have admitted to taking an unspecified amount from the pipeline but claimed it was gas from Turkmenistan that travels along the same route.

Russia said it was buying up all available Turkmen gas and there was none spare for Ukraine. Officials maintain that any gas taken by Ukraine from the pipeline is therefore Russian gas stolen from European customers.

In other words, Russia was correct to charge Ukraine with diverting European gas, which means Russia was supplying Europe as promised, although not Ukraine. It was Ukraine, not Russia, that proved to be an unreliable supplier, because gas was diverted before being delivered to customers.

Now none of this matters right now, while the EU and US are beating up on Russia. But it matters in Russia. Russia wasn't going to keep Ukraine shut off, IMHO. They were sending a message, a shot across the bow, "probing with bayonets" in Leninist terminology. Russia was reminding Europe that destabilizing Russia could affect EU energy security. What if Putin's government were overthrown, and every local oblast diverted gas promised to the EU? Well, it wouldn't be a pretty picture for Germany and others dependent on Russian gas.

Yes, there was a political message to the EU and US. I'll translate for you: Stop trying to push Russia around.

At the time of the Orange Revolution, an American diplomat gloated to me, "What can Russia do?"

Now Russia has shown that there is at least one thing she can do. Like the OPEC boycott of 1973, which shifted money and power to the Arabs in the global economy, Russia's move is a step towards shifting money and power back to the post-Soviet space. With Russia planning to rebuild its Army and Navy, those LNG tankers from Qatar won't be more secure unless the EU, US and Russia are all on the same page. And Russia can sell a lot of its oil and gas to China, if the EU and US don't want to play ball.

Yes, it was a crude power play by Putin. But IMHO, I think the message was received. We'll be able to test this hypothesis empirically. If Russia is treated with as much respect as Saudia Arabia by the EU and US from now on, it means that Russia played its hand correctly.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one, after all. Alexei has this comment posted on Tim Newman's White Sun of the Desert:

By the way, Gazprom’s new Ukraine tactic has nothing to do with the Cold War (The Economist must be desperately in love with Yulia Timoshenko but that doesn’t make them less superficial). Gazprom is not jeopardizing Europe’s gas supply, that much is obvious. Whether they can force Ukraine to pay what Europe pays for its gas is questionable but at least they have already exposed the Ukrainian importer’s theft of Gazprom gas. It might be the most sensible thing Gazprom has done since Putin installed the new management.

After Moxie (WARNING: If you don't like catblogging, skp this post!)

Our cat Moxie died suddenly last Wednesday, just fell over and was gone within a minute. It was a real "sudden death." We had never seen such a thing. One moment she was there, the next--gone. The vet couldn't find anything wrong at the autopsy, told us it was probably a birth defect. The Birman breed is known for them. It was strange because we had kept her inside and were very protective after losing two previous cats last year. One was probably kidnapped, the other hit by a car in an alley (we blame a silent Prius). But Moxie's life was shorter than the cats who went out. For a week the world seemed very dark. We cancelled a planned trip because we couldn't deal with the suddenness.

The story has a bittersweet ending, luckily. Yesterday, someone we know, in a pure coincidence, showed up with a kitten from her sister's cat, who had a litter. Did we want him? Yes. He doesn't have a name yet, though we went to the vet today and were told he's in good shape, about 10 weeks old, and tested negative for feline leukemia virus. We think we'll keep him... and I'll post a photo later.

White Sun of the Desert

Through a link on Registan, I came across Tim Newman's blog, which he calls White Sun of the Desert. For those who don't know Russia, it is the title of a classic Russian film about Central Asia...

BTW, Tim Newman has an analysis of the current Russia-Ukraine Gazprom dispute, too. (He works in Dubai.)

The American Thinker on "Transgressive" Art

Turns out, it's really not transgressive, after all...