Radio Drama Review: ‘The Hand’ by Guy de Maupassant

by Laura Lai/Review

While I was trying to decide on which radio drama to listen in English, I came across the play ‘A Slight Ache’ by Harold Pinter, the British dramatist awarded in 2005 the Nobel Prize for Literature. I will definitely review it for next month, because my attention was caught by a shorter radio play (approx. 25 minutes) of the French writer Guy de Maupassant: ‘The Hand’.

Guy de Maupassant (1850-1893) is known as a short-stories writer and as novelist, and from all his novels for ‘Bel-Ami’, which inspired film directors, too. More than twenty years ago, following a French language contest in which I did very well (as I usually did to all French language contests), one of the books I was ‘awarded’ was the novel ‘Bel-Ami’ by Guy de Maupassant. I wonder how many teenage pupils would study very hard nowadays, for contests in order to win … books. Anyway, the point is that Guy de Maupassant is not known as a dramatist. However, Radio BBC adapted ‘The Hand’ for radio and broadcasted it in 1976, dramatized by Michael Robson and directed by Derek Hoddinott.

            This ‘mysterious and hideous’ story is told by one of the characters, Bermutier, five years after it actually happened. The story is placed at the house of Sir John Rowell, in Corsica in 1880. In his study he holds a human hand that is hold chained because Sir John is convinced that the hand has a life of itself and it can attack; he also keeps it as a bait for whom owns the hand. It actually belonged to a giant (Chavanne) followed by the French troops, caught, shot in his leg and to whom they cut the right hand and gave it to Sir John. Due to the fact that a human hand having its own life and being able to attack sounds like madness, Bermutier conducts an investigation. But his investigation did not show proves of people around Sir John manipulating him into madness. It actually proved that Sir John was having a very loyal servant, Olivier, and a brother living in the UK, who was inheriting Sir John, but who was not hurrying his death or manipulating him into madness, so that he can inherit him sooner. The end of the play is dramatic, ‘mysterious and hideous’, showing that the hand had a life of its own, as Sir John assumed.

Therefore, the first thing that made me listen to this play, was the fact that I was not familiar with Guy de Maupassant as a dramatist and I was curious to listen his play. The second thing that was like an invitation to listen to this play was the picture used when recently uploading it on You Tube (July, 2019): the picture of a hand on a tree. It reminded me of the picture of Honoré de Balzac’s right hand on a paper and his last few words. Balzac is the greatest French realist writer, who died in 1850 – the year of de Maupassant’s birth.

            And I am glad that I could listen to the play ‘The Hand’ by Guy de Maupassant, because I discovered a play in which the author broke Aristotle’s principles of time and space, still remaining so intriguing and so captivating that it was adapted for radio by the BBC itself.

Creative Writing Exercise # 10: The 75-Word Sentence

by Laura Lai/Uncategorized

I have just read of a creative writing exercise formulated by the Australian Writers' Centre (AWC) and because I liked the challenge I thought to try and see if a political sentence in English can actually be … so looong. I know that in Italian the sentences can be very long, and I also know that in German only one word, such as ‘Politikwissenschaften’ (Political Sciences) can be half a line. Therefore I wrote an as-long-as-I-could political sentence in English:

‘The Prime Minister Boris Johnson tries for the 3^rd time already to push for general elections in the United Kingdom – an initiative which needs the approval of 434 of the British MPs – because he considers that the UK Brexit process – a political saga rolling on for several years – is held hostage by the current members of the British Parliament and because he believes that a change of the political architecture of the British Parliament may be more in favor of … releasing Brexit from the kind of ‘House arrest’ it is now held.’ (93 Words)

Then I was very surprised myself that a political sentence can be so long and that I actually need to make it shorter, meaning that I have to make it an exactly 75-word sentence:

‘Boris Johnson tries for the 3^rd time to push for general elections – an initiative for which he needs the approval of 434 British MPs – because he considers that the Brexit process is held hostage by the current members of the Parliament and because he believes that a change of the political architecture of the British Parliament may be more in favor of … releasing Brexit from the kind of ‘House arrest’ it is now held.’ (75 Words)

Now I am happy that I formulated my political sentence in 75 words. I made it: My 75-word achievement! If any of you is willing to try writing a 75-word sentence, please don’t let any political initiative stop you! J

The Immigration Policy. An American, Canadian … and a Personal Perspective (I)

Photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Comment

In May 2019 the U.S. President Donald Trump announced his Administration’s new American Immigration System more merit and skill focused and points-based as Canada has, in order to replace… this current situation of either applying for H, L, O, P or Q work visa or of illegally be smuggled into the United States of America.

Smugglers’ business have been thriving, due to the fact that a work visa is difficult to get and due to the fact that the United States have no physical border, not necessarily with Canada, that is equally developed economically and it is not a source of immigration, but in the South, where the U.S. neighbors are less developed Central and South American countries and a source of massive immigration.  

Smugglers have been thriving as long as politicians hesitate what kind of immigration policy to adopt and to implement, when illegally crossing people into Europe over the Mediterranean Sea. And from a recent investigation of the journalists of LBC I have learned the way (and the price for which) each illegal immigrant is smuggled into the United Kingdom from France.  

In 2007 I applied for immigration to the French-speaking region of Canada, Quebec. I was exhausted of day internships and night study in the capital city of the European Union (with conference participations, paper presentations, etc.). I was interested in getting a job, go on with my research and pay my thesis defense from my money not my parents’ working class pension. I wanted to go to Canada to work, become a PhD in Political Sciences in Belgium and return to Canada if I was feeling great there.

The fees required to emigrate to Quebec were much lower than those required to emigrate to the English-speaking part of Canada. Given my very good level of both French and English – particularly at that time when I was using them both on daily basis – I applied. The points-system is easy to navigate, the minimum required points to apply are easy to score particularly if one is young, bilingual, a PhD candidate and has some professional experience. Besides the fees paid in order for the officials to work your dossier, there is a medical check that also costs money, in which they check for the immigrant to be healthy and not carrying contagious diseases that may put in danger the host society. The last phase is the invitation to interview. I was having a 4-month scholarship in Denmark and I had to pass the immigration interview in Vienna. In the spring of 2007, I made the trip to Vienna, passed the interview in both French and English. By the middle of August 2008 was my visa ready and I went to the Canadian Embassy in my country of origin.

I was granted the work and residence visa to Quebec, Canada. But it was valid only for two weeks until the 28^th of August 2008, while other applicants have at least one year to relocate from the moment their visa is granted. In two-week time one barely finds an affordable flight for a long-distance trip. When I asked, the woman who released my passport did not provide any argument, but answered: ‘If you don’t go in two weeks, you will never be allowed to emigrate to Canada’.

I put this expensive experience in the complex PhD experience, where I was constantly kept on paid or unpaid internships without absolutely no job perspective and in which people I met used all their resources so that I give up my PhD. I have never logically understood why it was so important for a bunch of people that I give up my PhD that was a theoretical thesis. But I know that most of them had neither the skills nor the will to do a PhD, and that they would put all their evilness in enjoying mocking somebody else’s work, time and money. The time I spent in Brussels, the so-called capital of the European Union, did not give me any feeling that I am in the heart of the European democracy, but it reminded me of the communist old times in Eastern Europe, when leaders (like Nicolae Ceausescu) with a few classes, had all the power to follow, to persecute and to massacre the intellectuals. And the communists did eliminate priests, teachers, engineers, doctors, philosophers and so on leaving the country everywhere equally uneducated. I have not met the European Union’s leaders, but associations’ leaders, all ‘small’ people – from a human and intellectual point of view – that the big European Union’s leaders are very fond of, I suppose, since this bunch of people were unaccountably allowed everything including ringing communist bells in their beloved so-called ‘heart of democracy’. (to be continued)

The Immigration Policy. An American, Canadian … and a Personal Perspective (II)

Photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Comment

The American new Immigration System is merit oriented and points-based, and it is inspired by the Canadian immigration points-based system. But Canada is not the only country having this system: Australia and New Zealand do, too. This points-system is like democracy: Although imperfect, it is the best they have. The points-system is more merit based than any other system, but it is imperfect. Authorities acknowledge this and they constantly improve it. For example, Australia has introduced in June 2019 new reforms of the points system that would give more points to those single and not necessarily with a partner (with low English skills that needs training on the expense of the society, for example), or for those choosing some areas of Australia (that need more inhabitants to sustain the local economy), etc. According to the New Zealand system, in order to be able to express your immigration interest the immigrant must score a minimum of points that is only reachable with an employment offer from a New Zealand employer that should offer the immigrant a job from a specific list of job shortage in New Zealand.

The U.S. Presidential Debate (and its 2nd part) is now at the phase of finding the right candidate from the Democrats, in order to oppose the current U.S. President Donald Trump, who campaigns to be reelected. In which concerns the U.S. immigration policy, none of the Democrats have a vision about the way it should look like that would compete with the points-based system suggested by Donald Trump. Instead they all have personal views on precise immigration matters mostly inspired by the recent crisis at the U.S. Southern Border. These personal views are about whether or not it is a civil or criminal offence to illegally cross the border; or whether or not undocumented immigrants should be allowed a health insurance; or whether or not to deport the immigrants who committed crimes in the United States, as well as different views on what ‘family reunification’ should mean.

The argument of a candidate that the U.S. needs seasonal workers (and as a consequence Trump’s policy of having a border and an organized immigration system is wrong) is not sustainable because the U.S. Embassy releases the ‘H’ visa for seasonal workers, if there is a U.S. shortage in this field. Trump’s points-based new American Immigration Policy cannot be worse than the systems applied in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where they actually been functioning for decades already and provided results to the whole of the society in term of skills, values and security.  

Furthermore, there were a lot of emotions around the situation of children in the U.S. Southern border crisis long rolling saga, the Democrats opposing the way Donald Trump separated children from their families and the fact that federal agents put children to adoption. At this point, I am not convinced that they were put to ‘adoption’, but rather to ‘foster-families’ until the situation was getting under control. The separation of children from families is terrible for both the parents and the child (and hard at all ages), but in the Southern border crisis, in which adults were undocumented, children were sold or kidnapped in order for unscrupulous adults to pose as family and the children were re-used over and over, some were abused and girls over 10 years old raped, who can possible say who’s who? Maybe separating children from so-called parents was not the most enlightened decision, but a decision must have been taken quickly and more in favor of the children than of the adults, all assuming that they were the parents of those children, but very few of them presenting any documents in this sense. 

And because I want to be as objective as possible, I would love to make Democrats a pleasure and use their arguments on immigration and apply them on their political opponent, Donald Trump. Although Donald Trump is the President of the United States, he is a citizen. And no citizen is above the law. The citizen Trump (not the President) not content with the policies of the Democrats so far, could have been himself an immigrant. The undocumented immigrant Trump is smuggled into any country in this world that the Democrats choose. Is the undocumented immigrant Trump allowed to have health care? Due to the fact that he is undocumented and illegal, he will have difficulties in finding a job. He will automatically commit a smaller or a bigger felony. Shall the host country deport him, because he did not show respect to the host country? Or shall he be forgiven and allowed to commit others against citizens who entered the country legally or have been living in that country building it with their taxes? The undocumented and illegal immigrant Donald Trump who has committed a felony in the host country, has a wife and a son back in his country of origin. Shall he be allowed to reunify with his family? And what does this mean: Shall he only be allowed to bring only the wife and son, or shall he be allowed to bring uncles and aunts, grandfathers and grandmothers? (to be continued)

The Immigration Policy. An American, Canadian … and a Personal Perspective (III)

Photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

The Canadians have federal elections on October 21^st, 2019. Due to the fact that Canada is already using a points-based system, the debate on immigration policy was precise. Similarly to Australia and New Zealand already using this immigration system, they know its weaknesses and each candidate (that represents a political party) had a concrete vision on the way the immigration policy should be improved. For example, Y.-F. Blanchet (Bloc Quebecois) suggests that all immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship in Quebec to have at least a satisfactory level of French – a justified requirement since Canada is bilingual and the immigrant applied for the whole Canadian citizenship in the French-speaking part of Canada (click here for more on the immigration policy of the BQ).

            Furthermore, J. Trudeau (Liberal Party) starts from the observation that ‘diversity is Canada’s strength. And as a consequence starting with 2021, the Liberal Party would want 350,000 immigrants and a free path to citizenship (click here for more on the immigration policy of the LPC).

            Elizabeth May (Green Party) favors immigration because of the aging population and is open to immigration, including climate refugees (click here for more on the immigration policy of GP).

            Andrew Sheer (Conservative Party) considers that the number of immigrants should change every year depending on the economic needs of Canada, and would like to strengthen legal immigration, which he considers fairer to those already in Canada (click here for more on the immigration policy of the CPC).

            J. Singh (New People’s Party) thinks that the number of immigrants should be adjusted every year depending on the needs of the Canadian economy; he considers family reunification a priority and a legal path should be found in order for the LGBT refugees to remain in Canada (click here for more on the immigration policy of the NPP).

            Maxime Bernier (People’s Party of Canada) gives also precise numbers of immigrants that Canada should receive every year, but the numbers are different than those of the Liberal Party: from 100,000 to 150,000 per year (click here for more on the immigration policy of the PPC). In which concerns the concept of ‘family reunification’, the People’s Party of Canada wants it limited to spouse and children and not the whole extended family. It would also prefer an interview, in order to assess whether or not the immigrant’s mentality can cope with the Canadians’ values (ex. equality between men and women, separation of Church and State, etc.).  

Both the United States and Canada are countries committed to immigration and to refugees trying to escape persecutions of all kinds in their countries (ex. political, religious, sexual, etc.). The best immigration policy is probably a combination of all these suggestions in a harmonized legal document, which does not impose either a small immigration number that would affect the economy or a too large number that would be too difficult for the society to financially support (ex. free language classes, inclusion workshops, building of new kindergarten, etc.).

The immigration rules are intended to protect the country and its citizens from potential terrorists or wide spread contagious diseases. And the interviews are meant to build on the same values the countries have been developing so far. The price of illegal immigration in terms of money and of physical integrity is much higher than the price of the legal immigration, although the latter is more difficult. The immigrant is by definition a person who leaves a country to build a better life in another country. The legal immigration offers the legal framework for an immigrant to legally start a new life in another country (ex. to have the right papers to get a job, to have the right documents to rent a place, to enroll children to school, etc.). The legal way is safer for both the immigrant and the country of the new residence. I can’t agree more with Andrew Sheer arguing that ‘the immigrant takes a brave decision’ when it decides to leave a country; that when taking such a decision, the immigrant is interested in ‘a better life for himself and his family’ – and that is a democratic right – and I cannot agree more that an immigrant wants to contribute to make the host country a better place.

            Why would I choose to emigrate to either Australia, Canada, New Zealand or United States? Definitely to have a better life for myself and my family, and to contribute to the host country the best I can. Listening and reading about immigration policy, about how many a country needs or does not need, whom they need and whom they do not need, reasons why we, immigrants, are needed or not, all these sound like a business. Therefore, the issue is not only what these countries need and want, but also why would an immigrant bring its skills to one of those countries. And I would bring my skills to one of these countries for several reasons.

            Firstly, I would bring my skills in one of these countries as an immigrant because hard and serious work pays off in these countries. My constant and meticulously improved skills have been done on my parents’ money and on my time, and so were the sharpening of my skills with German language classes and recent writing courses, for example. The host society would only ‘import’ and use my skills and help improve them even more, while I am simultaneously contributing to the society.

A second reason would be that the implementation of my skills and the improvement of them would be in a language I already know and the country of new residence does not have to spend a cent on my language training. To me personal it is also easier to work in a language I already know. Also in this framework as immigration as a business, I think it is more advantageous for a country to host one educated immigrant that will find a job and pay taxes to the state, rather than bring one with a partner, who may not speak English and the society must train him on public money (and sometimes be on social benefits until he learns the language) or whose doctor or engineer diploma is not recognized, etc. Even for me personally it is easier to emigrate alone and without children, because the immigration process is rough and difficult at times. It is less heart breaking for me to be temporarily on a diet, rather than to find explanations for children on why we do not have enough food. It was difficult for my parents, it is difficult for all responsible parents and it would definitely be difficult for me, too. For me it is easier and for the host country is cheaper, when as an immigrant I have contributed to the society and be on a maternity leave for a while.

Third, I would choose one of these countries because we share the same values, particularly the equality between men and women, separation of Church and State and combat through arguments and words rather than violence. I am convinced that women are at least as competent as men are, and by the way I am, I cannot accept being patronized by a man simply based on the argument that God made first the man and then the woman, although I am a Christian and a believer in God myself. I really believe in the equality between genders. And in the separation between Church and State, because the former deals with pure spiritual and magnificent things, while the latter deals with dirty political issues that the head and the body (back stage) arrange and, at the end, most of them prove completely irrelevant. 

Fourth, I chose to emigrate to either Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America because they are as far away as one can possibly go from the European Union. And I cannot possibly think of one single person or one single thing (argument) that would change my mind about staying in the European Union, as long as my parents agree that I emigrate. If I disagree with the European Union’s political project and given the undemocratic and humanly appalling way people long behaved with me while a PhD student (and afterwards), do I qualify for being a political refugee in one of these countries? (the end)

BBC Radio Drama Review: ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’

For a maximized image, please click on the cartoon.

by Laura Lai/Review

John Worthing learned the ‘vital importance of being Earnest’ when wanting to marry Lady Bracknell’s daughter, Gwendolen, who at its turn could not love any other man, but the one called ‘Earnest’.

            John invented a younger brother living in London, Earnest, so that once in a while to be able to leave for a good reason the countryside and his ward Cecily. John’s friend in London, Algernon Moncrieff, invented a sick friend living in the countryside, Bunbury, so that once in a while to be able to leave London for a good reason and go to the countryside. When Algernon meets Cecily and wants to propose to her, he discovers that she could not love any other man, but the one called ‘Earnest’. The double meaning is so well chosen that it makes the text funny and with a double meaning itself: While both Gwendolen and Cecily are so emotional that they cannot think of marrying any other man, but the one who is ‘earnest’, both John and Algernon are so pragmatic that think of rechristening themselves with the name ‘Earnest’, just for each of them to marry the woman they like.

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) is known for his satire of the high society, in general. The satire usually does not require particular metaphors and artistic epithets, but direct lines mostly said upfront. Although some ‘inexperienced’ or too sensitive people may associate a satirist with a mean and rude person, it is just a very good observer of what or of whom it satirizes. And Oscar Wilde was an extraordinary fine observer! He expressed his observations of the mentality and of the habits of the high society vividly. The irony in the satire ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’ is sweet and funny, and to me even harmless, although a ‘Society’ like the London one gathered many people. Some may have taken the satire personal, because the sense of humor one has it or doesn’t have it, regardless of whether or not it is member in a ‘Society’.  If I were a member of those times ‘London Society’ and somebody as talented as Oscar Wilde would have satirized my habits that he perceived as an outsider, I would have felt honored, most definitely would have begged to have the play dedicated to me and I would have sat in the first raw to have a good laugh about myself!

            I live in the 21^st century and look backwards at this 19^th century play that passed the test of time. I think Oscar Wilde accomplished the perfect artistic mirror, which reflects the society of his time. I consider his irony as completely harmless, because it only invites us to have a good laugh; I do not think he intended to change anything with his ironies, but through his art to position himself outside this mentality, which has always been a matter of free will and free choice.

Oscar Wilde is known for some extraordinary remarks. And one of them refers to women: He said that all women become like their mothers. I trust his sharp intelligence and his even sharper spirit of observation: Looking at my mother, I am glad to know that I will be such a good looking and kind woman!

            In the ‘Importance of Being Earnest’, Lady Bracknell wants to marry his daughter, Gwendolen and John Worthing is not on her list of eligible men. The conversation depicts what people thought to be relevant in terms of marriage: occupation (in the 21^st century high society that would ‘career’), age, education (now and then equally irrelevant), income per year, to have a house in the city and in the countryside (in the 21^st century a holidays house in an exotic place is also required), to be fashionable, name and social rank of the parents. In three centuries since the first publication of ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’ almost nothing changed. What people were asking upfront, they are now thinking, because marriage has been for most … a financial business or a political alliance. Here is a dialogue between Lady Brackwell and John, in order to have an idea about how Gwendolen may turn to be:

‘Lady Bracknell.  (Sitting down.)  You can take a seat, Mr. Worthing. (Looks in her pocket for note-book and pencil.)

Jack.  Thank you, Lady Bracknell, I prefer standing.

Lady Bracknell.  (Pencil and note-book in hand.)  I feel bound to tell you that you are not down on my list of eligible young men, although I have the same list as the dear Duchess of Bolton has.  We work together, in fact.  However, I am quite ready to enter your name, should your answers be what a really affectionate mother requires.  Do you smoke?

Jack.  Well, yes, I must admit I smoke.

Lady Bracknell.  I am glad to hear it.  A man should always have an occupation of some kind.  There are far too many idle men in London as it is.  How old are you?

Jack.  Twenty-nine.

Lady Bracknell.  A very good age to be married at.  I have always been of opinion that a man who desires to get married should know either everything or nothing.  Which do you know?

Jack.  (After some hesitation.)  I know nothing, Lady Bracknell.

Lady Bracknell.  I am pleased to hear it.  I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.  Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone.  (…) What is your income?

Jack.  Between seven and eight thousand a year.

Lady Bracknell.  (Makes a note in her book.)  In land, or in investments?

Jack.  In investments, chiefly.

Lady Bracknell.  That is satisfactory.  What between the duties expected of one during one’s lifetime, and the duties exacted from one after one’s death, land has ceased to be either a profit or a pleasure.  It gives one position, and prevents one from keeping it up.  That’s all that can be said about land.

Jack.  I have a country house with some land, of course, attached to it, about fifteen hundred acres, I believe; but I don’t depend on that for my real income.  In fact, as far as I can make out, the poachers are the only people who make anything out of it.

Lady Bracknell.  A country house!  How many bedrooms?  Well, that point can be cleared up afterwards.  You have a town house, I hope?  A girl with a simple, unspoiled nature, like Gwendolen, could hardly be expected to reside in the country.

Jack.  Well, I own a house in Belgrave Square, but it is let by the year to Lady Bloxham.  Of course, I can get it back whenever I like, at six months’ notice.

Lady Bracknell.  Lady Bloxham?  I don’t know her.

Jack.  Oh, she goes about very little.  She is a lady considerably advanced in years.

Lady Bracknell.  Ah, nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability of character.  What number in Belgrave Square?

Jack.  149.

Lady Bracknell.  (Shaking her head.)  The unfashionable side.  I thought there was something.  However, that could easily be altered.

Jack.  Do you mean the fashion, or the side?

Lady Bracknell.  (Sternly.)  Both, if necessary, I presume.  What are your politics?

Jack.  Well, I am afraid I really have none.  I am a Liberal Unionist.

Lady Bracknell.  Oh, they count as Tories.  They dine with us.  Or come in the evening, at any rate.  Now to minor matters.  Are your parents living?

Jack.  I have lost both my parents.

Lady Bracknell.  To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.  Who was your father?  He was evidently a man of some wealth.  Was he born in what the Radical papers call the purple of commerce, or did he rise from the ranks of the aristocracy?

Jack.  I am afraid I really don’t know.  The fact is, Lady Bracknell, I said I had lost my parents.  It would be nearer the truth to say that my parents seem to have lost me . . . I don’t actually know who I am by birth.  I was . . . well, I was found.

Lady Bracknell.  Found!

[…]

Jack.  May I ask you then what you would advise me to do?  I need hardly say I would do anything in the world to ensure Gwendolen’s happiness.

Lady Bracknell.  I would strongly advise you, Mr. Worthing, to try and acquire some relations as soon as possible, and to make a definite effort to produce at any rate one parent, of either sex, before the season is quite over.

Jack.  Well, I don’t see how I could possibly manage to do that.  I can produce the hand-bag at any moment.  It is in my dressing-room at home.  I really think that should satisfy you, Lady Bracknell.

Lady Bracknell.  Me, sir!  What has it to do with me?  You can hardly imagine that I and Lord Bracknell would dream of allowing our only daughter—a girl brought up with the utmost care—to marry into a cloak-room, and form an alliance with a parcel?  Good morning, Mr. Worthing!’ (‘The Importance of Being Earnest’ – Act 1, Scene 1)

Old Movies’ Review: ‘Making a Living’ (1914)

by Laura Lai/ Review

Have you ever been curious to watch … . What do you think that I am about to ask? If you ever been curious to watch naked women or men on the cover of a magazine? I would never ask such a thing simply because a magazine is prosperous when it has many ‘readers’. And these magazines are prosperous. I guess it is one of the ways to make one’s living.

I know that you don’t admire people for the way they look naked, but that you treasure them for how they think, the way they act, their education and their culture; for their human qualities. If any of you has ever been curious about the first movie appearance of Charlie Chaplin that was in 1914 in the old movie called ‘Making a Living’, written by Reed Henstis and directed by Henry Lehrman. This old movie is the story of a jobless swindler (Charlie Chaplin), who takes the photo of a car going over a cliff made by a photograph and races to the newspaper to sell it as his. His rival was following him, but he was delayed because he was caught in a woman’s bedroom by her jealous husband.

You are curious to know why on Earth I enjoyed watching a black and while silent movie instead of … ‘reading’ a magazine with photos?

I like this old movie and I write about on this blog, because it itself is a picture of the way the American city looked like and the American society dressed with in the 20^th century. Through this movie, one can see the way the first tram looked like and for a short second even one of the first cameras. And I have been particularly impressed by the fact that Charlie Chaplin’s talent was so great that it needed only this first appearance in this short movie (only 12:35 minutes) in order to impress and make a life time career. Impressive, indeed! On the other side, the naked men and women from the current magazines look exactly the same as first man and the first woman on Earth, unless Adam and Eve would comment differently on this blog.

No wonder that I don’t share such a cultureless curiosity, but I understand that people are different. And so are our choices. I chose for today ‘Making a Living’ (1914) with Charlie Chaplin (to see the movie click here).

And I recommend it to you, too. Enjoy it!

Creative Exercise # 9: The Oscar Goes to…

THE OSCAR GOES TO…

(Creative dialogue based on the speech of the

UK Opposition Party's Leader, Jeremy Corbyn)

by Laura Lai/Uncategorized

(Scene: a table with lots of microphones, the film director Tino Taran, an actor acting as Jeremy Corbyn, members of the staff)

Tino Taran (to Jeremy Corbyn). J.C. you take the floor, in order to deliver your speech. And try to be as convincing as possible. Ok?

JC. It’s a tough, but I can do it!

T.T. I know! The best role for an actor is to play what he is not. (J.C. nods) If you’re an euro-skeptic, then the best challenge for you is to play the pro-European…the enthusiastic one… you see what I mean?

J.C. (nods).

T.T. (claps his hands, to the staff). Ok, guys! The break is over! Let’s get back to work! (to J.C.) Attention!... Action!

J.C. I’m sure I don’t have to convince anyone here… (he lifts his glasses)

T.T. Cut! Cut! Cut!

J.C. What?! What have I done wrong? I’ve barely started!

T.T. (puts an arm around his shoulders). Everything. J.C. …. you’re not a university teacher to explain formulas at a blackboard, to read to your students from a piece of paper and once in a while to lift your glasses. (Pause) You are the leader of the UK Opposition Party!

J.C. (slightly irritated). The glasses slided on my nose! I have lost some kilogrammes since this Brexit thriller with horror accents got started!

T.T. And I can understand that very well. Unfortunately the producer cannot bring new ones. You know that his thriller is made with public donations. You play the role very well, but when we work together it has to be perfect.

J.C. (smiling) Thank you!

T.T. So?! Shall we start again? (J.C. nods) Guys! Come on! Let’s try again! Attention!... Action!

J.C. I’m sure I don’t need to convince anyone here…

T.T. Cut! Cut! Please cut! (he buries his face in his hands, to J.C.). You did it again! You lifted your glasses!

J.C. I haven’t even realized it!

T.T. Try to concentrate better! Ok?! And try to be even more convincing!

J.C. How do I do that? To look perfectly convincing, Mr. Tino Taran?

T.T. By acting more convincing the role of the pro-European charismatic leader of the British Opposition!

J.C. But charisma is something that you have or you don’t have. It’s not something that you can borrow or even learn it!

T.T Tell me about it! I only have to be in a place and without saying any word, without being extravagant, without doing absolutely nothing or wanting to draw attention and I attract it all. (to the staff). Guys! We take a short coffee break!

Some of the staff do other things, some leave the room.

T.T. (fills up two cups of coffees; he gives one to J.C.). Please, have a sit! You’re perfectly right! It’s a matter of personality. Charisma is something you have or you don’t have. You can’t borrow it and you cannot learn it. But as an actor, you must act. I chose you from so many actors, because I’m convinced that you can play this role very well. This movie cannot be done without you as the leader of the opposition. You have your role in the process and I’m convinced that you can do this role of a charismatic and convincing leader of the Opposition Party.

J.C. I want to play it perfect, but how do I do it?

T.T. A charismatic role can very well be played when you posses a perfect internal harmony that shines around you, when you have clear and transparent objectives that you pursue with lots of passion and enthusiasm. This passion and enthusiasm is reflected in everything one’s doing, be it something small and insignificant or delivering a public speech. As obvious as the passion is, so is the indifference of a political leader, no matter how well it pretends. (J.C. nods) Shall you give it another try?

J.C. Absolutely! (going to the table with microphones) Yeah… absolutely!

T.T. (claps his hands). Come on! Break is over! (People retake their work) Everybody's ready? Attention!... And action!

J.C. ‘I’m sure I don’t need to convince anyone here, but as we look towards the return of the Parliament in September this country is heading into a political and constitutional crisis. It’s the Conservative Party’s failure on Brexit (…) that has provoked this crisis our country faces this autumn. After failing to negotiate a Brexit deal that will protect jobs and living standards, Boris Johnson and his Tories are driving the country towards a no-deal cliff edge. Let’s be clear: we will do everything necessary to stop a disastrous no deal for which this government has no mandate’. 

T.T. Cut! J.C. you acted perfectly. I almost got to believe you myself! Brilliant played!

J.C. Thank you! (to Tino Taran) Next year at the Awards Ceremony the Oscar for the best movie will go to…. (enthusiastically) the ‘Brexit’ thriller!