We're back from Japan - I really should write about these things in more detail, and I very well may do that, but for now, so that I don't forget, I'm just going to list off the many interesting things we did on this trip.

Cities visited:
Tokyo
Kamakura
Kyoto
Osaka
Nara
Himeji
Hiroshima
Nagoya

Arts/Art Museums:
Watched kabuki in Osaka
Tokyo National Museum
Tokyo National Museum of Modern Art
Tokyo Film Center - saw the Venice Golden Lion that Kurosawa won for Rashomon
Kyoto National Museum
Hiroshima A-Bomb Museum

Castles visited:
Himeji-jo
Nijo (Kyoto)
Nagoya (reconstruction)

Temples/Shrines visited:
-too many to list them all

Things we ate/drank:
-Japanese curry with Edam cheese - this was amazing
-sushi fresh from the Tsukiji fish market
-fugu (the poisonous puffer fish)
-various kinds of noodles
-miso soup
-pizza with tentacles on it
-tofu
-tempura
-beers: Sapporo, Asahi, Kirin
-sake
-green tea
-matcha tea
-umeshu

Sporting events:
Yomiuri Giants baseball
Sumo wrestling in Nagoya

Other
-saw about 5-6 geisha in Kyoto
-bought numerous sweat-rags to sop up the unending downpour of sweat
-learned a few Japanese words
-saw Mt. Fuji
-hiked around in the woods
-stayed in a couple ryokans (including one that was once owned by a samurai)
-took Erin on an insane roller-coaster
-learned something about cars at the Toyota museum (something I know nothing about)
-used one of those toilets that shoots water up your ass
-wore a yukata

And of course none of this even mentions the interesting people we met.

Here's my review of the reviews.  I'm going to be seeing this film on Tuesday at the Burton Cummings (ha) Theatre in Winnipeg, featuring live narration by Guy Maddin himself.  Seeing this film at a beautiful and historic theatre that's been renamed after Burton Cummings almost proves the thesis of Maddin's film. I suspect it may be as strangely ironic as when I went to see the Weakerthans at this same theatre and they sang the line, "The Guess Who suck...."  (They should have at least re-named it in honor of Neil Young :)  )

Anyway, as I said I haven't seen My Winnipeg yet, but the reviews are very positive, and this may be Maddin's most successful film so far.  But what I really wanted to discuss was the tone of the reviews in general.  Perusing rottentomatoes.com there are reviews of My Winnipeg by the New York Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal and Newsweek - all the major papers from all the major American cities.  And these people all seem to come to a consensus about the film.  It can be summed up as one reviewer said:
"Although this creative film is categorized as a documentary, Guy Maddin calls it more accurately a "docu-fantasia" that blends archival footage of the city of Winnipeg with snippets from the filmmaker's childhood and entertaining oddities about the place and the people. Watching it invites us to savor the ideas and emotions connected to our own hometowns. We all have mixed feelings about the place where we grew up; it is likely to arouse within us both nostalgia and the deep need to escape to a more exciting milieu."
And it is this universality of the film that I suspect has led to its wide appeal.  People who know nothing and have never been to Winnipeg, can still relate and appreciate the film, for it's unique style, sure, but also for its subject matter.  This disatisfaction with where one comes from, this mixing of embarassment and nostalgia, love/hate relationship is common to many people no matter where they live.  And most of the reviews I've read speak of this appeal.  
There was one however...one out of the 35 posted on rottentomatoes, which had a totally different take on the film. While the review was very positive about the film, the reviewers take was all about Winnipeg specifically and how much it sucked, and though I haven't seen the film, yet, after reading more than 30 reviews on it, I can't help but think that this guy got it wrong or missed the point.  This reviewer, it should be noted, was from the Toronto Star - and knowing that I don't think much more needs to be said.  I think they suffer from severe insecurity, trying desperatly to maintain their self-proclamed, too-good for Canada, world city status.  They erect the world's largest phallic symbol, court NFL teams, and pick on smaller Canadian cities.  I recall another article in the Star a couple years ago when Neil Young's Prairie Wind album came out - an album that's rife with references to Winnipeg and his growing up on the prairies.  The Star dismissed all this as wishful thinking on Neil's part and stated emphatically that is was Toronto, not Winnipeg, that really was Neil's home.  Considering the fact that Neil's family had moved to Toronto for a job, just  before Neil was born, and Neil was born in Toronto, but lived as small child in Omemee, then moved back to Winnipeg with his mother, which was where he started playing music, met Stephen Stills, Randy Bachman, Joni Mitchell and others, recorded his first albums, etc. and refers to, in countless songs, as his hometown, I think it was the Toronto Star that was doing the wishful thinking.  Sorry, T.O. not everything that's good about Canada comes from Toronto.
Anyway, getting back to My Winnipeg review - the Toronto Star guy seems to have missed the point.  Like a listener to  the Weakerthans "One Great City" who only can see the song as bashing Winnipeg, and misses the ironic subtext.
I guess when I see the film on Tuesday, I'll be able to see whether the 34 reviewers were correct, or whether the Star reporter, in his minority opinion, truly understood the film. 

I guess not everyone's a swindler - that's good to know.
We're going to Japan at the end of June and I found out there was a sumo tournament in Nagoya.  When I went to the tournament website, it said that tickets could only be shipped to an address within Japan, and since it was cash on delivery, it's unlikely that even our hotel would accept it.  So, after doing some research I found out about Japanese Shopping Services.  I think most people use them to buy video games and electronics that you can't get outside of Japan, but I used it to get these sumo tickets.  Basically, you're paying someone in Japan to buy the product for you and ship it to you.  So, anyway, I was a bit leery about trusting something like this.  It's not amazon or ebay where you can see neutral feedback  - it's just you and this company.  But I got the tickets today, so it worked.

Boy, I like to waste my time...but for some reason I just can't resist the idiocy of imdb message boards, youtube message boards and wikipedia - three websites filled, seemingly, with nothing but stupidity.

Recently, I edited a few wikipedia pages, not as vandalism, not as a prank, but with legitimate factual information.  The problem with a website like wikipedia (while I admire its egalitarian premise) is that it allows ignorance and/or sensitivity (branded as "neutrality") to rule the day.  
Take the page on Mormon leader Joseph Smith, for example.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been involved in a massive campaign over the last few decades to change their image - they dropped some of their racist doctrines, run family-oriented ads, hide some of their more controversial doctrine and try to distance themselves from the "fundamentalist polygamist sect" of the Mormon church.
I find it interesting that a church that for years has been branded as a cult by traditional Christians, now finds itself faced with it's own "cult," which they want to distance themselves from, saying they aren't "true Mormons."
Anyway, Bill Maher, who's as anti-religion as they come, once stated something to the effect that nothing about Jesus Christ (his death and resurrection) could be proven, either way.  But Joseph Smith, on the other hand, made claims that were historically proven to be incorrect.  I think most historians agree that Smith was a con-man, and since he was relatively recent (unlike Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus and other religious leaders) this claim can be proven quite conclusively to those with an open mind.
Getting back to wikipedia....any attempt to write anything negative (even well-cited truth) about Smith is deleted, or relegated (like his polygamy) to a less prominent spot on the webpage.  He can't be described as "controversial" for example, and the Mormon Church is defined as a "denomination" rather than "sect" or "cult" or "schism."   (Most Christian denominations may not agree with eachother on minor point of doctrine and theology, but do however recognize the legitimacy of others.  Mormons, however, think they are the only true church.  If Mormonism was simply a Christian denomination (rather than a distinct religion) then why does it need to exist at all?  If it's not distinct in a substantial way, then why did Joseph Smith need this great revelation from God, and why do Mormons attempt to convert other Christians to their religion?  Obviously, it's more than just a conventional 'denomination.')

If you attempt to change any of the info, there are leagues of Mormon-wikipedians ready to revert your changes.  This is what I attempted to do and soon found myself in a battle with defenders of the faith.
Finally, I conceded.  Fine, I said, we won't call Smith "controversial.”  We won't call the LDS church a "sect."  We'll place his polygamy and imprisonment at the bottom of the page.
BUT
then I proceeded to make the same changes on the Warren Jeffs (fundamentalist LDS leader and polygamist) page.  To be fair, we shouldn't call Jeffs "controversial" or his church "a sect."  There's a picture of Jeff and right underneath it lists him as a convicted felon.  To be fair, and consistent with the Smith page, this should be deleted and placed in a less-prominent spot on the page.
Anyway, obviously all these changes were reverted.
But, really there is no difference.  Both Jeffs and Smith were/are polygamists, were arrested, claimed to be prophets, had considerable followings (and still do today.)  There is no discernable difference between them, except perhaps (to Jeff’s credit) Jeffs might sincerely believe his lunacy, whereas Smith is a documented con-man.

I guess my point is this -  Yes, there are good people in every religion.  Yes, all have wingnuts and all have delusions.  However, Muhammad was sincere.  Buddha was sincere.  Christ was sincere.  These religions also have some sense of mysticism to them.  They can plausibly be accepted on a mystic or existential level.  However, some religions (I won't call them cults) like Mormonism, Scientology and others are based on utterly ridiculous notions.  An atheist may deny the claims of Muhammad or Buddha or Christ - but this is more or less a philosophical debate and it remains at that level.  But some religions can be denied simply on their sheer lack of historic credibility - Mormonism and Scientology are two of these religions.

I don't believe that simply because a belief is branded a "religion" that suddenly we have to be sensitive toward it and legitimize it.  No one feels they need to be sensitive about making bold statements about political figures, for example.  And historic religious figures, such as Smith and L. Ron Hubbard should not be exempt.  Yes, people sincerely believe this stuff.  But that doesn't mean it's any less insane.  And Yes, I am making a clear distinction between most religions and these in particular.  Common sense dictates that some things, the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, can only be believed and debated on a spiritual, mystical, existential, "other" level.  But Smith can be denied historically and scientifically.  The belief in Smith is not based on faith or mysticism - it's based on hard facts, which in this case undeniably prove him to be a fraud.

I know there are a lot of people out there that hate Counting Crows - they think Adam Duritz is whiny, self-centered and negative.  My only beef with the band is their shallow attempts at making pop music in the last few years (the Shrek song, for example.) Personally, I've always seen Adam's vocals as more emotive than whiny and I've never had a problem with his constant fixation on negative things.
But for those of you who still hate this band (or if you're a fan) you've got to read this Rolling Stone article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/19551179/why_cant_adam_duritz_get_any_respect

The most interesting article I've ever read about Counting Crows.  Explains a lot.

I just watched Ingmar Bergman's Face to Face, which isn't necessarily his most innovative or thematically interesting film. However, it's best known for Liv Ullmann's unbelievable performance.  She was nominated for best actress that year (1976) but lost to Faye Dunaway in Network.  Now, there are a lot of problems with the Academy Awards, but I would say that if you look at the list of winners for Best Actress, you could easily make a case that this is one of the most problematic categories.  What I mean by that is they usually get it wrong - way wrong.
Marion Cotillard was probably deserving this year - the first non-English performance to be awarded in that category.  But look at some past winners:
Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line
Julia Roberts for Erin Brokovitch
Gwenyth Paltrow of Shakespeare in Love
Helen Hunt for As Good as it Gets
Jodie Foster for Silence of the Lambs
Cher for Moonstruck
Sally Field for Norma Rae

They are all pretty lightweight perfomances.  Watch Ullmann in Face to Face or Diane Keaton in Annie Hall (for comedic acting) or Elizabeth Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? These are excellent performances.  The Academy, however, seems to like to reward mediocrity.
Oh well...

Have you ever noticed how many cities are described as "the Paris of...." an area.  Shanghai is the Paris of the Far East.  Prague is the Paris of Eastern Europe...well, along with Budapest.  St. Petersburg is the Paris of the North (or Venice of the North, for that matter).  Buenos Aires is the Paris of the South.  Beirut is the Paris of the Middle East.  This list goes on and on and on....
I guess different cities use it to market their city for tourism...but I think all it does is solidify Paris' reputation as the ideal tourist destination.  If Shanghai or Buenos Aires or Beirut really wanted some effective marketing they should start calling things, "The Beirut of the North," "The Beirut of America."  "The Beirut of Saskatchewan"  "The Beirut of Southern Chile." ...whatever...that might be more effective...because all this talk of Paris just makes me want to go back there....

I've seen this film at least a dozen times.  I've used it in class, occasionally, and it's one of those films that many students hate, initially, but appreciate once I explain what's going on technically in the film - I often use the Roger Ebert commentary for this, which is well worth listening to, by the way.

While, Citizen Kane is undoubtably a masterpiece and, perhaps, the most technically inovative sound film ever made, I agree with one comment that Ebert makes at the end of the film where he calls it shallow, "but no less a masterpiece."  It's not shallow in the sense that it has no message, because it certainly does - it exposes how greed corrupts an individual.  However, Ebert doesn't really explain what he means when he calls it shallow.  

But here's what I think:
In order to appreciate Citizen Kane the audience requires a great deal of knowledge on the technical aspects of cinema.  On the surface, a typical viewer might pick up on obvious things like the mirrored-images of Kane or the breakfast table growing farther and farther apart.  But there's so much more to this film - truly revolutionary stuff.  I won't fault a film for not pandering to mainstream tastes, or even for a film that requires deep concentration to understand.  I love films like that - the work of Tarkovsky or Bergman, for example.  However, Welles' film requires deep concentration to appreciate what?  Mere technical genius.  Whereas, the work of Tarkovsky may be even slower moving than this film, the concentration required forces the viewer to be introspective and also to examine the symbolic structure of the film - it could even be described, as Tarkvosky certainly does, as a spiritual practice.  Both films require concentration, but Tarkovsky's is  more rewarding.  So, in that sense Welles' film is shallow.  It requires kean skills of observation, and knowledge of the technical aspects of film and film history, but it doesn't require anything else from the viewer.

If film were architecture, Citizen Kane may be considered the greatest film of all time in the same way that the Petronas Towers were the tallest, and thus revolutionary in their engineering - the greatest example of engineering ever seen up until that point, perhaps.  But you'd have to go to the work of others - Bergman, Bunuel, Tarkovsky to find the film equivalent of Frank Gehry or Frank Lloyd Wright, who have designed artful buildings, masterpieces of art, not just engineering.

So, I wouldn't call Citizen Kane the greatest film ever made, but rather the greatest film ever engineered.  Nevertheless, a great film.