Film: L’Écume des Jours

l'écume des jours poster

It’s one of the semi-myths pedalled by both pro and anti globalisation camps that we will end up with a globalised, homogeneous culture where everybody reads and sees and listens to the same things everywhere, probably at the same time.

Granted, the race to the bottom allows the whole world to experience the bland stodge of Justin Bieber, the state propaganda of CSI Miami, New York and Poughkeepsie, and the clunking prose of Dan Brown and EL James  but that doesn’t mean that culture has turned into something interchangeable.  In fact, there are still films, music and literature which are pretty much known only within a local area or within a country.  You can see this in the Scottish, mainly Glaswegian, music scene and also here in France where it is incredibly strong.

The French government has long supported cultural activities, not least because it supports and reinforces France’s own self image as fiercely intellectual and also the image that France projects to the world.

L’Écume des Jours, which means something like The Froth or the Foam of the Days, is a classic French novel which I had never heard of until it was recommended to me by my French teacher.  This is one of her favourite books and, from having spoken to a few more French people, I find that it’s a hugely popular book here.  And yet, I had never heard of it, which might not be the greatest measure of a work’s fame.  OK, so I’m not the most widely read person in the world but I’ve read more than most and I think I have a pretty good grasp of world culture and literature.  Obviously not in this case.

The book is a wild, bleak, fantastical and surreal, or perhaps more dadaist tale of the doomed love between Colin and Chloé.  Running through the book are strong critiques of the cult of the intellectual personality, crushingly repetitive and exploitative waged work to support the state’s continued oppression of the population and a damning indictment of the church.   All popular topics for the author, Boris Vian.

It seemed as though there were a general sense of unease among the book’s many fans about another effort to make a film of this book.  As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, efforts to film books, especially ones which demand your concentration and fill your imagination, are almost doomed to be dissatisfying to those who love the book since the book will never match their own mental images.  But these points are given.  They have to be accepted since they cannot be avoided, except by not making the film and that’s not the sort of thing that filmmakers are readily able to do.

Michel Gondry directed this current effort at filming the unfilmable.  There have been efforts to film the book before and it has even been made into an opera. Gondry will perhaps be better known outside of France for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  His experience in directing pop videos is perhaps more obvious in this film that in his others, as the various scenes are more set pieces and quite individual in style.  As such, they don’t always seem to fit together and at times, it felt like watching MTV in the 80s, with Peter Gabriel’s Sledgehammer video and Ultravox’s Vienna videos coming readily mind.

A quick potted plot, without spoilers:  The story focuses on Colin’s [played by Romain Duris] free, easy and bourgeois life.  He has pots of money and lives as he pleases, eating the weird dishes prepared by his chef and friend Nicolas [Omar Sy].  Colin meets Chloé [Audrey Tautou] and they quickly fall in love and get married.  His friend Chick [Gad Elmaleh] is in love with Alise [Aïssa Maïga] and Colin gives them lots of money so that they too can marry.  Whilst on honeymoon, Chloé falls ill and a waterlily begins to grow in her lung.  The cost of the treatment eats Colin’s fortune and so he must find work for the first time in his life.

The other main threads of the film, such as Chick’s obsession with collecting the works of the cult philosopher Jean Sol Partre [yes, a barely concealed joke on Sartre, who the actor obviously resembles], the behaviour of the priest and his familiars and the representations of brutal, slogging labour are almost neglected for the sake of the attempts to represent the fantastical nature of Colin’s wild life and his subsequent life with Chloé.

So does it work?  No, not really.  It’s all rather chaotic and doesn’t hang together, with too many different styles making the film disjointed and chaotic.  Some of the sets, particularly Colin’s deteriorating apartment, are magnificent and some of the set pieces are excellent but the film is incoherent as a whole and lacks emotional depth or structure. On the plus side, I got to explore French culture a bit more.

As a final aside, another of Vian’s works, the controversial “J’irai cracher sur vos tombes” ["I will spit on your graves"] was also filmed and Vian was less than happy.  In fact he had been less than happy with the adaptation and had been fighting and arguing with the producers and director throughout filming.  Minutes into the premiere, Vian stood up and started shouting abuse at the film whereupon he collapsed and then died on the way to hospital.  I doubt this film would have killed him or had him turning is his grave.  He’d probably be just sighing and looking disappointed.

Today’s Goat Cheese is Selles Sur Cher

Selles Sur Cher fromage cheese

This is the week of eating goat cheese.  The other day it was Taupinette and today it’s the turn of Selles Sur Cher.

This is a classic AOC cheese from the region of, unsurprisingly, Selles Sur Cher in the Loir et Cher region.  The commune is a couple of hundred kilometres south west of Paris.

This maybe a good time to explain AOC and these other things.

Us French [OK, I'm not really French but I live here so that's pretty much as good as] love rules and we love it when the state does lots and controls things.  Even down to making up new words.  

AOC stands for Appellation d’origine contrôlée and it’s a French system to control the production and branding of certain traditional foods which are strongly linked to geographical areas.  The idea goes back to Royal decrees governing the production of Roquefort [a truly great cheese for another day] in the 15th century.  There are all sorts of things that are under this system such as various wines, herbs from Provence, ciders, honeys, butter, charcuterie etc.  

There are no beers since the French appear to be incapable of producing decent beer.

There are also a number of similar schemes maintained by the EU and, in an order showing the declining difficulty of achieving each, there are Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG).  Selles Sur Cher has applied for the PDO label.

So, as you’ve guessed, it’s made with goat cheese and preferably unpasteurised milk.  The cheese is about 10 or 15 centimetres across [about five inches] and is a disc shape with slightly sloping sides, perhaps like a cone with the top chopped off.  Its rind is wrinkled and dark grey with a light and soft bloom.  The grey comes from from the application of ash.  Again, the rind is perfectly edible.  If you cut it off you’re wasting your own money and discarding the work and labour of the cheesemakers and affineurs.  On your head be it.

The cheese tends to be matured for about ten days to three weeks.  When you cut it open you can immediately see one of the reasons for using ash.  The contrast between the grey rind and the brilliant white of the paste is quite beautiful.  The paste is rich, creamy and consistent and the cheese has a very clean, bright fresh taste.  The taste has no great length and is almost verging on the bland.  It really is one of the most delicate cheeses around and if you’re going to put this on the cheese board make sure it’s eaten first.  I find it a good lunchtime cheese with some lightly salted tomatoes and some bread.  And it’s very moreish.  Of course you want some wine with it.  I’d go for a dry white or a light red such as a Chinon or a Bourgueil.

Can I tell the difference between this and the Taupinette from the other day?  Yes, when I eat them together and I can see which one is which.  The Taupinette has slightly more flavour.  Would I remember for next time or tell them apart in a blind taste test?  Quite probably not.   I obviously have a lot of homework to do.

One of today’s cheeses is Taupinette

Taupinette

I was speaking to the man from the cheese shop and we were talking about goat cheese.  There are an awful lot of goat cheeses here and if you go to any of the main goat areas then you’ll find plenty of farmers with their own cheeses for sale.  I suggested that quite a few of these cheeses are a bit, well, samey.  They’re not bad or anything, they’re just six of one.  I’m not saying that they are all like that.  There are some really great goat cheeses.  It’s just that many of them are alike.  He agreed [and I was relieved, since as soon as I said it I thought "he's going to take me to pieces for this".  French cheese folk are renowned for their aggression over idiot generalisations] but only to an extent.  He did concede that this was mainly because he was a specialist in goat cheese and he can spot the differences.

So I thought that, since I have some time on my hands this week, I would explore the world of goat cheese.  I know.  I really punish myself.

So, first up is Taupinette, which means little molehill.  Which, given its shape, is a fine name.  It’s also a smaller version of a cheese from the same area called La Taupinière, which is a normal sized molehill.

As a slight mole aside, I learned today that in 1614, a Swiss doctor named Felix Platter [or Plater] tells of a patient whose backside was invaded by a small mole, which did “much damage” during its brief stay.

Anyway, Taupinette is made in the Charente region of France, to the west of the country by the Fromagerie Jousseaume.  It also won gold in the 2012 World Cheese Awards in the romantically titled “5002 Soft goats’ milk cheese plain – mould- ripened” category.  And who could fail to be moved by that?

So the cheese.  It’s moulded in a ladle, which gives it the classic domed shape and it’s matured for a couple of weeks.  The rind is a slightly yellowed with a healthy speckling of green-grey mould and ash.

Ash.  Yes, Ash.  But why? Well, it’s rather traditional, it looks nice when it offers a nice contrast to the very pale cheese, it can help neutralise any acidity on the cheese’s surface which allows the mould to form and thus the rind to protect the cheese as it matures and it can help the cheese dry.  You can eat it without worrying and it adds nothing to the taste, the mouthfeel or the aroma of the cheese.

The paste is slightly dry and only slightly crumbly and is a pale buttery yellow.  It has the classic creamy blandness of a young cheese but offers a lemony tang and a hint of hazelnut.  The taste does not linger long but it is light and almost refreshing.  It could be easily served with red soft fruits or just a glass of Pineau.  Serve it as an early cheese on the cheeseboard and you can’t go far wrong.

Sunderland AFC and Paolo Di Canio who is not a Fascist

Paolo Di Canio backdrop

There we go Sunderland, that wasn’t so hard was it?  Could have knocked that out in five minutes on Sunday evening eh?  Saved us all a lot of heartbreak and bad blood.

In a statement released today by the club Di Canio has announced that “I am not political, I do not affiliate myself to any organisation, I am not a racist and I do not support the ideology of fascism. I respect everyone.”

Now we could spend eternity trawling over what has happened in the past, what was said and what wasn’t said, reasons and political interpretations but that’s not going to get us anywhere and it will only hurt the football club more than it has already hurt itself.

On the upside, we’ve all had a good chance to learn more about the development of pre-war Italian fascism and everyone’s learnt a lesson about the value of good PR.

Now gan on Paolo and keep us up.

 

Addendum:

I’ve been asked a couple of times about my reaction to yesterday’s press statement and since so many people looked at the first blog, it only seems right to complete the story. I have called it an addedum rather than directly adding to the above story because some people kindly retweeted the above with positive comments so I don’t want to make out they are being kind about this comment too.

Di Canio has always denied the “I’m a fascist not a racist” comment [I discovered reading an old Italian newspaper http://www.repubblica.it/2005/l/sezioni/sport/calcio/dicaniosalut/noraz/noraz.html ] and I can’t find a transcript of the original ANSA interview.

So if he denies the charge of being a fascist, then I guess that has to be fine.

Di Canio has given some explanations for his understanding of and interest in Mussolini and perhaps these explain his somewhat dubious tattoos. His cherry-picked historical interpretations are terribly flawed but this is no crime, or if it is, we are all guilty to some extent. He has also explained his Roman salutes too and maybe I have to accept those explanations.

I still think it’s an appalling situation. I wish he wasn’t manager, for footballing reasons as well as all of this baggage and the bad smell that hangs around the club, but that’s not going to change anything. He’s there now and if I want the club to succeed then I have to want him to succeed.

Di Canio, along with everyone else and, without getting into a discussion of freedom of speech right now, is entitled to whatever opinions he wants to hold, whatever they are.

The club’s reputation has been badly damaged, the whole thing stinks, my love of the club has been badly wounded [is it fatal? I don't know] and I’m genuinely heartbroken by the whole affair.

Anyway, onwards and upwards…

Sunderland AFC, Fascism and Paolo Di Canio

Paolo Di Canio

I have supported Sunderland AFC for nearly the last forty years.  I can’t pretend that it’s been the most glamorous and successful period in the club’s history but it’s been an emotional obsession for all of those years.

When I say I support Sunderland AFC, what do I mean?  I certainly don’t support the legal entity.  That would be akin to supporting a supermarket or a bank or a construction company.  I know that the legal entity has to exist for the club to play its games and all of that but still, I don’t support that.  I can’t say I always I like the players or managers.  I struggle to sometimes make a connection with some of them but of course I want them to score goals and win games. Players and managers come and go. I don’t expect them to give their souls to SAFC and I’m not living in a deluded world where they offer anything but their efforts in return for very good rates of pay and I know that if a bigger club or bigger wage comes along then the players will probably leave.  I support an abstract notion. It’s an abstract notion that wears red and white stripes and has a long history and a shared mythology but it’s pretty abstract nonetheless. I support an notion upon which I have overlain my own hopes and ideas of what I expect my club to be like and what it represents.

For those that don’t know, Sunderland is in the north east of England and is in an area that has a long and proud history of mining, shipbuilding and other heavy industries.  Thanks to the large working class population the area is politically more on the left of the political spectrum, having a Labour dominated council for at least the last 40 years and six of the seven MPs elected in the [now defunct] Sunderland North and Sunderland South constituencies over sixty years were Labour party MPs. Over the years these industries have been lost, often down to Conservative government policies and the same quality of work and pride in jobs has been lost too.  But, even though the city has been neglected in terms of its development and support from central government there is still a fierce pride in the history and traditions of the area and the football club is a big part of that.  In recent years the club has been involved in positive actions to make itself a “community club” and has signed a sponsorship deal with the [slightly dubious] Invest in Africa organisation and has signed up as an advocate of the Mandela Foundation.  This foundation is there to promote Nelson Mandela’s legacy of social justice.

The football club has rarely been wildly successful in my lifetime.  A couple of 7th place finishes in the Premier League, any number of promotions and four [losing] Wembley finals are probably the highlights but each season usually brings hopes of some semblance of success, maybe a promotion and more often, fear of relegation. But still, like many thousands of others, I returned every season always hoping that this season would be the one where we would maybe win something.

We’ve had a fairly eventful time recently with managers, from a maniacal Roy Keane who got us promoted to the Championship, to Steve Bruce who was barely forgiven by many for having been a supporter of our arch-rivals Newcastle United.  And then we signed Martin O’Neill. A man surely destined to be a great Sunderland manager.  But, after a flying start, created a facsimile of any of our other dismal underperforming teams from the past.  With relegation looking a distinct possibility if not an absolute certainty and seven games remaining, O’Neill was sacked.

And Paolo Di Canio has been signed up as manager.  Di Canio was a cracking player, capable of wonderful skills, acts of sportsmanship, great commitment and moments of, well, lunacy. There’s one thing that can be put down to lunacy, but I’m not that generous, and that’s his political outlook. Di Canio told the Italian news agency ANSA in 2005 “I am a fascist, not a racist”.  That maybe so [although Di Canio was investigated and cleared by the FA for references to the black striker Jonathan Téhoué's skin colour and he apologised for the comments in a letter] and racism is not necessarily an explicit part of fascist ideology.  He has expressed his admiration of Mussolini and has a couple of tattoos, one reading “Dux”, latin for leader and a reference to “Il Duce” and a rather impressive back tattoo that seems to feature the profile of the “misunderstood” Benito Mussolini.  And of course most people have, by now, seen the pictures of Di Canio’s *ahem* Roman salutes [Nazi salutes to you and me] to the Lazio fans.

It’s certainly true that fascism, like many other political ideologies, embraces a number of views and schools of thought. Indeed some of these ideas would be accepted by many people in the UK.  It is also true that fascism in Italy is a more commonplace, and accepted part, of the political forum.  In the UK the term has been used as an insult with such an undefined meaning that it has almost become meaningless or without any widely accepted meaning among the general public, but it does have a meaning in Italy and a meaning which Di Canio fully understands.  Di Canio has added his own slight nuances to fascism and condemned racism and violence as well as advocated democracy and a free press, but these elements are not prescribed elements of fascism anyway, which is based more on extreme nationalism, where the population adhere to a strongly defined cultural ideal which is embodied by an authoritarian leader and where all efforts are to strengthen the power of the state.  Di Canio cannot pick and choose “nice” fascism and like the “nice” parts of Benito Mussolini and ignore the rest.

There are many who say that football and politics do not belong together.  Maybe that’s true in the sanitisied, commoditised world of Sky Sports but it’s certainly not true among the grassroot supporters of a football club.  There the club means something, represents something and has huge cultural importance to the place where the club is based and to its fans.  At this level football is political.  Avoiding the issue is not going to help and the problem will remain until it is properly addressed.  Sunderland AFC, as a legal entity, have released a particularly odd and vague press release and denied that Di Canio is a fascist.  Which is a little odd since it was Di Canio who  announced he was a fascist in the first place.  Sunderland AFC’s handling of the appointment of Di Canio, which has also resulted in the resignation of David Milliband as a non-executive director, has been cack-handed to say the least.  There have also been responses from the Durham Miners Association who are to withdraw their historic pit union banner from its place of honour at Sunderland Football Club in protest at the club’s appointment of Di Canio.  It is also difficult to see how this appointment reflects on the agreement with the Mandela Foundation.

Being a supporter of the club means that the club reflects in some way on me.  I don’t want to be represented by a club with a self declared fascist as manager and I cannot support one.  Whilst Di Canio is there and whilst he and club refuses to clarify his views, I’ll not be watching Sunderland AFC nor will I be taking the opportunities to go to games on my trips back to the area.  I doubt Sunderland AFC’s board will be too fussed, they are focussing on the short-term and making decisions that they hope will preserve the club’s status in the Premier League.  But for me, supporting Sunderland has thankfully never been just about league positions.  This appointment damages my image and view of the club and my idea of what it represents and how it should behave.  Di Canio might be wildly successful as a manager but I don’t want to be a part of it.

An Easter Activity: Make Your Own Shrunken Head

Shrunken Heads

Inspired by a trip to the local anthropological museum, I thought I’d offer this idea for holiday entertainment.  As you know, Easter is nearly upon us and so, for many, are the Easter holidays.  The kids are on school break and many parents are looking for activities to keep them amused.  The weather’s not been great so it looks like an indoors activity will be perfect.  Look no further.  Here’s an activity that’s both educational and fun!  Let’s make our own shrunken heads!

Here’s a step by step guide.

First things first though.  You’ll need some equipment.  You’ll need a very sharp knife, a cooking pot and some hot sand and stones.  You will also need some good thick thread, a sewing needle and some cocktail sticks. Very young children might need some supervision.

1. First find a head.  It is best to use an enemy’s head but someone who is irritating you will do.  Like your little brother or sister.  Remove their head.  It is best to cut off a fair amount of the neck too.  If you can take some of the skin from their chest and back, then all the better.  You’ll need an adult’s help with this as the knife has to be quite sharp.  This bit can be quite controversial so, because it’s often harder to seek forgiveness than permission, you might have to do this bit without asking.  If you choose a brother or sister you should try to guess which one of you is most unpopular with your parents.

This is quite a messy stage.  It is best to do this outside or in the bathroom where it is quite easy to clean up the mess afterwards.

2. Inside everyone’s head is a really hard thing called the skull.  This is the thing that hurts your hand when you hit people.  This will really stop the head shrinking process so we need to take it out.  Using your sharp knife, cut a slit from the top of the persons head, down the back and to the neck.  Now you need to peel the skin off.  Pretend you’re taking a glove off someone’s hand.  It comes off surprisingly easy.  Leave the skull as an offering to the anaconda.

3.  You might find your head’s sightless stare a little unnerving.  Let’s stitch up those eyelids!

4.  And while you’re doing that, fasten the lips together with the cocktail sticks.

Now we can get on to the fun bit; shrinking the head!

5. If you have a wooden ball or something like that, put it inside the head so it keeps it’s shape.  Get a big pan on the stove and place the head in there, with enough water to cover and simmer it for one and half or two hours.  Try not to cook it for longer or the hair falls out and that’s just inconvenient.  Watch it so the pan doesn’t boil dry.  The smell of burning human flesh is not pleasant and also prompts difficult questions.

6. Now remove the head from the pan.  You’ll notice that the skin has darkened a lot and the skin is quite rubbery. You’ll also notice that the head is a third of its former size.  Cool!

7. Turn the head inside out scrape any meaty bits off with a knife. Now turn it the right side out and sew the slit at the back together. It’s like a flabby rubber ball.  It doesn’t bounce though, so don’t try it.  It’ll just make more mess.

8. Open the windows.  The kitchen will smell pretty bad by now.  And heat rocks and sand in the oven.  You need them very hot so try and get it up to about 200 degrees centigrade.

9. We need to seal the skin so the head doesn’t rot and smell bad.  Drop some heated stones through the neck hole and shake them about to stop them scorching.  This will seal the flesh and also shrink the head some more. When the head shrinks so much that you can’t shake the stones around any more we have to use sand.

10. Fill the head with the hot sand.  This will get into the ears and nostrils where the rocks couldn’t reach.

11. Now there might be some hair and stuff on the head that you don’t like.  The head might look a little odd too.  OK, the head will look very odd.  You can burn the hair off and reshape the face using a heated knife.  You can also rub the head with ash to stop any spirits escaping and why not decorate it with beads or seashells?

12. Now we have to let the head harden a bit.  If you have an open fire then great, put the head up the chimney otherwise hang it in the airing cupboard.

13. The head looks best hanging up as a warning and a show of your strength.  It also looks great if you hang it around your neck like a necklace and is always something to get conversation going at a party.

Film: Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas

Some adaptations appear so doomed from the off that it’s almost a pleasure when the film gets somewhere, anywhere near the essence and spirit of the book.  I briefly mentioned the almost inevitable failure of adapting much loved books when I wrote about Anna Karenina.  David Mitchell’s [no, not him] Cloud Atlas is a magnificent book and I was a little concerned when I saw that it was being made into a film.  I had enjoyed the book and mulling it over at my own pace that it was difficult to see how the complexity would be transferred to the screen.

The film was made and written by Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer. The Wachowskis of course made the Matrix trilogy and it is famed for its intricate narrative and multiple threads. Tom Tykwer’s made Run Lola Run, the German action movie which gives the same story but with three different threads.  So it is a good sign that they were involved in this filming of this book since it has six different and interlinked stories, set in different ages from a US ship in 1850 involved in the slave trade, through English composers, investigative journalism, literary editors, clones living in a corpocracy to a world which has collapsed into a violent state of chaos.  All very different stories and all plotted and structured according to the accepted style.

The book is structured so that we move from the earliest element through to the most futuristic, giving half of each story before returning back through time from the most futuristic to the earliest, tying each story up as you go.   The directors have abandoned the book structure and have the film as multiple scenes, intertwined.  I think that the book’s original structure wouldn’t work in the cinema since the denouements would be too staggered and you soon become used to the rapid switches.

The book also has quite clear narrative links between the stories but these are not so obvious in the film.  Instead the link is more clearly highlighted by the actors playing multiple roles.  Tom Hanks plays a nasty doctor, to a seedy desk clerk to a nuclear scientist and well, you get the idea.

OK, so the idea of having actors playing multiple parts is not new.  You’ve seen it in Kind Hearts and Coronets and also Doctor Strangelove.  This film employs it to a greater degree and there’s a certain pleasure in spotting the actors as they make their, sometimes fleeting, appearances.  Is that a distraction?  Not really, unless you choose to stare at Tom Hanks’ make up over watching the film.

The major themes are carried throughout.  There is the will to power, the possibility of cruelty to others and how we are oppressed by the past but how our actions and attitudes today can and will influence the future.  We have to choose how we do that.  The book is of course deeper than the film because books allow greater time to reflect, but that’s always the case with an adaptation, except perhaps for the Cat in the Hat.  If you expect a dramatic immediacy of awareness from any work of art then you’re fooling yourself.  You’ve got to put something in yourself.

So does it work?  Yes, pretty much although it’s not a classic.  There are the standard caveats about film adaptations of books, especially much loved ones and so long as you don’t expect to see your mental interpretation of the book up there on the screen.  It’s long but the film whizzes by, unlike the tedium-fest that was Lincoln and there should be enough to keep you entertained and talking after the film although the book will give you more intellectually and emotionally.