But a thoroughly exciting, thought provoking and charming a story. It centers around a woman, a princess, who was found and brought up by a humble bamboo cutter. She is mysterious and her beauty is known through the land. She however is not willing to marry and her long time suitors slowly abandon the idea to get her. Except five. Each of them are named including their high ranks. Upon he father’s insistence she gives them challenges, promising to marry the one that accomplishes it. But they are quite impossible. Could you get the stone begging bowl of the Buddha from India, a jewelled branch from the Paradise, the robe made of the fire-rat fur of China, a jewel from the dragon’s neck or the “easy-delivery charm” of the swallows? I didn’t think so. Neither could I.

Nevertheless the dignitaries set out and return one by one saying that they have done what they were asked to do so. They all cheated thought one way or another, so she remains single. Next though the emperor wants her and sets up an elaborate scheme to get to her. He manages to meet her, but not go get her hand. As the full moon approaches she unveils her arcanum that she was cast off from the Moon for a past sin, but now her penance is over and she can return. The emperor’s soldiers try to prevent it, but fail.

This is the story in a nutshell (or bamboo reed if you prefer) but the beauty of story is hidden by the summary. It is the poetry and the allegories that make the book exciting and suggests themes that are waiting to be unpacked. Messages and riddles in rhyme flying back and forth between the characters. Each chapter purports to uncover the origins of a particular folk saying by attributing it to elements in the story. These are untransferable by a simple review/reflection as mine.

I have to mention though that the visual design of the book I was reading was phenomenal. Masayuki Miyata’s illustrations seemed both modern and ancient at the same time, fitting perfectly the edition I was perusing. The bilingual book contained the Japanese text on the left, including for the preface, written by the translator and the whole text. There is a 17 page long Japanese only text at the end, which I assume is the original version of the tale. This is followed by a brief profile of the modernizer, translator and illustrator; again I both languages. It was a joy to hold and read this book.

The book @ Amazon.com

The other way to make the concept fly could have been by showing that humor is culture and language specific. It could have parodied itself by explaining how and why jokes based on linguistic puns don’t work with an audience who may not get those nuances. The schism between the comedian and the audience could have been so wide that the pain could have been funny in itself. This was closer to what happened in this movie, but didn’t go far enough and just remained painful. A if the comedian wasn’t even aware of his own ethnocentrism. The same jokes might have been OK, even I would have enjoyed some of them in a US context, but out there it was just horrid.

One more word about the location. As it was mentioned India is not a Muslim country, even though hundreds of millions of Muslims leave there. And it certainly doesn’t cover the “Muslim world”. Setting almost the entire plot there and giving a title like this to the movie was misleading. Too bad, I was looking forward to some humor, originating from the Muslim world, as I am less familiar with that. Instead all I got was a transportation of a stand-up routine to India where it flopped.

DVD @ Amazon.com.

IMDB’s summary: To improve its relations with Muslim countries, the United States government sends comedian Albert Brooks to south Asia to write a report on what makes followers of Islam laugh.

Trailer:

The other on the hand only gets her diploma with a condition of taking a remedial art class over the summer. When she tries to get a job she never manages to give up her attitude and character so she gets fired on her first day. Her meek father offers his (and his on/off girlfriend’s) help, but she refuses to be influenced. She thinks of moving out and I with his girlfriend, but cannot make a whole hearted decision. Meanwhile he befriends an older guy, who is an obsessive collector of old object, mostly records, but socially is a dork. The movie’s central theme is their friendship, who it transforms from a teenage prank to recognition of human values in an alien lifeform.

Why is this movie and the comic book it was made from called Ghost World? Two answers. First, the pop culture saturated world the girls live in leave them unattached and cold. The world of logos and brands are the ghosts of the world; they haunt us whether we want them or not. Scary, isn’t it? The second answer comes from the last scene of the movie (unless you count the one after the credits). The bus that not supposed to be in service any more comes, and takes the misfit girl, whose languor started to suffocate her, away to the distance over a bridge. Maybe this world is a ghost world and the real one comes when you are ready to leave it.

I liked the movie, although I probably didn’t get a lot of the hidden pop culture references, because I didn’t grow up in the US. But it was funny, the characters were engaging. It also helped that the two girls were played by beautiful actresses (Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson) and the dork, played by Steve Buscemi, was self conscious and comfortable with his shortcomings. The music was fun too, both the punk rock variety and the oldtimer’s blues and ragtime. In short it had lot to offer, even if I feel I didn’t fully comprehend what it was about.

DVD @ Amazon.com.

This is a top 1000 movie.

IMDB’s summary: Enid and Rebecca are social outsiders who, after graduating from high school, play a mean prank on a middle-aged geek.
Trailer:

After I finished watching, inspired by the closing lines of the screen that told us what happened to the principal characters, I checked the movie’s background and learned that it was made from a book written by Dan Millman, an ex-gymnast-turned university professor and author, based on his own experiences and approach. The “peaceful warrior”way of life exists and is practiced by lots of people. That’s encouraging.

So what are the messages? Here are some examples, straight from the movie

• Everything has a purpose, even this, and it’s up to you to find it.
• A warrior does not give up what he loves, he finds the love in what he does
• I call myself a Peaceful Warrior… because the battles we fight are on the inside
• This moment is the only thing that matters.
• There is no starting or stopping – only doing.
• It’s the journey, not the destination.
• There’s no greater purpose than service to others.
• Everyone wants to tell you what to do and what’s good for you. They don’t want you to find your own answers, they want you to believe theirs.
• People are not theirs thoughts, they think they are, and it brings them all kinds of sadness.
• Sometimes you have to lose your mind before you come to your senses.

I like hese messages, even if I cannot live by them. Yet?
And the movie was OK too, although did not find revelationary or revolutionary at this point of my life.

DVD @ Amazon.com.

IMDB’s summary: A chance encounter with a stranger changes the life of a college gymnast

Trailer:

The set up simple: it follows fictional conversations of some of the greatest minds of the 20th century: John von Naumann (or as known in Hungarian Neumann János), Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Lewis L. Strauss, and a host of other dignitaries. What is common in them that they all worked at point or another at the “Institute for Advanced Study” (IAS), an institute at Princeton dedicated to the pursuit of pure knowledge. What is fictional in the book is that they didn’t necessarily work there at the same time. But it made better dramaturgy to have them all share their minds on the same topics.

The book purports to follow discussion about the limits of knowledge, first theoretical (what the limits could be) and then moral (what they should be). I have to admit it was a challenge to read this book. I read it slowly, making sure that I understood each sentence and paragraph. That was hard work as there was a lot of theory in it. I felt proud of myself that I managed to grasp the concepts and, I believe, the meaning of everything that was said. They contained lots of high level abstractions. However when I wanted to summarize for myself a chapter’s message, or what an individual character represented I was in trouble as that required an even higher level of abstraction, which I just couldn’t devote enough time during my regular days. If I’d be still at school and wouldn’t have to work, take care of family and myriads of other things I think I could have done that. But with the time limits and distractions of my personal pursuit of pure knowledge I couldn’t. Nevertheless I am happy that moves those brain muscles that haven’t worked much since highschool, those that do high level math.

On a lower level, the plot revolves around two topics. Should the IAS change Gödel’s status from a member to a professor and should the IAS allow and support Neumann to build a computer. These are the rallying points that the scientists and administration converse about that are easier to follow. Another nice digestible and enjoyable part of the book is the physical and mental description of the main characters. Reading that increased my knowledge of popular science, for which I am grateful. I also have now a sense of what each of them contributed to science. This is why I am happy despite being tricked into reading this book by the library’s miscategorization.

The book @ Amazon.com

Meanwhile at a university a professor (Robert Redford, who also directed the film) is having a conversation with one of his naturally talented students, who didn’t attend most of his lectures. He gives him a choice of getting an easy B, or working hard, and accomplishing something for himself and living up to his full(er) potential. The professor is patriotic, but recognizes that people, despite their respectable heroics, who volunteer for the army do it for the wrong reasons in the wrong wars. After the student leaves the office he sees something on TV that gives him a pause and makes him think about his choices.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan a soldier falls out from a helicopter over a mountain ridge ad his friend jumps after him to save him. They survive the fall, but the enemy’s foot soldiers are closing on in them. The army is aware of the situation and sending back a rescue flight, but it takes 25 minutes for it to arrive. Meanwhile they talk, pull themselves together as much as possible and fight back as much as they can with their minimal ammunition. (SPOILER: They get shot down by the enemy, but first they stand up, so they would not be killed unhonorably in the horizontal position.)

But where are the connections. The two soldiers used to be the professor’s star students, who enlisted as a result of the professor’s challenge to do something for their country, not just talk. He tried to convince them not to do it, but he lost the arguments. The Senator’s conversation with the journalist keeps getting interrupted by phone calls as he is getting updated about the situation in Afghanistan, as the flight the soldiers dropped out from was part of his new strategy. And the student sees at the running ticker at the bottom of the TV the news about the soldiers’ death and he knows who they were.

I know that critics said the movie was boring and led nowhere. Nevertheless I liked it. I enjoy pondering unanswerable or at least tough questions. I also enjoy good acting, which there was plenty of here. So if you don’t expect answers or fast actions, but you are OK with lots of conversations, I think you would enjoy this movie too.

DVD @ Amazon.com.

IMDB’s summary: Injuries sustained by two Army ranger behind enemy lines in Afghanistan set off a sequence of events involving a congressman, a journalist and a professor.

Trailer: