[worldwidereview]Intimacy, Cricket, and Criticism

Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:00:56 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12AA5.E678EE60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ciao Bella

Here are three new reviews for you from the redesigned
http://www.worldwidereview.com

Love JJ and BT

Intimacy an English  film by a French Director
By marker

Intimacy a film in 2001

The debate drones on: they did(n't) it!, the British are bad at sex,
probably true I wouldn't know, how alienated we are, just ships in the
afternoon climaxing, this is the beginning of the end, what next after real
sex, pretend sex etc, we are all voyeurs or voyeured now.

As far as I could see, no penis entered a vagina, the most we got was a
semi-erect condomed cock. So when actors really have sex we must see more
next time. Pornography, despite its problematic misogynist and sexist
nature, as least shows us things, the money shot being the come shot, a real
marriage of futility and utility.

In terms of titillation what was missing was the build-up (for obvious
alienation reasons). Real sex would be better with all the real preamble,
glances, banal conversation, phone numbers, dating, eating, the kiss,
clothes removal, sex, what to do afterwards. This is what is fascinating, as
evidenced by reality television which we love though they never even kiss,
we want to know what it is like for everyone else, not just to see the
banging of meat together.

Intimacy is as mediocre as a Hanif Kureshi or Milan Kundera story.
Superficially philosophical, but not all that clever or well written. The
main man is your classic quiet Northern type just waiting to burst, I wish
they would all just fuck off and learn to express their feelings. The main
woman, Madame Bovary 2001, or the like, she doesn't say much either but has
good blue eyes. Her husband Timothy Spall is his usual convincing vulgar
ugly self, he must get tired of playing these oafs. So they do it for a
while , then they stop, he gets obsessed, then they do it one more time and
say goodbye. Nothing exceptional, really.

Mark Butcher at Headingley - 19/08/2001
From: Maxie Allen

Headingley is a ramshackle and decrepid ground which barely passes muster as
an international sporting venue. But there is a certain something about the
place, a intangible quality which induces magical events.
Bradman's 334, Australia's fourth innings 408 to win in 1948, Boycott's
hundredth hundred in 1977 and the infamous Botham-Willis 1981 match
(cricket's answer to 1966) all took place at Leeds. And now Mark Butcher
knocks on the pantheon's door.

His performance was like a dose of morphine to a mortally wounded
infantryman. For one glorious sun-soaked day his phenomenal innings washed
away the pain which has so wracked the body of English cricket this summer.

He was there from the fourth ball of the day till the last, when he cut
Shane Warne behind point for the three winning runs. Weathering the brutal
pace and bounce of McGrath and Gillespie, Butcher had turned survival into
counter attack and then victory.

Destiny had decreed this was to be his day. If he swung and missed there was
no nick. If he did edge the ball it flew through or over the slips for four.
But mostly he combined excellent shot selection with beautifully struck
cuts, drives and pulls to punish any errors in length by the bowlers. Twice
in consecutive balls he leant back to square cut McGrath for four with a
sumptous combination of nonchalance and precision.

Butcher has always been regarded as a good county pro who, on his day, can
do a decent job for England. Here he was transformed from bit part player to
superstar, from grub to butterfly; to dazzle us with its beauty for its
brief day in the sun. He will not make sensational match winning Test
centuries on a regular basis. Mark Butcher has now played the best innings
of his life.

Part of Test cricket's fascination is the way the focus of the contest
shifts; team versus team, individual versus individual, team versus
individual. At Headingley the modest, humble Mark Butcher - a forgotten man
three months ago - took on the one of the finest bowling attacks of all
time, and won. Had Marcus Trescothick or Graham Thorpe made 173* instead, it
would not have been nearly so special.

Sport is also about liberation and renewal. Every run England scored
elicited a heartfelt roar from the near capacity crowd; because every run
loosened the bonds of defeat and despair which had been wound so tight
during the first three Tests.

And because victory breeds myopia. England's improbable, wonderful win -
their highest every fourth innings total to win a Test in England - soothes
and even erases our grief at the failure to regain the Ashes, and fills us
instead with the wonder of the moment.

Criticism & Change

Dear BenThe other day I was thinking about whether it really is good to be
critical. When you are critical you want to change everything all the time,
to make it better or because it's imperfect, and sometimes I think the world
changes enough by itself, time, season, etc, so maybe if we stand still
everything changes anyway. What do you think?

AskBen says I think you are confusing two things - the restless desire for
everything to be new, all the time, and the relentless desire for everything
to be perfect. True, the two are related, but they are distinct. Neither is
particularly conducive to a balanced life, if taken to extremes, but they
actually contradict each other if they are both prominent in a single
character. The desire for change is present in both, but in different forms.
Criticism naturally leads to a desire for development, improvement - every
good satire or criticism has at least the seeds of an alternative, a
solution to the thing it criticises or at least a synthesis of the object to
which it presents an antithesis. That's why a lot of the things I write for
worldwidereview aren't that good. Change-seeking does not presuppose or
propose any particularly aim, just a desire to be rid. Good - desire to see
the alternatives, form a view, exercise new critical facilities, find
something better. Bad if genuinely despairing. So each of these two
possibilities reinforces the other. So - a desire to change to have the
world refreshed is it better or better to accept that the world changes
around one? On the one hand, there's just a difference of viewpoints here -
as things do change anyway it's simply a question of whether you can see
this or not. On the other hand there's an overweening desire for agency, to
be the force and agent of change yourself. This is ultimately egotism - the
world revolves around me, but on the other hand it signifies a refusal to
acknowledge that without me, the world changes also. The sickest thing is a
desire to prevent change, whatever guise this takes. Cliche hides change,
growth decay death birth decadence, and conservatism battles it, these are
our only enemies. These and perfection.

Write a review: http://www.worldwidereview.com/Reviews_post.htm
How to write a review: http://www.worldwidereview.com/how_to.htm
The best reviews: http://www.worldwidereview.com/index.htm
Index of reviews: http://www.worldwidereview.com/Reviews_toc.htm
Music: http://www.worldwidereview.com/music.htm
Art: http://www.worldwidereview.com/art.htm
Advice: http://www.worldwidereview.com/askben.htm
Classis: http://www.worldwidereview.com/bestof.htm
Politics: http://www.worldwidereview.com/politics.htm
London: http://www.worldwidereview.com/art_uk.htm
worldwidereview curators: http://www.worldwidereview.com/who'swwr.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12AA5.E678EE60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DVerdana>Ciao Bella<BR><BR>Here are three new =
reviews for you=20
from the redesigned </FONT><A href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com"=20
target=3D_blank><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com</FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana>Love JJ and BT<BR><BR><BR><BR><STRONG></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana>Intimacy an English&nbsp; film by a French Director<BR>By =

marker Intimacy a film in=20
2001 The debate drones on: they did(n't) it!, the British are bad =
at sex,=20
probably true I wouldn't know, how alienated we are, just ships in the =
afternoon=20
climaxing, this is the beginning of the end, what next after real sex, =
pretend=20
sex etc, we are all voyeurs or voyeured now. As far as I could =
see, no=20
penis entered a vagina, the most we got was a semi-erect condomed cock. =
So when=20
actors really have sex we must see more next time. Pornography, despite =
its=20
problematic misogynist and sexist nature, as least shows us things, the =
money=20
shot being the come shot, a real marriage of futility and =
utility. In=20
terms of titillation what was missing was the build-up (for obvious =
alienation=20
reasons). Real sex would be better with all the real preamble, glances, =
banal=20
conversation, phone numbers, dating, eating, the kiss, clothes removal, =
sex,=20
what to do afterwards. This is what is fascinating, as evidenced by =
reality=20
television which we love though they never even kiss, we want to know =
what it is=20
like for everyone else, not just to see the banging of meat=20
together. Intimacy is as mediocre as a Hanif Kureshi or Milan =
Kundera=20
story. Superficially philosophical, but not all that clever or well =
written. The=20
main man is your classic quiet Northern type just waiting to burst, I =
wish they=20
would all just fuck off and learn to express their feelings. The main =
woman,=20
Madame Bovary 2001, or the like, she doesn't say much either but has =
good blue=20
eyes. Her husband Timothy Spall is his usual convincing vulgar ugly =
self, he=20
must get tired of playing these oafs. So they do it for a while , then =
they=20
stop, he gets obsessed, then they do it one more time and say goodbye. =
Nothing=20
exceptional, really. </DIV>
&nbsp;
<DIV>Mark Butcher at Headingley - =
19/08/2001 From:=20
Maxie=20
Allen Headingley is a ramshackle and decrepid ground =
which=20
barely passes muster as an international sporting venue. But there is a =
certain=20
something about the place, a intangible quality which induces magical =
events.=20
</DIV>
Bradman's 334, Australia's fourth innings 408 to =
win in=20
1948, Boycott's hundredth hundred in 1977 and the infamous Botham-Willis =
1981=20
match (cricket's answer to 1966) all took place at Leeds. And now Mark =
Butcher=20
knocks on the pantheon's door. 
His performance was like a dose of morphine to a =
mortally=20
wounded infantryman. For one glorious sun-soaked day his phenomenal =
innings=20
washed away the pain which has so wracked the body of English cricket =
this=20
summer. 
He was there from the fourth ball of the day =
till the=20
last, when he cut Shane Warne behind point for the three winning runs.=20
Weathering the brutal pace and bounce of McGrath and Gillespie, Butcher =
had=20
turned survival into counter attack and then victory. 
Destiny had decreed this was to be his day. If =
he swung=20
and missed there was no nick. If he did edge the ball it flew through or =
over=20
the slips for four. But mostly he combined excellent shot selection with =

beautifully struck cuts, drives and pulls to punish any errors in length =
by the=20
bowlers. Twice in consecutive balls he leant back to square cut McGrath =
for four=20
with a sumptous combination of nonchalance and precision. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana>Butcher has always been regarded as a good =
county pro who,=20
on his day, can do a decent job for England. Here he was transformed =
from bit=20
part player to superstar, from grub to butterfly; to dazzle us with its =
beauty=20
for its brief day in the sun. He will not make sensational match winning =
Test=20
centuries on a regular basis. Mark Butcher has now played the best =
innings of=20
his life. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana>Part of Test cricket's fascination is the way =
the focus of=20
the contest shifts; team versus team, individual versus individual, team =
versus=20
individual. At Headingley the modest, humble Mark Butcher - a forgotten =
man=20
three months ago - took on the one of the finest bowling attacks of all =
time,=20
and won. Had Marcus Trescothick or Graham Thorpe made 173* instead, it =
would not=20
have been nearly so special. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana>Sport is also about liberation and renewal. =
Every run=20
England scored elicited a heartfelt roar from the near capacity crowd; =
because=20
every run loosened the bonds of defeat and despair which had been wound =
so tight=20
during the first three Tests. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana>And because victory breeds myopia. England's =
improbable,=20
wonderful win - their highest every fourth innings total to win a Test =
in=20
England - soothes and even erases our grief at the failure to regain the =
Ashes,=20
and fills us instead with the wonder of the moment. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana><STRONG>Criticism &amp; =
Change</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana><STRONG>Dear Ben</STRONG>The other day I was =
thinking=20
about whether it really is good to be critical. When you are critical =
you want=20
to change everything all the time, to make it better or because it's =
imperfect,=20
and sometimes I think the world changes enough by itself, time, season, =
etc, so=20
maybe if we stand still everything changes anyway. What do you=20
think?<BR><BR><STRONG>AskBen says </STRONG>I think you are confusing two =
things=20
- the restless desire for everything to be new, all the time, and the =
relentless=20
desire for everything to be perfect. True, the two are related, but they =
are=20
distinct. Neither is particularly conducive to a balanced life, if taken =
to=20
extremes, but they actually contradict each other if they are both =
prominent in=20
a single character. The desire for change is present in both, but in =
different=20
forms. Criticism naturally leads to a desire for development, =
improvement -=20
every good satire or criticism has at least the seeds of an alternative, =
a=20
solution to the thing it criticises or at least a synthesis of the =
object to=20
which it presents an antithesis. That's why a lot of the things I write =
for=20
worldwidereview aren't that good. Change-seeking does not presuppose or =
propose=20
any particularly aim, just a desire to be rid. Good - desire to see the=20
alternatives, form a view, exercise new critical facilities, find =
something=20
better. Bad if genuinely despairing. So each of these two possibilities=20
reinforces the other. So - a desire to change to have the world =
refreshed is it=20
better or better to accept that the world changes around one? On the one =
hand,=20
there's just a difference of viewpoints here - as things do change =
anyway it's=20
simply a question of whether you can see this or not. On the other hand =
there's=20
an overweening desire for agency, to be the force and agent of change =
yourself.=20
This is ultimately egotism - the world revolves around me, but on the =
other hand=20
it signifies a refusal to acknowledge that without me, the world changes =
also.=20
The sickest thing is a desire to prevent change, whatever guise this =
takes.=20
Cliche hides change, growth decay death birth decadence, and =
conservatism=20
battles it, these are our only enemies. These and =
perfection.<BR><BR><BR>Write a=20
review: </FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/Reviews_post.htm"=20
target=3D_blank><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/Reviews_post.htm</FONT></A>=
<BR><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana>How to write a review: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/how_to.htm"><FONT color=3D#000000 =

face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/how_to.htm</FONT></A><BR><F=
ONT=20
face=3DVerdana>The best reviews: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/index.htm"><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/index.htm</FONT></A><BR><FO=
NT=20
face=3DVerdana>Index of reviews: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/Reviews_toc.htm" =
target=3D_blank><FONT=20
color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/Reviews_toc.htm</FONT></A><=
BR><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana>Music: </FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/music.htm"=20
target=3D_blank><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/music.htm</FONT></A><BR><FO=
NT=20
face=3DVerdana>Art: </FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/art.htm"><FONT=20
color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/art.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT=
=20
face=3DVerdana>Advice: </FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/askben.htm"=20
target=3D_blank><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/askben.htm</FONT></A><BR><F=
ONT=20
face=3DVerdana>Classis: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/bestof.htm"><FONT color=3D#000000 =

face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/bestof.htm</FONT></A><BR><F=
ONT=20
face=3DVerdana>Politics: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/politics.htm"><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/politics.htm</FONT></A><BR>=
<FONT=20
face=3DVerdana>London: </FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/art_uk.htm"=20
target=3D_blank><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/art_uk.htm</FONT></A><BR><F=
ONT=20
face=3DVerdana>worldwidereview curators: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com/who'swwr.htm" =
target=3D_blank><FONT=20
color=3D#000000=20
face=3DVerdana>http://www.worldwidereview.com/who'swwr.htm</FONT></A><FON=
T=20
face=3DVerdana> </FONT></P></BODY></HTML>
<P><HR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Outgoing mail is checked by AVG - =
certified Virus Free with no acceptance of liability.<BR>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.grisoft.com">www.grisoft.com</A>).
<BR>Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: =
18/07/2001<BR>
<BR></FONT>

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12AA5.E678EE60--