|
Money matters: Financial Market
Part 1
Graham Macdonald
MBMG International Ltd.
The impact upon financial markets and economic activity
during current account adjustments has become such a hot topic in terms of its
implications to the American economy that a Fed Discussion paper has been penned
by Hilary Croke, Steven B. Kamin and Sylvain Leduc.
So much has been written about prospects for U.S. current
account adjustment, including the possibility of what is sometimes referred to
as a ‘disorderly correction’: a sharp fall in the exchange rate that boosts
interest rates, depresses stock prices, and weakens economic activity; in short
a recession and a stock (and in all probability property and bond) market crash.
Croke, Kamin and Leduc selected some empirical evidence to assess the likelihood
of such a scenario, drawing on the experience of recent current account
adjustments in various industrial economies, by comparing key economic
performance indicators before, during, and after the onset of adjustment,
building on the analysis of Caroline Freund some 5 years ago. Ultimately their
conclusion was as follows:
“We found little evidence among past adjustment episodes of
the features highlighted by the disorderly correction hypothesis. Although some
episodes in our sample experienced significant shortfalls in GDP growth after
the onset of adjustment, these shortfalls were not associated with significant
and sustained depreciations of real exchange rates, increases in real interest
rates, or declines in real stock prices. By contrast, it was among the episodes
where GDP growth picked up during adjustment that the most substantial
depreciations of real exchange rates occurred. These findings do not preclude
the possibility that future current account adjustments could be disruptive, but
they weaken the historical basis for predicting such an outcome.”
So we can all sleep again at night? Well not really - we’re
pretty alarmed that the comparators that were used are just not a good fit with
what’s been going on in the USA lately. In their attempts to ensure the
relevance of their data the authors did attempt to exclude historical precedents
that they felt had insufficient parallels.
That would have been worthwhile and might have led us to some
meaningful comparisons had their overall data been sufficiently encompassing to
have included at least one historical parallel (if indeed one exists) and had
the excluded data been notably less relevant than the data that they retained.
There are probably too many differences between the 1920s and the 1990s, the
world of radio/telegraph and the world of internet, the inappropriate tax cuts
of Calvin Coolidge and those of George W Bush for the ’20s and ’30s to be
compared with events of 7 decades later.
However, the elements of stock and property bubbles, high
leverage, massive investments in new technologies, excessively accommodating
monetary and fiscal policy and, above all, the co-incidence of the same stages
of the economic long term cycle suggest to us that the authors would have better
spent their time including that era within their study.
So, what can we infer about the prospects for U.S. current
account adjustment, and for that adjustment leading to a disorderly correction?
The exact attributes of a disorderly correction are not
always fully spelled out, nor are the events believed to precipitate them. In
general, a number of commentators fear sharp declines in the dollar associated
with a run on U.S. bonds, property and stocks as well, which would slow U.S. and
foreign growth.
“If you want to scare yourself, contemplate the following.
The dollar begins to fall. That is, its value slips relative to other
currencies. Foreigners with massive investments in U.S. stocks and bonds begin
to sell their holdings. They fear currency losses on their American investments
because a depreciated dollar would fetch less of their own money. The selling
then feeds on itself. The stock market swoons. American consumer confidence
withers. The recession resumes and spreads to the rest of the world through
lower U.S. imports. Wham! Is this horror story likely? Probably not. Is it
possible? Well, yes.” Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, May 29, 2002.
What Robert Samuelson thought was possible but not probable
in 2002 looks increasingly likely in 2005:
“Up to a point, a falling currency is a blessing. After
that, it’s a curse. The dollar has fallen 16% against a basket of its trading
partners’ currencies over the past three years. In theory, that should, with
time, make U.S.-made goods more competitive with those made abroad, boosting
U.S. growth and employment. But a growing chorus warns that the U.S.’s gaping
budget and trade deficits will lead to a crisis in which the dollar falls much
more sharply, driving up interest rates and squeezing the economy.” Greg Ip, Wall
Street Journal, January 18, 2005.
We’ve already seen that the need for current account
adjustment has applied upwards pressure on interest rates (and possibly already
some minor consequent decline in stock prices) to prevent the stimulus from net
exports from pushing GDP much above potential. This is taking place against a
backdrop of softening domestic investment and consumption. Admittedly, it is
possible for that to take place in an orderly fashion. Increases in interest
rates and a weakening of domestic spending have not always implied a disorderly
correction. That’s essentially what the Fed research manages to establish even
with their various inappropriate historic comparisons. What it doesn’t address
is how the frothy US asset bubble can avoid declines in asset prices of a
magnitude that would do something rather worse than merely stabilizing GDP. Even
the researchers agree that there is a level of reduction in US asset values that
would result in significant economic contraction.
Continued next week…
|
The above data and research was compiled from sources believed to be
reliable. However, neither MBMG International Ltd nor its officers can
accept any liability for any errors or omissions in the above article nor
bear any responsibility for any losses achieved as a result of any actions
taken or not taken as a consequence of reading the above article. For more
information please contact Graham Macdonald on [email protected]
|
Snap Shots: Landscapes - how to take pix with impact
by Harry Flashman
Landscapes have been inspiration to painters for
centuries. Photographers have developed recording their favourite places
into an art form - just look at Ansel Adams’ work for example. A well
done landscape is sensational.
If your landscapes are at best ‘ordinary’, this is
usually the result of trying to cram too much into one photo and not
choosing a subject with impact. Anyone can learn to take great landscapes.
All that has to be mastered is to relax and take the time to really see
through the viewfinder. The following hints will help anyone take
outstanding landscapes.
The most important decision is composition, or where to
put what in the photo. To learn how to see through the viewfinder and to
know what to include, ask yourself these questions. 1. What is the most
important subject in the scene, what do I want it to say? 2. Where should
the horizon be placed? 3. Will the shot look better framed vertically or
horizontally?
The horizon line is an important element in every
landscape. If it cuts the picture through the middle it looks boring.
Experiment with different proportions of sky, land and water. Giving one
element far more emphasis results in dramatically different looks.
Remember a tilted horizon is distracting so use a tripod if necessary to
keep it level.
Now for the frame up. Trees, waterfalls and cliffs
usually suit a vertical framing, while beach scenes, countryside and
street markets are ideal for a horizontal format. Change the framing while
looking through the viewfinder and select the one with the most eye
appeal.
Landscape photography is not a point and shoot
situation, so take your time. Good composition must be slowly and
carefully considered. Just look and shift your viewpoint to rearrange
elements into a more pleasing picture. Remember the rule of thirds. Place
the main subject one third in from the left or right of the picture, and
one third up or down.
As distinct from other pictures, landscapes have three
zones - a foreground, a middle ground and a background. The best views
show this with maximum depth of field. For those with manual cameras f
stops of f16 or f22 will achieve the best front to back sharpness or depth
of field.
Standard lenses will take great shots of standard
scenes, but to bring mountains closer and ‘compact’ the scene, use a
telephoto lens or put the zoom in the ‘tele’ position. For a panorama,
however, choose the widest angle or turn the zoom to wide angle for best
results.
There is no need to pack up and go home when the
weather is less than ideal. Better pics can often be had at these times.
Dull overcast days provide diffused shadowless lighting and give a great
opportunity to SLR owners to try out their filters.
Graduated filters, if you possess them, will add colour
to half the scene. The most useful grads are blue, green, tobacco or
magenta. Used together, grad blue over the sky and green over the grass or
water brightens the dullest picture. Grad tobacco or magenta can save an
insipid sunset. So too can simple orange cellophane taped over the lens
sparkle up an early evening shot.
It is fun to experiment with deep blue filters. Use
them to change late afternoon into moonlit landscapes. The overall blue
colour makes it look as though the photo were taken at night. If the sun
is included it will look like the moon. For insurance, bracket the
exposure by using different shutter speeds.
Try the moonlight effect this weekend with blue
cellophane bought from the newsagent. Doubled and secured over the front
of the lens it will give an idea of the result. If the picture appeals
then rush out and splurge on a proper blue filter to use next time.
If you follow these steps you will take great landscapes! Think
carefully about composition, subject, horizon and framing. If you can, use
a tripod or other camera support to achieve sharpness, pack filters for a
gloomy day and experiment.
Modern Medicine: Contact lenses and safety
by Dr. Iain Corness, Consultant
There are countless millions of people
throughout the world that wear contact lenses. The advent of these was many
years ago, and while it did free many people with visual problems from the
necessity of wearing glasses, the ‘fix’ has some problems too. Even if it is
just the fiddling around putting them in and taking them out.
To put everything in perspective, it is probably a sobering
thought that eye problems are some of the commonest reasons for a doctor visit.
And for those of you who wear contact lenses (like me) there are even more eye
problems for us to get, despite the common use of contact lenses these days,
even just for the vanity of fashion, to change your eye colour.
What has to be remembered is the fact that no matter how it
is packaged, a contact lens is a foreign body in the eye. One “skill” in
manufacturing the contact lens is in making it so smooth that the eyeball
doesn’t realise there is a foreign body there at all.
There are various types of contact lens, the old hard ones
were made of a material called polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) which is rigid and
doesn’t let oxygen through, but the newer ones have a material called siloxane
which is gas permeable. These hard lenses are the most trouble free, although
the most difficult to look after.
The second type of lens is the soft contact lens, of which
there is a “permanent” style and a disposable type. These are made of
hydroxymethylmethacrylate (HEMA) which contains between 30-60% water and are gas
permeable. However, soft disposable lenses give the most problems, but are the
easiest to look after, in direct contrast with the hard lenses.
The commonest problems with all contact lenses is infection,
and since the lens is a foreign body, there is a good reason to get an infection
immediately. For those of you who leave your lenses in overnight, you have an
increased risk of infection by a factor of 10. Take them out every night, is my
advice.
Infection should not be thought of as something that just
happens and when it does you just pop in a few eye drops and it gets better
automatically. Bacterial infection can be sight threatening and the cornea (the
clear bit in the centre that you look through) can be destroyed in 24 to 48
hours. There is also a parasite that can get into the eye of contact lens users
who have rinsed their lens with contaminated water, or who have worn their
lenses swimming in contaminated water.
One very common problem is “losing” the lens in the eye,
both the hard and soft types. The most important thing to remember is not to
panic. The lens cannot go “behind” the eye. It just gets caught under the
lid. Try to avoid rubbing and it will reappear in an hour or so.
The other very common problem is eye irritation. This is
caused by material under the lens or damage to the lens itself, such as
splitting or tearing. If you are like me and you wear your “two week”
contacts until they fall apart - remember you are running a risk!
Lens care is the most important feature and you should always
wash your hands before removal or insertion. The lens container should be
scrupulously clean and the storage/cleaning fluid should be fresh, and never use
water.
Look after your lenses, change them frequently and remove
them immediately if there is any irritation or redness. “See” you next week!
Learn to Live to Learn: Spelling “Intellectual”
with Andrew Watson
When I was growing up in London in the mid-Eighties,
the atmosphere was described by contemporary commentators as
“militant”. Thatcher seemed to have been in power for ever and was
already demonstrating what many viewed as the characteristics of
arrogant dictatorship which were to lead to her eventual downfall.
Labour had been seized by self-seeking remnants of
the extreme left who were holding up a rusting iron curtain. Neil
Kinnock spoke of the “grotesque chaos” of a Labour Council
(Liverpool) hiring taxis to send out redundancy notices to its workers.
Critics of Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph, her
education guru, point to this period as one in which education in the UK
lost its way. She wasn’t known for her subtlety, after all. Together,
they bludgeoned market orientated reforms into a traditionally
conservative (definitely small ‘c’) and strongly unionised group
(teachers) but seemed to care little for the individual student or
teacher.
Now, I think few would argue that reforms of some
kind weren’t necessary. Many, however, would respond that the manner
in which they were undertaken was insensitive at best.
With Thatcher came true Capitalist ideology (I think
that many parts of the United Kingdom had seen themselves as the last
bastions of socialism.) A new graven idol was worshipped - the wallet.
Norman Tebbit told the unemployed to “Get on their bikes”.
Attendances at churches declined, whilst those at the shopping malls,
sprouting up in green fields and inner city sites, grew uncontrollably.
Punters sought spiritual sustenance in shops and found none.
Educationally, I witnessed intelligence maligned and
aspiration towards academic achievement derided, on a daily basis
amongst adults and students alike. Thatcher, they decided, had banished
this nonsense about schooling, learning, tolerance, compassion and
understanding, to the dustbin of history.
Never has this philosophy been more clearly
illustrated than by Harry Enfield’s character “Loadsamoney”, who
waved his wad in the face of those less fortunate than himself.
Infamously, an England footballer, child of the age,
did the same when taking an early morning stroll around the team hotel
in an Eastern European country.
It was as if Thatcher had created a cult of
ignorance, celebrated in the UK and lampooned in Europe, epitomized by
the vulgarity of the English Football Hooligan and the overtly
xenophobic rhetoric of Tory politicians in government, seemingly equally
immune from their conscience or prosecution.
Over on the other side of the Atlantic, we were
presented with the hilarious vision of a Vice-President, Dan Quayle,
mis-correcting a child’s spelling of the word, ‘Potato’. Cynics
might conjecture that Quayle was simply an early form of George W Bush,
whose espoused favourite children’s book, “The Very Hungry
Caterpillar” wasn’t published until Bush was fourteen years old
(according to Michael Moore).
All of which might seem like history, remote and
irrelevant, until you come to realize with horror (unless you subscribe
to the wallet philosophy) that those people who grew up in this era,
probably promoting the welfare of the wallet over all else (usually
their own first of course!), might be running governments, institutions,
even schools, now!
It’s the stuff which makes for great comedy, Monty
Python, The Office, they’ve all recognised and utilised the black
humour inherent in cyclical human nature.
In the post-Thatcherite, post-Quayle world of
education, I suppose a situation of Pythonesque proportions would be a
principal being unable to spell the word “intellectual”. Or a school
condemning a person for their educational heritage, whilst
simultaneously denying their students the very proper right to aspire to
the excellence symbolised by institutions like Oxford & Cambridge.
That really would be terrible.
But, I’m sorry to say that I have seen it and
it’s clear to me that it’s the residue of the cult of ignorance
distilled by those who brought the ticket to the Thatcherite show, where
division is sewn and left to fester. (Nothing personal, Lady T.) Within
organisations, you’ll see the symptoms of division in what Fullan
& Hargreaves (1998) call, “Balkanization”, where cliques lead to
poor continuity, inconsistencies and petit squabbles become the mortars
of conflict. It’s a kind of institutionalised stupidity.
I strongly believe that it is through education that
we can change the world for the better, a view so fulsomely echoed by
the Regents Round Square scholars recently. However, we are nothing if
not products of our past education and experiences (or lack of them) and
so as people, as teachers, I propose that we must be extremely careful
about the messages we wish to convey.
But Dan Quayle should have known how to spell. There
are certain standards that as leaders, we cannot allow ourselves to fall
below, even for a second. Then, if we dip below that minimum level, even
for a moment, we must be able to inwardly recognise that maybe it’s
time for us to step aside, or move on.
Next week: Aspiring to Excellence
 Heart to Heart with Hillary
Dear Hillary,
I’m attracted to a food cart vendor and I’m wondering if this
attraction is good for my health. Her cart is nothing out of the
ordinary but her movie star good looks are. She is drop dead gorgeous
and I’m mesmerized by her beauty and the delicate way she cooks. The
sensuous way that she lifts and separates the noodles or squeezes the
juice from the limes leaves me tingling.
The attraction may be mutual because she adds extra chillies to my food.
I’m not usually a spicy food eater but I don’t want to hurt her
feelings by rejecting an apparent act of generosity, so I force myself
to eat it all.
I’d like to ask her for a date, but unfortunately the heat in the
chillies makes me sweat profusely and my throat quickly swells to the
point where I can’t talk.
Do you think that spicing up my food is her way of making advances
towards me or is she just trying to boost my metabolism? Also, is there
a better way of easing the ‘next morning burn’ other than sitting in
a bucket of iced water?
Mighty Mouse
Dear Mighty Mouse,
Fallen in love again! That’s about the third time this month, little
Mouse! You may be correct that by ladling the chillies on to your food,
your food cart vendor is telling you that she’s got the hots for you.
Literally. As far as the ‘afterglow’ is concerned, you’d do better
to drink the ice water the night before.
Dear Hillary,
I am very confused. I met the most beautiful girl in the world the other
night in a bar. She is not like the other girls I have met in bars here
and I have been in Thailand for two weeks now, so I know my way around,
so to speak. I have never seen anyone as gorgeous, she is tall even
taller than me with long hair and a stunning figure. She can speak
English but prefers to whisper in my ear rather than talking out loud in
the noisy bar area. Hillary I am worried because she seems so reluctant
to talk that she may have something wrong with her throat. To be
perfectly frank could laryngitis be a symptom of some other disease,
even AIDS perhaps? I feel I have to know before I go any further in this
relationship. I would hate to find that I would have to be a nurse-maid
to her or lose her to some terminal illness. Can you tell me how to
check?
Check-up
Dear Check-down,
Have you stopped to think that her “ laryngitis” might be normal and
nothing wrong with her voice at all? There are probably some other
anatomical factors you should check before looking for “diseases.”
Start by observing the size of her Adam’s apple, hands and feet before
venturing further south. To be on the safe side stick to girls your own
size or even smaller. And always remember that in Thailand, the best
looking girls are always guys.
Dear Hillary,
I been living with good man for the past few months. He not be here too
much long and not like go-go bar and go drink drink all time. He watch
football but I want go dancing, but he say have football match and he
stay inside to watch, not go outside for dance. He say I can go by
myself, but I not want. I want him for dancing but he just want me when
no football on VDO. Should I stay or go as I think he like football more
than me?
Noi not football girl
Dear Noi not football girl,
That is a dangerous game you are playing. For many men, kicking balls is
a religion. There is only one Arsenal, but there could be a lot of
eligible young ladies like you. If you are not careful you could end up
getting a red card and missing the matches all together. Hillary
suggests you go dancing on nights when the Football Team is not playing
or you will find yourself in the Left Right Out or Drawback positions
forever. Learn to shout “Foul” at the right moments and you will get
a secure seat in the supporters club.
Dear Hillary,
One of the girls in my regular bar was reading a letter from a farang
and asked me to translate a couple of sections for her. It was the usual
boyfriend to girlfriend letter and in it he said he was looking forward
to coming back next month. When I asked her who he was, she said she
didn’t remember! Hillary, why do these girls act like this? Surely
they must remember, or was she just playing with me?
Jack
Dear Jack,
She wasn’t playing with you - you’re playing with you! That is their
job, or didn’t you know. They are usually looking for marriage and
future security material, and obviously the fond pen pal hadn’t made
as much of an impression as he hoped. Mind you, he’ll probably have
bought her a motorcycle, 10 Baht of gold and a three bedroom house by
the time this letter is printed. These girls can also remember very
quickly too.
Psychological Perspectives: Polarizing decision by cardinals predictable
by Michael Catalanello,
Ph.D.
News commentators are atwitter about Pope
Benedict XVI, the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church. After just two
days of meetings in the historic Sistine Chapel, the conclave of 115
cardinals named Cardinal Josef Ratzinger of Germany to be the successor to
John Paul II who died on April 2 at the age of 84.
Vatican experts in tune with the views of the new Pope
have variously characterized him as “unstintingly conservative,”
“archconservative,” “neoconservative,” “authoritarian,” “a
tough disciplinarian,” “a hard-line guardian of conservative
doctrine,” even “divisive,” “a polarizing person,” “a doctrinal
watchdog,” and “God’s Rottweiler.” In his former position as head
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger had staunchly
defended church doctrine against attempts by dissidents to promote liberal
reforms from within.
The selection of a Pope in the conservative tradition of
John Paul II was undoubtedly gratifying to the more traditionalist members
of the Roman Catholic Church. It was, however, a crushing blow to many
moderates among the faithful who had been hoping and praying for a more
progressive papacy.
It wasn’t long after Ratzinger was named before
observers and commentators were advancing various theories to explain why
the cardinals had selected a man with such extreme and rigidly conservative
views, over his more moderate or progressive rivals. The decision to select
a theological conservative was, however, highly predictable, in view of a
principle from the archives of social psychology.
Well over 300 psychological studies have produced
compelling evidence of an interesting group phenomenon known as the group
polarization effect. According to this research, if individuals are
initially inclined toward a particular viewpoint or ideology, decisions
made by them as a group are likely to be more extreme than decisions they
would have each made individually. If individuals are initially inclined to
take risks, for example, a decision by a group comprising those individuals
is likely to be riskier than their individual decisions might suggest. If
cautious individuals make a collective decision, the decision of the group
is likely to be even more cautious than their mean individual decisions.
The group process, then, tends to enhance members’ preexisting
tendencies.
Obviously, groups usually consist of people whose views
are somewhat similar. That is because people are attracted to groups that
reflect attitudes and values similar to their own. A person holding
libertarian views, for example, would seem more likely to join a group that
values and promotes individual freedom than one that promotes
authoritarianism. Likewise, views of the members of the conclave of
cardinals would be expected to reflect the conservatism and orthodoxy
characteristic of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But why would group
decisions be more polarized than individual decisions of the group members?
Three explanations have emerged.
According to the persuasive arguments
explanation, during group discussion a greater number of arguments favoring
the predominant point of view are presented, and with a greater degree of
persuasiveness, reflecting the dominant bias of group members. These
arguments, in turn, influence individuals’ positions in the direction of
the extreme.
Researchers have found that group polarization occurs
even when specific arguments are not presented. According to the social
comparison explanation, as members of the group are exposed to the
positions of other group members, they discover more support for their own
opinion than they had initially expected. This creates a new perspective of
the group norm, implicitly providing members permission to move to a more
radical extreme. Thus, in the event that the cardinals did nothing more
than vote, making the results known to the group would have a further
polarizing effect.
A third explanation known as social categorization
is based upon the tendency of people to identify themselves as members of
social groups. Members of a group are generally inclined to want to
distinguish themselves from other people and groups. In doing so, they may
emphasize the distinguishing characteristics of the group, often moving to
a more extreme position in order to distance themselves from others. Each
of these three arguments receives some support in the literature.
The cardinals, of course, would prefer to think that the Holy Spirit
guided their decision. If so, the influence of the Holy Spirit appears
strikingly similar to social processes at work in secular decision-making
groups. Further, if group polarization holds true, it seems highly unlikely
that a theologically liberal Pope could ever emerge from a conclave of
conservative cardinals.
|
Dr. Catalanello is a licensed psychologist in his home State of Louisiana, USA, and a member of the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Asian University,
Chonburi. You may address questions and comments to him at [email protected], or post on his weblog at
http://asianupsych.blogspot.com
|
Sound and Vision
By Justin
Trousers
DVD
Tropical Malady
 The
2004 Cannes Film Festival stirred up some controversy when the jury (chaired by
Quentin Tarrantino) awarded the Palme D’or to Michael Moore’s documentary
Fahrenheit 911. But this was not the only award handed out by the jury. Most
award titles are in French so you have to guess what they are for (e.g. Prix de
la Grande Merde); but the Jury Award is fairly clear, it’s the feature film
that the members of the jury wished to single out for praise. In 2004 the Jury
Award went to the Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Joe) for his movie
Sud Pralad, or “Tropical Malady”.
This is not Joe’s first success at Cannes. In 2002 his
film “Blissfully Yours” won the award “Un Certain Regard” which I
translate, presumably incorrectly, as being a movie that the jury certainly
glanced at. But the Jury Award is a much bigger deal and you would imagine that
Tropical Malady would have been promoted heavily in the Kingdom. But Joe could
not find a distributor so it never made it into cinemas; but now it is
available on budget DVD if you want to take a look.
Having watched it, I can understand why it was not released;
this is not a mainstream film. The first hour of the movie follows the growing
relationship between a soldier and another young man. They hang out, play video
games, eat food, sing karaoke and talk. Nothing much happens other than daily
life; and it all plays out very slowly. Joe uses static camera positions which
linger over scenes where we wait quite some time for something to happen, and
then wait again after it has happened for the scene to end. This is effective
in portraying the slow pace of upcountry Thai life, but less effective in
keeping the viewer engaged; or indeed conscious.
After the first hour the screen goes black for a while and
then we are transported into a story of Thai folklore involving disappearing
villagers and shamans. Shaman is an album by Santana. It is also a word for a
witch doctor who can communicate with spirits and can take different forms. You
need to understand that it is this second definition that is relevant for this
movie. We find the same soldier alone in the jungle pursuing the shaman who is
played by his boyfriend from the first part of the movie. There is an eventual
showdown with the shaman in tiger form with an implication that the tiger kills
the soldier. Bad tiger.
Miss Julie, who had more than one eye on the
“SparklyShoes-R-Us” website she was browsing whilst the movie was playing,
denounced Tropical Malady as boring and awarded it her personal Prix de la
Grande Merde for the day. I had to agree it was long winded and confusing; but
given the praise lavished by others I can only assume we missed something; like
a storyline. On the plus side, it is beautifully filmed, sometimes appearing as
a series of carefully staged photographs, especially in the second section
where Joe must have spent hours setting up the lighting for the jungle scenes.
If you just sit back and let the visuals wash over you as an experience and
don’t too hard to find meaning, maybe this is an interesting way to spend two
hours. It’s certainly a change from the usual studio product.
Joe has since gone out to make “The Adventures of Iron
Pussy”, an everyday story of a store clerk who is a drag queen and secret
agent by night. I expect this movie had less trouble finding a nationwide
release!
After the Sunset
It must be tough being Pierce Brosnan. Imagine the ‘phone
call: “Hi Pierce. We would like you to come and hang out at a luxury resort
in the Bahamas for a few weeks. Not that interested? OK, well of course we will
pay you a bucketload of cash. Slightly tempted? Perhaps we forgot to mention
you will spend most of your time with Salma Hayek who will be wearing not very
much.”
 Indeed,
the sight of Salma Hayek wearing not very much seems to be one of the selling
points of this movie, given the amount of time that the camera lingers on her
and her not unattractive assets. Being an equal opportunities director, Brett
Ratner also gives the ladies lashings of Brosnan and Woody Harrelson with their
shirts off. But the cast only get in the way of the really attractive scenery,
the beaches and waters of the Bahamas. Miss Julie was so taken that she had the
atlas out and was checking Thai Airlines flights. Luckily for my fragile
wallet, U-Tapao to Nassau is not yet a scheduled route
So, everybody and everywhere are looking good, what about
the movie? Brosnan and Hayek play retired jewel thieves, with Harrelson as the
FBI agent convinced they are going to carry out one last job in the Bahamas.
Also worthy of mention is Don Cheadle as the local mafia boss who short-cuts
establishing his bad guy credentials by knocking down a children’s’
hospital to build a para-military training facility; that’s style! Mix the
characters and plot and you get a few amusing comedy situations, a rather
anti-climatic heist, and a feeble plot twist. It’s all slight, forgettable
stuff, but an easy and fun way to spend a couple of hours. This is the sort of
movie than transfers to cable TV pretty quickly, but if you have not already
seen it then it is available on budget DVD at the usual outlets. And Salma
Hayek has really nice teeth.
Music
Bloc Party -
Silent Alarm
Read the reviews for this album and the word “yelping”
appears frequently. If the vocalist Kele Okereke was a dog, he would be a small
yappy little bugger that you would happily throw stones at. He has some good
lyrics to yelp; but does have a tendency to repeat them constantly so that he
can be sure you have noted just how good they are. The drummer has Keith Moon
pretensions which manage to sound both thrilling and annoying, but annoying
wins by a comfortable margin. Mr. Moon added an element of chaos and looseness
to his maniacal drumming that could only be achieved by swallowing quantities
of alcohol and prescription drugs sufficient to anesthetise the entire
Mongolian world tour rugby team (and their mascot Yak called Tony). I doubt
that the Bloc Party drummer is able to handle such excess and so his drumming
is more mechanical than inspired. The guitars are spiky and trashy in a way
that guitars sound spiky and trashy on so many other recent albums.
 On
their web site the band insist that they are not actually a band but “an
autonomous unit of extra-ordinary kids” who “ostensibly play instruments at
the same time” and “also have a title for the work created”. There is
more pretentious bollocks on the web but I think you get the idea, a band with
a thesaurus and delusions of artistic adequacy.
Bloc Party has been hailed as the next big thing by many,
especially by their record company, their accountants and their mothers.
Comparisons have been made with The Strokes and I can relate to that. The
Strokes were similarly hyped and yet their first album contained a couple of
good songs with a load of filler which were all of a similar quality and sound.
But not in a good way.
I have played Silent Alarm many times and it has still not clicked. There
are some enjoyable tracks, particularly in the first half of the album;
possible material for the Top Trousers Compilation album. But listening to the
whole album is hard work and dilutes the impact of the good stuff. If Bloc
Party is really going to be the next big thing; then they are going to have to
come up with more invention and variety on their next effort; just like the
Strokes didn’t. In summary, repetitive yelping, proceed with caution.
Autonomous unit members and their mums can mail me at [email protected]
and disagree.
|
