Lone Ranger or the rebirth of Jack Sparrow

One of the most dangerous things that may happen to a consummate film star is that the actor persona devours the movie character. Thus, never expect Humphrey Bogart to behave weakly or Clint Eastwood to solve trouble by means of accurate, convincing words. The same occurs with Johnny Depp. You may like him or not, but he never deceives anybody. Either directed by Tim Burton or by any other director, Johnny will always be the same funny guy on the verge of madness, taking himself not very seriously –actually, not seriously at all–, showing a huge range of soft, mild, even affectionate good manners and a pinch of idle extravagance.

 For this reason it was not surprising that Tonto, the loyal and supporting native American who finds a more dead-than-alive John Reid and save his life as the ranger had previously preserved his –according to the 80’s film, from which this movie is clearly a sort of remake–, from the very beginning overlaps and overshadows the title character who, by the way, is much duller and softer.

But we were highly warned. A production coming from Disney couldn’t be prone to the free exaltation of violence or the unreasoned revenge of the reflexive distric attorney, reconverted for the occasion in The Lone Ranger, the only survivor of a massacre of lawmen by the ruthless Butch Cavendish. Instead of highlighting the heroic abilities of the outlawed ranger, the studio prefers not to take the film very seriously, and gives Depp carte blanche to repeat all the tics and eccentricities of Jack Sparrow, including a pervading inofensive insanity, a relaxed sense of absurd humour and neverending remarks for every rough situation. Armie Hammer does his best as the ranger, and he’s not bad on his role, but audience and script are on Johnny’s side.

Apart from that naive comical tone that spoils more than improves the film, the length is excessive and the rhythm uneven. Often, accelerated action takes us from one place to another without much sense and other times the movie hungs around interminable reports about the extermination of ethnic tribes, the coming of the railroad to the West or the exploitation of Chinese slaves in the construction of the necessary network.

Nevertheless, the movie has good points, as well. Action scenes are devilishly fun, especially those that occur around the trains, the plot is rarely consistent but works and the general feeling that remains after the final credits is one of high optimism and faith in mankind. Once more, Rossini’s William Tell Overture fills the critical stills with adventure and nostalgic heroism.

Finally, the film doesn’t forget to pay a straightforward homage to some of the great themes, directors and movies of the genre: John Ford, the railroad, Anthony Mann, the confrontation of indians vs colonists, the all-American noble cowboy, as opposed to the crepuscular spaghetti antihero... even to Lucky Luke through the weird occurrencies of Silver, the white horse, which resembles clearly to Jolly Jumper at his best. Another scene is directly inherited from Once Upon a Time in the West, when silence fills the air and something is going to happen while the character is drinking from the well and startled birds flutter around.

The film deserves to be watched, but without too many pretentions. Just to have a good time and remember the old good times of westerns. To expect something else from this product would be an unforgivable error and an exercise of avoidable disappointment. Next try leave Disney and Depp at home and harden the tone. Maybe it flops the same but at least it will have cost much less bucks.

The three musketeers, by Alexandre Dumas

Few books have been so widely adapted to films as this masterpiece of cloak and dagger, doubtless the most famous from Dumas, apart from The count of Montecristo, which will probably rank second in his repertoire.

What the average person has got in mind is the popular history revisited over and over again in more than 30 or 40 films. Both original novels –for The three musketeers is only the first and best-known part of a whole trilogy– and subsequent film versions have in common the body of the plot, although it is only the first big adventure of D’Artagnan –that is, the one of Buckinghman’s diamond studs delivery– which persistently appears movie after movie.

An aspect rarely neglected in the film versions that reflects well the feeling of displacement is the arrival of a provincial D’Artganan at the city of Paris, yet a rushing metropoli up to that epoch, being this foreigner’s solitude a sensation overrepeated a thousand times here and there. But the aparent naivety of the young would-be musketter is not so real in the novel, for the Gascon is brave and resolute and, although not familiar to the customs of the Court, determined in his matters and soon affairs of other kind.

Much of the plot is ruled through luck and coincidence, being this way sometimes difficult to believe, but in general facts are fisible and, as we will know much later, logical under the eyes of the Big Brother of the era, Monsieur Cardinal Richelieu, the baddie behind the scenes. And the ending of the book seems solved sort of hastily. Milady Clarick’s perfidy has no limits, we all know that, but we don’t need five chapters to get convinced of that, nor did por Felton, the integral puritan corrupted by her beauty and manipulation into assassinating the Duke of Buckinham and freeing her at the same blow.

And the execution of the Countess de la Fere, aka Milady, whereas essential to the plot, has nothinh heroic on it so it’s frequently excluded in filmed versions. As for the men of Meung, his apparitions are crucial and very mysterious, but the long-awaited duel with the main character actually necer takes place in the novel, and is only referred to in the epilogue.

The book hooks you and ask for more pages to devour, but I don’t think I will take the second part Twenty years later. For now I have had enough of cloak and dagger stuff. Maybe in 2033.

Too numb?

In this days of crises and shortages, where everybody tries to survive under harsh conditions, and truly unaware of the harsher circumstances of the neighbour, we average people are getting used to undergoing social cuts and impoverishment without any simptom of discontent but resignation. Everyone is becoming poorer, but no one does anything apart from turning up in endless demonstrations. Getting into politics is a tricky matter, and trying to stop financial abuse a chimera, but the former and the latter are the ones to blame for the economic situation. The population seems to forget that banks are made of our capital, little, but a big amount when added to everybody else’s. And they at least have made themselves, whereas politicians are supposedly elected by us –each and every of us–, which is not a big deal but we did the choice.

Being things like they are, what really strikes me is that we all don’t go out and hang –metaphorically– these two lineages, bankers and politicians up the highest tree everywhere. Maybe it’s high time to stop swallowing corruption, overtaxing and abusive conditions imposed by the powerful, that prepotent bunch of villains and to make them eat desperation, poverty, lack of opportunities, hanger, unemployment, inflation and vital uncertainty. We need a big revolution because capitalism only makes the rich richer, and the poor, bloody poorer. We have long been ripped off. Now, ¿who’s gonna paid for the crashed lives in that huge economical accident they had with all of us sitting behind without seatbelt?

Expulsion: is it an appropriate disciplinary measure?

Many different groups have argued about the convenience of expelling disruptive students from regular classes. Does it have any positive effect? Well, it depends on the point of view, or better, on the affected people. If you ask all the participants in the still, some will be surely relieved whereas for others it will cause a nervous breakdown and a truly pain in the ass. Take the other students, for example. For those only interested in studying and benefiting from a good lesson –which will make them study and review less hours at home–, the measure is worth an Oscar. But if you think of those parents of the “angel”, who probably will have to seek somebody to care for the boy, or take a day off, or just leave him alone at home, abusing the computer, the punishment is not useful. A boy at home on a school day certainly means problems. For the teacher, giving a class without the black pie takes a lot of stress away. And as far as the other not very nice pupils in the classroom are concerned, the exemplary sentence will serve them well: they will either avoid getting into trouble or try to “suffer” the same cruel but liberating punishment.

Some groups have doubted about the efficiency of the measure. Sending a problematic student home is not a solution. Well, it is for the rest of the school community, but not for him. Society thinks that education implies making an effort, and taking the student out of school is not precisely an attempt. Reaching that point, we all have to make ourselves a question: is a single person more important than the collective? Do we really have to sacrifice the whole class so as to save a unique and very special critical person? The answer is not easy, but amplifying the scope may help. How does society deal with criminal behaviour? Do they keep disruptive people with the regular community, waiting something wrong to happen? Are those misbehavers to be re-educated, listened to, consoled and comforted, and reinserted in society without moving a single muscle of their bodies? Just as adults are penalised with fines, prison, seizure and other ways of public rejection or deprivation, so do students have to be punished with effective measures. Dialogue, understanding, care and attention are first procedures to apply but there’s a point when thumping the table with the fist is necessary and highly recommended, not only for the disruptive pupils but also for the rest of the academic community. Infinite patience would be the best option but, if parents cannot provide a whole life to take care of their children, how could teachers look after twenty minds starving for affection and understanding?

What to study for?

This is the question many youngsters make themselves in current Spain. They have been said to prepare for the future, to gain academic skills to face life on equal terms with regards to* other young Europeans, but the economic crisis has taken all hopes away.

When the Spanish Government explained that the difficult times were not something to be afraid of, either they were underestimating the situation or they simple became exceeded by the big problem. Only when the EU obliged Spain to cut off services to face the crisis did the average citizen realize that we were really having serious trouble down there.
The country has adopted some restrictive measures to reduce the public debt, such as increasing the retirement age up to 67. Meanwhile, young people find it difficult to get either a steady or a provisional job. Some make fun of the situation. Typical jokes include elderly people failing at work because of their advanced age or the contradiction of having young healthy Spaniards sunbathing on Mondays while their parents or grandparents pass away working.
Things are difficult for everybody, but they turn out to be especially discouraging for teenage people. They try hard to get good marks and job titles, but at the same time they know that a university degree does not imply a permanent job, not even a temporary one.
In any case, being things as they are, it is better to spend time on academic matters rather than on the dole queue. If life is made of repeated periods of prosperity and poverty, crisis will end. The question is when

In what way can consumers change their eating habits?

To begin with, people can only change their diet if they really want to. The worst problems when facing food habits are quality and frequency rather than quantity. If a person wants to keep healthy and fit, he should worry about what to take and when instead of how much.

The point is, we should eat a balanced diet, with plenty of vegetables, a good deal of fruit, quite a lot of fish,enough milk and dairy products, some pasta, bread and rice, some meat and a bit of fat and sugar from crisps, chocolates and candies. In fact, obesity and weight-gain have much to do with an abuse of fattening food, such as processed food, whereas natural products are normally healthier.
Apart from the kind of food, it is also important to eat five times a day, and to avoid doing it between meals. A heavy breakfast and a decreasing quantity to reach a light supper before going to sleep would be highly beneficial, too.
To sum up, eating habits need more balance than drastic changes. After all, keeping fit is more a matter of continuity than one of punctual sacrifice.

Nevermore anniversary

It’´s been nine years since the proud America saw its twin economic symbol fall down after an indiscriminate funereal flight to the very heart of hell. Even far across the ocean, we people in Western countries understood that life would never be the same for anybody. Victims threw themselves into a neverendind void as a less grievous alternative to flesh-burning in the World Trade Center. Firefighters died under a thick layer of debris and ashes. Ordinary people couldn’t understand what they had done to deserve that massive display of hatred and free violence.

For nine years some have identified islamic terrorism with islamism. A dangerous overgeneralization. It’s not a secret that a lot of radical muslims consider capitalism as the mother of all evils. For those, who mistankenly compared the highly flawed American Way of Life with the horrendous unbelievers, the 11S attacks were slightly less than divine justice. Very risky way of monopolizing cosmic truth.

In any case, some of the fault, want it or not, was in the interventionist policy of the US during contemporanean times, justifying invasions, abusive treaties and unilateral wars as a necessary measure to maintain world peace.
Capitalism will be conquering the globe for at last two hundred years more and we all will be resting on heaven or burning in hell, but it would be nice to see from the deep blackness of the abyss or the cotton-like clouds over the heads that everybody, western and eastern, anglosaxons and arabs, atheists and fanatics, has learnt to respect other viewpoints, other symbols and other ways of searching spiritual happiness. At the end, it’s only a question of tolerance.