Skyfall (2012)

I will admit right away that I am nor very much into James Bond. I do, however, occasionally enjoy action, suspense and thriller movies - so why not gibe this one a chance, especially since I saw the trailer today.
Skyfall is a pyrotechnical movie with more emphasis on the special effects department than on the development of the story.
We start right away with a chase through the lanes of Istanbul. As if they were too small, we continue on the roofs of that town and proceed later on top of a train. At no moment it is clear why Bond is chasing somebody and how the chased has qualified to be the object of Bond's manhunt. - At a point M orders a shot, although miss Moneypenny cannot guarantee a clean shot and seemingly Bond dies. Of course Bond is not dead, else we would have seen a short film. It never becomes clear how he survives, but he watches on CNN that MI6 is under attack. This wakes up his sense of duty and he reports back.
This time the evil guy is a former special agent who has a special relationship to M, almost like an Oedipus complex. He is more sick than mad, more pathetic than evil. Unfortunately the story never takes any surprising turns, there is no special twist, just boredom in the expectation that they are going to blow up something more.
In short, Skyfall is not an interesting story that has some interesting special effects, but rather a collection of assorted chases and effects that are clumsily held together by a badly written story. The dialogues of Bond are as if Schwarzenegger had been  casted as Bond and all the other characters never manage to move out of the shadows of their cliches. My rating: 4/10.

Bond, stallion and also otherwise superhero, is always ready to shoot

Walks through Copenhagen

I am living for some time in Copenhagen and now it's highest time to explore the place, view it as a tourist and, hopefully, see and know about places I usually just pass by. I know already many streets that before just were names. Now I know where is the post office in Købmagergade and I can also place Peter Bangs Vej, the street in which one of Denmark's most famous murder cases occurred. And also Jagtvej 69, the place where the infamous notorious Ungdomshus.
Close to that no longer existing house is Assistens Kirkegård, which corresponds to Père Lachaise with graves of many famous people.

Hans Christian Andersen - probably rhe most famous Dane ever.,

Søren Kiekegaard -famous Danishg philosopher. (Why do I add famos? If he were famous, I didn't need to say so...)

...................................................

Søren Kierkegaard - (Happy Birthday!) -- for those in the knowing

I was just walking around after that and did not watch out for specific persons. I encountered these:

Vilhelm Topsøe - writer and journalist

An anonymous communist

This just is a beautiful symbol

Frøhlich - a composer. Much of his music is no longer heard today and this is probably a pity. The music he composed for Bournonville's ballets is lovely though.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Lost in Space

So I have disappeared for some time. I managed not to write anything during October and November. I thought I should, for that's the meaning of a blog anyway, but then the thought didn't materialise.
It has been a period of stagnation and swimming like a fly in milk, hoping that I would eventually walk on butter.
I have kept myself busy with courses from Coursera. I just loved the course about Greek and Roman Mythology (and finished the course with distinction). There is still the course about Global History, to which I should dedicate even more time - the back log of lectures is getting impressive. -- So here is sort of a new start.

Fetih 1453

I am following a course on World History 1300 - 1900, offered by Princeton University and taught by professor  Jeremy Adelman.
One of the classmates found drew attention to a Turkish movie about the Ottoman's conquest of Constantinople in 1453. I got interested and decided to watch the movie.
I would like to say something positive about this movie. It is interesting, but it also fails decisively on many aspects. The movie starts in the 627 in Medina. There Mohammed pronounces that one day the city of Constantinople certainly will fall.  An eagle then flies across time and space and lands in Adrianopolis. We see young Mehmed and his friend Hasan, busy engaged in sword fighting. We learn also that Mehmet has some daddy issues.
People with deep knowledge about this time have doubted the accuracy of these historical reconstructions. Indeed the makers of the film should have used some of their budget to consult a historian. For a wider audience this will be their vision of this particular time and so they should care -- prodesse et delectare. These two can easily be combined by a skilled filmmaker.
Once he is in the power, Mehmed sees in a vision (or is it a nightmare?) Osman, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty who encourages him to conquer Constantinople. And this will be his concern now.
However, there is already another emperor in Constantinople. He, Constantine XI, is particularly hostile against the Ottomans, which is not very surprising as the Ottomans had conquered much of what used to be the Byzantine Empire. To call this process 'the spread of the Ottoman Empire' seems to be a blunt euphemism. This spreading was, needless to say, the result of attacks, wars and battles. While we see crusaders butchering around, mutilating women and children, the Ottomans never engage in such cruelty. They are, on the contrary, heroic fighters. And they fight against vicious morons...
These battle scenes may attract viewers, but for me this computer-generated war is rather boring. And these animations are not really well done. There is no fire without smoke, but here we have a lot of fire without burning.
 We get a hint of the Ottoman's technological superiority, although the director decided not to elaborate on that theme.
The most spectacular strategic decision is merely hinted at. Mehmed decided to drag his ships behind the Byzantine defense lines. We see only a brief sequence in bad cgi-footage.
These things may be known to Turkish viewers, but greater emphasis on these themes might have given an international audience a better insight into the Ottoman's achievements.
At last we arrive at May 29, 1453. The Ottomans fire their cannons and boom the defense wall cracks. I think they managed to enter the city through an unlocked gate, but such an action doesn't have mythological qualities.
The end should have been silence - but here it is nasty propaganda. The sacking of Constantinople never occured. Mehmed sees the body of the dead emperor Constantine and orders him to be buried according to Christian rites. This is to shown the Ottoman's tolerating other belief-systems. However, the body of the emperor was never found.
Then Mehmed finds the frightened women, children and old people in the cathedral. He tells not to be afraid, from now they will live peacefully together (of course, as there nothing left of the Byzantine Empire to conquer). A girl that was weeping before, now smiles to dear uncle Mehmed.
History happened. This seems to be a half-fictional account that sometimes has parallels from history. If you omit central features, you falsify history and build mythology instead. -- Maybe this is why the present prime minister of  Turkey is said to have liked this movie.
I give it two good-will points, so that it ends up with 4/10.

Tro om igen - et lalleprogram fra Danmarks Radio

Samtale fremmer forståelse - sådan hed det engang i en reklame for et mobilselskab.
Indenfor Danmarks Radio hedder det derimod: Samtale skaber fordummelse.
Sådan et program er "Tro om igen". Det skal skabe forståelse og det er sådan set fint nok. Men det skaber meget lidt forståelse når den empirisk opfattede realitet gang på gang bliver affærdiget som en myte og et glansbillede skal forestille at være realitet.
Så ender det sædvanligvis med, at begge skærmeklovne konkluderer med smil og enighed og så er alt godt.
Eller er det?
For eksempel i går. Der hev fru Khankan Matthæus 10, vers 34 frem og konkluderede triumferende at kristendommen også et "sværdvers". Ja, det er rigtigt, Jesus sagde godt nok 'sværd', men meningen er totalt hen i skoven. Og det kan man se, når man læser videre. Man behøver ikke engang være skriftklog for at se det. Hvorfor påtaler sekretæren for det Danske Bibelselskab ikke fru Khankans sludder? Til gengæld lader han, som om hendes tydning ikke kan afvises og tilføjer noget pladder og kristendommens kærlighedsbudskab for øvrigt. Hvor plat - og hvor gennemskueligt.
Pladder - pladder - pladder --- det er Danmarks Radios speciale.