MIЯRORS

This film has a lot going for it: A clever logo, some interesting faces and accents, an enthusiastic CGI department - by the look of it probably working for mere sandwiches and affection - and a composer who is man enough to steal the entire score. Unfortunately though, what little expectations I had before watching were rendered flaccid by the first line on the dvd box:

"Blablabla, director of The Hills Have Eyes, blablabla".

Always one to judge at hardly a glance, I instantly connected all the referenced film's earlier associations to this film. The Hills Have Eyes was another clever title which managed to undo any and all positive expectations within the first ten minutes - Only to go on for another hour-and--a-half or so. I really don't know, I used it for weeks to fall asleep to. Infallibly knocked me unconscious within minutes.

Mirrors is a piece of work, I'll give Mr. Aja that much. It wasn't until I spotted a flat screen monitor halfway through that I was certain this movie wasn't from the early nineties. It takes courage to coherently do things in a tragically outdated manner when you're supposed to be a fresh young filmmaker.

Movie scorers should be prohibited from dramatically using the diminished fifth interval in horror or suspense. The same goes for building up a diminished seventh chord in order to create a climactic scene ending: the effect has been no more than comical ever since the late eighties.

The score was annoyingly present during the entire thing. Annoyingly present and completely stolen. Surprisingly, though, stolen from other sources than I had imagined. What I thought I recognised as the two main themes were one blatant adaptation of Sting's Russians and a inane repetition of one or two bars from Bach's Toccata& Fuga. Admittedly, they were some of the coolest bars in there. Turns out, though, that the score was adapted from an existing classical piece. (thank you, Wikipedia) Maybe I'll check that out and piss on this movie in a whole new light, later on.

No sense getting into plot review. 'Very testing' would be an accurate general description. If you've always wondered what it would be like if Stephen King and Michael Bay had a backward, moronic love child, but would refuse to support its special needs with astronomical budgets: Skip through this flick some time. Otherwise, save yourself the trouble.

Jason Flemyng ("It's a deal, it's a steal, it's the sale of the fuckin' century") has a beautiful Gary Oldman-like role. That is meant as a compliment. Kudos to you, sir.

I love being a grouch.

It's just a spring clean for a May queen

Yesterday something terrible happened in this lovely little land of mine. Some lone nut, for no apparent reason and to no end other than attempted regicide, took his small, black, Japanese car, smashed it through the minimal barricading and stormed at the Queen's open-top motorcoach. He missed it by a small length and came to crash into a stone monument nearby. In his assault, he rammed through a dense mass of onlookers. So far, six have died including the driver himself. He was removed from the wreckage and transported to hospital where he died later that night.

Let me make this one thing very clear: the human suffering caused is horrible. I sympathise deeply with the every victim of this action, and those near to them. Some things, however, don't sit right with my mind. As events unfolded and the media repeated what little footage they had, I was amazed at the response of the Royal family. I'm sure they have received extensive training on how to act in response to an assault. Even if they haven't, the security people on the coach with them must have. How is it possible then, that when a vehicle smashes nearby in an obvious attempt at their lives, they remain standing up, facing the event? This seems like an insane thing to do if you've ever watched news reports concerning cars and buses on, let's say, the Gaza strip.

Now, I don't know the exact job description of the two gentlemen standing in the left rear corner of the bus, but I assume they were hired to ensure the safety of the passengers in any eventuality. I believe this situation qualifies very neatly for the 'potentially threatening eventuality'-category. Why is it then, that they remain completely indifferent? I sincerely hope they were fired, and recommended never to work in security again.

Another issue I had with the unfolding events was at the very first press conference. The statement being made was, right off the bat: there are no indications of connections to terrorism. Now, if racing your car flat out at the Head of State, violently and horrifically killing a number of civilians in the process and creating fear, panic, and disarray at a public gathering isn't terrorism, then I truly wonder what is.

...And that was sarcasm. I don't wonder what terrorism is, I'm actually very clear on the matter.

You see, some time ago every household in the Netherlands received a small brochure, to inform them of the latest additions and modifications to our national lexicon. It functionally defined such terms in an infuriatingly presbyopic manner. A link to the full text is below. This magnificent piece also took it upon itself to define what 'propaganda' is, if anyone was still unclear on the matter after reading. So, you see I'm also very aware that the functional definition of the term has very little to do with the literal meaning of the word. But, for now, the functional definition will have to do.

*) Terrorisme: het plegen van zwaar geweld met als doel politieke of
godsdienstige standpunten aan anderen op te leggen.

("Terrorism: The act of committing grievous violence with the intent to impose one's political or religious views on others", my translation)

For one thing, this is one massive non sequitur. It either presupposes a means making one's political or religious views intentions clear in the violent act, or supposes violence itself as an act of communication. Suppose you're at a shopping center. A bomb goes off. Would this in any way lead you to think: My, maybe I'll convert to Islam. No. Unfortunately though, this monstrous deformity of a definition is what we have to work with. So, the perpetrator had allegedly murmured or gargled some feeble words to the first police officers at the scene. This must have been some statement indeed: Evidently, his words were so clear and unequivocal as to assert beyond any reasonable doubt that: -yes, this man was premeditatedly assaulting the Queen and -no, he had no political view to impose on anyone by attempting to kill the monarch. I hope you see my frustration at the incredibility of such a statement.

What I took it to mean in stead, was that this man had absolutely no connections to any groups or people our national security services are currently monitoring. Quite disturbing. This would mean that the term 'terrorist' is a label these security services can arbitrarily attach to an individual, completely disregarding whether this person's actions or stated intentions resemble in any way the definition of that term. Let's hope this label does not entail exclusion from the civil order.

Oh, wait. Don't I remember the Senate passing a law just a few years back, through which anyone on the European Union's list of terrorists automatically falls under European jurisdiction, forestalling his right to legal claim? Being labeled a terrorist places one outside the polity, effectively classifying one persona non grata. This is not a power I would entrust any leadership.

I hope I'm wrong.

Please, someone... Prove me wrong, because these and other observations are forming a very ugly picture.

Introitus

Let's quash any and all pretense, shall we? My geographical location is a backward pocket of humanity that would be endearingly self-delusional if it weren't for its inherent ugliness. It flags a creed blatantly commending its modernity and industrialisation with no regard to the irony of such a statement in a post-modern and post-industrialised world. I'm sure David Lynch would love it, if we'd just get rid of our social security system. No doubt in my mind that time is all we need for that.

Sorry, I should be more positive. Think positive, Rob.

Errm... One thing I do like about it is that I am more or less an outsider here, whilst genetically I am more akin to these degenerates than to the inbreds from where I was born. That makes for a standard Lovecraftian setup. I admit, I do like to see the narrative of my life in such a context. I like to imagine myself the protagonist of a Cthulhu or Dagon story. I have, to varying extents of psychoticism, in the past. I'm fine, now. Thank you.

I'm tentatively interested in politics. Insanely fond of music, art and films. Academically interested in the concept of mind, self and reality. You'll see, don't worry. You'll see.

Oh, and one fair warning: sarcasm is a survival mechanism. I do take it too far at times. Just thought I'd mention.