moonloop

After 2 episodes I had trouble concentrating myself on the story! I was just waiting till another one of the characters would ask or say 'ça va' and get the same answer. Now as this means 'everything ok' there are plenty of alternatives or other options in dutch for this annoying french 'ça va'. But it seems the writers had no inspiration at all. I imagine Paul Baeten Gronda and Tom Lenaerts while writing or meeting, asking each other hundreds of times 'ça va...ça va...ça va...'. And after watching the 10 episodes I can only answer 'ça ne va pas'! I have never seen or read any story in which all of the protagonists act this illogical and stupid.

With his friend Bart De Pauw, Tom Lenaerts made some innovating television. Now that Bart has 'disappeared' after accusations of sexual intimidation it's up to Tom Lenaerts to make some new exciting television. But after turning 50 seems he has completely lost it.

The second season of 'Over Water' has been filmed yet. I'm looking forward to count how many 'ça va's' will be in it. In the end it's the only fun thing in this TV-show. So if this ever comes on Netflix, and you have the opportunity to watch it, do so with a couple of friends and cheer each time you hear a 'ça va', ça va?

A comedy show about stand-up comedians! That should cause a few laughs. Boy was I wrong. I am a Belgian and never heard of Pete Holmes. But I also didn't know Jerry Seinfeld or Larry David before I watched their shows and now I am a huge fan. So in a good mood I started watching episode one. I didn't laugh or even smile once. But I am not a quitter and with new courage I started watching the next episodes. To no avail. Nothing remotely funny, just annoying. Stubborn as I am I binge-watched all the remaining episodes. I would laugh at least once if it was the last thing I did! But only tears came to my eyes. This is bad, this is sad. Is it because I'm from Europe, is something very wrong with me, should i see a doctor? This Pete Holmes is not funny, nor are the other stand-up comedians in this show. Or maybe it just was the purpose to show how bad they are. Then I get it and understand why HBO ordered a third season.

After watching " Birth of a nation" yesterday I really had some mixed emotions as most viewers will probably have. A good film for me is one I keep thinking about, for its story or its images,or both.And this is certainly the case with Birth of a nation.

I understand that many people will say,how can you like a film in which the Ku-Klux-Klan are the saviors,that is plain racist and historical wrong? So despite these arguments why did I enjoy this film so much ? First it's story. It got to me from the very beginning.Griffith knew how to mix the big events and the more common,everyday-ones.In this case the American civil war and the influences on two families,the Stonemans who live in the north and the Camerons from the south.Two families that are connected through their sons and daughters who are friends.Maybe a bit predictable but Griffith makes you care.He pictures the battlefield and the horror of this war perfectly.On the front where the soldiers die but also on the homefront, where families are attacked in their homes, and of course the powerlessnes of women when they lose their dear ones.

The second part of the film is more politic.The action shifts to the south in a period of reconstruction. Griffith uses fac-similés for different important scenes: the surrendering of the south and especially Ford's theatre where president Lincoln was murdered. These scenes made me feel as if was watching the real thing.For most people the racist part of the film starts here as blacks seem to take more and more control over the south,and are mostly portrayed as savage brutes and ignorants.The scene (another fac-simile)of the blacks ,taken over the legislature in the state capitol is laughable.What is more disturbing is the death of the youngest and most likable character in the entire film,Flora the youngest daughter of the Camerons. When she is pursued by a black she jumps from a cliff ,preferring death above dishonor. Whatever the message ,the scene of Flora fleading through the woods,and her older brother Ben,trying to rescue her is an unforgettable one. After this event the Ku Klux Klan takes matters in hand.

Now the question remains if Griffith was a racist.He certainly was hurt when he was accused of racism and he removed some scenes from the film after the release.I'm no specialist in American history, but I was surprised to hear that what Griffith portrays in this film was written down by famous American historians from that time.So it could be that Griffith was genuinely misinformed about what happened in these troubled years after the Civil War. Being said that there are many other examples of 'creative' people who were judged as racist, sometimes only years later. An example is Hergé the creator of the world famous 'Tintin'. He refused till the late eighties that his first book 'Tintin in the land of the Sovjets' was reissued because or the way he portrayed the "Bolsjevists" .Only after there were many bootlegprints circulating,he gave in.Also having had many criticism on how he portrayed Jews and Negroes in his later books he drew many of his characters and scenes again for future reprints.But still many collectors loved the original books, and these days the first printings are reissued in fac-similés.Hergé realized later he had been misinformed by the books he read and regretted these "faults" he had made.For Tintin in the land of the Sovjets he found his inspiration in the book 'Moscou sans voile' written by a Belgian consul.These books made the public opinion in these days (around 1929).Public in Europe were convinced that the 'Bolsjevists' ate little children for breakfast. Hergé regretted his naiveté very much in later years.

So my thoughts are that you have to look at the broad picture,in the case of Griffith the year this film was made.At the historic opinions about a bloody war and it's aftermath that happened not that long ago.Opinions that were shared and often made by historians and media.I don't know if Griffith ever regretted the 'opinions' he ventilated in this film.But that aside I am convinced that he was a great director,that he knew how to tell a compelling story in an innovative way.Everyone should have seen or see this film at least once. I rate it 9/10.