Salocin

When you go to see a film that is directed by and stars Clint Eastwood, you know it's going to be good, or at the very least that it's going to reach for that intangible quality that sets a movie apart. It is very gratifying, having now seen Million Dollar Baby to know that this movie swept most of the Oscars away from The Aviator.

With understated class, no special effects and the unmistakable whiff of moviemaking and storytelling skill, Million Dollar Baby takes you on a personal journey, casting it's own light and it's own shadows on questions of strength, weakness, achievement and sacrifice. While the film would be less effective if one knew the denouement before it was time for it to be revealed, even if you have had the misfortune of being told the end, I strongly recommend you go watch a movie that rekindles some of my belief in the power of storytelling through film.

I've long been a proponent of the market-driven argument. In one context I will defend "Britney Spears" as a "good" artist, and I will do the same for "Armageddon", because if thousands upon thousands of people love it, then by at least one definition, it must be "good" (even though one fervently hopes thousands upon thousands of people will grow up at some point).

I'm never happier, however, than when I come across a film - and Million Dollar Baby fits this category perfectly - which challenges that perception. It doesn't really matter how many people go see this film, and how many people went to see Armageddon. One of them is a piece of art, bringing storytelling talent to the big screen and taking viewers through an experience that might leave them feeling affected by it. The other is bright colours on a screen, and a momentary distraction that gets the adrenaline flowing. They are alike in the same way as a relationship is like a one-night stand: you'll do the latter, but it doesn't satisfy like the former.

Enough metaphors. "Baby" is the story of a boxing trainer who has plenty of emotional luggage, and who is training his latest protege - a young black man with a shot at the title. It is narrated - briefly and at intervals - by an old friend of the trainer's, played by Morgan Freeman. Into this trainer's train-wreck of a life comes a not-so-young aspiring boxer in the form of Hilary Swank. She's not old, but as Eastwood points out at the outset, she's far too old at 31 to consider becoming a boxer. Nevertheless, her perseverance, tenacity and natural talent serve her well in both convincing Frankie (Eastwood) to train her, and in overcoming her numerous challengers in the ring. Very soon she is living her dream.

But when this happens, we are at risk of forgetting that this film is as much about Frankie Dunn as it is about his protege, and events conspire to challenge them in ways we can only pray we never have to face. As their personal strength and willingness to make sacrifices brings their characters into a rare and beautiful contrast, the film avoids asking questions, and merely exposes us to the answers our protagonists have no choice but to find, and the burdens they have no choice but to shoulder as a consequence.

When reviewing films, most of the time, adjectives are used with reckless abandon, to the point where they lose all meaning. When I say this film is poignant, I mean it's poignant. Forget all those films that were allegedly "deeply moving", go see this, and rediscover the meaning of the expression.

I was sent an interesting article today by a family member. Since I was of an age to understand the problem I've been concerned with the state of Belgian politics. When you read the Belgian news, watch Belgian television, or (heaven forbid) listen to Belgian politicians, you're quickly left with the impression that the country has a fault-line in the centre of it, and the rather than trying to fix that, the parties that should be securing our common future are arguing over the exact location of the fault line. I think the first quiality required in a Belgian politician is that of finger-pointing, and our poor Prime Minister (Guy Verhofstadt) is left despeartely trying to straddle the divide, which appears to be so wide that it's going to give him a strain in a nasty place sooner or later.

But is this really how the people feel? Do they really want the country split? Optimist Belgians have often claimed that in reality, the people of Belgium, be they from the north or south, don't really want the country divided. There may be issues with taxation and wealth distribution, there may be differences in opportunities driven by things such as the presence of a sea-port or the dead mining industry in the south, but the loathing that one feels when walking in the wrong part of the country, speaking the 'wrong' language - it was claimed - was generated by a vicious and unrepresentative minority.

I didn't believe it.

But now, a proper survey of both sides of the country comes out with a surprising answer : in fact, it seems that over 80% of Belgians have no desire to see a final division, and those racist facist morons who populate the Vlaams Blok (or Vlaams Belang, as we're now supposed to call them) and their idiotic counterparts in the Front National do not have the popular vote, or anything near it, when it comes to their divisionist politics.

I'd refer you to the story rather than print it out because that's a better thing to do, but I have no idea where it was written, since this seems to have been dumped from a trading screen somewhere, so here it is...

B: Vive la difference! Poll shows Belgians prize unity ( AP WorldStream )

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Mar 21, 2005 (AP WorldStream via COMTEX) -- Belying their interminable language fights, Dutch-speakers and Francophones overwhelmingly want to continue to live in a united Belgium, a poll published Monday showed.

Overall, 87 percent of Belgians said they want Belgium to stay united, ranging from 85 percent in northern Dutch-speaking Flanders to 88 percent both in bilingual Brussels and Francophone Wallonia.
"What the citizens are asking of their leaders is that a full-grown federalism must function and in which each and every one listens, respects and supports each other when necessary," said an editorial in La Libre newspaper, which helped organize the poll.

For 45 years, Belgium has moved gradually from a centralized state toward one in which some 6 million Flemings and 4.5 million Francophones enjoy ever more autonomy. Politics have long been split along language lines with linguistic squabbles dominating headlines for years.

The poll indicated autonomy should not lead to a break up of the country which this year is celebrating 175 years of independence after centuries of foreign rule.

"The message is clear: don't go too far. Avoid deals and agreements leading to the definitive split of the country," La Libre wrote.

When it comes to increased autonomy within Belgium, the linguistic groups reacted differently, with 64 percent of Flemings demanding more devolution of power, compared to 39 percent in Brussels and 28 percent in Wallonia.

The opinion survey polled 2,000 adults over a week ending March 17 and had a margin of error of 2.25 percentage points.

At the moment, the latest political fight centers on the demarcation of electoral zones around the capital, where Flemings want some to change to unilingual Dutch-speaking zones while Francophones want to keep them bilingual.

Since the 1980s, the country has seen a cooling of linguistic anger that often erupted into violence, and nearly brought on civil war a half century ago.

But hard feelings are still evident. Many people in Flanders grouse that their wealthier service-based economy subsidizes Wallonia, which is still recovering from the decline of its once powerful coal and steel industry.