Who’s Gonne Drive you Home ? Not Me!
I don’t like driving, never did, and I actually don’t understand why people enjoy it. What is the great fun of sitting in a machine that could kill someone. Why is it freedom to sit confound in a tiny space where you can barely move? to me freedom is walking.
Why is that enjoyable to drive in a narrow road behind a cyclist that you cannot overtake because you might kill him? The funny thing is that I feel safer as a pedestrian, crossing roads with limited visibility running in between cars on a dual carriage way with no zebra crossing, but when I am sitting behind the wheel of a metal monster then I am scared – why is that?.
Driving brings responsibility: you need to make sure you don’t kill anyone and no one is killing you. You need to check front and back and side mirrors that nobody is overtaking you or just trying to commit suicide – and when you drive you notice that there are a lot of suicidal people who just stroll or cycle underneath your wheels…
The real freedom is using public transportation: no responsibility at all, you just hop on and off in what stop you like, if the train or the bus breaks down you do not need to call AA and wait in the middle of the road to be rescued, you just get off the train and go to another train, cursing at transport for London that they are useless, but basically you have a little bit more time to read that magazine or finish that book, or prepare for your meeting, nothing is required of you –
now that my friends is what I call freedom.
But here is the strange thing that actually made me write this post: like most of you I got my driving licence at the age of 17, as soon as it was legally allowed, and have been driving many years, not with joy or fun but just as a necessity to get me from A to B. Then I moved to London where I completely relied on public transportation and I was free to go from bus to train whenever I felt like it. But after many years of relying on public transportation I had to drive again,
well it is just like riding a bike I thought – NOT.
It’s as if that part of my brain was surgically removed. As if I had never set foot in a driver’s seat, it could be a plane’s cockpit for all I care, completely new to me, I could not even shift the gears!!!!
What happened? isn’t my brain suppose to dig from the back drawers of my memory the driving manual? to dust it a little bit and then Ta Da!! to drive away? sadly not.
I am sitting behind the wheel, affirming every chauvinistic stereotype in the book, baffled trying to remember which gear does what and which button is the hand brake (oh wow there are automatic hand brakes now…)
So if you are stuck behind somebody who is driving at a constant 20 mph , it is probably me, so relax, take your time, say hello, I will not drive any faster anytime soon!
10 signs that there is a toddler in the house:
1. All the dishes you wash are plastic Tupperware. I started drinking from pink
and blue cups…
2. You only know two colours: pink and blue.
3. You have bright sparkly stickers literally everywhere: on your clothes, on your socks, on your glass table. …
4. The brands you know are no longer Gucci or Prada but Peppa pig and Dora the Explorer. You actually wait for the new episodes of Peppa pig as if it was the release of a new Star Wars movie.
5. You are completely oblivious when your own explorer is ripping your jewellery box and throwing all the socks on the floor- just another day at the office.
6. You are humming to yourself on the tube “the wheels on the bus” and are surprised that the rest of the commuters don’t join you in a sing-along.
7. You will start world war III if another toddler pushes your precious little one.
8. If your toddler pushes someone else he is just exploring his boundaries. …
9. You haven’t left the house after 20:00 in two years.
10. You forgot how to wear high heels.
The Mobile Provider Phenomenon
You know the feeling: you are in the middle of an important phone call, you are about to close your biggest deal, about to pay for the most expensive vacation of your life and the call drops. Reception is nil. Zero. Nada, you try to call again a few more times and nothing, the deal is gone your vacation is gone, your money is gone. So you call customer support of your mobile provider (Vodafone in my case) where it takes them about ten minutes to transfer you to the right department, each person asks you exactly the same question you just answered 3 times already, and by the time you reach the right department you are exhausted. The more polite the representative is, the less helpful they are. They mean well I am sure, but by the time they finish with their greetings and niceties they could have solved my problem (or not). I mean if I call customer support I am not interested in “how are you today?” or “it’s a glorious day isn’t it” if I called you it means that I have a problem which needs solving now! So I went to the shop, not able to make a single call walking to the shop, but as soon as I passed the threshold to the shop, lo and behold, full bars, perfect reception. So then they decided to test my phone, the one THEY sold me, clearly they cannot do it in the shop but I need to send them the phone, live without a phone for 5 working days until they come up with a diagnosis: surprise, the phone is working well, the problem is ME, needless to say that they did not send the phone to me but I had to walk yet again to the shop only to find that they sent the phone without a battery…
So back to square one, me paying good money to use a phone that does not work. Ofcom my best friends also didn’t help as they now refer you to the Communications Ombudsmen who then wait 8 weeks before they can intervene. So in a free market best thing to do – move to another provider!!. Needless to say, now that I am leaving Vodafone customer support is as helpful and as efficient as one could only dream and before I even found a new provider they disconnected me – I think they couldn’t be happier to get rid of me and my money. Maybe they marked me as a problem client that mentions Ofcom in every conversation and they were very glad to see the back of me.
So off I go to find myself a new mobile provider to which I am willing to give my hard earned money. Well not so fast, either Vodafone spread the word that I am a problem customer and you better avoid her and her money or O2 is playing hard to get, either way it is not so easy to become an O2 client these days. You can’t join O2 on the phone, if you call them you get a machine telling you “the number you are calling from is not O2 please call your provider. Goodbye”! Seriously? don’t you want new clients? apparently not, but of course if you don’t want me as a client I want to join even more! So off I go to the O2 shop greeted by charming sales people who are keen to get me as a client (finally) but then all system fail, O2 can’t accept new clients (true story). After a few more hours and another trip to another shop when finally the system was back and I was so desperate that I just asked for a pay as you go to get the minimum contact with my new provider. But the following day O2 remembered that they are a business and they do want my money and I got a call from the first shop where they promised me a contract with a better deal than the pay as you go, all I need to do is pop in to the shop and they will sort it out.
So after all my efforts to move to a decent mobile provider I am now still paying for the Vodafone account, for an O2 pay as you go and for an O2 contract, it turned out that it was a faulty phone so still dropped calls, and on top of that in the process of transferring my number from Vodafone to O2 I lost all my contact list – but I showed them didn’t I??
So Vodafone are not giving the service and could not wait to get rid of their clients, O2 refuse to get new clients. Am I missing something here?, do mobile providers have more efficient ways of making a living then the good old fashioned way of getting more subscribers? Or have we reached an era where we are all so dependent on our mobile phones that indeed, mobile providers can play hard to get, give bad service and afford to lose clients because there will always be another client desperate to get a new contract. We lost the battle as soon as we subscribed.
A Glimpse of the London Property Market
What has not been said about this property market? that it is a bubble, that it is unsustainable, that prices in London will always go up. It seems like everybody in London is looking to buy, to sell, preferably both at the same time. I dare not predict the future but as a foreigner that has been living in this city for nearly 10 years I have a few observations to make about the peculiarities of this system.
Climbing the property ladder this idea is completely alien to me, where I come from you buy when you can afford and you buy where you want to live, but here a 23 years old paralegal once told me he intends to buy a flat – with what money???? Clearly I missed the memo and refused to buy a flat just for the sake of climbing the property ladder, three years later that flat increased its value in 30% – ok I get it now. But just think about it: a 23 years old, who has only worked for maybe two years wants to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds that he does not have on buying a flat which he probably does not want just to get on the property ladder – isn’t it why we got into the crisis? But yet it looks like this is the right way of doing things in England, or at least in London, so as they say: when in London do as the Londoners do!!
Good Faith in Negotiations this is the jewel in the crown and the most challenging difference between the UK property market and at least Civil Code legal systems. Under Civil Code you need to conduct negotiations in good faith, you don’t waste people’s time for the sake of it. An offer is binding and an acceptance of the offer is a contract, not in a property contract in the UK: an offer is not binding, I will say it again to make it clear: AN OFFER IS NOT BINDING, you can offer left right and centre, you don’t have to buy any of those properties. There is no certainty in the system, you can invest money in a survey of the property, pay a lawyer to do searches and then the seller found a better buyer that can offer more, and off he goes and you stay with the expenses of your searches and you can’t claim it from the seller because the negotiation is not binding. That leads me to another term:
Gazumping: you found the house of your dreams, you spent money on the survey, you paid the solicitor to do the searches and everything looks good you want the house, now the seller knows you invested time and money in this house, you will not walk away from the deal, so they increase the price- gazump, in a civil code legal system this is called negotiations in bad faith and you could claim damages from the seller, but here in the UK it is legal and you can either tell the seller to f*** off and come to terms with the fact that you just lost a few thousands, or you cave in and you pay extra to this bad faith seller.
Chain/Chain free: say you own a flat but now you want a bigger flat or a house or a house with a garden, in order to afford a bigger house you need to sell your flat and with this money buy a bigger house – so far so good, but in England you don’t want to stay houseless or to leave your house to a rented property until you find a house – so what do you do? You buy and sell at the same time – you are in a “chain”. Now if the house you are buying is owned by people who do the same as you – they also buy a bigger house with the proceeds of the sale of their house and want to do it at the same time – you now have three property transactions that have to happen at the same time: what are the chances of that? Admittedly this is an ideal situation nobody spends money on unnecessary rent or move an extra unnecessary move, but what are the odds that all these chain transactions could happen at the same time?
School catchment area: now that is a real pain, the easiest rule is that if you have kids at school age, you either need at least a £2 million pound home or move out of London. This is quite understandable, this city attracts people from all over the world, it is over populated and there is shortage of houses and schools. No longer are the days you went to the school near you together with all your neighbours – simply because this school will not have enough places. The situation is so ridiculous that the school measures the proximity of your house to the MAIN gate of the school so that if you live adjoining to the backyard of the school and can literally climb your fence and get to school you might still not be admitted to that school because the distance between your door to the school’s main gate is outside the catchment area! Confused? Worried? Well you should be!
Freehold/Leasehold
An interesting English legal concept: you have ownership and not so much ownership.
Freehold: you pay hundreds of thousands of pounds and then you own your property.
Leasehold: you pay hundreds of thousands of pounds and then you own your property, except you can’t put a carpet, you can’t remove a carpet, you can’t do renovations, you can’t do structural works without the consent of the freeholder – who is the ultimate owner. You can buy a top floor flat but the ultimate owner of the roof will be the freeholder and not you. So what is actually the difference between rent and leasehold? You pay a lot more for a leasehold…
Carpets: carpets are so important in the English home that they are actually a part of the Leasehold agreement, reason being that they block the noise so if you are walking with high heels or have a toddler throwing balls the neighbour has a layer to muffle the noise. Surely these leases were drafted in Victorian times were there was no insulation, these days you can simply add insulation and put a wooden floor but you would still be in breach of the Lease because an insulated wooden floor is not a carpet…
Window in the bathroom or lack thereof: clearly the smeliest places in the house are kitchen, bathroom, toilet – one would expect a window for proper ventilation in these rooms, but somehow bathrooms and toilets with windows are few and far between in London. I guess it is due to the fact that most properties in London are Victorian and Edwardian conversions: large houses for families and their servants were converted into flats for modern life living. These toilets and bathrooms were not intended as such and were built quite randomly inside a flat where there was no possibility to have a window. The funniest thing (or the smeliest thing) is that now even new buildings are built without a window in the bathroom (sometimes even two bathrooms without a window) because generations of people are used to having bathrooms without a window so why build one? That is how I chose a flat – if there is a window in the bathroom I take it!
Bidet: for our continental friends, no there is no bidet in the English home – use the bath and get over it!!
Stereotypes – xenophobia or human nature?
The first thing that strikes you about London is the diversity of the people. Stand inside any tube carriage and in that small space you will see people from different colours, a mix of languages and styles. It is what makes London so special so unique, here you are on an English island and yet you can eat the best Indian food outside of India, French restaurants, falafel from the middle east, and in each restaurant the food would be served by Indian, French and Lebanese staff to make the experience authentic. One would think that this is the perfect place to get rid of prejudice, shake off those stereotypes.
I always thought that the origin of superficial stereotypes is ignorance: you never met black people so you think they are basketball players or rappers, you never met Jews so you would say that all Jews are rich and they are all lawyers. But once you get to meet people they cease to be unidentified groups and become individuals with specific traits that don’t have necessarily anything to do with generalisation. And what better place to meet different people than London?
Ironically, I found that the longer you live in London and meet people from different cultures, the more the stereotypes are being reinforced, because you feel that just by meeting one or two blacks/Jews/Japanese you already know all of them. Which made me think: perhaps it is just human nature, not necessarily good or bad, but when does stereotyping become racism and xenophobia? Where is the limit? Clearly violence, verbal or physical, is the ultimate limit but is one considered an anti-Semite only when one says a “dirty Jew” or is it also anti-Semitism saying “all those banker Jews”?
Recently there was a talk about banning saying “that is so gay” in children’s playground, is that taking politically correctness to the next level? Or is it just helping us becoming more civilised, because in order to live in a multi cultural society one needs to be more sensitive. Surely we would not tolerate the insults of “nigger” or “kike” so why tolerate “you are so gay”.
We are all more attentive when it is our group/culture that is being stereotyped but we would happily look down at other groups thinking it is alright. Jews would be appalled at anti-Semitic remarks but would be quite indifferent about comments on Arabs or blacks. On the other hand the Jewish creators of the TV shows “Family Guy” and “Curb your Enthusiasm” make such explicit jokes about Jews that if they weren’t Jewish you would say they are anti-Semites.
So what do we need to do? Do we need to stop being primitive and stop generalising every behaviour we see in one person and saying “that is so Italian”, or accept that this is part of human behaviour, it is natural and there is nothing to do about it and as long as it is not offensive just accept it and ignore it? Well I am not one for ignoring it, if that is what we did then the word Nigger would still be acceptable and that is not what we want in a civilised society. On the other hand, is everybody saying “that’s so gay” a homophobe? If everybody saying “Jews are rich” is an anti-Semite then I am afraid most of Europe would be considered anti-Semitic.
Perhaps it is the context where we use these stereotypes or simplistic generalisation, perhaps we need to be aware that we are using these terms just to make life easier on ourselves to deal with the different cultures we encounter on a daily basis, and as long as we are aware that this is just superficial and not necessarily true than it is acceptable. The trouble is, when you hear these stereotypes again and again you start believing in them. Is this our natural mechanism for dealing with Multiculturalism? On the one hand this is one of the biggest allures of London that it attracts people from all over the world bringing their traditions and food, but on the other hand I guess we are not used to it and the way we deal with it is boxing all these cultures into simplistic stereotypes.
I am afraid I don’t have answers only questions, to me London with its diversity is the most extraordinary place and I love meeting people from countries I have never been to, but I would lie if I would say I don’t cringe sometimes at hearing certain languages or seeing certain people, I acknowledge that it is my problem and try not to discriminate or mistreat anybody based on my preconceptions I can only hope you do as well.
Plastic Surgery – The Demise of Western Society?
You know the feeling, you already got the Chanel bag, the Cartier watch, you have been to the safari but something is missing, you just don’t know what: so, when there’s nothing else to buy let’s go under the knife!
How bored do we really need to get to decide: today I will go to the hospital from my own accord, I will get under full anaesthetic, and get somebody to cut me open. It is definitely a symptom of over affluent bored western society that we are actually doing something that could be quite dangerous. The latest PIP breast implants scandal was a warning to us all that we can’t just cut our breasts open shove silicone in them and later when we don’t want it anymore cut them again and take the silicone out – it should not have been put there in the first place!!
Before any medical surgery the Dr tells you that there are certain risks involved in going to surgery and that you should only do it if it is necessary, so why would you do an elective non medical one? I understand we are all superficial, we all wish to be young beautiful and thin but the price to pay is so high and the results are usually not worth it.
One could argue that western society does not tolerate old age, that women who want to make it in any business, especially in show business, have to be barbie dolls with large breasts and voluptuous lips. Actresses would say that in this men’s world a woman’s career is over after thirty, and if you don’t smooth those wrinkles, get the boobs lifted or the lips blown you will never get a job. But if you do these procedures you don’t look younger or more beautiful you just look like someone that shoved melons in her bra or got punched in the lips – is that sexy?
Take for example the beautiful Lara Flynn Boyle, who became famous playing the elegant Donna in Twin Peaks, then the roles started to dwindle and all of a sudden one day she appears with bloated lips that cover her whole face! From a beautiful and elegant woman she turned into a plastic doll straight from a porn movie – what a shame. How about Nicole Kidman, she used to have beautiful thin triangle lips and high cheek bones but in the last few years she has got voluptuous lips and perky Jaclyn Smith style plumped cheek bones – she doesn’t look younger or more beautiful she just looks like somebody else – I think it is creepy.
Probably one of the most serious cases was Britney Spears getting breast implants as a teenager, while her breasts were still growing, clearly Britney’s mother did not have her daughter’s best interests in mind and probably all she cared about was how much money she could make out of her daughter – the bigger the cleavage the bigger the pay. I always wondered what kind of a Doctor, who swore an oath to put the interest of the patient first, would perform such a procedure, knowing it is elective and that the breasts would continue to develop. Shouldn’t there be regulation that prohibits doctors from performing elective surgeries on under aged? (excluding deformities, reconstruction post operations, accidents, and such serious cases).
Michael Jackson was another radical case in which a black man turned white under the knife – again the doctors that performed those procedures on him should have put the interest of the patient in front of their eyes – clearly the desire to become white is somewhat crazy and perhaps instead of performing plastic surgery they should have referred him to therapy. But hey, Jackson was a consenting adult, and a very rich one might I add, and no doctor bothered to think whether it is needed or not and just performed these unnecessary procedures and made lots of money out of it. Perhaps in Michael Jackson’s case one could argue that in our society one needs to be white in order to be successful (although I would think that at least in the music industry black men and women are very prominent and successful).
So whose fault is it? Male chauvinists? Our self obsessed narcissistic society? Technology and the “selfies” – not only do we look at ourselves in the mirror all the time, we now send to the whole world pictures of ourselves because we are so great.
It is quite sad if you think about it. Here we are in the western society well off, healthy, well fed, no wars to worry about not a care in the world, yet we would always find a reason to be unhappy, if everything is perfect we would invent something to obsess about, a trip to a third world country should change our proportions and make this idea of plastic surgery seem as ludicrous as it really is.
Is Nicole Kidman more successful after those procedures? I am pretty sure Lara Flynn Boyle isn’t… so what did they actually achieve? Hoards of actresses and wealthy women that straighten their wrinkles and lift their eyes just look constantly surprised with a mouth that moved to the other side of their face – do they really feel younger and more beautiful because in reality they just look like a freak show!
So next time you think about looking younger or more beautiful just buy a cream or make up – and here’s a thought stop being so self obsessed and donate the money to a worthy charity!!!
Jane Austen V. The Bronte Sisters
No particular reason for the timing of this post, perhaps because of the ruling on the Jane Austen Twitter abuse case (in which a woman threatened another woman with rape because the other woman campaigned to put the face of one of the most famous authors in the world on a £10 note – some people are just crazy) but at least it got me thinking about these fantastic women of the 19th century. The 19th century was not exactly a feminist period, women still didn’t vote, they wore corsets that barley allowed them to breathe and their main responsibilities were still confined to the house (nothing is wrong with that as long as it is BY CHOICE!).
In a bizarre ironic way this might have been the very reason women such as Austen and the Bronte sisters became writers, women were not studying trade, they were focusing on literature studies which made them educated but in a “polite and proper manner”, they were probably bored from all the social visits to cousins and neighbours, thus in between teas and lunches they became prolific writers. However great these ladies are I definitely favour the Bronte sisters one hundred percent (at least Charlotte and Emily I admit I haven’t read Ann yet)
I completely agree that Jayne Austen’s writing is beautiful, however I always resented the what and not the how: her books are always about society girls that want to get married, more of gossip stories of socialites, indeed she describes accurately and in a most sensitive way the social traps of women at that age but she never seemed to try to break out of it, her heroines are always playing within the rules society dictates which I find a bit dull (just a personal view). I understand that life for women of the 19th century were quite limited to the house, marriage, children and gossip but one would hope, at least in fantasy world, a prolific novelist can push these boundaries a little bit.
The Bronte sisters are a different story, their books are filled with complex, tormented characters with tragic circumstances, the heart is torn between love and fear of Mr. Rochester and a love hate relationship with Heathcliff. These characters are suffering from the same limitations society is putting on them either by class or by gender, but they are making far more bold choices and are living turbulent lives as expected from a good gothic novel.
As a child Mr Rochester of Jane Eyre used to haunt me in my dreams, him and his crazy wife that you heard her screams in the nights – even now I get shivers down my spine. And Heathcliff, ohh the revenge crazed Heathcliff that nothing good will come out from his deeds but boy don’t we all love him? These stories were filled with passion and unattained love, these stories criticised society life of the 19th century in a much more bald way than the subtle politeness of Jane Austen
So as much as I am delighted in having Jane Austen decorate the £10 note I still prefer the bold and the dangerous Bronte sisters.
Danish Drama – why is it so good?
I know I know, I am a bit late to the party, you all discovered it about five years ago and I just realised now that it is the best thing that happened to television since Law & Order, but that is who I am – a lagging indicator…
At a time when most TV is either reality or cooking shows, programs that require very little script and are usually addressing the lowest common denominator, it is very refreshing to watch TV shows that are intellectually challenging, and that you actually have to follow carefully to make sure you don’t miss a thing. Even the good American TV series these days all have quasi model type of actors all with bleached teeth and impeccable hair that it is hard to take too seriously (I love Suits but never been to a law firm where the managing partner was a sexy super model wearing dresses that might explode when she sits…)
I regret to say that I didn’t follow The Killing, as it was too late on TV at a time that all I wished for was to sleep, but I did discover Borgen series III and the Bridge series II and fell in love. These two are quite different, the first is a political drama and the other is a police thriller, but there are some similarities: they are both tense edge of your seat kind. In Borgen everyday there is a new political crisis, every day the protagonist has a new battle to fight and each battle can ruin her career, but she always manages to get out of it with manipulation, sophistication and being clever.
The Bridge is really complicated, in every episode there is another suspect or another angle, it is so interesting and clever that it is simply entertainment at its best. In both series there are private stories that are elaborate and are almost as interesting as the main plot itself. The characters are written so well: they are so complex that the viewer almost feels like a psychologist analysing their characters and their stories; especially in the Bridge, the two main protagonists are so different from each other and their stories often provide a comic relief or the emotional catharsis to an often cold and calculated story.
The thing that is the most prevalent is Girl Power: the protagonist of The Killing is a woman investigator and she is the best, in Borgen the prime minister (or in series III the former prime minister) is a woman and her spin doctor as well, in The Bridge ALL the powerful characters are women: the head of police, the head of the investigation, the owner of the pharmaceutical company, the head of research of that company, the biographer, her sister the conference organiser – all the powerful roles are held by powerful women and all the men are either weak or softer than them. I wonder why? Is it because the Nordic countries are the most egalitarian in the world? Is it because women’s rights in the Nordic countries are the most advanced in the world? Women and men can share a maternity leave in a way that allows women to progress their careers more than in other countries – do these TV series reflect the reality correctly or is it just a feminist fantasy? Either way, the result is inspiring, intriguing and entertaining and I can’t wait to see more.
12 years a slave and thoughts about mankind
I wanted to call this post hurrah it’s Oscar season – part 2 but there is no hurrah in this movie. It is a brutal, hard hitting, in your face story about slavery and cruelty of mankind. I watched the entire movie with feeling of revulsion and the crying was not cathartic at all it was of shame, of shame of the human race that this is how we act. Watching the movie I could not stop thinking that this is not a historical tale about 19th century slavery in the US, there is still modern day slavery in this day and age in western countries and that is what made it so hard to watch. I could not tell myself those evil white people 200 hundred years ago we are better than them, when everyday there is another story in England about people that were kept in state of slavery for years.
Moreover, in one of the early powerful scenes where a perfectly lovely civilised couple is shopping for slaves, who are standing stark naked men and women together like cattle, the lovely gentleman really wants to take as a slave the woman together with her two children but simply can’t, so instead of just not taking her at all he chooses to take her without her children even though the slave trader tells him straight that the girl will be sent to prostitution – and that was the nice guy!!! He really wanted to help but it was not his problem so he simply couldn’t give up that woman no matter what were consequences. It made me think about us modern consumers buying cheap cloths made in Bangladesh and India and we already know the conditions these cloths are made of, we know they are made in sweatshops by young children but we continue to buy because it is cheap it is convenient and Bangladesh and India are too far away for us to really factor the people that live there to our daily shopping.
The movie reaffirmed my view that mankind is inherently evil, just as it is said in Genesis. The slave owner kept saying slaves are his legal property and therefore he can do as he sees fit, including beating and raping. But just because someone is allegedly inferior to you or you see them as your property does not mean you need to be cruel and evil to them, they can work for you (not paid of course, hey they are still slaves) you can give them food and bed and that is that you don’t have to go the extra mile and also be evil to them. But we can see that throughout history, in state of war when people can they are cruel to those deemed inferior to them just because they can. During the Holocaust Jews were demonised and in occupied countries civilians went the extra mile to hurt them well beyond the duty to the Nazi regime, just because they could and were legally allowed. During wars in distance places we saw soldiers from the west committing horrendous acts just because it was far away and they were the ruling power in that area and basically because they could.
I was a bit afraid of watching this movie because I knew it would be a brutal one, but isn’t that the whole point of reading books and watching movies? To learn something, to expand your horizons otherwise we stay ignorant and watch only light entertainment (nothing is wrong with light entertainment, I am all in favour but not only) we can’t allow people to ignore horrors of the Holocaust, Rwanda or current atrocities in the Middle East just because it is too difficult to watch, we need to engage, learn and try to change. Obviously my conclusion from the movie is that nothing is changes and people still commit horrendous acts to others if they deemed inferior or weaker – but we have to try!
On a slightly lighter note, I loved the fact that Brad Pitt produced this movie and gave himself the role of the only positive white man – the man that saved the protagonist.
It is a very good movie and an important one but if the visual is hard for you maybe the book would be a better way to get educated.
einatsohar 