Derek's blog

Dear Nicky Campbell,


You told BBC viewers this Sunday morning that "The government made most of us poorer to pay off our debts." Who exactly is this "us"? David Cameron's Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich made the poorest 99% poorer in order to bail out David Cameron's parasitic chums.

You put this 'question' to a nasty, lying Thatcherite idiot and he responded by saying, "You're right, we HAVE got a lot richer." So is he confused by what you 'asked' him? And if he had just misquoted you Nicky (and he had not), why didn't you respond to clarify that you never said that? You did. You slipped it in and hoped none of your viewers would notice. Is this 'perception' true or isn't it? Let's examine it's meaing:

"What about the perception that we are so much wealthier than previous generations..." You premised a question with this. Whose perception? Yours? By what yardstick are you defining wealthier? Relatively the mass of the people are slipping down the ladder. The rich are getting richer, the poor ever more poor. And now not just in relative terms.

And there's the question of not merely wealth distribution. What about the safety net that protects us when things go wrong, as they are so spectacularly going wrong today, courtesy of global bankers' plunging humanity further into chaos... What about the fact that it is the labour of those who don't own the means of production, distribution and exchange having more of their unpaid labour expropriated by our lords and masters, those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, those who got a helping hand to become capitalists, those who played the game of the parasties, in return for becoming poster boys and girls for capitalist bullshit?

Self made men (women too for that matter) are the exceptions that proves the rule. And by and large they worked within an anti-working class context that needs the occasional exception to help propagate the lie that anyone can be successful if they work hard enough. The small percentage who do climb out of the swamp do so by screwing their fellow man (by, for instance, banning trade unions, denying them fair employment legislation including health and safety rights), woman, kids, pensioner. NHS, free public education for all our kids, decent pensions for everyone, help for those struggling on disability.... We, the victims of this brutal system of wage slavery are all sacrifised to help David Cameron's already super rich friends, and to help Ed Miliband parrot this capitalist nightmare. Labour's latest shift into Thatcherite territory has proven as strategically astute as dancing on a landmine. Ed Miliband and all his loyalist Shadow Cabinet idiots have not helped eat away at part of the Tory and Lib Dem vote. All he has done is make it abundantly clear to Labour voters that his party no longer promises them anything. Absolutely nothing. Affiliated trade unionists will look elsewhere. My advice to disillusioned Labour voters is to join, vote for and call for trade union affilition to TUSC, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. Welcome to to the real world, Nicky Campbell.


Yours sincerely,
Derekrootboy

Posted by derekthomas005 at 18:32

Dear TUSC comrades, Ed Miliband's lurch still further into Thatcherite territory has created a new crisis in his party, affiliated trade unions and voters who want to express discontent with David Cameron's government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Sectarians in the Labour Party are in trouble. They need excuses for not standing candidates against Ed Miliband's satelite of the CONDEM government. Their favorite excuse is the alleged sectarianism of parties to the left of Labour, and when I say alleged, I am not denying the People's Front of Judea contains elements of truth. Many of them will die in the Labour Party, regardless of how far to the right Ed Miliband drags it. Others moderate their language and are easily recruitable to TUSC, if we get our tactics right. Even those that pose as non-sectarian towards TUSC need to be appeased in terms of our rhetoric. We help them if we respond to their sectarianism towards us by giving them a taste of their own medicine. We play into their hands unless we extend olive brances, even to those who we are wary of. This is not because we want them especially. It is in order to neutralise their hold on the masses who remain to be convinced. Let us demonstrate by our actions, and our rhetoric that any disunity against David Cameron and Ed Miliband's unofficial national government is the fault of others. That is how we will help affilitated trade unions and millions of Labour voters flock to our banner. And it is how we will win batallions of young (and not so young) activists for TUSC.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 21:05

Tree of life takes place during a single day.
Tree of life is subjective, seen thru the eyes and imagination of Jack as played by Sean Penn.
Tree of Life is autobiographical. Jack is Terrence Malick.
Jack's dead brother is Terrence Malick's dead brother.
Tree of Life is Terrence Malick's reimagining of Dante's Divine Comedy.
Jack's younger brother plays the role of Virgil in Divine Comedy, the noble individual who was barred from Heaven.
Jack's mother plays the role of Beatrice in Divine Comedy.
Jack's father plays many roles. He is Job.
Virgil lead Dante through Hell and Purgatory, and Jack's dead brother does the same in Tree of Life.
Beatrice leads Dante through Heaven. In Tree of Life, things are more complicated. The final section of Tree of Life is most difficult to interpret, and Malick may be deliberately trying to hide secrets from us. My interpretation is that Jack's mother is already dead and has herself not gotten into Heaven because she could not reconcile herself to the death of her favorite son at the age of nineteen. It was not the physical loss of her son that so destroyed her faith in a divine God but the nature of his death, by his own hand, suicide, meaning he was damned to never pass through the gates of Heaven.
Jack's day was spent in contemplation of the death of his brother on one particular anniversary of his death. After two brief quotes from The Old Testament (Book of Job), Tree of Life starts with a dream. Flickering coloured light representing God, and Jack's explaining that it was his brother and mother who lead him to God's door. That takes us immediately to his mother's description of the two paths through life, which we each get to choose for ourselves. And then we are lead through her loss of faith in the path she chose for herself.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 19:14

Spoiler alert, yet again
This is my fourth outting. Tree of Life has kinda gotten under my skin. Feel the need to explain why. So here are a few more ideas, some of which I could have mentioned before, but didn't get around to it, others have only just occured to me. Dante's Divine Comedy? 'Sup with that?

What relationship is there between Terrence Malick's Tree of Life and Dante's Divine Comedy? More than might be apparent to some. It's only just struck me that there may very well be a conscious attempt to reimagine Dante's epic poem for the modern day, with the latest cosmological and evolutionary discoveries. Freud wasn't around when Dante had a go. You know what? I am pretty convinced we're not dealing with a set of accidental similarities. Malick knew exactly what he was doing. Anyone else pointed this out before? Divine Comedy covers a week, the time period Dante believed God took to create the universe. The week incorporating Easter at the turn of the century: 1300. Malick's Tree of Life lasts a single day. Less than that, the anniversary of the death of his brother at the age of 19. What are the similarities?

Divine Comedy sees the author of the epic poem being lead thru the three realms of the dead: Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. Malick's final chunk takes us to heaven. Yes? What about the other two realms? Does Malick's avatar, Jack as played by Sean Penn go there? Not explicitly. Can we divide the earlier parts into a hell and purgatory stage? Hmm. Tricky.

Malick can be seen to have created Tree of Life for similar reasons to Dante. Maybe. It strikes me as in significant part autobiographical. Jack is Malick. The film is an homage to his dead brother, the one who may have committed suicide, the one whose life parallels the dead brother in the film, the one who died mysteriously aged 19.

If Malick's brother did commit suicide then that would explain a lot. If we are to believe that Jack's brother commited suicide, then that would explain the intensity of the grief of Jack's mother. Her son would never get into heaven. If this is the case, then the brother would be a good choise for the role of Virgil, who was Dante's guide thru hell and purgatory. Virgil was deemed the most nobel man who would never make heaven, given his standing outside the Judeo Christian tradition. Jack's brother tells Jack in a vision while walking down a hall to, "find me." At the end of Jack's day in the office, he says to his brother, "keep us, guide us till the end of time." The end of time is represented by the collapse of the sun down from a red giant which has scorched the earth to a white dwarf, no longer advertising itself as big, bright or hot, just there, quietly exercising a gravitational pull. At that point, Jack as Sean Penn is actually following himself aged 12, the innocent boy he was before he started to lose his way, committing all seven of the deadly sins, and breaking all of the ten commandments.

The transition from purgatory to heaven is pretty clearcut. The same is not true of the other transitions. In Divine Comedy, there is a preamble before Dante descends into the underworld, guided by Virgil, and the same may be true in Tree of Life. What is less problematic is identifying the role of his brother in leading him thru hell and purgatory. Purgatory, in my opinion, can be identifed in Tree of Life as the section of Jack's life where he commits a series of sins, and purges himself of those, in preparation for his entering heaven, where he meets his equivilent of Beatrice, the woman he had been in love with from the time he was a small child. In Dante's case, it was a female of his own age, who had died by the time Dante's Divine Comedy allegedly took place. In the Tree of Life, the woman who was loved and is now dead is not a romantic love, but his mother, a mother who exercised an unholy Oedipus stranglehold on him when lust joined the queue of all his other crimes against God and humanity.

The last time we see Jack's mother she is commending to her children yet another list of positive soundbites by which to live their lives. For the most part these are single words. And the last of all is hope. We see her strolling thru the same forest we have seen her and her husband, each as individuals, stroll before. And as the word hope echoes in our ears, we see her sitting down, head bowed, eyes red, not a glimpse of a smile on her face. This is a woman who appears to have lost all hope. Why? I think it might be because she has not simply lost her most beloved son in the flesh, but has to reconcile herself to the reality that she will never meet him again in the afterlife, because his suicide deprives him of the possibility of passing thru the gates of heaven.

If I am right about Jack's mother being dead on this day of revelation, and his brother having died by his own hand, then I think I can decode a few more things. There are two bodies wrapped up, lying on the ground at one point. They could represent the brother and mother. We see a mask fall down in the sea. Cut. And then we see the same falling down inside the sea. Or is this a different mask? If it is, then they may represent the two dead people, the two who immediately are let out of the home Jack and his brother spent their formative years. The mother leads her dead son to the door and lets him out, to play. Then Jack comforts his mother, caresses her hair before we see she too has left the building, their home, is walking on the flat white landscape towards the sun, arms outstretched, to be greeted by a couple of angels. This could represent the final letting go by the mother of  her favorite son who died by suicide. It took Jack's reuniting the pair of them for her to finally let go her grief, and become fit to enter heaven herself. Then, in heaven, she tells God, "I give him to you. I give you my son." Just as she was now ready to let her dead son go, knowing that he is happy, Jack is as willing to let his mother go. And it is this act that seals the deal. While it's his mother who utters the words, "I give him to you. I give you my son," it is Jack himself who has done this, given himself to God, the God of his mother,  his brother, the God Jack abandoned so many years ago with the pointless drowning of a school chum.

If this interpretation of Tree of Life has legs (and much of it is, admittedly, highly speculative), where are the dividing lines between hell and purgatory in this film? Prior to Virgil guiding Dante into the underworld, and then into purgatory, the poet was lost in a wood, searching for the sun, an image we see more than once in Terrence Malick's film. The preamble to the hell stage could be everything up to Jack's brother in a vision saying "find me." Prior to that we have a dream and a series of day dreams, possibly an hallucination or two, or 'vision' if you're so inclined. But the conscious decision to follow the trail of his brother probably marks the point at which Jack enters the underworld, down into the dog-eat-dog, rat race of natural selection, survival of the fittest, devil take the hindmost. As the asteroid snuffs out the dinosaurs, and most species on earth, Jack asks of God, "when did you first touch my heart?" Then we come in contact with the world of grace, altruism, empathy, specifically the love of two people, his parents, and we are lead thru his years of innocence, with his two younger brothers entering the scene, shifting seemlessly into Jack aged twelve. It is only halfway thru that scene, that we notice darkness has fallen back into the world of grace, with the ominous presence of Jack's father, no longer the simple loving man we'd just been introduced to. From this point on, we witness Jack moving progressively into a pit of sin, and hating himself for this. We empathise with Jack as he re-experiences his guilt, the pain at how he rants, and rages at the world, at everyone and everything he loves. Only when he asks his brother for forgiveness after shooting him in the hand with an air rifle does Jack commit himself to emulating his brother and mother, at least struggling to be a good person, a struggle that seems to have become difficult if not impossible from the time his brother died.

So the first main division of Tree of Life is the film prior to Jack agreeing to try to find his brother. From there until the destruction of the dinosaurs is Malick's representation of hell, free from any humanity, empathy, heart and soul, emotion or altruism. Purgatory lasts from then until the collapse of the sun into a white dwarf, which we see form an eclipse with the earth, looking like an eye starting out at us from the screen, as we hear the voice of the 12 year old Jack saying, "follow me." From that point on, we are moving into the realm of heaven. Jack has managed to bring his brother into heaven to meet his dead mother. Jack has proven that suicide is not the overwhelming obstacle his mother had been lead to believe it to be. When Jack's father and mother embrace, we see her kiss his hand, and it is the hand of an old man, which is probably what his hand looks like as last seen by Jack in the real world, and as it will appear when next he lays eyes on it. Anyway, unlike Jack, his mother and brother are dead. Jack cannot remain in heaven with his mother or brother. So we find him, and he finds himself, outside his office, his building back in the world of men, traffic, birds and wind blowing his hair and tie all around, he smiles. The suspension bridge symbolises Jack's no longer needing mother or brother as moral compass or crutch. He has established for himself his own direct link to the source of true wisdom. He has been reborn. One last shot. From blackness emerges the dancing, flickering colored light, the same one that introduced the film. This is the visual representation of God, which we see many times during the film. It also happened to remind me of what might first greet a baby emerging from the womb, it's brain having gestated for what must have seemed like an eternity, dreaming who knows what. The mother walking towards the bright sun, walking on the ice may well have been walking into an adventure in heaven as mysterious and glorious as the one every baby embarks upon. Maybe.

Any other observations I'd like to make? The woman with the dark hair who draws a veil over Jack's brother, then kisses him. The hallucination in the corridor. Who is the woman? Don't think we meet her anywhere else? Not sure, but I suspect that is Death. The clown who laughs and mocks everyone, then squirts water from a sunflower (symbol of grace) into Jack's face, before falling into a tank of water as Jack looks on, not a bit concerned as he watches the clown drown. Who does that represent? Even without any reminder of context, it's clearly Jack's father. The same goes for the circus giant unable to stand up straight in the dark attic. As the circus giant points towards the darkness, the small boy (a younger version of Jack) rocks in a rocking chair, circles round and around in his tricycle, bathing in the light from the window at the other end of the attic. Guess that man also represents his father. Jack is deeply disturbed. He is riddled with jealousy towards other people. His brother most of all. He is a talented musician, an artist. The brother plays duets with his father, and they get on, the brother ever forgiving of the father's transgressions. Jack destroys his brother's paintings because they are an insult to his own lack of talent. He complains about his father's lies, pretence, making up stories, original words even as his brothers and mother are getting on fine with his dad. He alone harbours ill feelings towards his father. The others let bygones be bygones. We see his father's good side as well as his shortcomings, and we feel deep empathy towards him. Jack doesn't. His playing his father's vinyl records holding them down to slow it down, distorting the music... That's symbolic of his observing his father through a distorted mirror, everything is twisted. Jack is twisted, but we feel empathy towards him too because it was his father primarily who was responsible for this. His father taught him attrocious lessons, thinking he was doing him good, but was only infecting him with his own moral myopia. What made Jack's father like this? Was it a society that is organised to promote values of competition instead of cooperation? Yes. That's exactly what it was. Fuck capitalism. Here endeth the lesson.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 16:28

What is great about Terrence Malick's Tree of Life? So much. I've already had two attempts at explaining what I like about it. Here's the third. It's visually beautiful, and much of the acting is very subtle. Jessica Chastain's performance often takes place when she's neither speaking nor being spoken to, an observer worried by the disintegrating relationship between the man she loves and her children, Jack in particular. You can miss this on a first viewing. There is simply too much to see. None of the character's are two dimensional. All the main characters change, and their struggles are dealt with realistically, from a psychological point of view. All this is normal for any great film. But this is no normal film. There is a feel good ending similar to It's a Wonderful Life. Maybe not quite. That ends with the central character laughing with his children, wife, the entire town community celebrating their saving his life because he means so much to them all, which had never occured to him before. Jack (the adult version played by Sean Penn), on the other hand, simply smiles for the first time in the film. This is symbolic of his realisation he's found the key to happiness he'd been searching for. Nobody but the viewer noticed that smile. Nobody was watching him except us. And many of those who started as the audience were not watching neither, having departed the cinema long ago, bored out of their minds, exasperated by the incongruity of the images, and the apparently fragmented structure. Maybe if some of these images were explained to them... Might that help? Let's try that, shall we. For those who care, here's my key:

This film is subjective. The four voice-overs represent only one reality. The musings and silent prayers of the mother and father, and those of Jack's 12 year old self represent reconstructions of fragmented memories or educated guesses as to what was in the minds of his mother and father. They are not to be taken as objective reality as handed down to us on a plate by some omniscient observer. That's just not how to approach this film, and those who take that approach will never unearth it's hidden treasures. Jack as a 12 year old is witness to an explanation, by his father, of the point of view of the film. He explains to all three of his boys and a waitress in a diner the meaning of subjective viewpoint: it comes from your mind; no one can disprove it. The entire film has to be grasped as a personal journey by Jack (as played by Sean Penn) on a single day: one dream, many day dreams, hallucinations, visions, revelations, prayers, philosophical musings on the meaning of life, and what it was that made him want, at various times, to use his brother and his mother as his guide through life, why he trusted them, and how he can live out his remaining years now that they are no longer there. We know his brother died aged 19 many years ago. Is the mother dead also? My educated guess is that she must be, but there's no definite proof of that in the film. That hypothesis helps me make sense of the final section. And I'm going to explain how I've reached that conclusion.

The first thing on the screen, before the film proper begins, is a quote from the Old Testament. It is God's response to Job when he asks where he was when terrible things happened in his life. The reponse is dismissive: Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Echoing Job, Jack's mother asks the exact same question when her most beloved son was taken from her aged 19. When her own mother (I think she is her mother) told her the pain would pass, she replies, "I don't want it to." She tells her husband, "I just want to die. To be with him." We see her walking lost into a wood, the light of the sun hidden behind the trees as she betrays her promise to God to follow him whatever comes. The entire history of the universe from the big bang to the destruction of the dinosaurs immediately follows on from her question, "where were you?" This is where he was. He was everywhere. During this section, there are a couple of voice-over interventions from the mother. The first time we see liquid water on the surface of the earth, gushing down in a massive waterfall, she prays to God, telling him she and her son cry to him. This symbol of their tears leads on more or less immediately to the chemical reactions in bubbling pools, with a flash of lightning to the creation of life: first single celled, then multicellular. Her final voice-over intervention during this section has her speak the following words: "Light of my life, I search for you, my hope, my child." These words reverberate as we see Saturn, followed within seconds by Jupiter. Then from the blackness of space emerges a large rock revolving on its axis, moving away from us. As it turns, slowly getting smaller, we notice something blue behind it, and round. It's the Earth. Then we see the Earth with a tiny speck falling onto its surface, with ripples moving outwards, engulfing the entire planet. Then we are in a bleak landscape, little sunshine, no colour to speak of, a frozen world. And bells toll. Death. Jack is then seen walking precariously, uneasily, through some post apocolyptic environment.

While Genesis tells us God created the universe in seven days, Terrence Malik reminds those of us with open minds that the reality of the creation of the universe and mankind is somewhat more convoluted, and much more interesting. Fascinated by the glories of this world, its wonders, not just of planet earth but the entire universe? Then consult the sciences, all of them, not a book written by those born too early to know any better.

Terrence Malick's alternative to Genesis is more interesting, but these sections serve a greater purpose. God's response, as reinterpreted by Malick, is not merely showing off as to what he had done. In time we are reminded of the relationship between her son's life and the sweeping away of the dinosaurs, as we are reminded of the wisdom of the woman who explained to the mother that life goes on, death being an essential part of the process. These words echo in our ears as we hear the sermon by the Priest, the one explaining the lessons of the Book of Job. Had it not been for the destruction of most of life on earth, her son would never have existed. None of the critics of the film would have made it to praise or condemn the film as a pile of pretentious excrement, any more than the director would be there to make it or the actors too. We all owe our very existance to a series of mega extinctions, such as the one that took place 65 million years ago. Such is life. Get over it.

Bad things do happen to good people. What causes pain to Jack's mother is her inability to protect her son. It is others, the innocent, whose deaths cause us to question our core beliefs. Jack's mother came close to abandoning her God, but she came through this crisis of faith, apparently. Jack abandoned his commitment to his mother's God when he got no satisfactory explanation for the death of innocent people, like his classmate who drowned, or the boy badly burnt in a fire. "Why should I be good if you aren't?" Having abandoned his father, then his God, bit by bit his entire moral compass crumbles to dust. His mother falls out of the picture. "NO! I'm not going to do everything you tell me to. I'm gonna do what I want. What do you know? You let him run all over you." His world falls apart as he digs himself deeper and deeper into a pit of sin. "What I want to do I can't. I do what I hate." "How do I get back? To where THEY are?" 'They' being his mother and brother, the two shining examples of how to lead a good life. He's dug his own ethical grave and desparately wants to be rescued, but doesn't know how to do that. However, we do see him emerge from this as a 12 year old. When he's hurt his trusting brother once too often. He says sorry, and is forgiven, again. He returns to his father, and we see them reconciled, in silence. His father desparately needs the love of his children, and has suffered for years not knowing why he doesn't get this. We see his pain, many times, and we know that he is a weak man, but a good one nevertheless. "I wanted to be loved because I'm great. A big man... I'm nuthin. A foolish man." We admire his wife and Jack's brothers for not nurturing bitterness towards him, the way Jack did, distorting everything about his father seeing the bad in him even when there was none. We feel good for them both when Jack finally abandons his irrational hatred of his father. No longer does he pray to God for death: "Please God, kill him. Let him die. Get him out of here." No longer does he ask his mother, "Why was he born?" No longer does he notice opportunities to kill his father and make it look like an accident. No longer does he scream at his father, "She only love ME!" Jack had descended into a twisted egocentric individual, and the blame for that lies in significant part with his father, a man who has to lose everything he had worked for before he recognised what was really important to him. The voiceover of the father, and his talk with Jack are very moving. And we know his mother was right not to walk away from this man when he behaved badly towards their children. Her love saved him, and it saved Jack too, from a life of crime and bitterness.

What about the symbolism? The first two symbols offered to us are those for the competing philosophies of life: nature and grace. The former is represented, somewhat surprisingly, by the sun; the latter by a sunflower. It took me some time to work out the appropriateness of these contrasting symbols. In the context of the entire piece, they make perfect sense. Why would sunflowers represent grace? Was this because of the artist whose paintings of sunflowers immortalised them? Vincent Van Gogh. "The world was never meant for one as beautiful as you," according to that hit single, Starry, Starry Night. Vincent means a lot to many people. His life seems to epitomise the path advocated by the mother in this film. But why on earth would the sun represent opposed values? Is the sun not typically a symbol of goodness, warmth, light and wisdom? What is going on here?

Throughout the film at many places we see Jack and his father presented as the very personification of egocentricity. The world revolves around them, having abandoned everything else. The world exists only to please them. For Jack, his mother only exists for him, only loves him, only should love him. The same goes for the father, who treats his sons as servants to bow down before his greatness, and we see the 12 year old Jack watching yet another fight between his parents from outside their home with the father reminding his wife that he 'allows' her to live in 'his' house, and she should be grateful. Many people today, feminists of both sexes, will despair that any woman put up with this. Zero tollerance for such behavior? The politically correct side of my nature argues in favour of that. But seen in context, I am glad she fought with what she had, in a social context where her husband didn't know any better. She taught him to behave himself. It took time and patience, but she won. Took her long enough before she won Jack back too, and she didn't do it alone, his brother playing an even greater role. But they did bring him back to his senses. Prior to that, Jack dismissed his brothers as underlings who need to get out of his way, do what he tells them, say what he wants them to. Neither Jack nor his father are happy trapped in their egocentric straightjacket. They emerge only with the help and love of others. The world revolves around the sun, which provides warmth, and light, bringing life into the world, draws others (animals, men and plants) towards it. That is how egocentircs see themselves. In their distorted mirrors, they are the source of light, warmth, gravitational power. All bow down before them - if they know what's good for them. If not, they deserve to be tricked into getting out of the way, intimidated or bought off. Whatever it takes. The egocentric's distorted self image is their own problem, is their burden, but is also a crime against their fellow men. It is an embarrrasement to themselves, a hole they've built for themselves, a challenge for all of society. The alternative approach is symbolised by the sunflower.

What exactly makes sunflowers so signifcant as a symbol, apart from their association with Vincent? Firstly, unlike the unreachable sun, the sunflower is grounded. It is alive. It reflects the sun, rather than pretends to be it. It's always pictured in the film as part of a field of other sunflowers, all equal, none special, looking like the sun, named after it, but different. At the end of the film, when the mother, bathed in light with a halo effect, groomed by two angels, says, "I give him to you. I give you my son," the son refered to happens to be Jack. She is telling us that her son has embraced the truths she tried to teach him her whole life. He has abandoned the egocentrism that so blighted his life, and his father's before him, an egocentrism from which the pair of them have struggled their whole lives to shed. A field of sunflowers introduce Jack back into the outside world. And that suspension bridge symbolises his having no longer any need to draw inspiration and strength from  his mother and brother. Jack no longer needs to lean on them, given that he's emerged from his spirtual journey with a direct route to the source of this wisdom.

The final pieces of the puzzle were put together as he emerged into his vision of the afterlife. He was reunited with both his parents, as young adults, and his dead brother, but as we knew him in the picture aged eleven, not aged 19 as he was when he passed away. His youngest brother, as part of the family, is also there. It is absolutely clear that it was her belief in an afterlife that allowed the mother to keep it together when her most beloved son died. He was her favorite, although she lied to Jack when he asked her about this, as any good mother would. She loved him best because he was perfect, exactly what she wanted from all her children. A model of how we should be. A shining example to the rest of humanity. A bit like her really. And God went and let him die. Why? Why would he snuff our her angel with all his unfulfilled promised? Gone in an instant. How could this be part of God's masterplan? She wanted to die to be with him, but she didn't take her life. How did she bear it? She knew, or hoped, she'd meet him in the afterlife. That was her simple trick. Yes, but was it Jack's solution also? That certainly appears to be what is going on here. Jack realises that without embracing at the very least the 'hope' of an afterlife, he will struggle with all the slings and arrows thrown at him by an outrageous, indifferent or cruel God. Pie in the sky when you die? The promise that distracts the masses, the opium that reconciles the downtrodden and oppressed with their oppressors rather than exacting not revenge but a redistribution of wealth, sharing out the planet's natural resources according to social justice? The rich and powerful cannot survive by force of arms alone. Cops and soldiers may be necessary, but priests are every bit as necessary. Merely intimidating the downtrodden is a recipe for disaster, storing up problems for the future, as every dictator learns to his cost. The rich and powerful need priests to convince us. They do it with carrots, olive branches, smack cocaine for the brain, the best bullshit money can buy. Provided we wait until after we're dead we'll get our reward in heaven, for our sublime patience. Why would any of us be so stupid as to fall for that trick? That is what the atheist in me screams out at the top of my voice. But forgiveness, reconciliation and rehabilitation of the guilty are important. 'An eye for an eye leaves us all blind' and 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' are excellent mottos. People behave like animals if that is how society treats them. We need to work to create a society that does not degrade any of us, if we truly want to eliminate the barbarism from humanity, and the animal in our bretheren, thereby pretecting the innocent from the dregs of society who are a consequence of society's abandonment of so many. Ignore the social roots of the evil in men's hearts and we substantially accelerate the number of sinners who are out there, the disturbed seeking revenge on others for the pain they've been subjected to. The barbaric crimes of these monsters are not individual responsibilites, but caused by those who turn a blind eye to the injustice that breeds such evil, which is why the church hierarchy at St Pauls are Judases and Pontius Pilates and not at all part of the church of Jesus Christ. No, it's possible for Christians to be good socialists every bit as much as atheists. Not only can socialists of an atheist bent tollerate a live and let live attitude towards devout Christians, and their eccentric rituals, this film may be open to non faith interpretations. We know it was belief in an afterlife that saved Jack's mother from despair when her son died. But is this the solution Jack himself embraces at the end of the film? Probably. But I believe it is not necessarily the kind of faith of his mother.

In his vision of the afterlife, Jack worked out for himself how his mother got on with her life after his brother died. She lives on in his heart, regardless of whether or not she has an immortal soul that went on into heaven. She asked him to hope, and I guess part of Jack does hope for an afterlife, to meet his mother and brother again. But regardless of whether this unprovable hope is forelorn or not, he's done the essential thing. He has snuffed out the false god of his own egocentrism. He asked his brother to guide him until the end of time. From a cosmological point of view, we don't see the end of time, if such a thing has any meaning. What we do see is the destruction of the earth as an inhabitable rock. The sun has swelled up in five thousand million years to all but engulf the Earth. It's as hot and dry as mercury. That is not the end of time, though. That is represented by the next stage in the sun's evolution, it's implosion down to a white dwarf. Small, insignificant in most respect. Very little light or heat. Little more than a bright star, but a star nonetheless that exerts a powerful gravitational pull on the earth and the the other planets beyond our orbit, Venus and Mercury having been swallowed up. This represents the abandonment of Jack's egocentrism. No more showing off. Quiet. Working at a distance. Exercising a gravitational attraction as powerful as before, but without advertising it. This is the new Jack, the one who won't just condemn the greed of others, but try to help them as his mother and brother did. Is he doing it for the same reason his mother did? Because he too expects his reward in heaven, seeing his mother and brother again? My guess is that is probably what motives him. Who knows? Who cares? What matters is that he has become a good person, the kind of person who makes a contribution to society. And that is all that matters.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 09:02

Posted by derekthomas005 at 01:07

I've already written a first draft critique of Tree of Life by Terrence Malick. Since doing that, I've watched it many more times. The poetry of the film is unveiling its secrets, bit by bit. Variety of competing interpretations present themselves to me. Will any final solution be found? By me or anyone else, including the actors? I doubt it. Does that matter? No, it does not. Artists exist to pose questions, never to definitively answer them. That's the job of scientists, or politicians. Artists tease our senses and imaginations, expand our horizons, point the way to new experiences, ask us to open our eyes and live. Terrence Malick's Tree of Life succeeds in that. More than just about any film I've ever seen. What does it mean? Why do some dislike it? Why is it disliked by some who should know better? Why is it's reputation among critics, and possibly the general viewer likely to grow over the years? Let me try to tackle some of these questions.

Who will hate this film, now and forever? Creationists, for a start. They'll never reconcile themselves to it, and that's fine by me. These people have minds so closed to reality that they can only be deemed mentally ill. That in itself is a cause for some sympathy, but trying to brainwash their kids, and other people's kids is truly unforgivable.

Right wing Republicans. They'll hate the film, regardless of whether they're orthodox Bible Bashers, born again Christians or those able to appreciate natural scientific progress, notwithstanding its challenging central tennets of their Old Testament. They too cannot tollerate the touch of Terrence Malick's Tree of Life. This wonderful film is a treatise on how we need to stand up to the egotism that goes hand in hand with capitalism red in tooth and claw. The values espoused are those of so-called bleeding heart liberals, with their airy fairy nonsense about peace and love, forgiveness. Bullshit like that. These are the real teachings of Jesus Christ, and there is much here for socialists to like. There is an absence of course. Collective struggle. No space for that here. That's ok. Artists are not propagandists. There is an almost imperceptible low level struggle that raises its head occasionally. An individual struggle for justice. Maybe only a single example of that which we see in any detail. I'm refering to the episode where Jack's mother raises her fist to her husband for his mistreatment of their kids. "See how you like it," she says. We see examples of other fights between the parents, from a distance, outside the house, as the 12 year old Jack watches from a distance. Clearly primarily these domestics revolve around how to raise their children. She fights for her boys, and at the end of the day, she wears him down. He lets her have her way, even when he thinks she's wrong.  From a socialist point of view, this is hardly an example for how to live our lives. That is particularly the case because we learn that Jack's breaking all ten commandments in one form or another, displaying cruelty and indifference to the feelings of others (including his mother and brother) is a consequence of the inadequate way she stands up to her husband. She turns the other cheek in a way Jack thinks does her no credit. Jack ends up, for at least part of his twelth year and to some extent afterwards, embracing the twisted egocentrism of his father because Jack mistakes her letting go bitterness for weakness, for cowardice.

Let's be clear. This is not a socialist film. It is, nevertheless, a film socialists can enjoy. If it's a film to inspire socialists you want, this is not exactly the one for you. Try Warren Beatty's Reds or Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. Can socialists embrace a film that has a self consciously Christian message? Many will do so with great reluctance, or with misgivings, or not at all. That is their right. Taste, aesthetics and the like are a profoundly personal things. People like what they like. Some works of art are an aquired taste. In reality the best works should be. Why return to a work of art if all it's glories are there on the surface? Better to drip feed our emotions and intellects over the years. Not prepared to watch a film more than once? That's too bad. It is your right to lock yourself into a one dimensional virtual reality straightjacket communal experience in a darkened room from which you awake after 90 minutes, to forget it immediately, at both a conscious and subconscious level. I prefer films that get inside my head and heart. Tree of Life has done that. I will keep returning to it to decode what remain loose ends, even though I have no guarantee that Malick himself has everything in its place. Red herrings, surrealist images he cannot decode, but that haunt his dreams? They may exist. On the other hand, so much of the film is decodable that I suspect virtually all of it is. For those who have not even tried, instead believing it funny to ridicule the film, let me explain what I think it is about.

This film is subjective in a sense that may not have been appreciated by all. In fact I know it has not. There are four voiceovers, two being different actors playing the central character (Jack) at different points in his life, the other two being his mother and his father. In reality, only the voiceover by Sean Penn can be taken at face value. All others are memories or suppositions. The lengthy section of the film that has been deemed padding and a waste of time where we see the birth of spacetime 13.7 billion years ago up to the KT event that wipes out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is not to be taken as objective, although it's a damn sight closer to that than the bullshit Creationists palm off to their own kids, and everyone else's they can get their claws on. We need to see all of this section of the film as having taken place in Jack's subconsciousness. Seen in context it is an example of the glory Jack's mother and father refer to, the wonders of the universe that inspire those of us willing to look. It is all part of a daydream. But it is more than that. Leading into that, is an explanation of what this section is an answer to. "Where were  you?" she asks God, refering to why he/she allowed her son to be tragically taken from her at so young an age, with so much unfulfilled promise. This is the same question Jack himself puts to God when he complains about God letting a boy drown, and about another boy burnt in a fire, apparently left brain damaged, an orphan, and isolated by his peers. "Why should I be good if you aren't?" This is a major turning point in Jack's life. A point of no return, although he does not share this with anyone else. His thoughts and prayers and aspirations are a private matter, between him and the God he has just outgrown.

The cosmological and evolutionary section is an illustration of God's answer to the same question in the Book of Job, from which we are given two quotations as introduction to the film. God's answer reported to us as introduction has a hint of the immodesty contained in the apocryphal reply given to a reporter once: "What did you do in the war, Mr Joyce?" "I wrote Ulysses. What did you do?" The Book of Job is central to this film. The entire film is an attempt to rescue it from critics who dismiss this Biblical God as a monster. Richard Dawkins, for example.

Everything prior to the adult version of Jack waking up alongside a lover takes place in his dream, his subconsciousness already having paved the way for the meditations of the rest of his day. Other than two quotations from the Old Testament, the entire film must be viewed as a kaleidoscope of one dream, many day dreams, prayers, meditations, hallucinations, visions, revellations by one individual on one particular and very special day. We do overhear some non related (or only peripherally related) conversations at work. We learn during one of these (mobile phone conversation) that his father is still alive, and that they are now talking and have a good relationship. While there are clearly still tensions, when things are said, apologies are offered, and accepted. The tension that even intrudes into his work on this particular day forces Jack to apologise to at least one person, explaining that he is distracted due to unresolved issues relating to his dead brother. Exactly how much is passed on is in doubt. Probably not that much. The entire film is about how Jack can, and does, get over his grief for a brother who died aged 19 many years ago. Jack's hallucinations culminate in a 'vision' of his dead brother whispering to him, "find me." And that is what the rest of the film is about, about how he struggles to find his brother and also his mother, and also the innocent child he once was before he abandoned the God of his mother and brother.

The suspension bridge connecting two land masses, with the bird flying into and out of shot, followed by a black screen and the flickering, multi-coloured light that closes the film, with the sound of waves, birds and insects are there to tell us that Jack's search has been successful. Prior to this day, he needed his mother and brother to guide him. We know the brother died decades ago. Examine the film carefully, and I think it is clear his mother has also passed away, but this causes no trauma because she would seem to have survived her three score and ten. Only the brother was cut down in his prime. Examine the film carefully, and I don't think there's much doubt Jack's mother did get over her other son's death. Not immediately, and not without much pain. But she did get over it, while he never could. Jack asks himself how she managed that. Clearly she had never been able to explain to his satisfaction how she reconciled herself to this loss, and how he can do the same. Tree of Life is about how Jack on this day (an anniversary of his brother's death) works out for himself what it was that allowed his brother and his mother to be happy in a world containing so much misery. What is it the message that Jack finally embraces, the message preached by example by his brother and his mother all their lives?

On the face of it, the only way to be truly happy, according to Jack's mother, brother and by the end of the film Jack himself is to embrace hope in an afterlife. How can an atheist possibly reconcile him/herself to such a message? I very much doubt Richard Dawkins will. Other atheists may not mind too much, because some of us are content to get on with our lives, with a live and let live attitude to those whose minds are closed to the lack of rationality in believing in something that cannot be proven, even in principle. I suspect Dawkins may even deem this film as in some sense penicious as it seems to propagandise on behalf of intelligent design, and to suggest that only those who believe in an afterlife can ever be truly happy. The atheist I was before I saw Tree of Life was one who would reject such propaganda every bit as much as does Richard Dawkins. The one who emerged from this experience had changed. I think Malick does have a point. The trauma explored in this film has made me address issues I had dismissed previously as having no satisfactory answer. I think I can no longer truthfully describe myself as a hard atheist, now merely an agnostic of some sort. Do I embrace any specific religion or intend to become a practising member of any established church? No. My scientific approach won't allow me to opt for any of the competing dogmas without more than mere faith they are the right one. And evidence for that is never going to emerge. Does that mean I refuse to accept there may be an afterlife where some aspect of my consciousness will live on, and be contactable in some sense by those friends, family members and lovers who have also passed on before or after I do? Feels strange and a bit silly to say I no longer reject this apriori. But I cannot disprove this hypothesis, and I have been convinced by Terrence Malick's Tree of Life that there are good reasons for not turning my back on such a hypothesis. I am not going to do that for the same reason Jack doesn't. This appears to be one way of not getting obsessed with grief when those we love suffer and die. That is the message of Tree of Life, and I'm not as resistant as I was before Terrence Malick put his case.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 23:19

For me, the key issue is the watershed. I am not opposed to comedians using parody, including self parody. I personally would tolerate Jeremy Clarkson's joke if strikers had a right to reply, to expose him for the Tory idiot he is. Is it family entertainment for the BBC to give a platform to someone joking about kids parents being butchered before their eyes for demanding a pension that is a pittance to David Cameron's rich friend? Apart from potential trauma in young kids, it creates a climate where Breivik spree killers feel vindicated. Lastly, what example does it set to kids? Might some not gang together to launch practical joke chant for one of their teacher's to be butchered before her kids eyes? If it's funny when Jeremy Clarkson does it, how could a school discipline kids doing the exact same thing? This is a watershed issue. It's not a free speech question.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 11:57

"For it is easier to kill the Light within oneself than to scatter the Darkness around." Quote from Night Watch.

Poetic but tragic way to look at the world. When we see someone ready to exinguish their own light, we help ourselves by taking them by the hand and leading them out of the dark places, to show them the world is not all covered in shadows. Huddled together in the warm light, we help them to rekindle their own spark and appetite for life. They in turn can then help others when they see them ready to despair. Maybe the one they will help will even be ourselves, when we get lost. Or a brother or sister, mother or son.

I added this comment in response to a friend's quoting from a vampire film. On rereading it, I felt quite pleased with it. Wanted to expand on it. In the last few days, I have admitted to suicidal feelings. I have decided to go into some details on this. Will explain in due course why I feel the need to do this. I had planned to write a novel during November as part of NaNoWrimo. It was going to be virtually totally autobiographical. It had a structure that was based on a lie. It was supposed to be about a man who decides to commit suicide on his 50th birthday. The novel was a first person account in the form of the longest suicide note in history. But it was pretty much going to be an unpouring of all the reasons I have had suicidal feelings. I may post what I managed to write. Not going to get it finished by Nov 30. Might have another go at a later date. Or I may simply stop pretending this is anything other than an autobiography. Will anyone care to read it? Who knows.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 15:38

I never got to see Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life in the cinema.  I wanted to but I couldn’t. I did buy the dvd when it came out.  Felt a little intimidated. Had so many other dvds on my to-watch pile, and many other things to do. Did stick the dvd on a few times, but never got too far into it. This is a failing of mine. I blame ADHD. I kept stopping the dvd, placing it back in its box, waiting for an opportunity later. I did eventually get all the way through. Had to rewatch, not once but many times. That’s another failing of mine, if you can call it that. Have now done so many times and it keeps getting better. Confess I had to consult a review or two before I picked up on some things. Not going to say what I missed first time round, but one in particular is quite embarrassing. While I may have been a slow learner, I think the many repeated viewings have allowed me to unravel a mystery or two that have perplexed other critics. What are most intelligent viewers, film fans agreed upon? It’s beautifully shot, and acted? Anyone dispute that? Thought not. Read a few dismissive tweets that are actually quite funny but I won’t repeat them here. This is a film that has limited appeal. Yes? Maybe. In time things might change. Before that is possible, it will be necessary for movie goers to be given a road map, to explain what it is they’re supposed to be looking at. And much of the criticism is woefully poor in that respect. Maybe I can be of some assistance.

Firstly, over what time period is the film set? From the creation of matter, energy, space time itself? Are we presented with an allegedly objective picture of the big bang 13.7 thousand million years ago? When do the events of this film end? Is it when the earth is incinerated by the expansion of our yellow sun into a red giant in five thousand million years’ time, then its collapse into a tiny frozen white dwarf? We do see these events, but are we given a glimpse into this as reality? Actually, no. Not in my opinion. Both the beginning of time and the destruction of the earth as an inhabitable rock take place within the imagination, fantasy, day dreams, hallucinations, visions, revelations of the adult architect known to us as Jack in a single day, on the anniversary of the death of his brother aged 19 many years ago.

Just as the time frame is much more limited that appears to be the case at first sight, the same is true of point of view. There are at least three perspectives (four if we include the 12 year old Jack as in some sense distinct from his adult self), as revealed by voice over. However, only one of these is objective: Jack in the here and now. The 12 year old Jack’s voice over is actually a recollection of what he did think and feel all those many years ago, in the year or so he lost his innocence, and his faith in God, his father, mother, brother and everything else, some of which he got back during these flashbacks. As for the voiceovers by his father and his mother, they are mere suppositions, Jack’s guesses as to what they thought at particular moments in time.

The final scenes, where his young looking mother and young looking father are reconciled with the brother not at the age of his death (19), but as we have come to recognise him… What is going on here? These are visions of hope, hope in an afterlife, hopes that he can meet again his dead brother, as can his mother (who I suspect may also have died, although this is not clear in the film). When might this all take place? Seems to take place on earth as it is today, with oceans and birds, not the one we saw reduced to a cinder 5 billion years in the future. Regardless of where or when it takes place, it is a reunion of all loved ones, and everybody is happy.  This is a religious utopia. This is the afterlife Jack’s mother is pinning her hopes on. This answers Jack’s question of his mother: how did she bear it, it being the death of her most beloved son. On first reading of his death, she could not bear it. She screamed, sobbed, told her husband while inconsolable, “I just want to die. To be with him.” When her own mother tries to explain in practical terms why she needs to let go, because she still has the other two, and God giveth and he taketh away, everyone dies, the mother can’t take this advice. It’s not what she wants to hear. However, clearly at some point, Jack’s mother did manage to get on with her life. But the entire film revolves around Jack’s self-evident inability to follow her in this. “I think about him every day,” he tells his dad on his mobile, at work. He lights a candle for him on the anniversary of his death, sees visions of him in the presence of workmates: “Find me!” Jack needs closure, and has been looking in vain for that ever since his brother died.  Today is the day he finally gets it.

I read a review that said the film starts with Jack’s mother explaining about the two paths through life: grace and nature. Not so; not exactly. Prior to this, we see the coloured flickering light. And we hear a man’s voice, one we subsequently learn to be the adult  Jack’s voice: “Brother. Mother. It was they who took me to your door.” Whose door? The one who is the flickering light. In case it wasn’t clear first time round, the ‘you’ referred to in the voice-overs of Jack (young and old), his mother, and his father are always God, unless otherwise stated. All of them address God in their silent prayers. All of them do so as we see a representation of God as a shimmering, flickering coloured light.

Only after the opening words of Jack do we hear his mother telling us, amid images of her as a small child with her own dad, and farmyard animals – herbivores - and a symbol of grace (a field of sunflowers, immortalised by Vincent Van Gogh)… Jack’s mother explains how the nuns had told her about the two paths through life. We hear how she will never turn her back on God no matter what life brings. Then her patience in God is sorely tested by the letter explaining that her son has died. She grieves, as does Jack’s father, who is in pain. He blames himself, with some cause. At the end of this scene she asks God if she did something wrong and where was he when her son was taken away. This is the point where things start to get a little bit exasperating for the anti-pretentious brigade.  Where was God? We see where he was: everywhere. There is an extended scene showing no less than the entire history of the universe: from the big bang, through the creation of the earth, to the creation of single celled life, multi-cellular, land-based,  predators and prey, vertebrates. With the KT event, global tidal wave, nuclear winter that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs we return to Jack as he is today, walking on surreal environment, possibly navigating the wreckage of the planet of the post-KT apocalypse, asking how God first touched his heart, introducing his mother's falling in love with his father, giving birth to him, and their caring for him and his brothers as they enter the scene. This is one of the highlights of the movie, which few could criticise, and the music carries on from this scene to the next one where we find Jack now 12, playing happily with his two brothers, and only when the father makes an appearance do we sense something's gone wrong during those years. Anyway, this is our second introduction to the adult Jack.

We met Jack before the creation of the universe when he asked, backing away from from a wooden door frame in the landscape how he got here. Is this self-indulgent? Some think so. I don’t. No more than the Freudian images of an evil water-squirting clown who falls into a tank of water or the circus giant too large to stand up straight in the attic as he points in vain to lure Jack away from the window with the light as he rocks in his rocking chair or circles round and around on his tricycle. These are symbols that can be decoded by anyone with the imagination and patience to look beyond the purely literal to the poetry of this wonderful film. Wonderful is an apt term. Malick's brief history of space-time helps those of us opposed to merely existing all too briefly. Wonders of the universe strike awe into the hearts of those of us who take the time to look. Malick deems his film an excellent opportunity to illustrate the point highlighted by God's representative in this film, Jack's mother, while the representative of nature, Jack's father, explains not once but twice how he threw his life away: firstly by getting sidetracked from his dream of being a great musician, then by failing to appreciate the glories all around us. Stanley Kubrick's 2001, a Space Odyssey is the only other film that has been this ambitious. Seen in context, the cosmological, evolutionary scenes are not padding for its own sake. In time the critical community will recognise this truth. 

Jack then wakes up, alongside a woman, who is already dressed. Jack appears to have fallen asleep beneath the covers himself fully clothed. They are clearly lovers, possibly man and wife. Either way, this entire scene shows them distant, never uttering a single word to one another as they dress, drink coffee, light a candle. He is lost in his own world, and she makes no attempt to intrude. He clearly needs space, and if she’s unhappy with the situation, she makes no attempt to communicate this. He never once recognises her existence, and she makes no complaint about this.

That small candle Jack lit as his lover looked on remains burning at the end of his working day, as he is about to leave for home. Everything takes place on this single day. This is important. This is the day Jack tries, and finally succeeds, in working out how his mother got over his brother’s death while he has never able to.

Jack’s grandmother’s advice to his mother was right: people die, and we have to get over it. Would we want those we love to be in eternal pain after we pass on? No. So why would it honour those we love to let them bear responsibility for our being crushed after they’ve passed on? We want our loved ones to be able to pick themselves up. That was what Jack’s grandmother was trying to say. Jack’s not ready to embrace this, and to maintain his love for God. But the cosmological scene up to the death of the dinosaurs was a confirmation of this idea: the son who was taken away from Jack’s mother, the brother who was taken from Jack, was given to them by God. In order for them to get this gift, others had to be swept away. Without the destruction of most of the species on earth by that asteroid, Jack’s brother would never have existed for him to love or for his mother to love.  No human would ever have lived.

The father passes on his philosophy of life: if you want to succeed, you can’t be too good. The world works by trickery. You tell people you don’t want to fight and when they let their guard down, you strike. The mother had better lessons. You can only be happy through love. If you don’t love your life will flash by. Look after each other. Love everyone. Forgive. Wonder. Hope. Know that bad things happen to good people. Not only can you not protect yourself from ill fortune; you can’t save your children neither. This was the sermon delivered about Job. When Jack saw for himself that this was true, he turned against God: “Why should I be good if you aren’t.” Only at the very end of the scenes of Jack as a 12 year old, when he has grown tired and ashamed of being cruel to his brother, and has let go his bitterness towards his father, long after his brothers and mother have, and the father’s voice-over reveals him as the good man he clearly was all along, buried beneath airs and graces, and unholy ambitions, and he tells Jack that he is ashamed of putting too much pressure on his boys, trying to explain why he did it, do we have both father and son agreeing how much better a person his mother is than either of them.

Mother tells us her list of virtues again as the family comes together as a loving unit, which only happens when he has lost everything he worked so hard for his whole life, having already lost his childhood dream of being a great musician. The family move away from the home they’ve lost due to his losing his job and we hear yet again the guiding principles of his mother. It’s clearly still inadequate a solution for the adult Jack. He has more to learn before he can surrender his pain at the loss of his brother. And this brings us to the last door through which his female guide leads him. This is a long complex surreal journey, through a variety of doors, chasing his younger self, candles lit, flames passed between candles, dead women in wedding dresses getting off slabs, two bodies bound on the ground, a Christ like figure who is probably a woman, or angel, reunion of the dead. Mother reunited with son.

As they left their home the last instruction the mother gave her sons was to hope. Hope in an afterlife seems to be what kept the mother going. That seems to be how she could bear the loss of the child whose death caused her to desire to die herself, to be with him. We see the mother crying tears of joy at being finally reunited with her son. Having enjoyed this reunion, she tells someone: “I give him to you. I give you my son.” Jack and his mother are then in a house and open the door to let the dead son walk out to play. He is free. Jack’s hope in an afterlife, in being able to see his brother again allows him to do what his mother could do so long ago: get on with his life, which is clearly what his brother would have wanted for him. Jack, now outside his place of work (an architect’s prison of walls, glass, metal, with greedy people lying to one another) hears the wind, birds, and traffic, and smiles. He is free. His mother and brother have taught him how to be happy once more.

Then we are shown a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge or some other suspension bridge, spanning two land masses. This would seem to symbolise the fact that dying is just yet another shift to a different existence, as was birth, where we saw him lead into the world. And then we then see a bird fly into and out of shot. Then the flickering, multi-coloured light.  

Posted by derekthomas005 at 07:14 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

About one month ago I got a letter from the DWP informing me that my personal medical records had been sent by courier and handed over to a third party without my permission. I was told this was an accident and an investigation is being conducted, and they don't think any personal data will have been recorded. They said they didn't believe this was done intentionally, and no one will have misused this private data. I am not convinced. A few hours ago I discovered that facebook had deleted my account because I was lying about who I am. They demand a fotograph with date of birth and some kind of official confirmation before they will reinstate my account. Why did they do this? Is it legal? Can they do this to anyone they want to? Don't they need to have some reason for taking this action? If so, what was their justification for deleting my account? I don't know. They want tell me. Am I livid about this, as much as the DWP handing over my private data to third parties without permission, illegally, including medical records? You bet. Why have I called this note Suicide and autism? Good question.

I will be seeing a doctor next week. He diagnosed me as suffering from ADHD about one year ago, a diagnosis I hadd fought for from the time I first came across the condition in a book called The Hidden Handicap by Dr Gordon Serfontein. This doctor I am meeting agreed about a year ago that I do require medication to treat the condition. Alas, the medication he recommended is not a stimulant. I think this is an inappropriate medical intervention, but will go along with it anyway. At any rate, I will if he can satisfy me on a second point. Having told me the name of the drug, I did some research on the internet. The website for the drug, and wikipedia says it should not be given to those with suicidal tendencies. This doctor has been aware from the begining that I have been feeling suicidal for a variety of reasons, including the failure of the medical profession to take my condition seriously since I first told them what I thought was wrong. That is two decades ago, and many times since. I doubt this drug should be given to someone in my circumstances, and I am worried that it has been recommended for me. This could make my situation even worse.

I will be explaining in greater details why I have been feeling suicidal and what I have done to get this dealt with by the NHS, my support workers at the autism charity that is paid by my landlords (Renfrewshire Council) to give me limitted human contact: 1 day per week, and nothing at all for the last three weeks, not the first time they have abandoned me for over a week completely on my own. This situation has gone on for about seven years. Maybe six. I find it hard to keep track of the years any more. I am stir crazy. I have no light in either my bedroom or livingroom and have had none since I was forcibly moved to this town where I know no one. I have no shower, and haven't had one since Renfrewshire moved me here. I have no fire that works. No cooker (only a microwave), no washing machine, no carpet, just loose floorboards that are rotten. I was moved here against my will and despite my telling them I refuse to speak to them other than in the presence of a lawyer, they insist on arranging such meetings, and then tell a pack of lies about what I said and what they said, and about my insistance that all our conversations are recorded to stop them infringing my human rights. If you had to endure this for seven years, might you not feel suicidal?
 
 
 
 
 
 
Is my sense of humour that of someone on the autistic spectrum? Maybe it is. Maybe I suffer from prejudice as to the strengths and weaknesses of those on the autistic spectrum. Maybe. What about emotions? I am supposed to be immature vis-a-vis emotions. I am not buying that. I feel. I want company. I don't read fiction. At any rate, I have not thus far. I am trying to get into the habit. This is a work in progress. I need to explain my relationship to reading. Fiction causes me problems still, and possibly always will. These days, non fiction does not pose massive problems. But it does depend on the subject matter. I don't read fast, but I do now read at the rate someone does talking. No faster, but that is fine. In the last few months, I experimented with a bizarre trick. Just an idea that seemed ludicrous. It seems to work. I am too scared to tell anyone in case they think it too rediculous for words. Would be interested in being tested to see if it works. Have no way of testing myself. If it does work, I think I have an idea or two as to why it might work.

What are the problems that I do have, and what am I ok with? Where to begin?

Can I start with a history lesson? Let me use an analogy or two. In the last month, I have been looking back on my life. I have had a lot of free time. Anyone remember the scene in David Lynch's Elephant Man? The one where Anthony Hopkins tries to persuade John Guilgood that John Merrick could speak? They could not believe it when John revealed himself to be quite a subtle thinker, insightful and full of emotional depth? Very sad. They felt bad that he lived like this, so utterly alone. Well... In the last few weeks it's occured to me how long it was I lived in a similar hell. I was alone. No one paid me any attention. Teachers, peers in the classroom, playground, parents. They just deemed me an idiot. I could not get thru to them. Sometimes I assumed they must be right. Other times I knew they were sadly underestimating me. I actually managed to accumulate a few advantages during those years. Anyway, eventually people realised I had strengths as well as weaknesses. Then it was a case of people forgetting my years as a basket case. They dismissed any possibility I needed help. And I had to hide my weaknesses. And that did not do me a lot of good. Stored up problems for the future. And into the second half of my first century on this third rock from the sun, I am still paying for this.
 
 
 
Who am I? I tried to explain that to the doctor who gave me a positive diagnosis of ADHD about a year ago, two decades after I asked to be tested for that condition. I must admit to feeling a little betrayed when that doctor responded to my attempt to explain who I am by telling me to cut back on sending him emails. Well I think he made a professional mistake by cutting back the information I was feeding him. For the benefit of everyone, here is what he deemed irrelevant.

Who am I? I relate to the world differently from other people. I do not know any easy way to explain this. I need to resort to analogies, metaphors. My attempts to explain these metaphors to the doctor was met with utter incomprehension. I find that quite depressing.

I think it should be obvious to the professional that I need stimulants to create the circumstances for me to function in the world of... Just realised something. I want to say humans or earthlings. That is my sense of humour. But I am scared of making jokes in circumstances where people think I am being literal. That is something else. Professionals say I am on the autistic spectrum because I have a tendency to be overly literal. Utter bullshit. My writing is full of allusions to things that are not there. Symbolism. Once upon a time, I was drawn to surrealism for its own sake. In recent years, I am at least as often drawn to symbolism that tells us something. Anyway...

Whatever gets adrenalin pumping through my veins melts the cobwebs in my brain. Things that make me angry allow me to focus. What frightens me does the same. My guess is that physical exercise would have the same effect. My guess is that this is why kids with attention deficit disorder tend to end up hyperactive. Without knowing why they do it, the kids end up hyperactive as a means of producing the hormones they need to fix their attention deficit. Ritalin, a stimulant, doesn't make those with ADHD ever more hyperactive. Why not? Because the drug produces what they need that makes hyperactivity obsolete. Why am I not hyperactive? As a very young kid I think I was. But that disappeared early in my life. Why?

I have only one good eye. I have no stereoscopic vision, no depth perception. This creates problems. Additionally, I have no coordination, which goes beyond the depth perception problem. I am clumsy. I knock things over. I fall over things. I cannot perform simple mechanical tasks and other things, even as simple as talking. This seems like a joke, but trust me, it's not. Can I walk and chew gum at the same time? Never tried that. But I know from a lifetime's experience that I cannot follow what people are saying to me while talking. I can just about talk and walk, but hold a conversation... No. Sorry, that's beyond me.

I cannot filter out voices. In order to hear what someone is saying, I need to have other voices silenced. This is serious. This is incredibly debilitating. My inability to perform this simple task, which has been a problem from as long as I can remember, has made me incredibly isolated. People refuse to take me at my word. They ask me to pay attention. These people inhabit a different world to me. I resent having to say explicity that I realise this is not literaly true. I'm resorting to metaphor again. This severe impairment means I cannot learn in the kind of environment provided by mainstream education, including at university. That is why I had to virtually teach myself things that others got in class. Too hard to explain exacty what I mean. Will have to come back to this. But there is something else... With learning, I can use books. I make the time to read when others have gone away. This is not always possible. This has hampered my social interaction in a significant way. Do I want to be isolated? No. Of course not. That is the last thing i want. But am I willing to put myself in situations where I am humiliated publicly because I have no idea what is going on, because people do what people do: talk over each other in a way that no one else finds problematic? No. I would rather withdraw from social interaction than put myself through that kind of hell. What else?

I cannot control anger or fear, and my lack of depth perception, clumsiness, inability to multitask, leading to my giving myself burns, scalds, scars from falling onto glass, breaking prized possessions of parents, friends parents, getting electric shocks, being yelled at for my clumsiness... All this lead to my being quiet and immobile. Not at all hyperactive. I guess being virtually a statue allowed the teachers to focus on those who caused problems. I was just a part of the furniture. However, I learnt that I was not completely stupid. I learnt that what excites me, stimulates my imagination can produce what I need to focus my attention, not just as well as everyone else, but even better, at least in certain circumstances. What surprised me and everyone else was how my ability to stretch myself was so elastic. I found that I was interested in quite a lot of things, and I could absorb quite a fair bit of information, and each piece of information that I absorbed provided me with additional hooks which I could use to grasp still more facts. But this only works under certain circumstances. In general I need to conduct research away from distractions. This is crucial. However, even that is not an absolute restriction. I have discovered that I can perform relatively well under high pressure conditions when I find this stimulating. Politics stimulates me. Polemics does that to me. I love the cut and thrust of debate. That allowed my weaknesses not to be self evident often when I was a political activist. However, when people let their hair down, and we got all informal... Then my condition came to the fore. I got lost. Completey and utterly lost. There is little I can do to escape this. But even this is not absolute. On a one to one basis, I can function not too badly, if it is with someone on the same wavelength, with the same sense of humour, with someone who shared at least some of my interests. But this really restricts my ability for form relationships. Most people want to be sociable and don't get why I don't. It's not that I don't want to. I simply cannot funciton in an informal environment with more than one person. I just cannot do that. And this pisses people off.

Posted by derekthomas005 at 01:44

Posted by derekthomas005 at 22:39

Dear Prime Minister,


As you may already be aware, a member of your staff (Downing Street Director of Communications, Andy Coulson) committed perjury recently, in order to send an innocent man to jail. You may not be aware that evidence exists of at least seven Crown witnesses also committing perjury for the same end. I appeal to you to help that innocent man get the fair trial thus far denied him.

In the vaults of MI5, you will find tapes and transcripts of tapes of telephone conversations between myself and the following Crown witnesses, all of whom committed perjury: Frances Curran, Alan McCombes, Keith Baldessara, Catriona Grant, Allan Green, and Barbara Scott. These recordings (lasting many hours, by the way) also contain indirect evidence of further Crown witnesses having committed perjury, Alison Kane being the first that comes to mind.

You, Mr Prime Minister, have it in your power to expose these Crown witnesses as perjurers, something the Crown knew to be the case, thereby securing for Tommy Sheridan a mistrial. While many will deem me insufficiently important for MI5 and other security agencies to tape my phone calls, those listed above fall into a different category. If they don’t take it as a given that their phones are being bugged by the state, and act accordingly, then they are too naïve to hold such senior positions in the working class movement. Having said that, some of the above may not care, given that they are themselves police spies. Take Frances Curran. I know she is a police spy beyond any reasonable doubt, as does Andy Coulson, as does every single Crown perjurer listed above.

This brings us to the heart of the issue. Tommy Sheridan was framed by Alan McCombes and Keith Baldessara in order to stop the leader of my party at the time, the Scottish Socialist Party, exposing serious crimes committed by Frances Curran at the behest of the state, while acting as a legitimate Member of the Scottish Parliament.  I know that, as do all three of these alleged socialists. Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor of the Sunday Herald also knows this to be the case. I explained it to him in forensic detail in a one hour interview I gave him, having been nagged by him for months for such an interview. Odd that Paul chose not to make that evidence available to the Crown, the Judge, Tommy Sheridan or Aamer Anwar. Or maybe he did. Maybe it was the Advocate Depute and the judge who insisted he keep that tape under his hat, burn it,  pretend it never existed or got lost, or that we never had any interview. Who can say? Not Paul Hutcheon, apparently, who’s gone awfully quiet as of late, about that tape, lies I asked him to correct about secret SSP National Council meetings, and threats of violence by Crown witnesses to Tommy Sheriden, at least I suspect they were Crown perjurers. Can't say for sure. Reasonable doubt and all that. Anyway, maybe the odd freedom of information request, data protection legislation and the European Court of Human Rights can help Tommy Sheridan and Aamer Anwar expose this miscarriage of justice and all those who willingly participated in it. If that includes your Director of Communications and/or the judge, then that would be kinda cool, don’t you think? Sorry. Rhetorical question.

BBC Tory propagandist Glenn Campbell also seems to be hiding something, as does Tom Gordon. Watch this space, and all will be revealed.

Merry Christmas, btw.


Yours sincerely,



Derek Thomas

Posted by derekthomas005 at 18:23

He makes combs for bald arsed liar.
McCombes makes tombs for dead and dire.
Zombie's Prophet: Rupert Bear.
Police spy's soul dies. He doesn't care.

Bald-arsed liar? Call him Keith.
Scarey Squire laid a wreath.
Rupert Bear pooped in a wood.
Keith worships it. He thinks it's good.

Keith kisses SUN God's Moon. He's Faust.
Keith lights the wind. His face gets doused.
Alan put it out with piss.
Satanic serpent's sulphur hiss.

France's Curran alternates.
Left-Right. Left-Right. There's one she hates.
She swings both ways. Dark Knight's SUN daze.
Keith's Special Branch for clubbing gays.

Keith knows Curran is a spy.
Keith and Alan made up lie.
Catriona Grant and Barbara Scott.
Allan Green. That's not the lot.

Andy Coulson joined their team.
Cool SUN of God came down on beam.
A beam of light or steam of shite?
Special Branch Tree housed Tory Right.

Up hopped a bunny. Bugs joined too.
A Hutcheon slime saves Boys in Blue.
Apalling hack stabs in the back.
Paul buries truth. Needle. Haystack.

Alan told the SSP.
He swore to our members' NC
There were no minutes. Tommy's free
To clear His name. Alan's happy.

Alan McCombes, Bald-arsed liar,
Now swears on oath his pants caught fire.
Police spies wouldn't let me write this down.
Cat Grant took minutes. Porkies' clown.

Cat Grant knows Curran is a spy.
NC called Grant a living lie.
Catriona screamed "It isn't true!"
"I'm not the liar. It is you!"

Cat outted Alan and Green too.
Cat's hissy fit. With one loose screw.
News of the Screws then fell apart.
Thou Shalt Not Light A Murdoch fart.

© 2010 Derek Thomas

Posted by derekthomas005 at 19:52

© 2010 Derek Thomas

Posted by derekthomas005 at 21:55