Seeing David Suzuki at TIFF yesterday was a real blast.  Suzuki spoke with humble ease and confidence, but also with a profound elegance which comes from a lifetime dedicated to communicating important ideas to the layman.  He is a national treasure and I don’t know if he’s received the appropirate honors, like the Order Of Canada, but if he hasn’t it’s a crime, and lets try to find some more for him while we’re at it. 

     His film, Force Of Nature, is a documentary half based on a lecture given in Vancouver which was billed as “What I’d like to say in my last lecture,” and half on a retrospective view of his life.  It often presents an emotional side to Suzuki that we never see, especially as he reminises about the oppression suffered by his family during the relocation of Japanese Canadians during WW2. 

     The central idea is that natural laws and human ones are not the same.  Human laws are created by us and can be modified, while natural ones are unforgiving.  One of his best comments was that if the economic model used by society doesn’t value the things we consider most important, such as family, security, health, a clean and aesthetic place to live, -then there must be something wrong with that model and it needs to be adjusted.  This is a powerful idea that has crossed my mind many times.  I’ve seen banks, which have made billions in profit annually, unnecesarily cut their work force in the interest of maximizing profits, resulting in loyal, experienced employees being squeezed out of their careers.  Societies, business, government, learning institutions all should be aiming at making a successful society, -not for a select few, but for as many as is possible.  If our society is healthy as a whole, the parts are more likely to be healthy.

     And that goes a hundred fold for the health of our environment. When asked about hope for the future, he said that it will probably take more natural disasters  like Hurricane Katrina, for people to mobilize enough to make a difference, but that once that mobilization occurs, like the decade when we worked to put a man on the moon, anything will be possible.  He also harshly criticized the Harper government, stating that it is ironic that a government with such a strong "law and order" policy, totally ignores international law when it comes to the ratified Kyoto agreement.   His final comment was that we should not wait for him to do things, but find ways to take positive action ourselves.  Current environmental groups and practices are not strong enough to be effective.  ... Or in more plain terms, it's time to walk the talk. 

     I promise to make negative reviews short and relating to something worthwhile.

     Saw “Erotic Man” tonight at TIFF.  Stop laughing!!!  I saw it mainly because it is part of the Danish submissions and I thought it would be neat to see a movie in a foreign language to see how much I could understand, being born in Denmark myself.  Admittedly, the theme of exploring the international nature of the erotic kind of intrigued me as well. 

     If you are going to make a movie about eroticism from a philosophic point of view, you’re treading on dangerous ground.  If you’re filling it with lots of naked women and sensual shots, you are treading a fine line between being visually poetic and outright exploitation.  In order to have merit, the film has to either tread on some solid philosophical ground, or needs to be aesthetic.  Unfortunately, “Erotic Man” by Jorgen Leth was neither, and so came across as the self indulgence of a dirty old man. It rambled on, was extremely repetitive and was entirely filmed on what must have been a $25 video camera to have produced such grainy video quality.  In the Q&A after the film, Leth admitted that it was entirely an egocentric film. The film was heckled at one point as being exploitation, and you could see from the look on many people’s faces that they weren’t disagreeing.  I seriously doubt you’ll ever come across it in either a theatre or DVD, but if you do, steer clear.  ...Unless you are titillated by an endless, but rather meaningless parade of T & A. 

This one gets a D+.

     The Hugo Awards are one of the two sets of awards presented to outstanding SciFi achievements every year.  This Year's awards were just announced and can be found at Tor.com.

     I have to say that my main interest was in the award for best nove.  Having recently red "Wake" and "Watch" by Robert Sawyer, our very own home grown author, I was disappointed when they didn't win.  These two fantastic and thought provoking books are amoung the best I've read in years.

     The winners are unfamiliar to me, so I'll have to check them out.  One of the other nominees, "Julian Comstock" by R.A. Wilson, is on my to-be-read shelf and just moved to the front of the line.

     One thing that I think should be added to these awards is a category for Young Adult Fiction.  With great books like the "Mockingjay" series and the "Chaos Walking" series coming out, they deserve some kind of spotlight.  Perhaps there is seperate award for them.  I'll check it out, but they still deserve some acknowledgement from SciFi's most prominent awards.

     Well, it's back to school time, so it's no wonder that a few typical issues poke their heads up at this time of year.  Things like year round schooling.  Or one of my favorites, school uniforms.
      This week, TV and radio stations have been claiming that 73% of those polled are in favour of students being required to wear school uniforms.  Being one of those students who helped stage protests in high school to win students the right to wear shorts, I'm obviously not too fond of that idea.  Let me explain why.
      1. It is part of adolescent psychology for students to want to express their individuality.  Surely there are lots of ways they can do that, but the simplest is through fashion.  Denied that method of self expression, young people will seek out others, some of which may be positive and others probably not so much so.  I feel that mandating uniforms says something about the institution of school, and I wouldn't blame students for feeling that this is yet one more attempt to turn them into drones. 
      2.  Is there a study anywhere comparing public schools with and without uniforms?  Proper studies!  Don't compare students here with those in Australia, or public school students to private school students.  A good study would be comparing Public High Schools to Catholic High Schools.  I don't think this has ever been done to examine a range of criteria that could include behavior, theft and (above all) grades.  While it may not have been done, during my many years as a teacher I've been able to observe and have had colleagues comment on the difference between the two schools, and the Separate system does not out looking very angelic!  One of the main reasons often cited for wanting uniforms is improved behavior or reduced theft.  There is, however, no evidence to indicate that this is true.  (Please feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.)
      3.  The timing of this poll is a little suspect.  Why not do it in February or April.  Why do it now, when many parents have just spent a fortune on clothing for their kids.  In the interest of good statistical analysis, it shouldn't be done at a time when parents may have an exposed nerve about the expense and give a knee-jerk reaction.
      4.  Another reason for advocating uniforms is the provocative way in which many teenager (especially girls) dress.  I will readily admit that there is a problem here, but mandating uniforms is not only overkill, but is a cop-out.  Schools and Boards of Education have established dress code standards which are quite capable of dealing with the problem.  Enforcing that code should regulate clothing in a common sense way.  Administrators, though, are often not comfortable dealing with specific issues, and so it may be simpler for them to paint everyone with the same brush.  In addition, regulating what teenagers wear to school is the responsibility of the parents.  Instead of dealing with apparel issues as a parent, are they once again trying to shuffle this responsibility to the schools.  Deal with it!!  Not only is it a parent responsibility, but it may actually lead to some authentic interaction whereby standards and ethics may be communicated.  Mandating fashion totally side steps this.  Do you support the parent who forbids their child to listen to any contemporary music because some of it is bad, or who bans TV totally? Or the parent who completely forbids all sweets or junk food?   Such children, from my experience, never have to make judgments and decisions for themselves, and as a result are much more prone to excess when they become older and independent.   

     5.  Finally, there are those who claim that dress codes acre part of our society, pointing to suits and ties worn in the business world.  To that I respond bull...ony.  Those in the corporate or legal world (or military world, for that matter) have made a conscious choice to be there, and in doing so they accept everything that goes with it.  Are we saying that the school is an institution like a corporation or like the military?  I hope not!

     Schools are supposed to be places of learning and self discovery.  An important part of that is self expression.  If we deny that on the level of fashion, what message are we giving students?  Are we not feeding the jaded attitude that already seems pervasive in the schools?  Are we not saying that they do not have the right or the ability to make simple decisions, such as how to dress, by themselves?  Are we not highlighting their positions as impotent members of our society? 

     If we want to strip basic rights from people, we've got to have a good reason.  And I just don't see that reason.

    I'll be spending the next few weeks frequenting downtown Toronto as I attend screenings for the Toronto International Film Festival.  No doubt the films will inspire some reviews and some other thoughts, so you'll have to forgive me if my writing revolves around film topics for the next little while.  Hopefully I'll make them interesting, interspersing some clever thoughts amoung the reviews.  After all, many of the films I'll be seeing will never be shown on main stream movie screens. 
    Over the past few weeks I've already had to make a few trips downtown to take care of registering and aquiring tickets.  Several weekday trips ended up with my becoming very frustrated with the traffic and parking situation downtown.  I don't know how anyone can do it.  I was going down mid day to avoid rush hour traffic, but everything was still jammed and the main routes were parking lots.  I have a friend who lives on King Street, near High Park, who tells me that it's not unheard of to have traffic jams outside his home at midnight. 
    And so I quickly concluded that, if I was going to be heading downtown for the next few weeks, I'd better come up with a "better idea".  I found that I could catch a GO bus in Stouffville (a small town just a 15 minute drive away from my home) where there was free parking.  The fare is about $15 round trip plus I don't have to drive and pay for gas. 
    Now, the last time I've had any frequent exposure to downtown was when I went to U of T.  Since then, I've never lived or worked south of Steeles (which is the city limits).  Suffice it to say that for 30 years or so, I've considered waiting more than 15 seconds to exit my driveway or make a turn to be outrageous traffic.  For the past 14 years, my trip to work each morning passed only one place of business, and that was a guy selling honey off his porch.  So I figured I'd better do a dry run last week using the GO bus to get into the city. 
    I have to say I loved it.  The trip down was about one hour, which is much less than I'd face if driving.  Being able to read a book or close my eyes and quietly listen to music was a dream.  Since I wasn't travelling in the peak hours, the bus wasn't crowded, in fact both down and back I had a double seat to myself. 
    Once down in the city I felt a strange kind of freedom.  I was able to go about my day with no time constraints at all, never worrying about a parking meter.  I chose to walk to my destinations.  Even though it was raining, I had an adventure of navigating through the core's underground walkways and concourses with the help of a handy little i-phone app that provided a map.  This underground maze is facinating, including 24 km of tunnels spanning from Union Station west to Roy Thompson Hall and north to Dundas.  If you lived in the area, you could probaly avoid ever going above ground.  -Not appealing, just interesting.  ...Well, maybe a little appealing in the winter. 
    Food wise, two meals barely cost me $10, between Tim Hortons and The Big Slice (which offers a humungeous slice of pizza and a drink for $5).  I'm sure there are other student oriented bargains around if you know where to look for them.
    I may never drive downtown again.  I'm not sure why anybody does.  Granted, I did a lot of walking (which is only healthy) to avoid taking the TTC, which is $3 a pop; considering that you pay that amount as a minimum for meter parking, even having to take a few TTC rides would still be OK.  I probably sound like a rapid transit commercial, but I have to say that I was genuinely surprised and have become a real fan. 

    To limber up for the TIFF, I caught a film downtown, which was so connected to movie stars that it's a crime that it wasn't entered in the Festival.  The movie. "Teenage Paparazzo", examined the life of paparazzi photographers who regularly plague the life of celebrities.  It contains interviews of both stars and photographers to examine the issue from multiple sides.
    The move centers around an encouter between Adrian Grenier (star of Entourage) and a 13 year old paparazzo.  He decides to get to know the boy in order to learn more about this life style and what motivates him/them.  He ends up turning the cameras on the paparazzi, and soon begins to question the whole idea of celebrity and what it means.  (Ironically, Grenier plays a movie celebrity in his TV show as well.)  Towards the end of the movie, it develops various serious themes and ideas, including society's need for celebrity, and Grenier questioning his own complacency.  The fragile personality of the young teenager adds an added layer and perspective, as we see the boy consumed by the life he's chosen. 
    I found it to be an interesting, entertaining and thought provoking documentary.  I actually thought it was pretty bold in it's view of the Hollywood mentality and glitter.  While I certainly don't have any interest in movie star tabloids, this movie transcended the ordinary to shed light on some really interesting issues and ideas.  See it if you have a chance. 
    On a side note, this movie was showing at the AMC at Dundas and Yonge.  It is great to see that the Carlton has reopenned.  Toronto needs theatres which are smaller venues in order to screen the less known movies that are never going to be the blockbuster.  Unusual movies are often some of the best ones out there.  They need a home, too.  North of Steels, there's nothing showing these foreign, art or documentary movies.  The Elgin, in Richmond Hill, used to reserve one screen for this type of move, but discontinued that years ago.  Hence, I often have to make treks into the city to catch these excellent films at the Carlton, Cumberland, Bloor, or now (it seems) the AMC 30.