Zeami was the original practitioner of Japanese Noh theatre and wrote a classic book on dramatic theory called Kadensho. He uses images of nature as a constant metaphor, for example hana, or the flower. Kenneth Yasuda, in his book Masterworks of The Noh Theatre claims that ‘This flower is both an aesthetic principle and the soul of the actor or the character or the play, and it is, beyond that, a spiritual quest. Every element of the play, every gesture, must be devoted to the flower.’ Thus we can clearly see the weight of importance given to this one symbol, but why is he so interested in using it as a metaphor, in the context of Noh Theatre?

The title of his book Kadensho can be roughly translated as “Floral Message: How Does the Wind Look?”. Zeami is using the metaphor of a flower to imply that one must possess sophisticated or ‘flowery’ skills to achieve anything in Noh Theatre. Zeami saw the flower as a sophisticated and complicated thing. This is true [see below]. Zeami felt that learning theatrical skills is sophisticated and complex; just like flowers.

Zeami also sees the flower as a metaphor for viewing a performance. The flower sheds its petals and goes through many different stages in what it looks like, starting from a bud, to disappearing completely, and this is a visible process. Similarly, in front of an audience we see a theatrical event before hand as if it didn’t exist, it then bursts into life on the stage before once more disappearing. The flower is important to Zeami as he feels that this allows us to truly understand what the performance is.

Then we come to the concept of Yugen which he defines as ‘a profound, mysterious sense of the beauty of the universe… and the sad beauty of human suffering’. This can be simply related to the flower as a metaphor, the flower is so visually enticing when alive; yet Zeami believed that when a flower begins to die the process is all the more so. Zeami, perhaps somewhat controversially, saw human suffering in the same way. Noh Theatre portrayed human life as it is; so assuming that pain is a process all must undergo, some believe that human suffering in its own way, is beautiful.

Zeami has been known to compare the flower with the idea of omoskiroki or in English, ‘fascination’. Zeami sees the flower as something to be in awe of. In relation to its metaphor within Noh Theatre, we see his encouragement for the audience to be fascinated by the performance, thus he weighs importance on the concept in this case in order to amaze the spectator.

Another key word is mezurashiki which means ‘novelty’ implying that the flower can be something new and exciting. When this metaphor is replicated on stage through interaction actors have with each other and the audience, they see that there is now a certain thrill in experiencing this, just like the joy one finds in viewing a flower. So the metaphor is important in this context because it excites the audience, just like one might feel towards nature.

We can see that this points to another point Zeami makes about the similarity between the way one cultivates flowers and the way the performer seeks to harvest a relationship with his or her audience. Zeami wants to reinforce this link as actor/spectator relationships are central to understanding Theatre, especially Noh Theatre.

Finding beauty in nature is something unique to the human soul. No matter who the person is, there is a certainty that any person from any background will find the flower beautiful. In the same way Zeami seeks to reinforce this concept. If the Theatre is like the flower, it can be loved and appreciated by all.

Finally Zeami reminds the reader of ‘the beauty of the flower of youth, which passes with time.’ This is an important metaphor to him as it reminds his audience of the fragility and fleeting nature of life. Many would argue that this is the most accurate and profound part of Zeami’s thinking, though not all see it as a positive concept, as mankind is left without hope as to what happens after his decease. Christianity was not to reach Japan until 1549,  but Zeami’s sentiments are echoed in the following bible verse,

All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.

When creating theatre as well as in life; Zeami held this view in mind, perhaps a view that more modern practitioners should ponder, knowing that soon, our petals will fall and we will perish. However Zeami’s flower metaphor shouldn’t necessarily discourage us, all is not swallowed up into the earth, the roots remain and buds appear once more, so nevertheless, if looked at from the right angle; there is hope for theatre, there is hope humanity.

In the article Objecting to Objectification: Re-Viewing the Feminine in The Silence of the Lambs (first printed in Journal of Popular Culture, 37.1, August 2003, pp. 1-12), Greg Garrett outlines ‘a theme that runs throughout the film’; the objectification of women. He argues that ‘by accenting Starling’s harassment, by removing male helpers present in the novel, and by stressing Starling’s resistance to the attempts of men to objectify her, the film creates… [a statement] about the various forms of female victimisation in our society.’

In his introduction Garrett refers to what he believes are the two core moments ‘consistent with [this] theme which runs throughout the film.’ The first is a scene where ‘Starling (Jodie Foster) holds up a punching target and braces herself as brawny male trainees light into her. She is no longer a woman; to her fellow trainees, she is only a punching bag.’ He believes that the fact she is surrounded by men and that they are shown to be pummeling her in this way, makes her seem less human, which makes way for the other times throughout the film in which men in her place of work objectify her because she is a woman.

This ‘verbal’ example clearly ‘reinforce[s] the idea that women must be seen as people rather than objects.’ This is what Garrett sees as something of a ‘strong… statement’.

Many examples Garrett makes in reference to this concept come in his references to things people say during dialogue with Starling. He recalls that ‘Starling is sexually harassed by Dr. Frederick Chilton’ when he is insultingly asks her for a personal ‘follow up’. Later he points out that ‘two young deputies make objectifying remarks about her.’ So through these examples Garrett shows the reader that in the scripted dialogue, the objectification of women is obvious in her male colleagues attitude and conversation with her.

Garrett argues that the ‘chief objectifier of women in the film’ is Buffalo Bill.  The main manifestation of Buffalo Bill’s objectification comes in the way he treats his victims; killing them so that he can ‘construct a costume of their skins.’  Garrett recalls Lector’s murdering method as similar in it’s objectification; (though it is not unique to women) he ‘turns people into gourmet meals’. However there is a difference with his attitude towards Starling when he ‘begins to regard her as a person, and thus is no longer capable of objectifying her,’ in the same way that Buffalo Bill was encouraged to.

Garrett describes his second reference from his description of the following scene:

…in response to a televised appeal broadcast to killer “Buffalo Bill” (Ted Levine) to release his most recent hostage alive, Starling lauds the strategy of repeating the victim’s name, Catherine, over and over. She knows that if Bill “sees Catherine as a person and not just an object” it will be harder to destroy her.

By analysing this theme in The Silence of the Lambs, we see that Garrett’s main aim is to highlight the moral importance of treating people as they should be; as humans, not as objects.

The first two minutes of the film Chocolat (2000) are highly revealing as to the concept of what film academic S. Brent Plate describes in his book Religion and Film (2008) as two ‘contrasting spaces’ which essentially represent two ‘contrasting worlds.’ During this introductory segment the viewer is able to become accustomed to (through a number of cinematic lingual elements) a central strand in the film’s narrative; the way in which regimented religious structure and pleasure driven business can become two conflicting sectors in society.

The first thing heard in the film is piano playing musical notes on a higher register; Rachel Portman’s score suggests a tranquillity and the viewer may feel enticed; yet the fact that it is played in a minor key suggests that something is foreboding, perhaps this calmness and peace will soon disappear. This is relevant as the order of the town is destroyed when the new chocolate shop appears.

The first titles that appear are basic in their format; this simplicity matches the feel of the town we will later visit. The town is a place which on the surface of things seems devoid of modern complications that perhaps the church feels it is able to keep in order. Beyond this simplicity, the white and black colours suggest that their actions may be viewed as one of two things; right or wrong, which contrasts the complexities of the confectionery seller with her questionable morality.

Beyond the titles, the first things filmed are what look like clouds, which the camera glides through. The viewer may assume that we are now descending through the clouds from somewhere high up in the sky; are we being told that God is watching?  This could be true when seen in relation to the church and it’s aims. However, when the camera moves beyond these apparent clouds, we see that we are not descending from the sky, rather moving horizontally through what looks like mist. This illusion could well imply that the supposed divine intentions of the town’s religious leaders are in no way inflicted by a higher power, rather by human will.

The long shot of the entire town reveals a number of things; firstly the size of the town; it is a small place where presumably not many people live, which suggests that any changes to daily life will be noticed by all of the town’s inhabitants and that any sort of control; be it political, criminal, commercial or religious, won’t take much to create a stir.

Secondly this long shot establishes the position of the town; it is high up on a hill and in the middle of the countryside. This could well mean that the town is difficult to reach and maybe is a place that is untainted by the proverbial ‘big dark world’ around it. This sets the film up as the shop owner moves into the town and is a modern and fresh addition to a town which is steeped in traditional values.

Thirdly this long shot reveals the church as the tallest and most central landmark of the town. The viewers eyes are immediately drawn to it, which serves the purpose of it being the institution that’s existence is threatened. It is at the centre of the town and the centre of the lives of the town’s citizens.

Two sound effects are heard when the music stops; birds singing and church bells ringing. The birds once again allude to the town’s apparent tranquillity but also could be read to symbolically represent new life and new beginnings; something which the town is about to experience. Things are about to change and become transformed.

The church bells are a familiar sound to even the most pagan of viewers; most people know that they are rung in order to call people to church, or at least to draw attention to it. These bells however are not tuneful, but are somewhat monotonous and off-key; which could well refer to the fact that the weekly routine of going to church is not a joy to these people, these bells are not joyous or inviting, rather they are boring and dreary. The viewer when hearing this will perhaps view see that this place does not achieve the things that a good church should; contrastly it is a place of boredom and weekly duty.

We are now shown a straight on shot of Comte Reynaud (Alfred Molina), this shot suggests that he is someone who is not necessarily of any threat; but the straightness insures that he is definitely in control. As people pass him and enter the church, this notion is confirmed when he signals to a man to remove his hat, almost like a school teacher. This is not a man who lets anything go unnoticed, especially rebellion; something that Vianne (Juliette Binoche) has plenty of.

The costume choice of black, his removed hat and the facial hair on his upper lip (moustache) all suggest that Comte is a man of conservative persuasion. This prepares the viewer to see him in juxtaposition to Vianne who is presented as progressive and daring.

The church is framed from a lower view-point suggesting its domineering nature. This church is not a place that is open to sinners who can find solace in it’s forgiving nature; rather it is a place which gives it’s members no freedom or joy; something which the chocolate shop can happily offer (especially in the month of lent).

A French church, similar to the one used in Chocolat.

A good point on the fact that this is a wide-angle shot is made by Plate;

A significant early shot is taken from the opening of what will become the chocolate shop, and the wide-angle camera is forced to point high to take in the height of the church towering above it.

The fact that this shot is taken from where the chocolate shop is established implies that these two places are in head to head conflict which is definitely seen throughout the film in the fact that both places stand for such different values.

This opening sequence of filmic images all combine to portray the film’s core narrative line; two very different worlds colliding. Those who manage to watch the film all the way to the end see that the two world’s eventually settle their differences and that Vianne undergoes an earth shattering change of her very own. This film does not necessarily serve to highlight a negativity towards the Christian church as a whole; rather it’s message discourages regimented and freedom infringment in religion and in politics. In the same way, the film is not necessarily encouraging chocolate binges or revolutionary retail, rather it would be better to read it as an acknowledgement of the beauty of freedom and enjoyment (namely the enjoyment of Chocolate).

It’s been doing the rounds on Twitter, but if you haven’t seen it yet…

Brilliant.

Bare in mind, this took them five years to make.

It’s got nothing on Pixar but nevertheless this is pretty brilliant. (There’s a quote for their marketing campaign).

Reports are coming in that the small village of ‘Karaagadzhlar’ in the Aghjabadi Rayon of Azerbaijan. Has become the first clustered human settlement to become invisible.

The area indicated in red is thought to be the village.

Experts are sceptical as to the truth of this claim, however Professor Ratfig Bial of the Eland Precept said in a statement today that the possibility of active camouflage was highly plausible:

A group of camouflage technologies which allowed an object to blend into its surroundings by use of panels or coatings capable of altering their appearance, color, luminance and reflective properties has been developed. However this is thought to have been stolen from a top-secret location at approximately 5 am on the morning of July 2nd 1982. The ingredients to achieve active camouflage are all there and they have the capacity to provide perfect concealment from visual detection.

It is thought that they are the perpetrators of the theft of the US army’s cloaking device which they had previously used as an advanced stealth technology that causes immediate invisibility.

An interpretation as to what technique may have been used to conceal the village.

Any attempt to try and find out whether these claims are true have been thwarted as all the surrounding towns and villages have been put on high security alert from their individual law enforcement authorities, which in Azerbaijan have total control over who or what goes out and in.

By now, not one Azerbaijani website mentions the village under this name, making it difficult for Police in the area to gain any ground in finding those responsible for this. A private investigation is underway.

‘Reading Week’. Despite it being brilliant that I get a week off; I do think this is just the Uni’s way of saying half term!

If you are British you will be familiar with the concept of half term. It’s a really short, week long holiday usually about half way through term (funny that) and serves the purpose of giving students and teachers the rest they need. Which they don’t need.

Check out the info:

English, Welsh and Northern Irish schools

Most schools run a three-term school year. They usually have a week’s break half way through (half-term) and are structured as:

Autumn term: September to December (half-term, October)

Spring term: January to Easter (half-term, February)

Summer term: Easter to July (half-term, May)

The time between the end of school and the start of the next academic year is known as the summer holiday or, as was the traditional length of the break, the six-week holiday. Term Dates for maintained schools are set by Local Education Authorities, some of which have begun to trial alternative arrangements.

Northern Ireland’s summer term lasts from Easter to the end of June, with no half term. The province’s summer holiday then lasts nine weeks, from the start of July until the end of August. This is because of their Twelfth of July holiday.

There’s a whole lot of stuff about Academic Terms all around the world here.

As far as I know, Australasians and many others Academic years start in January, which probably makes a bit more sense with their summer being at Christmas.

Who’d have summer at Christmas though? Crazy!

Let’s have a barbequed turkey on the beach before throwing sand ballsat eachother. Brilliant.

Oh and there is nothing worse than sand in food. Nothing can ruin a perfectly good mouthful more than a couple of grains of sand which get in there and ruin everything. CRUNCH.

Sunny day on the beach.

A positive endorsment of open air preaching.