17 October 2013

Set in the 60's, the plot of the pilot episode for BBC's George Gently series involves the charismatic and rebellious leader of a motorcycle gang, Ricky Deeming (Richard Armitage) and a shoe-licking, conformist young cop eager to climb the career ladder. At least that is how he appears in the beginning. Later, the cop realises he was after the wrong person and eventually saves Deeming's life.

I did not expect much from this episode, but it had a great effect on me eventually. Armitage was an excellent choice for the role, as he suceeded in bringing some very human traits to his character. If you are looking for the biker stereotype, you will not find it here. This gang leader is a dreamer, an idealist, even a poet. When faced by the police, he describes motorcycling like a spiritual matter. And he is right. All his actions are righteous. His voice is calm, he is eloquent and honest and, overall, an elegant presence. Yet, he is accused of being a criminal, an ordinary one, hunted down and discredited, mocked, because two members of his group died mysteriously and evidence seems to point at him.

The interesting part is the clash of the two at the interrogatory. The dialogue and the character portrayal reveal two iconic types which we can find at any time, in any given place in our society. The young cop has a condescending attitude and, after he has conformed to every rule, ignored society's real problems and climbed high enough to claim some power of his own, he feels free to have a vulgar display of power. He is now cheeky, ambitious as ever, ignorant and is treating Deeming with an irony that was uncalled for (and totally undeserved).

Ricky Deeming, on the other side, is the rebel with a cause. A real and good cause. In a deeply human tone and with great composure, he exposes the ills of the society and of the system. He condemns those who crucify human liberties and true values in the name of false goals, mental comfort or riches. Moreover (and unlike the cop), he never says or does anything rude. Instead of sarcasm, he prefers to express things just as they are. In response, the others are only mocking him and considering him to be "living on another planet".


The truths exposed by Deeming offend the cop, who is set to hunt him down and prove his guilt. They laugh at his metaphors. They laugh at his righteous rebellion. They laugh at him for being different... when they are all the same. "If you don't live by our rules, you are pathetic!" - that would be their truth, so widely spread everywhere these days.

Here is a fragment of the dialogue:
"The Durham Defenders... What's being defended?"
"...We are, I suppose."
"From what?"
"From the bull****! Dead end jobs, hand-me-down values, second-hand opinions, mortgages. No offence, but it's the sort of life that Johnny here leads".

His observations are in tune with the despising and very truthful phrase he threw to the cop earlier on when this one was trying to play the smart guy with him: "Was anyone ever more pathetically grateful to get the Prefect badge?"

He expresses (with more suffering and less arrogance) his disapproval of the mediocrity and the banal lives the rest prefer to live. In the end, he spills all his discontent and asks:

"What did your world offer?"

The ambitious arrogant cop can't stand it anymore and quickly changes the subject, trying to attack Deeming by using his metaphors, but in a totally wrong way. His intellectual impotence reminds me of Anderson in BBC's Sherlock. Incapable arrogant individuals who happen to have a nice warm seat in some institution, usually because they kissed the right bottom and made sufficient compromises, attacking anyone who refuses their world order and mediocrity and who dares to criticise them.

The real murderer comes face to face with inspector George Gently and insists that his son was killed "by the depravity of one man"(Ricky Deeming). The murdered son, a boy in the gang, held Deeming on a pedestal, he looked up to him. He drew him as Christ on the cross. He was his idol and saviour. And then we get to see that he's being chased by both the police and the real murdered himself.

Watch the whole episode below:



The whole interrogation room scene line from Ricky Deeming (0:30:00):

Dead end jobs. Hand-me-down values. Second hand opinions. Mortgages.
No offense but it's the sort of life that Johnny here leads.
Forty years of chasing guys like us up and down the streets so the world will be a safer place for other mediocre people to live their banal lives in.
You. And your little woman on the front of Whitley Bay and the whole world rolling on forever and the whole structure never skipping a beat. And nothing ever changing... Except the weather....
What did your world ever offer a little kid like Laurie Elton? Real dad dead before he were born, mother abandoned him? Your straight world pushes him and pushes him into ever tighter corners. Failed at your schools, couldn't hold down your bullshit jobs, life of crime beckoning, predictable. Well maybe not, just maybe not....
He got himself a bike.
A family.
A set of shared values.
And you know what, George?
He took a look at your world and he wasn't interested in it. And neither am I.
Your world's coming to an end, George... it's inevitable...
You won't know England in 20 years.

15 October 2013

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , ,

When you really know you're in for the serious thing, all other sorts of relationships just won't work. I've learned that the hard way - how else? The good news is that it's a lot better that those petty relationships don't work. I, for one, am sick of dead ends.

So how do you figure out you are marriage-minded? I consider the biggest clue to be the fact that you just don't feel motivated anymore to be in the "let's see where it gets us"-type of relationship. You just can't stand the unknown like you did before, you don't want to play games, in fact you may even detest them. You simply want the real thing: Forever. A wedding, a commitment, a husband/wife and not a boyfriend or girlfriend. The biggest mistake for you would be to get into a relationship in which the two of you don't look in the same direction, because you already know that a convergence of goals is an absolute must. You're barely in, but a part of your soul already wants out.

Ever since I realised I am no longer willing to play uncertain games, I simply cannot start any other relationship unless I somehow become certain that he is the one. And that has not happened yet. It is all clear to me why it is this way: see the reasons above. Also, I've come to a full acceptance of gender roles. I concluded that my own imbalance (taking on a masculine air and too many masculine tasks while dismissing my femininity) was attracting the wrong people. One, day I just had enough of all that, enough to take an honest look at the problem and see what is there to change in order to make myself happy. Here is a very important turning point: accept yourself as a single person and understand that it is better to be alone for God knows how long than to be with the wrong partner. Trust me, it is a billion times better.

Then, slowly, you will work on yourself, improve and not only feel inside that you are ready for marriage, but also let the others see it. The bad ones will run away. When you want a lifetime commitment, you won't be happy with someone who's in for the thrill of the game and who might be waiting for someone better to come along. You won't go for a pretty face only. You won't set yourself up for deceit. You will enjoy a longer, more mature courting phase instead of jumping at first-date kisses or sex. If you don't trust me - and why should you? - take a look at what reputable relationship coaches have to say.

Another good aspect: if you are marriage-minded, you are more likely to attract similar people. A sense of honour, commitment, future plans, integrity and honesty exist in much higher doses in those who want more than just a relationship. They will like what they perceive and they will be drawn to you.

The way you dress and many other choices (like how you prefer to entertain yourself or behave in a group) tells a lot about you. People who are mature enough may not be interested in one who is dressed like a fun-loving teen or a club vamp. Sure, you may get their attention, excite them and even keep them close them for a while, but you will not inspire in them those feelings. Also, do not fall into the other extreme: you don't have to be boring or plain. Keep your heart young.

Repel the not-so-serious ones and let yourself reflect less drama, real composure, become fond of cultural activities, get smart clothing, have more concern for your existing family or relatives, a career or life goal, big dreams, clear targets, and accept only those who are the same. If they don't like who you are know and wish you to return to your 'teenage' self, be wise and step away.

1 October 2013


Sure I knew they would chisel it to the point of perfection (hello, we've been waiting it until 1 October!), but I did not expect a trailer which would have a *GASP* moment at every 2 seconds! I couldn't process the whole amount of information from the start - this trailer is an overdose!

Disturbingly cold day in my side of Europe. It gets nicer though, it brings about a scent of Christmas,. and Christmas is the time for these lovely films, isn't it? It's the first day of October though. Midday, forgetting about work tasks and pouring a cup of strong beverage. Waiting. 04:00 p.m. precisely - here comes the trailer!! Fandom, your time has come, once again!

It starts with a fake-sounding Bilbo voice trying to deal with the dragon. I can already hear all the excitement coming from the Sherlock fandom, as we are clearly about to witness some fine John/Bilbo and Sherlock/Smaug moments. Are we going to hear the voice, anyway? The big 'spoiler'? Smaug's voice? (= Benedict Cumberbatch)

Next: Thorin's known line about reclaiming his homeland, followed by Thranduil's shocking declaration: "I offer you my help". Wait, that can't be, no. This must be out of context. They're playing with us. Thranduil would never say that in reply to that! No no no... Coming quick (and another gasp) - Thorin in armour! Spoiiileerrrrr! Did we really see that, did we...?

Bard: "There is no king under the mountain, nor will there ever be." Another line to star a flame! Seriously, Bard? what sort of trolling is this? Have you skipped the Middle-Earth history classes in school or what? There were plenty of kings under the mountain, and everyone knows that. Are you Middle-Earth's chief ignorant or what? You surely beat even Thranduil himself with that. The fact that the place is vacant now doesn't mean that it's always been Dwarf-less.

Thranduil to Tauriel: "Legolas has grown very fond of you..." *gasp* Ooooh, now that's a spoiler! I can't believe they actually revealed it in the trailer! There have been so many speculations about the Kili/Tauriel and Thranduil/Tauriel pairings, all in vain! Look where the romance is in fact! Uh-oh... I just cannot believe the spoilers this trailer is delivering... (and only 50 seconds covered so far)

Bard:"You have no right to enter that mountain", says troll Bard again. To Thorin. He had some sort of bad childhood I believe. Or maybe he just really doesn't have a clue about Dwarves and he's never seen one, or ever known how one of them looks. Behold his new terrible line... to which Thorin replies, righteously: "I have the only right." Gotta love his composure when saying that, his condescended look and sarcastically 'almost whispered' voice. Nice! Please, Thorin, shove the truth in that ignorant's face.

*gasp* Army of orcs marching towards the battle field... bone chilling moment. Isn't it a bit early for that?

Sauron's eye for 1 second on the screen. It has got everything, really!

Sneaky Bilbo... "I found something in the goblin tunnel", he tells Gandalf, thinking about the ring. Suddenly he changes his mind and continues with "My courage..." Oh you little treacherous one!! It's humorous to see the next line Gandalf delivers, though.



Bard again (!), spilling his rage and hate towards Thorin, yelling from the bottom of his lungs about how "he cannot see beyond his own desire!" ...and no, things don't stop here. We are served with a beautifully acted and directed scene of how Thorin has a "respect my authority!!" moment, in which he clearly shows Bilbo, using the sword, that he cannot go into the treasure room. His treasure room. Gasping at Thorin's drastic, unexpected move. Ok, now you go and see the rest. It's crazy. We are living times of legend, like we knew we did 10 years ago. In fact, that time we couldn't really see the greatness of these films, I think...

Oh, did I mention Smaug's voice in the end, a total premiere?...


Watch The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug trailer 2 below:






23 September 2013

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , , ,
Just another... well, rooster
The glorious Trafalgar Square is dominated now by a gigantic blue rooster, contrasting ridiculously with the architecture. Bright blue and bold, it is nevertheless cute, but what does it do there? Locals have informed me that it is a feminist work of art meant to treat with irony the city's obsession with masculine monuments. Men's statues, phallic monuments of all sorts... like in all other cities with old architecture, isn't it? Well, there had to be one more cock, said the feminist artist.

As I was wasting some time in Trafalgar Square while waiting for my host to arrive at home (I had no key), looking totally decent and uninterested, I had to get my share of attention, still. Some Belgian guy who was in London either for a period of time or for good, I don't remember, insisted that I go out with him. Although I had explained him that I'm out only for 30 minutes or so and that I do have someone back at home (he didn't bother to ask himself!), he was still hanging onto his plan. "You're pretty and I want to know you!" Thanks but no. That's fine if you like my appearance and want to get to know me, but after I've denied having any interest in dating or whatever, you should really back off.

The Belgian guy didn't hesitate to show his disapproval of my decision and his indignation. His mimic and words tried to made me feel like I was doing something very cruel. I went on my way to Leicester Square, which was crowded and vivid as in any summer weekend night. In less than 5 minutes I get stopped in my way by another guy. This time, a Londoner. He carries around a casserole with food he just grabbed from a pub or fastfood restaurant nearby and is consuming it around the square. Strangely, although I was irritated enough by the previous guy's behaviour, this one didn't bother me at all. He greeted me in a very casual manner, excused himself for eating, and just asked me what I am doing. Some other casual questions followed, and I must have mentioned him I'm a visitor. Judging by my look, he deduced I'm an Eastern European and mentioned he "guessed" that by my accent. WELL, I do NOT have Eastern-European accent AT ALL when speaking English, and I've been told by some native speakers that I actually have a very good English with a fine RP accent. That must have been the moment of intrigue.That was probably how he got me to stay there and talk, among the other casual and friendly things.

Leicester Square, London
Later I learned that this guy was not single and was not looking for anyone. He was the owner of a dating website and a sort of counsellor in dating matters, teaching men how to stop females in the street and talk to them. He was just practicing and testing. It worked with me, although I was angered by someone who had stopped me in the street only moments before this! I don't remember all that he said and how, but he managed to keep me there for 15-20 minutes. Really cool, decent guy.

We suddenly started talking about gender roles and the way feminism managed to ruin both men and women. He was just as surprised as myself to have found a person with similar views. I can tell I am very glad to see there are men who still recognise and believe in and support their gender identity, without overdoing it (check the retrosexual type). That is, without male terribilism.

12 September 2013

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , ,
With her name as my writing pseudonym, I pay a tribute to a most stunning female character in literature. Decidedly unique through her struggle, Anna is a Greek woman born as nobility, profoundly attracted by the values of the Orthodox Christian faith and thus having a conflicting self. In the attempt to stay true to these original values, one cannot easily and wisely reconcile such spirituality (a doctrine of humbleness) with the demands of upper class life. Moreover, when passionate love comes into the picture, the drama is deepened and choices become more tragic.

When one is used to the finer things in life, to society's ways, to the worldly logic, as it is called, to modern life actually, letting go of its safe harbour can be a terrifying experience. When people around you are used to doing things in the 'modern way', it is hard to break away and swim against the stream.

Anna ventures into a world that the noble, rich and powerful don't fully understand. Their earthly safety replaces the divine truths, the never-changing laws of the universe (and the spirit). Her family is focused on wealth and politics. Other nobles around are being corrupt and focused on earthly pleasures.

The first visible side of Anna - caprice, doubt, fear and submission

At first, Anna Notaras appears in Mika Waltari's novel as a capricious, spoiled, fearful, hesitant
noblewoman who doesn't really know what to do about all the attention she's getting from a seductive stranger she is clearly attracted to. It is her status that matters, her reputation, her family and her possibilities to survive the siege of Constantinople. Anna loves life. Ioannis Anghelos, her secret lover and a "dark angel of death", comes to challenge all that. He struggles to convince her that there is no future, no chance (or reason) for survival, and that all the rules and hopes she hangs on to are of no worth. Here is where the author begins to shine through his splendid understanding of the feminine nature...

Anna the woman - a worrier, a problem solver, a peace agent

Anna is, first of all, a Woman. She strives to accomplish more than one thing at once, to reconcile the conflicting parts, to solve all existing problems... and to keep on living. She wants her father's honour unharmed, and she also aims to stay next to her man. She uses feminine wisdom and slyness to escape her well-guarded home, to arrange secret rendezvous, to make influential friends and keep them close for they may be needed later (such as in the scene of her meeting and seducing Giustiniani, the Genoese captain, who will later protect the two). Anna Notaras shows great skill and cleverness as she joins the nuns, the new status granting her efficient cover and freedom to be in a city she wasn't supposed to be in. She dreams of a life when she can live next to her husband, preferring a humble existence to a glorious sacrifice. Anna does her best to change her lover's decisions and convince him to save himself from the deadly siege. She chooses life at first.

Another great example of her struggle to make things right and the adaptable (or manipulative?) feminine way to make a situation better is to be found in the following: at a certain point Anna has a burst and she argues with Ioannis about how he is never pleased with her behaviour. When she acts in conformity with her status, bears herself with pride and adorns her body with rich garments and jewellery, he treats her as a temptation, with great indignation. When she gives into the spiritual values and wears the modest garments of a nun, she is again regarded as inappropriate.

Bravery and a sense of justice

The turning point of the book - regarding Anna's character especially - is when she finds out about the treason planned by her father: to open a gate and let the Ottomans inside the fortress city, thus buying their right to be spared and live as a noble family. By this time the Byzantine lady has solidified her values. She is well aware of the unfairness of such situation. Taking her brother's armour, she goes out by herself during the siege and tries to prevent the opening of that gate, thus going against her father's cunning plan. Unfortunately, this is where she meets her death.

Anna chooses death eventually

For a while, we keep on seeing the moody Anna. After many pages about Ioannis and his struggles during the siege, we meet her again, this time changed in a totally spectacular way. She has decided to join her beloved, her husband, thus reconciling both her sense of justice and her faith in God. Anna Notaras, the woman who would do anything possible to turn her man away from the deadly battle and make him choose life, now chooses to fight next to him and die together. Not only did she mentally commit to that option, but she actually did a lot by herself: stole her brother's armour, reached the commander, went past the lustful and rude soldiers and finally met her husband to communicate him the decision and stay with him. She had all the chances to live, but she realises that a life without her love is useless. Ioannis himself is shocked by her decision. He can't understand why a life lover like her, why the most beautiful woman in Constantinople, who would surely survive, now chooses to die defending the already doomed city.

Quicker than Ioannis

The twist is surely surprising: although Anna has been the weak and hesitating one, she is very firm when the time comes to stand against treason and defend the city - or, better said, the principles. While Ioannis travelled to Constantinople to die with it, awaiting death day by day, dreaming of the supreme sacrifice in the name of all that he believes in - and it's been a long, well-thought plan for him - Anna accomplishes this briefly. She sees the danger, confronts the situation with her own values and goes to have her say. The soldiers then kill her without hesitation. The one who was supposed to survive, the one who had all the chances to do so, dies before Ioannis.

Anna Notaras
An interpretation of Anna Notaras


7 September 2013

Do you know those nice and sweet guidelines? No hate speech,  no discrimination based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity or religion, no threats and so on? Forget about them! These are there only to convince you that they're gentle sheep. But they're wolves in lamb skins...

Don't place those claims there, Facebook, if you're never taking such things into account!

So, the time I got into the reporting thing was when I saw animal cruelty photos in a 'friend's' photo album. He sacrificed animals at his countryside residence. Ok, people often do that for food. But is it really necessary to show the bloody stuff to the world? It's traumatising for some. It's really appalling, to say the least. So I reported him to Facebook. They do have a "violence and cruelty" reporting section.

The second time, I was reporting very obvious attacks based on one's religion. And whole pages which would mock religions in a most unfair, untruthful way. I'm no fanatic, I don't take insult with these (but some people do, and I feel it's all so unfair to them) but take a look, Facebook itself officially condemns hate speech regarding one's personal beliefs, sexual orientation, ethnicity or race. Did Facebook do anything about those posts? NO.

Did it do anything about the "I Hate Dogs" page, reported by hundreds of people? NOPE.
Not a trace of hate there, Facebook, is it?

Soon, it happened to come across a most detestable piece of writing. A Facebook employee would expose his attitude and opinion, in very dirty words, about those who report things to the site. To comments he didn't like, he relied with cuss words and blatant insults. Yeah, that kind of stuff, about sexual organs, feces, death and so on. I regret I didn't keep the link, that article just showed so well what Facebook is all about. It just wants your data, it has a "safety policy" and behavior guideline THAT IS JUST FOR DECORATION and no one actually cares about how much hate IS BEING SPILLED THERE.

As I still encountered loads of obvious hate messages on various profile and pages, I insisted on submitting reports. No matter how obvious the transgression was, Facebook did NOTHING, only replied with "We did not remove the comment/photo because we did not consider it as violating our terms".

Ok, Facebook, so you don't consider any of these to be harmful:
- animal cruelty
- discrimination based on ethnicity
- discrimination based on gender
- discrimination based on sexual orientation
- hate speech containing obvious swearwords and curses
- hate speech targeting one's personal beliefs

Then WHAT in the world do you consider worthy of a report???

I am sure that whoever received my complaints was an arrogant troll who laughed at my 'sensibility', just like the employee's article described. Go ahead and write something very nasty on a Facebook page. Be as nasty as you can. Encourage people to report you. I guarantee you that your comment will stay there and nothing will bother you.

In my email inbox, I got calls to action from a group trying to eliminate child pornography on Facebook. I didn't know it existed there. Sounds quite shocking, isn't it? I mean, with all the moral decay, most people in this world are still against such form of abuse. Then it dawned on me: why in the world are there such call to actions, repeatedly?... Well, it's because Facebook doesn't seem to be interested in taking those pages down... Draw your own conclusions...

Now hear the awesome continuation of the story. Having submitted so many reports deemed as useless by the mighty social network workers, I probably got banned. My profile is perfectly functional, but whenever I report something I don't even get the negative reply to it. I concluded they ignore my reports. And can you try to guess the things I've reported recently?

- Obvious hate speech about immigrants, instigating to hate,
- Obvious THREATS to one's life.
(come on, seriously, even if they weren't meaning it, this sort of thing should not be there)

Facebook employers are laughing in your face because you take their oh-so-nice guidelines seriously! Wow, so you actually have some common sense and don't want everyone to swim in a sea of bloody hate... You fool! Ha ha! Facebook keeps all the dirt there, encourages it, lets psychopaths roam freely and help them rule, turning the actual normality into abnormality.

4 September 2013

In a country where hate dwells in too many hearts, every day feels like civil war. I have never seen such blind fury, such blindness to reality and to real arguments, such hate for a category of people towards another. The wise one talk and show, yet nothing seems to open the eyes of the brutes and psychopaths ready to spill the guts of anyone daring to protect the stray dogs.

"You accept to have dogs roaming the streets!! Uncivilised idiots!!"

This is the phrase every indoctrinated, brain-washed citizen tells to dog defenders. It's as if those were actually happy with their beloved dogs being beaten, poisoned, killed by cars and emaciated! If only they would open their eyes TO ACTUALLY READ THE COMMENTS the defenders are posting, they would understand that these would GLADLY accept euthanasia... but real euthanasia... not the Romanian type, which is done by shooting or smashing the skull with a shovel. These are no lies, but well documented truth that is to be found out there, with pictures. YES, you read that right, dog defenders want dogs to leave the streets, to grow fewer in numbers, as few as possible. But they understand that brutal killing will never solve the problem.. only will satisfy a bit the bloodthirsty brutes that never evolved to higher states reached by mankind.


"A CHILD was killed!!! What if it was YOUR child? Would you still love the dogs?!"

What an unnecessary, biased, ignorant stupid question! Yes, everyone has thought about that: what if their children died. Actually, many of the dog defenders have children of their own (no matter how much the brutes want to believe they don't have!). So should we turn berserk against dog defenders and against animals and start to lust for blood? Should we unleash our blind fury and eliminate all animals instead of looking for the cause? The cause is human ignorance - that of those who handle the money and of those who let their pets breed. I'll put that in bold for you:

The GUILTY ones: 
THOSE WHO HAVE MONEY AND DECISION POWER BUT DO NOTHING BUT STEAL
&
THOSE WHO LET THEIR PETS BREED

So, these oh-so-human citizens somehow try to make the rest seem like some cold, terrible bastards who would feel nothing at their child's death, if they were killed by dogs. What does mourning a child has to do with the cause of death here? If you are looking for someone to pay, look in the right places! But no, they're just pouring their rage out on the vulnerable ones. So mindless to hate all dogs (firstly because of your own irresponsibility!! the child's caretaker, his grandmother, left the 5 YEAR OLD  ALONE  for about AN HOUR!) and turn berserk against people who would definitely have the same human feelings at a child's death. The problem is that these haters just can't accept that others won't blindly hate the animals. Bears have killed people as well. Tigers have too. Horses. Snakes. Spiders. Many species have killed - why didn't mankind eliminate these dangerous species? If there are too many dogs in the city, spay them. Neuter. It's that simple.

But nooo... they want BLOOD, they want to see an execution, just like the crowd in the Middle Ages, when they would go to the town square as for a feast when some criminal was to be executed. Only blood pleases the stupid crowd!

What "EUTHANASIA" is all about

Even animal lovers have recently claimed that euthanasia would be the best solution. Going beyond the fact that this would never stop remaining dogs from breeding and crowding the streets again (as proven for endless times), euthanasia is NEVER done here as it should be. Instead of a lethal injection, the dog gets a most painful and barbaric death.

Of course, there will be funds assigned for euthanasia. These funds will never reach the establishments that need them. It's much cheaper to hire a hunter or some monsters to do the killing however they see fit, as it has happened before. The enormous sums are then nicely placed into the pockets of those who have arranged the whole thing. As I said, it's more comfortable to blame the weak ones instead of the politicians... After all, they are untouchable, up there on their sacred pedestals. Frustrating, isn't it?

Brother hates brother, hate and anger are in bloom. The Apocalypse starts here, in Romania. Because there is simply too much hate. 

(oh, the mindless ones would surely call me a religious fanatic after this last phrase, completely ignoring its metaphoric sense!)


Loving the West, yet hating it at the same time

Romanians have always been the slaves of the West. The occidentals are their model, their salvation. They are like sacred - after all they are rich, powerful and smart, aren't they? The West represents that sacred model every East European should aspire to. However....... When it comes to stray dogs, it all turns upside down! The foreign press has been negatively commenting the situation in Romania. The Romanians' reaction? "Stupid foreigners, how dare they criticise us?!?" Yes, the ones that are being worshiped on a regular basis for their progress and civilisation, are now insulted. The ones who lack the problem of stray dogs are complete idiots who should never comment a thing. Even the Huffington Post got the name-calling from the proud Romanians. "Who the heck is this? It's just a website, why should it matter! Bloody idiots." Yes... *ahem* The Huffington Post... just a website... Well, the true ignorants are actually proud of their ignorance!! I'm not saying the whole Western world doesn't have its sins, because it does - see the fast-food chains scandals and so on. However, they pointed out the barbaric practices in Romania and got severely discredited for that. For pointing out the truth.

Conclusion

Dog lovers love people, too. Dog hater can't love people at all and they are the worst kind of phychopats. All true statistics and all real psychologists and psychiatrists know this. Anyone who dislikes animals is a danger to society because they lack a big part of their brain. They are mentally sick. Any murderer firstly killed animals and then humans, it's a proven fact. Scientifically, animal haters are dysfunctional and ill. Morally, socially, religiously, scientifically and so on, animal haters are anomalies.

13 July 2013

Note: the writer pseudonym, Anna Notaras, is taken from this most remarkable book, a bestseller in its time.

Mika Waltari is probably Finland's best known author and a true god of historical novels. No matter on which of those books you get your hands on, the richness of details, the precision and the incredibly vivid historical pictures will recommend such writing as top notch.

Having read the dramatic novel Mikael Karvajalka, I immediately declared it as the best work I ever laid eyes on. Intense, detailed, philosophical, deeply anchored in life, colourful and tragic, it was a deliciously intricate work of art. When I emerged myself into The Dark Angel though, I had to go through it for two times consecutively. One year later, for two more times again.

The Dark Angel or Johannes Angelos is set in the moment of the fall of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire (1453). Waltari used historical and literary documents such as the diary of
Nicolo Barbaro to create a detailed account of the plans, strategies and the very siege of the city.
The Siege of Constantinople 1453

Summary

The Dark Angel is written in diary form. It tells the tale of Greek-blooded Ioannis Anghelos, aged 40, mysterious wanderer coming from Western Europe, now settled in Constantinople, the glorious heart of the Byzantine Empire (15th century).

In a time of great political unrest, he is being constantly spied and eventually hunted for his past involvement with Mehmet, the sultan now threatening the great city and the whole Christendom. Deeply committed to his faith, Ioannis's goal is nothing close to materialistic. Redemption and eternal life of the spirit are his only coveted prizes, and therefore he is willing and ready to die defending Constantinople.

However, his already complicated and risky situation is made even more difficult as he falls in love unexpectedly. The feeling is mutual, but the woman he desires seems to be from a least desirable family - and Ioannis does get many serious threats because of it. Also, he seems to hide his real identity, but his servant constantly mentions having recognised him as wearing the famous Byzantine purple that only emperors would wear.

Seen through other people's eyes, Ioannis Anghelos is quite a scandalous presence: he is a dangerous spy, a possible traitor, a seducer even seen among nuns, a madman who would die for his strange beliefs and who throws away his fabulous possessions. At times, the reader has no clue of what to believe about this character.

To divulge more of the twists and intrigues to follow would be a crime. These are so skillfully created that spoiling them would take away the great thrills.With every page you just hope that there's a way for them to survive, to stop or escape the deadly siege... and there are chances... but their hearts are "not of this world".

The Siege of Constantinople

Inexorable fate, violence, bitter waiting, war frenzy, unavoidable doom - the worst is delivered in honest sentences, in a blood-chilling account of historical deeds. Bit by bit, it is all built up to the final moment, and hope intertwines with the fear of imminent death in a way that feels genuine and not far-fetched.The details of the war strategy can be fascinating even to those who usually skip such parts.

The Confrontation Between Christianity and Islam

Luckily it is not the mockery we have today, especially concerning the terrorism obsession, but the true historical clash, the rallied forces, one wishing to conquer, the other one defending its heritage and spirit. It is a solemn meeting between the two, a clash of cultures and human types, a chance to distinguish between politics and spirituality.

Western vs. Eastern Christianity

A matter often overlooked or misunderstood, this is often the key to understanding this faith. The Eastern faith or Orthodoxy has stayed loyal to its roots, with an original theology instead of one that has gone through many alterations throughout the centuries.

The Double Mission

Ioannis Anghelos/ Johannes Angelos/ Jean Ange has an uncertain affiliation. He was the sultan's man, now loyal to the Byzantium. For a great deal of time it is never clear whether he is honest in his present position or is hiding his true self. Suspicion goes for about half of the novel, until the despair of love and the smell of death make him confess.

The Mystery

As said above, Ioannis Anghelos is a character shrouded in mystery. Oftentimes, himself or others reveal bits about his history, yet the questions still remain.

The Love

Unlike what would be expected, the love story here isn't a pretext or a side story. It is the very spine (and heart) of the novel, yet still it succeeds to be perfectly merged with the dramatic times, with the siege itself. It is merged with death. This is a perfect and frightening marriage of Eros and Thanatos. Furthermore, the love story is where beliefs are shown, where faith is to be seen and tested, and where the characters have the chance to actually prove who they really are on all levels.



1 July 2013

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , , ,
Having loathed pop culture because of its shallowness, stereotypes, infectious nature, appeal to simple minds and loads of other aspects and being more attracted to underground phenomena and thinking that all things popular are only about Hollywood 'values' and naked blondes, I deemed it all as noxious. Pop culture is for the dumb, I said.

Generalisation, however, often proves to be the worst crime. The smart side of society seems to have its say, after all. This is the only conclusion after observing the Sherlock series of BBC, a
modern adaptation of Sir Athur Conan Doyle's acclaimed works. I did not check the series because of an interest in detective stories, but because of all the talk around it. Somehow, wherever my virtual steps were taking me on the web, and not only, there was a bit of Sherlock, so it was always there in the background, slowly doing its work and convincing me to watch, finally. At the same time, I was harbouring curiosity on why is Benedict Cumberbatch a ladies' favourite, especially as he's nothing close to the classic beauties we know.

BBC's Sherlock crime drama series brings forth some some of the old-fashioned charm and virtues. We have a smartphone-era Sherlock who is an imperious man, unsocial, definitely strange and undoubtedly charming.Moreover, he is asexual, having had totally dismissed his sexual instinct. Yet you should think that, consequent to this role, Benedict Cumberbatch was titled Britain's sexiest man. Twice. 

Intelligence Is the New Sexy - For Some, at Least

Be it because of the mystery in it or some mind game, this Sherlock's power of seduction is boundless. He is pretty much the opposite of what media would promote nowadays - an icon that stands against superficiality, hedonism, cult of one's own ego, useless pastimes, irrelevant knowledge, and who tries his best to do catch the bad guys instead of turning bad himself. Wasn't that supposed to be boring or outdated these days? "But Sherlock is arrogant and full of himself", you might say. Yes, but that is clearly for 'the game', you can see how he's actually very relaxed about that and, most of all, good hearted. He enjoys playing the game that way. He is clever and has no interest whatsoever in covering that up.

There is more to it. Benedict's Sherlock has his own rules and makes a full commitment to these. He has a phenomenal detachment and rigidity when exterior factors try to change his way of living. For example, he rejects the femme fatale Irene Adler who was head over heels for him, genuinely interested in his intelligence and showing true feelings for him. He is a man choosing to live in a different way and there, surprisingly, is a cohort of admirers happy about being 'Sherlocked'.

Benedict Cumberbatch and How the British Do It Differently


Watching Benedict outside the character reveals a classy, modest, down to earth, real gentleman - a perfect specimen to illustrate this British invasion in the world of top acting. He and the producers have played this to a great extent - just see his polished look, his unusual haircut, the conservative air of Sherlock. It's all unexpected and out of fashion. 8 million views per episode and hordes of fans hardly waiting for the 3rd season prove the massive success of the series in which no one could've created such a distinctive and adorable character but Mr. Cumberbatch. He almost forced us to care about different things. The recipe worked extremely well, and whoever hasn't watched an episode yet is standing aside and just wondering how in the world can there be such mass insanity around it - like, what's the deal? Well, I know I watched and I was sherlocked. There's substance in it and a great dose of freshness. If you thought perfection would fit into one certain matrix and into that alone, this phenomenon should teach you that it's not.

12 June 2013

If there is something that has truly helped me regain my faith in human kindness, virtue and friendship, it's the Tolkien fandom. During the LOTR times, it was in no way organised, as there was no big social media, but now with Facebook, Tumblr, blogging platforms and Twitter, fans have their places where they can express their excessive love without fearing the outsiders' reaction.


So how does the fandom fare in June 2013, 6 months since the great re-ignition with The Hobbit and 6 months away from the second installment of the trilogy? Well, I am glad I'm writing this 24 hours after the 2nd trailer release and not right away because, in the meanwhile, one marvellous thing has happened.

Two daring girls filmed themselves while waiting for, watching and then commenting the hot trailer - typical lovely fangirl reactions, that many respectable fans also confess to have had. One thing we need to clarify here: real, respectable fans always watch a trailer right when it's out. It's the magic of the moment. Being present right from the start, before it gets shared by your Facebook friends, is essential. And there you go, this is how you get to have all that thrill, anxiety and insane reactions when the time comes. The girls posted their video and the unexpected, the incredible happened just shortly after.

In our dear "planet Middle Earth" aka New Zealand, the big crew is still filming for The Hobbit. Besides, it seems they're keeping an eye on the fandom! This is how we got a brilliant response from Peter Jackson's crew itself to the girls' crazy little video! Lee Pace (Thranduil), Evangeline Lilly (Tauriel) and Orlando Bloom (Legolas) themselves, in the flesh, in costume, have watched the video and filmed their live reaction to it! Thumbs up guys, I'm sure no other fandom has ever been rewarded with such a gesture!

Watch the already super-famous footage here.

My reaction to the Desolation of Smaug trailer:

There's a tense, darker feeling right from the start, enhanced by a mysterious narrating voice... The Lonely Mountain now closer and more majestic, colossal entrance statues... wait, who is the narrator? For a moment I thought it's Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug, freaked out a bit because it wouldn't sound at all like expected... then saw it was Thranduil. Oh! Fantastic job... This film really manages to create believable creatures that belong to other races... that just can't be topped. Thranduil the Elvenking looks spectacular, although I hate that, as a most loyal supporter of the Dwarves. But what is wrong with Legolas? In an attempt to make him look younger and more 'otherworldly', he simply looks 'too photoshopped'. Add the terrible eyeliner effect and you'll have a Legolas that just doesn't look like the one we knew. Hopefully this will change in the final version.
Barely any Dwarves, barely any Thorin... so scarce, yet so enrapturing! Some primitive effects and too much unrealistic tree-jumping and loops...Hopefully this will also change in the final version. Apart from these, I am overall satisfied and declare this a historical moment (which it is, with or without my acknowledgement of it)... Oh, Tauriel says one wise thing (maybe she won't be that bad) and later Balin delivers a killer line on Smaug to get the fandom gasping! Fading to black... now we must hear the dragon or have a glimpse of it... bring it on, Smaug, say something... A-ha! There is Smaug.. there he is... his face!! Unbelievable! While most people bet we would only hear the Voice, we got NO voice, but his face! Cheers to a really unexpected twist!
Bonus: unforgiving music - dark, crushing, thrilling.
Important remark: here we have one elven kingdom that isn't in the usual blueish or light colors - Thranduil's Halls in Mirkwood are so earthy in those dark honey shades!

The Trailer 24 h from its release -
Casualties so far:

  • A video response from Tauriel, Legolas and Thranduil to the fan's reaction, straight from the set in NZ.

  • Tumblr: within 1 hour, not only there were .gif files available, but also fanart containing these!
  • YouTube:  >1,6 million views on main channel (I predicted it would easily go past 1 million). 
  • 140,000 'Likes' on Facebook, >11,000 comments.

Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage)
Thranduil Oropherion (Lee Pace)



P.S.: Where is the singing? The Dwarven singing? I demand songs, as promised and confirmed by the holy words of Mr Armitage!
P.S. 2: Long live the fandom!
P.s. 3: The fandom is on fire, seriously. I can't believe how fast and active these people can be.

A little Tumblr .gif (from the trailer itself) to represent the exact situation we have here - our little trailer just coming out, with the big scary army of fans lurking and quickly setting its greedy eyes on it: