False Christs and Charlatans

A few days a go I saw a film called The Holy Mountain on the advice of a friend. I didn't know anything about the movie, which is unusual for me, but I knew that the imagery would be far out, because this is what my friend promised, and he does not lie. When I say far out, I mean it both mockingly, as a child of a post-post hippie era, and honestly. The imagery is indeed powerful and rather indelible. Or at least it left a stain.

The film was directed by Alexandro Jodorowsky, who is really the false Christ and charlatan of my title. If he did not exist, I would have to have invented him. Born long ago in a mining village in Chile to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, he grew up a strange, sexualized childhood apparently plagued by visions of enormous floating monoliths. After college he studied mime in Paris with Marcel Marceau, and after that he moved to Mexico where he directd some hundred theater productions. After that he directed Fando and Lis, el Topo, and The Holy Mountain. Today he is known for writing comics, which he does with such artists as Moebius. But as much as that varied and unusual career, he is exceptional for his personality and for his public statements, which bear the unmistakable mark of an unmanageably huge ego, and an avant-gardist's predisposition to shock and speak in vagaries.

The Holy Mountain Is more an "experience" than a coherent film. Seemingly generated from dozens of weighty, violent, sexual, religious, and absurd symbols and relationships, the film essentially follows a Christ figure to his enlightenment. But like Robert Downey Sr.'s Greaser's Palace, it can't be bothered to stick to a single strand in its Christ-centered narrative. Unlike Greaser's Palace, it is unburdened by an obvious sense of humor. This, other than its narrative disarray and excessiveness, is perhaps its biggest failing. It was hard for me to countenance the absurd goings-on of this film without laughing at the absurdity of the symbols and imagery. However, I was never given permission to laugh. The film acted (insofar as they can do that) as if it were the key to the one ultimate truth, its tone was that of a profound religious experience. Perhaps I lack the intended perspective of a teenager of the early 70s on acid.

This is something of a new age film, at least insofar as it peddles pseudoreligious mumbo jumbo as spiritual insight. But it does merit a viewing. It contains imagery that is actually fairly shocking and original. Dozens of crucified lambs are paraded through the streets in a scene PETA would not approve of. An art gallerist displays sex machines which, despite how it sounds, is an amazing feat of both design and puppetry. An old naked man hold his breasts, which are the heads of ocelots, and sprays milk all over a spiritual seeker. Many other moments will sit in your head for days- and for someone like me, that is the price of admission.

I give this sucka **1/2 out of ****.
It's a mess, but it's a very interesting mess.

By the way, if you can hunt down Greaser's Palace, do so. It's a very off the wall, tongue-in-cheek telling of the story of Jesus. It is profane, touching, hilarious, and not quite right in the way that every Downey Sr. film I've seen is not quite right. There's even a cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as a child. If you can't find GP, try Hugo Pool or Putney Swope.

Cosmic Impersonal Forces

If this were a good blog it would not concern itself with the weather. However, it is my blog.

The weather in Baltimore since late last fall has been unpredictable and terrible. We had the most consistently cold winter I can remember, and the most precipitation-prone. Spring didn't arrive in any meaningul way until the middle of April, which is uncommon. Also uncommon is the recent cool spell in Baltimore. Statistically speaking, the expected high temperature in Towson, not far from where I live, is 78-79 degrees F. For the past week or so, the temperature has been fairly steady between the lower 50s and the middle 60s. The magnitude of the diurnal range this would represent is very small, comparable to Seattle, perhaps. And we have been under a constant spell of rain.

So far this year, Baltimore has had 22 1/4 inches of precipitation, whereas the average ytd should be 16.81". And of that 5 1/2" extra, three have dropped in the month of May. May's normal mtd precipitation would be 3.4", and the actual sum is 6.4".

What's my point? It's been an absurd couple of months climatologically in and around Charm City, and I don't appreciate that. I'm kind of climate sensitive, as it goes, and this bad caricature of Seattle has got to stop.

Gambling with Iran

I think one would do well to look into this Washington Post Article concerning the changing relationship between the US and Iran. I could well be wrong, but i think this is very important, very bad news. The revelation that The US has ceased contact with the Iranian government does not bode well for stability in the Mid-East region. The reasons for this state of affairs are troubling, the planned US course of action is troubling- this has all the earmarks of a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

Although it is not cited in the article, I think it's fair to say that there have been diplomatic tensions in excess of what is usual between the two states in the wake of the Iraq war. It has been much speculated that the Iranian government and its proxies have taken advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq and involved themselves in its affairs to a degree that the US government finds meddlesome. On top of this, apparently, US intelligence indicates that some of the command and control of Al Qaeda responsible for the Riyadh and possibly Casablanca bombings are based in Iran. At least these two facts, combined with Iran's growing nuclear capacities and ambitions have persuaded the US government to cease communication with Tehran.

But this is where it really becomes frightening: the Bush administration, particularly the Pentagon, has become convinced that US policy should include aggressively destabilizing the Iranian government to promote its dissolution. I see enormous problems with this. There is significant disagreement even within the US government as to the level of popular discontent there is in Iran vis a vis their government. As usual, the State Department is in the cautious good-cop role, doubting strongly that there is enough resentment in Iran to fuel an uprising as successful as Iran's own in '79 and even suggesting that US encouragement of such an uprising would could result in the delegitimization of democrats and reformers.
Indeed, the acknowledged involvement of the US in such a policy could easily paint those agitating for a new revolution as pawns of the US. And it is my understanding that despite the widespread resentment of the authoritarian mullahs and ayatollahs that run Iran, the United States government is not much more esteemed among Iranians.

It strikes me that the Pentagon may be making faulty conclusions. According to the Post article, those Al Qaeda operating within Iran seem to be few in number and relegated to an isolated region near the Afghan border. It is certainly unclear and seems to me unlikely that Iran has any connection to or would provide support to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda may or may not have committed acts of violence against Shi'ites, but groups affiliated with Al Qaeda such as Pakistan's Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) have. In general, Al Qaeda is a Sunni phenomenon and cooperation between it and Iran doesn't strike me as likely for either party.

As a former White House staffer has suggested, the timeline of a collapse of the Revolutionary authority may be profoundly unhelpful for our goals.

In addition, the proposed use of a Mujaheddin group called the MEK in a military campaign against Tehran strikes me as an odd and unfortunate combination of US actions in both the Afghani-Soviet conflict and the Bay of Pigs. And it strikes me that this is not where the US should be looking for its foreign policy strategies.

I understand very well the US animus against the Iranian govt. It was responsible for the hostage crisis of 79-80. It's probably the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its (effective) leaders are fundamentalist Shia who are fundamentally opposed to American interests. However, letting such animus dictate our foreign policy is unwise and unsafe.

By the way, in checking to see if my assumptions about Al Qaeda anti-Shia attitudes were accurate, I came across this paper written by a retired Indian govt official. I think it shows a different perspective on Al Qaeda and Pakistani extremism than many are used to seeing. In particular, I found fascinating and infuriating the suggestion that Al Qaeda is portraying US policy as a Christian Fundamentalist war against Islam.