Magic Malik

WARNING: SPOILERS

Most of the reviews I’ve read of A Prophet gloss over, or dismiss as silly/ entertaining flight of fancy Malik’s prophetic visions/premonitions, particularly that of the deer. This seems to me a way to minimise something problematic – ie the possibility that there is a literally magical or supernatural element to the film. But the film is called ‘A Prophet’, so Audiard is hardly playing down Malik’s prophetic nature! It might be interesting if, from a socio-political angle, anyone had a decent take on what the title means. Philip French says that Audiard sees him as a 'man of the future'. I can see what he means - someone who can move between different cultures, play all the sides - but he also avoids mentioning the visions. And I don’t think the reading of the title should be tied to Christianity or Islam – Malik (whose past, and reason for being in prison, remain a virtual mystery) certainly doesn’t align himself with any religious, ethnic etc group except for expediency’s sake. I prefer to take ‘Prophet’ in the sense of ‘seer’

If nothing else, the fact that Audiard (and possibly co-writer Thomas Bidegain) leave the question of Malik’s clairvoyance (we could call it that – ‘clear seeing’) open has the effect of elevating the film beyond the straight, socio-realist mode I feared. The idea of successful criminals (or successful detectives for that matter) having a ‘sixth sense’ that allows them to stay ahead of the competition isn’t new. A fairly recent example, Tony Soprano, is told by Artie in (I think) series four of the Sopranos, that he always sees five moves ahead (or something like that – can’t find the exact quote). Of course, this is just criminal as an intuitive master strategist/chess player, and Malik clearly demonstrates this quality many times throughout ‘A Prophet’ (sending money to the Imam, setting up the Corsicans to tear each other apart). But both also have ‘dreams’ or ‘visions’ which, of course, can be treated as metaphors – the ghosts of the people they have killed as manifestations of their guilt, for example. Except Malik doesn’t seem to experience guilt as such, his relationship with the 'ghost' of Reyes (his first victim) is more complex – Reyes isn’t a frightening presence, at times continuing in the mentoring role that he appeared to assume before his bloody demise, and also apparently able to show Malik the future. Is Malik's ‘intuition’ powerful enough to be indistinguishable from clairvoyance? Or even more than that – can he bend reality to his will?

Wikipedia:
sorcery was taken in ca. 1300 from Old French sorcerie, which is from vulgar latin *sortiarius, from sors "fate", apparently meaning "one who influences fate.".

It’s not just the ‘deer’ vision; when Malik is executing the Corsicans in their car, he lies down on the floor for a while, smiling while time slows down and the Mafiosi dumbly empty their guns into the body of the bodyguard he’s shielded himself with. There’s no trace of remorse, or fear, it’s more as though he’s attained a state of grace, an elevated physical and mental level. He’s magical – it’s a quality that the others recognise in him, and by the end of the film, he has a motorcade of followers/protectors waiting to follow him as he leaves prison (and a ready-made family to boot).

When Malik spends his “40 days and 40 nights” in the ‘hole’ in prison, he calls (we think to Reyes) “Are you here?” Has Reyes disappeared because he’s no longer required? Or has Malik integrated the seer/guide completely?

David

The Countess Castiglione

"A number of photographs exposed her bare legs or feet – the features that she was most proud of – and were very risque for her time."
love tom

Life of Brian

The way the ‘Another Green World’ documentary struck me was very similar to a description of a review in The Wire of Geeta Dayal’s book on the album of the same name. It seems that Eno as a subject inspires an aleatory approach, or at least an attempt at conveying that aspect of his work through form as well as content. So if you knew nothing about Eno, the programme would hardly count as a definitive intro, but it did give you a ‘feel’ for Professor Eno as he is now (and I’m sure, partly, as he would like to be seen), and the previous Enos that he contains. The shots of the cat padding languidly about the workspace worked nicely – and of course, although cats frequently have that air of disinterested curiosity, they can also be fierce, “fabulous” and extremely focused.

The anecdote about U2 and Coldplay was also very telling – he had to be very careful about keeping the work-in-progress files for their respective albums apart for fear both groups would end up recording the same song!

And also – Andrea Corr? Why??

David

From a long night stuck to the bed

Permament Food
Forensic Analysis Proves Mark Blanco Was Killed
Godwin's law
Ben: Diary Of A Heroin Addict
Brian Eno - Another Green World
The Car of Doctor Desourteaux
River Lethe in popular culture
SHADRACK, AND THE MANDEM, HOOD STUFF
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
Cloaks on Myspace Music
Beethoven op. 131 string quartet # 14
Beethoven's Heiligenstadt Testament

love Tom

We Want This

Based on the first listen, this justifies the hype. Straining for the serious/monumental but redeemed by pretty much achieving it.

DAVID

Good Mourning

LINK

State We're In

I spotted Will Hutton’s ‘The State We’re In’ on my Dad’s bookshelf recently, and I couldn’t help picking it up. What intrigued me was that I realised (and in fact I have realised for a while) that my general ‘opinion’ on Thatcher and the Tory legacy is partly a knee-jerk one, passed on to me by two Labour-supporting teacher parents. Not entirely, mind – I’m conscious that her project has essentially been furthered by New Labour, and it’s difficult to be unaware of the effects of that, and I always had in mind the idea (prompted by The Fatima Mansions’ ‘Only Losers Take the Bus’ I think!) of everyone being plonked on the same racetrack and told “the prize is for the taking”, only to discover it’s a kind of Wacky Races, where person starts with a broken leg, while another is in a helicopter and someone else gets to start from half-way down the track. Also, the contradiction of a party supporting the idea that “there’s no such thing as society” being the same one that blames the left for social disintegration told me enough, I thought.

And… there’s always a bit of trepidation when dipping one’s toe into new water – given that this is the first economically-oriented book I’ve read (although Hutton makes it clear from the off that he sees economics, the state, and society as inseparable topics) will I be so convinced by the rhetoric that I won’t be able to see the wood for the trees? Will I, in desiring to know more, find any critical thought stifled by one person’s force of persuasion, letting them become my super-ego? Still, you’ve got to start somewhere, and I know from past experience that, even when it happens, these intellectual/artistic etc apprenticeships are a useful and sometimes necessarily first step, even if you do eventually realise that your ‘master’ was maybe full of it at least half the time!

But it’s fascinating getting down to the mechanics – and what has struck me is not only the potency of the text (particularly the coruscating opening salvo) but also that its message is more pertinent than ever.

The irony is that Hutton wrote the book at a time when New Labour was in the ascendant (and it could have reasonably been hoped that a new era was underway) but his position is, tragically, just as relevant today. Our outmoded institutions and system of government are by their nature C(c)onservative, they safeguard the entrenched interests of financiers and the ‘gentleman’ class, and encourage corruption. As K-Punk argues in ‘Capitalist Realism’, the problems we’re saddled with are systemic so this issue of taxing bankers one year’s bonus is a thoroughly pointless, feeble gesture as a response to the crisis.

I’ve been trying to come up with a useful analogy and, though it may be flawed, this is the result: a spoiled teenager drunkenly crashes his expensive sports car while driving at an excessive speed (it’s not the first time he’s done that, obviously. On more than one occasion, he has narrowly avoided killing people). Rather then making him work to pay for a new one, or suggest public transport as an option (they are, after all, the people who have indulged his every whim), they immediately buy him a new one because, of course, he does also need it to get around - but they insist that, as a punishment, he can’t go to the big party coming up the next weekend. He sneaks out of the house and goes anyway. When his parents find out, they threaten to take his car away. He threatens to move out. They start crying because they don’t want him to leave – he’s their only son, they have given him everything. How can they make him understand that he needs to be more responsible?

..................


I was born in 1978. Something else that I realised reading Hutton’s book is that I’ve never known anything other than what happened after the financial genie was let out of the bottle. I have no idea how things could feel outside this. I remember my parents (SDP/Labour, remember) living on credit, buying beyond their means. I even asked once, something along the lines of ‘but if you don’t have the money, why are you buying a new sofa AND a new car?’ But that’s how they lived, and they were encouraged to do so. I remember discussing (heatedly) the modesty of my own financial ambitions with a girlfriend - for her it was tantamount to not having ambitions of any sort. She talked about the big house, the car, the holidays. After a three-year relationship, she left me for a trader!

DAVID