Downton, The Great War, and what Mexico has to do with it.

Downton, The Great War, and what Mexico has to do with it.
(Or the fascinating way all topics end up related).

Well, this is me, jumping late into a fandom wagon. I have been hearing about some TV series, recently born sagas that have captivated the attention of many people I know. Due to many reasons (maybe being a nomad during the last 3 years and deliberately refusing to get a new TV set) have increased my reluctancy of becoming again any given series follower, perhaps since I reckon I refuse to create an attachment to a TV program that can be finished anytime at the producers' will. (It happened back with "Cold Case"). However, I decided to contradict this former behavior by starting watching Downton Abbey. I have read many good comments about it, and I tried to channel my tendency to crave anything even remotely related to Britain by watching the first episode of Season One. And I immediately fell onto a slightly obsession around the Crawleys, and their world one hundred years ago.

Maybe now that I am almost done with the three seasons (actually holding to the last episode since I already know what happens and I will not discuss it any further since I hate being a spoiler!) I reckon that one of the things that I really like about this drama is how the temporality of life is portrayed. For many of us, war is just an idea. We might try to simulate it by playing videogames, watching epic sagas, etc. But our perspective is not entirely affected by the awareness of clear and present danger. We take life and most of its commodities for granted. We might repeat as parrots that life is short, and you might not be here tomorrow, but there is not a high percentage of probability of having a dangerous situation that can give additional weight to our words (or so we perceive).

The thing is, that at first I was not that interested since the time period when the series is developed (right after the Titanic sinking and then during the First World War) was not exactly my cup of tea. Personally, I have been strangely attracted to either the Regency period (i.e. early XIX century, when Jane Austen wrote her masterpieces) or the Plantagenet-Tudors hegemony (XV-XVI centuries). However, the dramatic plot moved me into looking for more information about it. I knew the main facts about The Great War (or World War I, as we call it across the Atlantic) but not really a great deal of it. I knew some events, like the sinking of the British passenger ship named "Lusitania" where a number of Americans were killed, and from my first source of knowledge about this particular event, I was told that due to this, United States entered the war. But reading more about the topic, it seems like this sole event was not the main reason.

And here is how Mexico appears on stage. During the second decade of the twentieth century, this country was engaged in the Mexican Revolution, a civil war started to overthrone Porfirio Diaz, who had become a dictator ruling the country for 30 years. There were a lot of external interests regarding the outcome of this armed conflict, due to the foreign investments done in Mexico during the Porfiriato. And obviously, these external interests tried to engage the fighting nation into their side of the conflict. So here is where Arthur Zimmermann, Germany foreign secretary, saw his attempts of creating a German-Mexican alliance frustrated. The "Zimmermann Telegram" was sent to the Mexican government led by Venustiano Carranza, in order to offer German support to Mexico to recover the lost territory back in the war against US, in exchange of Mexican support against the Allied Forces, led by the British. This telegram was intercepted by British naval intelligence and then sent to the United States embassy in London. When it was published on the Spring of 1917 in the States, this was interpreted as a direct German threat to the United States. Then the American forces joining the European conflict was something that followed right soon afterwards.

There has been some claims that Mexican government even analized the proposal, but it was immediately rejected based on the current situation of the country, already torn down due to seven years of conflict, as well as the unfeasible scheme of providing armed support in both ways (either Mexico to German, or viceversa) due to the British naval strategies that could block the supplies in both directions. Also reconquering the lost territories (from Texas to California) would imply severe adaptation schemes for the Americans already settled  and already used to the American laws.

Obviously, this topic sounds quite interesting and it seems like scholars have already analyzed if the Zimmermann telegram was nothing more than something used by the British in order to drag the United States into the war to secure the Allied triumph. And for me it is quite funny how you can link a modern British drama series with the Mexican revolution. It keeps my belief that somehow all topics end up related one to another.

I don't know how to love him...

I have not seen Jesus Christ Superstar, neither the movie nor the play. However, recently when one of my favourite singers (Melanie C) was going to appear as Mary Magdalene, I paid attention to the song she performs, called "I don't know how to love him". And I really liked the song.

Maybe my perspective is biased since I am her fan and I have not seen the whole play. However, from the lyrics I can say it is such a interesting portrayal of one of the female followers of Jesus. And I say interesting, since we are talking about a woman who was used to play an unpleasant role on society. I know, there has been a great deal of discussion about the true personality of Mary Magdalene, if she was really a sinner, a prostitute or according to Dan Brown, the wife of Jesus and the true chosen one to hold the power of the Christ church on Earth. Keeping this aside from any polemic discussions, let's stick to the baseline representation of Mary Magdalene as one reformed sinner. If she was who we have been told she was, the song cannot be more realistic about her perspective about this Galilean prophet, and His message of Love. Her, who was used to be the object of paid desire of man, found really confusing how to approach him, "how to love him". Us, as used to the modern idea of women having similar rights to men, having the right to vote and to work and do most of the things women like her obviously could not. For us might be difficult to understand, but if even the world of our grandmas was pretty different to ours, obviously thousands of years might be.

Hope you like this piano cover anyway :D

My two cents about the Oscars

Well, I do not really understand the urging necessity of some human beings to keep a criticising attitude towards everything. I mean, I am critical as well, but with things as movies, I understand that the main purpose of a movie is to entertain. My prior statement goes along with the reactions shown about some of the movies that were nominated for the Academy Awards this time. We all know movie industry depends on a lot of things and interests far beyond the mere art of filming. We do know that for sure. Even so, we are

able to see them honouring most of the best movies done by the mainstream industry. So why the surprise?

Let's take for example "Les Misérables". I have read several comments against the movie, based on the average singing performance of the actors involved when compared with the stage representations. Well, I have news for you. Stage representations are done wherever else, from Broadway to Mexico City, from West End to Auckland. Even in the border town I grew up in is planning to do one soon. And obviously, you might find more gifted Fantines than Anne Hathaway or way more skilled performers than Russell Crowe. But let me tell you something. I would pay for watching a movie with recent Catwoman singing about her cruel and painful life, sacrificing her hair, or the only one Gladiator attempting to sing stage-like or hunk Wolverine showing why he is one of the most perfect men in this world. I would not care about the best singer of West End or Broadway, I'm not a musical comedy expert. And the ugly truth is that most of the moviegoers are not. If they were, we would have more stage than movie theatres. You have to make ends meet. It's a matter of business and money. And I really enjoyed seeing all the ensemble cast singing an arrangement of "One Day More" special for the night, since in the movie Fantine does not take part on it (she is supposed to be dead by then).

Let's talk about "Argo". I got into a silly discussion with a Twitter random guy (silly, since I just kept saying "Peace out") but the thing is that for every historic event, there will be three sides of the story: our side, their side and how it really happened. You should choose to see the content rather than the form. It would be sort of distracting the issue that political interests got involved (even more if the First Lady presented the award!) but what I find fascinating is how something as vain and superflous as movie industry can be deemed can serve a higher purpose: saving human lives. And at the end of the day, I reckon most of the nominated movies caused some stirs regarding their central topic: Lincoln about the abolition of slavery, Django about the Tarantino-violence and portrayal of slavery, Silver Linings Playbook about a unrealistic scheme about bipolar disorder (Note: only one reviewer said so, the one from The New Yorker), Zero Dark Thirty about supporting torture. Anyway, I enjoyed seeing Ben Affleck receiving his Best Picture award. He really made a great work. If you watch Argo and notice you feel like watching a 70s movie for the quality of the film, not only due to the way the people are dressed, it is because he cut in half the film and give it some special treatment to make it look like the material used back then. And even when you can google and find out about the storyline, and you might know in advance how it is going to end, the whole movie your attention is caught by the movie and you are at the edge of your seat.

Let's move into more mundane stuff since for the previous ones, everybody will have their piece of opinion. One interesting fact about the two actresses that got an Oscar home. It is not widely known that Anne Hathaway was originally cast for the role of Tiffany in "Silver Linings Playbook" (the one that gave Jennifer Lawrence her first Oscar for Actress in a Leading Role). However, scheduling issues with The Dark Knight Rises made her to decline the role, so David O. Russell looked for another actress. After taking several famous comedy actresses into consideration (even *ergh* Angelina Jolie) for auditioning, he reluctantly accepted to give Jennifer Lawrence an audition (he thought she was too young) but after an audition via Skype he found her perfect for the role. And now you see it paid back for both.

I liked the irreverent hosting by Seth MacFarlane. Several of his jokes caused more than one "gasp" by the audience, but other than that the guy was cool. Other notable performances were obviously the songs, where Adele had a lukewarm reception by the audience, opposite what they did with Jennifer Hudson (maybe the effect of being "close to home" aside her stunning performance were important here, but nevermind, Adele's got it all!).

Being more frivolous, I loved Jennifer Aniston's dress, and how Charlize Theron can rock a pixie haircut. And she surely can dance. It was a funny ceremony. Call me frivolous and vain, I don't care. Quoting Tarantino, "PEACE OUT!"