If you live in Perth and move around the CBD and the Cultural Centre you surely have found young people from different charities and NGOs trying to get you to sign as a member.
Two things will catch your attention: They are very good looking, and they seem to have a passion for their cause. They are my kind of hero... However, once the blindness of their beauty and friendliness wanes, and your analytical power switch on again, you start noticing a few oddities.
1/ They are not only good-looking, but they can even flirt with you... Oh gosh I am that gorgeous and attractive to have a guy who is in his early or mid twenties flirting with me? No, Not really. They do the same to everybody. They use reverse psychology techniques and compliments to make you stop. For ex. I love your bag/pendant/dress. Or ask you open questions like, "Do you care for the environment?" They are very friendly, and greet you hyper-friendly at 9am, when most people, or at least me, are struggling to even talk.
2/ They have tons of photos and booklets and that they start talking very fast, like repeating a script without much breathing. Like telemarketers but a bit more paused. They are convincing, as most charities support a good cause, and you cannot deny them that. I think the tactic is to overwhelm your senses so you feel so overwhelmed and trapped that you want to get rid of them by signing whatever they want you to sign. It works. That is why they do it.
3/ They can lie to you... bluntly. Well, most marketers will tell you half-truths or sugar-coat anything on a daily basis. Still, when it comes to charities, I find that really shocking. I have specific examples. Like you have to become a member to sign a petition against concentration camps in North Korea, they swear on their mother's grave that you cannot do so online for free even you tell them that this is not the case. Or give you wrong statistics about nett income going from donations to the cause. Many of them openly criticise Worldvision and their millionaire add, but Worlvision does not pay salaries to people to be on the streets and their adds are very limited. Then you go online, check the website of their charity and see that you were being lied. In fact you are online because you already knew that they were lying to you.
4/ Their
cause.... is a job. Because, as a gorgeous guy put it, "I have
to pay my bills". Well, so do I, sweetie. So I get a job and then I support my
causes with my salary. You can even volunteer, you know. That is passion.
I do give quite a bit of my money to several charities and I have had a sponsored child in Malawi for a few years now. I consider giving to local and international charities an obligation and nothing to be praised about because I am lucky enough to have a good salary, live decently and have my basic needs covered. Still, I want charities to sell me their cause in another way.
Do not take me wrong, I stop most times just to say no in a graceful way, because I think it takes lots of guts approaching unknown people early in the morning despite some people being quite rude at that sort of approaches. As one of the girls told me, "you are the first person who has been nice to me this morning, and I have been here for an hour. I just wanted somebody to return my good morning and be nice to me". It is not an easy job.
Still, I find disgraceful using
flirting and choosing good-looking people or giving me compliments on my bag to get my attention and sell a cause. You sell me the
cause, you convince me with arguments, and you talk to me like a person who has a brain. You are not selling snuggies, are you? There is nothing better than a genuine person telling you how wonderful what they do is because they do it out of passion and love and not because they are being paid to say just that.
The first time I donated to Medicins Sans Frontiers was during one of those infamous international war-food crisis in Africa; there was an item of news on TV, nothing related to the charity, but the logo of MSF was on every medical tent in the field. MSF did not have any add on TV that day or any other day, or gorgeous-looking marketers in the city centre. But their work and their being there was enough reason for me to donate. Nobody was selling me their cause. They were too busy helping those in need. Can you see the difference?
Call me a romantic, but you do not have to sell me a cause, a cause sells itself. My causes, the ones that get my money are those that touch me for whatever reason. The only time I have signed through one of these guys was recently, and despite me believing in their cause, I regretted it immediately, because of all the things I have said above.
The line you have to use with the most insisting guys is "I am already a member", and they will let you go. Be nice to them. After all they are nice guys making a living and working hard for something they believe in. Still, choose your charity and donate to them based on your preferences, not on marketed lies and aggressive marketing practices.
Imagine this case scenario:
You go to a restaurant, get your dish and when you ask the waiter for salt, the waiter looks down at you and, in a tone of disdain, he tells you, "Sorry, Miss, we do not do salt here, salt is really bad for you".
Ridiculous, no?
Now, it is becoming trendy amongst certain cafes, bakeries and restaurants in Perth to reply to my "flat white with a sweetener" in a disdainful flipping tone "we do not do sweetener here" or "sweetener is cancerogenous and kills".
The funny thing is that some of the same people who preach about sweetener would drink huge amounts of fizzy or caffeine-concentrate drinks, smoke, drink alcohol, would not exercise or consume tons of natural products like, say, sugar. In fact, it sounds ridiculous to me that sugar (too much sugar) could be thought a very healthy food at all. But it is not trendy to say so because our culture is very much sugar-coated and we all love our candies, cakes and chocolates.
I am not saying that sweetener is the most natural healthy wholehearted food on the Planet, or that you have to consume it in great quantities without worry. I am saying that there are different types of sweetening products to start with (chemical derived and plant derived), and that having a sweetener with my coffee or having a fizzy sugar-free drink now and then is OK - in moderation. Why? Because the scientific debate -which is the one that matters to me- has been long and inconclusive regarding the cancerogenous properties of sweetener unless consumed in huge quantities. A summary of the debate can be found at the Wikipedia in Aspartame or Stevia or just visit The Cancer Council of the USA.
Having a healthy lifestyle the whole year around does more for your health and for inhibiting your cancer risks than anything else. On the other hand, we do know that if you have a nasty gene, you are prone to develop any disease or cancer no matter how much you take care of yourself. Yes, it sucks, but that is science, not BS or mass hysteria.
The fact is:
Too much sugar do kill even if you do not consume sweetener.
Too much salt do kill ditto.
Too much water, yes water, do kill ditto.
Too much fatty food do kill, ditto.
Too much tobacco do kill, ditto.
Too much alcohol do kill, ditto.
Too much Love do Kill, ditto.
Anger do kill, ditto.
Obesity do kill, ditto.
Sedentarism do kill, ditto.
Depression do kill, ditto.
Religious fanatism do kill, ditto.
Political fanaticism do kill, ditto.
Bad traffic signs do kill, ditto.
Domestic violence do kill, ditto.
Poverty do kill, ditto.
Your inherited genes do kill.
I do no want to die
before my time, and I do take care of my body and soul all the year around, but limiting my
options is not cool or even sensible when it comes from a preaching
patronising position.
Unless the consumption of sweetener is forbidden by the health authorities and proven lethal in small quantities, I do want to have the option to consume sweetener, sugar or nothing when I fancy. I do not want to be treated as a retarded because I order my coffee with a sweetener, preached by people who make of their personal approach to life and food a pseudo-religion. I do not want food Messiahs or a nanny restaurant, just my coffee the way I order it....
On the other hand, if you are diabetic, just tell me what are you going to do without sweetener?
Has StrawberryNET made wonders for your beauty case and your wallet in the past? If the answer is yes, you will receive OzCosmetics with open arms - an Australian version of the Hong Kong giant that sells a huge selection of 100% authentic reduced-prices cosmetics and perfumes to Australia and eighteen other countries.
The philosophy, products, customer service, brands and even the prices of the products sold by OzCosmetics are almost identical to those sold by StrawberryNET: free shipping, order tracking system, friendly customer service, money back guarantee if you are dissatisfied, and super-fast shipping from their warehouse in Honk Kong. I always check the same products on both sites to see which site offers better prices; sometimes the prices are the same, some others are cheaper in one of them. The same can be said of the availability of brands and products within a brand, which are sometimes available in one place but not in the other. Most times there are not noticeable differences.
Two main things made me prefer OzCosmetics to StrawberryNET.
Firstly, their website is very clean and tidy, less colourful and with less images and, therefore, less visually overwhelming and much more professional and contemporary. Perfect if you are just searching for specific brands and products and want to go to the point without browsing much.
Secondly, OzCosmetics shipes using express Post courier and Post Office, and the parcel goes to your nearest Post Office, which is always my fav system of transport, as commercial courier companies tend to deliver during working hours, when you are working, so you have the hassle of rescheduling. If you are a mum at home, this surely does not affect you, but for working professionals it is a nuisance.
It took my last parcel, containing some of my staple expensive cosmetics, three working days to be delivered and collected. Great! They are all authentic and as the ones I used to buy from Myers or David Jones minus 20-50% the price.
Trenery is an Australian brand and online shop managed and operated by the same firm that created Country Road, of which is a sort of spin-off. Trenery, like its sister, offers simple, almost minimal, women and men fashion clothing and accessories. They do have a limited selection of items and styles for sale, smart casual mostly, something that you can wear for more than a season, but nothing really wow or daring, still that sort of chic staple you want to have in your wardrobe for seasons to come and match with the trends in vogue. The quality of what they sell is good and the pricing medium.
Trenery's website is clean and no-fuss, easy to navigate, well organised with a good viewing system. You have to register to order, and they offer free shipping to Australia and order tracking. Your purchase is sent by courier, but will be taken to your nearest Post Office if you are not at home. I love this, as it saves you the nuissance of having to reschedule the delivery with the courier.
Their Phone Customer Service is very friendly and helpful, and it is managed and operated from Australia and by Australians.
Returns are allowed within 14 days from receipt, and you can return the item by Post or via any Trenery shop in your city, if there is any.
I purchased the Juniper Satchel in Caramel and I am very satisfied with Trenery's service and the bag itself. The quality of the leather is good but not heavy, and it is very versatile as it can be worn and used as a small tote, as a cross-body or as an oversized foldable clutch. They have it in the very trendy royal blue and red. The downside is the mediocrity of the lining. The bag comes with a dust bag.
Trenery is not daring or avant-garde, but it is perfect for timeless trendy pieces that you will be wearing for more than a year. They have a simple practical website, fast free shipping within Australia, and a friendly customer service. They also deliver internationally.
ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
They need to improve the photographic views of the bags, showing at least one photo of the interior of the bag, and one on a person or mannequin (Nordstrom's style) to show how the bag falls on your body, and how big it is.
Cold Souls is a comedy of the absurd with some surrealist and existentialist touches, and a philosophical query on the nature of the soul.
The film departs from a quote from Descartes that says that the soul is located in a little place in the brain, a premise that leaves out one of the most interesting aspects of the nature of the soul. The script is more interested in asking and answering the following questions: What exactly is the soul? How affects the soul to the building of the self and defines who we are? What would it be not having a soul and being just a corporeal being? What would it be living with the soul of another person? Why would anybody want to empty out his/her body from his/her soul?
Paul Giametti plays himself, better said, a version of himself - an actor in crisis, burdened by the weight of role he's playing on his mood and spirit -even though this is just created by his job-, who goes to a clinic where the soul can be extracted and stored, restored and exchanged, whatever you like. What happens Giametti in his quest to be soul-lighted without his soul is the core of the story.
Giametti shows once again what a great actor he is. Russian actress Dina Kurzun, who plays a "mule" of souls between Russia and the US is OK in her role. The other actors are all mediocre in their respective roles.
The tone of the film is somewhat depressing and grey, which goes well with Giametti's character. In fact, all the characters in the movie are very serious and grey, as if all souls in the world had that same defect. I think that it is the best part of the movie, i. e. the depiction of a world of grey souls always unsatisfied about being human, always wanting to be perfect. Humans avoiding everything that makes us humans. The unwillingness of humans to see within, to deal with our emotions, feelings and problems, our past and present. The soul as a product of trade, like our society, in which everything is for sale, and bogus people are everywhere. These elements are openly and clearly presented in a successful way through Giametti's dialogues and part of the storyline.
On the other hand, I see a contradiction, a deep one, between what the director wants to portray and what actually the characters in the script portray. If the soul is undeniable linked to our emotions and feelings, and their weight makes us what we are, how is possible that a person without soul, empty, can be aware and suffer from not having a soul? If your soul is not yours but that of another person, how do you know (from an emotional point of view) that the soul is not yours? If the soul is located in a part of the brain, how can the brain work normally after the soul has been extracted? The movie does not success at offering response to these questions, and in fact mixes things up a little bit.
Despite the serious tone of the film, the main concepts that the movie deals with are examined superficially. Perhaps, a lighter story an characters and a deeper analysis of the philosophical elements of the script would have produced a more engaging film. I am thinking, for example, in The Truman Show, which did just that without losing any depth, and being an entertaining movie at the same time.
There is a problem with the music too, at least to me. A couple of songs in French appear from nowhere halfway the movie. They are beautiful and very much of my liking, but they do not fit with the rest of the music and the general music ambience of the film. In fact they were a shock and a distraction from the scene that they were paired with.
The film has an excellent starting point and some very original ideas, but the tone of the film is too serious on one hand, and too descriptive in the other. It is not a drama or a comedy either, an ambiguous mix instead.
I think that, still, that this is a daring and original film.
'I love the movie poster. It's great and pretty much sums up the main concept of the film in just one shot.
Nobody Knows tells the story of a group of four siblings before and after their abandonment by their mother.
The movie is magical and poetical, but also heartbreakingly hard, from the first scenes to the ending. It has great lyric moments combined with very lovely light ones.
I was surprised that the director and the script did not use such a hard story to make the viewer sob, or to make the viewer mourn for the children. That would have been not only predictable but make the script mundane, and not the lyric piece it is. Instead, the viewer witnesses the children's hopes, hunger, despair, acceptance, survival, union and happiness, despite everything. Although the story of the misery of the children is explicitly told, what catches the viewer's eye is the emotional positive outcome that misery brings to these kids. One of the things that shows this clearly, is the part related to the secret garden that the kids start to grow in their balcony, and the enthusiasm and effort that they put into it.
Sometimes you feel so immersed in the life of the siblings, that you feel as if you were there, enduring the heat, the bad odours, the hunger, the playfulness, and their problems. That is so because the director creates a very intimate connection with the viewer, something really special.
The children actors are UNBELIEVABLE, especially the leading young actor, Yuya Yagira, who delights us with a moving mature strong performance. You do not feel they are actors performing, giving life to a script, but real children abandoned and filmed. That says a lot about the art director, too.
I did not like the title, which does not convey what happens in the movie. Nobody Cares would have been a more accurate one.
Not easy to watch, but extremely beautiful.
Irreversible is a very confronting raw and violent French movie that tells the story, in reverse chronological order, of a serious of violent events happened during the return home of the female protagonist Alex. The least you know, the more shocking and though-provoking the movie will be.
Three main themes are explored in this movie.
1/ The
movie is an exploration of Sexuality - Sex as mean of human
communication and love, versus love as a mean of hatred and subjugation.
Sex as pleasure versus sex as abuse. The intimate scenes of
Alex and Marcus are all sensuality, playfulness, joy and love. The
conversations about sex between Alex, Marcus and Pierre explore the
matter of pleasure and human connection, of what makes humans click
sexually. The rape scene is an antithesis to all of that.
2/ The movie reminds the viewer that there is nothing to forget or forgive about rape. The movie is a brutal depiction of the brutality that any rape against any woman is. One of the most
asked questions regarding this movie is, did the rape scene need to be so brutal and 9-minute long? Despite how hard was watching it, especially if
you are a woman, I think the answer is yes, for several reasons:
- Because (too) many
people out there consider rape a second-rate crime and somewhat blame
the victim or excuse the perpetrator. There are judges around the world
saying that the victim somewhat provoked the rapist with her sexiness or behaviour.
- Because the effects
of rape are very damaging, emotionally and mentally, and some people
cannot understand them unless they have been raped or seen a rape.
- Because the erotic industry somewhat glamorises women being raped. Rape is
always a brutal act, even if the rapist does not beat you, but there are
rapists doing nasty brutal things to women, something worse than anything depicted in this or any other movie.
3/ The movie is a successful reflection on the double-side of human nature and of the two faces of violence. The messages embedded
in the story are important and offer a glimpse of what is having a
normal life full of hopes and joy, to found it completely turned over
and ruined by violence in a matter of hours. Telling the story backwards makes the story not only more interesting and intellectually engaging (or is it puzzling?!), but also a very successful way of exploring this theme as we feel an instant repulsion and disgust towards the characters that appear at the beginning of the film, and towards their language and behaviour. Some of the ethical questions posed by Noé are: Even if there is a good reason for such acts, is violence justified? Who is more ethically an morally reprehensible, the nasty person who does a nasty thing, or the good person who does a nasty thing? Does nastiness and violence have class or gender? Noé's message is that violence is always repulsive no matter the reasons (or lack of them) behind and that normal
people can be as violent as violent people in certain circumstances. If we had seen the events narrated in chronological order, we would have, perhaps, justified them.
The atmosphere of the movie is excellent, as well as its hues and music. The use of strobist images is sickening, but it helps to unsettle the viewer since the beginning. However, there wasn't any need to use so many strobist images and for so long as, by doing so, the movie becomes a little bit hallucinogen and the viewer loses focus; to be honest, I would used strobist images quite differently and with a different timing.
I found Monica Belluci great as Alex both in the sweet and playful scenes, and it the harsh ones; she demonstrates here that she is not just a pretty face. Jo Prestia is superb as the disturbing disgusting rapist Le Tenia. Vincent Cassel is just OK as Alex's boyfriend Marcus, while Albert Dupontel is good as Alex's best friend Pierre.
Among the downsides, beyond the overuse of strobist effects, I would mention two. The first is the opening scene, which is irrelevant and does not add anything to the story. Moreover, All the gay thing was really unnecessary as does not add anything to the story and is very negative bordering homophobic. There are heterosexuals who would have similar sort of clubs and behaviour.
This is not an easy film to watch, and it really gets you upset. In that regard, it achieves what aimed, as it makes you think and react against the motto of "an eye for an eye", violence confronted by violence, and reminds you that rape is a brutal act of violence, not just an act of sexual abuse.
If you can stand the whole ordeal and reach the last minutes of the movie, you will get to the start of a relaxing bright day that was full of promises, which is how most of our days start before something bad happens. That is life in its full splendour and nastiness.
