Thank you for polluting!

Those of you who have seen the movie Thank you for smoking (Wikipedia link) may remember a few good lines from the gifted spin doctor, Nick Naylor.

But Nick Naylor is an amateur. Read the newspaper to learn the art of spin from pros! In today's IHT article "Flooded village files suit, citing corporate link to climate change":

But Svec said, "Rather than unreasonably suing companies for the weather, we would encourage everyone to join Peabody in supporting aggressive development of carbon capture and storage projects and other technologies that help us provide both energy security and carbon solutions."

Of the accusation that Exxon Mobil participated in a disinformation campaign, Walton said, "The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory only diverts attention from the real challenge at hand — how to provide the energy to improve living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

I guess every company has the right to a good defense, like anyone, but they certainly show they pay well...

Jerusalem in the snow!

A quotation

From which movie is the following quotation?

First, trust no one, whatever his uniform or rank, unless he is known to you personally. Second, anyone or anything that approaches within 200 yards of the perimeter is to be fired upon. Third, if in doubt, shoot first, and ask questions afterwards. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accident than lose the entire base and its personnel through carelessness. Any variation on these rules must come from me personally.

Answer below...





Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb... Link. Quotes. Transcript.

The Last of the Just

André Schwarz-Bart's book, Le dernier des Justes (The Last of the Just, אחרון הצדיקים), received the most famous literary prize in France, the Goncourt (1959).

I have a particular relationship to this book. Because of a similarity in the name, people asked me over and over "are you in the writer's family?" What is this famous book all about for so many people to try to relate me to its author, I always wondered. But the book was not one of the four thousand-odd books in the shelves at home.

Laclos, Sade and even Alain Peyrefitte ("Quand la Chine s'éveillera") were allowed somewhere into the library, however hidden, but not André Schwarz-Bart's The Last of the Just.

It is finally in my aunt's library that I found it, in it's original 1959 edition. Along with an Israeli 1967 propaganda booklet, Mao's "Little Red Book" and a few other oddities, I saved it for later reading. When I moved to Israel, this off-white and orange hardcover was among the few books I took along.

And on a lonely evening here in Jerusalem, I start reading, finally, at the age of 27, Le dernier des Justes.

Is the style pompous or old-fashioned? Is the author cynical or whining when he tells the remarkable death of Yom-Tov Levy during the York massacre and the fate of the rabbi's descendants? I couldn't tell. I got confronted to a text I didn't know how to read. And quickly I gave up. Anyway, we know the last of the Just will die in Auschwitz, so why go on reading this lament?

But in 1959 less had been written on the subject than today. And Schwarz-Bart got the Goncourt for this book. So there must be something to this book. I dived back into it. And slowly I understood the irony, the weight of his own experience that the author conveyed in the book. Through the stages of the story - the legend of the lamed-wav, the early 20th century in Zemyock, Poland, the 30's in Germany, the war in France and the last journey to Auschwitz - the tone and writing styles constantly change, unsettling the reader. The only constant is irony. It all starts as a legendary tale. Later, realism is invited into the account of Ernie Levy's childhood under the persecutions in Stillenstadt, Germany, which sends shivers up the spine. Ernie tries to understand. He has been told the tale of the lamed-wav Just. With innocence he tries to sacrifice himself. He attempts on his life. When Ernie wanders through France during the war, his family long lost, he has given up his human dignity, he has decided he had better be a dog. Did he have anything left that the Nazis could take from him? He falls in love and they take his beloved. Ernie is a ghost, more than ever. He volunteers to to join his beloved, Golda, in Drancy and from there to Auschwitz. They die together. "And so it was of millions, who passed from the state of Luftmensch to that of Luft.", writes the author, in one of the last sentences of the book.

"Thus, this story will not end on any grave to visit in memory. Because the smoke which exits the cremators obeys like any other the laws of physics: particles gather and disperse with the wind, which lifts them. The only pilgrimage would be, respectable reader, to look sometimes at a stormy sky with melancholy."

"Ainsi donc, cette histoire ne s’achèvera pas sur quelque tombe à visiter en souvenir. Car la fumée qui sort des crématoires obéit tout comme une autre aux lois physiques : les particules s’assemblent et se dispersent au vent, qui les pousse. Le seul pèlerinage serait, estimable lecteur, de regarder parfois un ciel d’orage avec mélancolie."

The sky is indeed very gray today on Jerusalem.

Jerusalem in the fog

In the background, the walls of the Old City.

אז... מה?

רחוב רחל אימנו
Rachel Imenu Street, Katamon, near my place

ניות, פינת טשרניחובסקי והרצוג, קרוב למנזר המצלבה
Nayot, corner of Tchernichovsky and Herzog, on my way to and from work, near the Monastery of the Cross

אצטדיון טדי קולק, מלחה
Teddy Kollek Stadium, Malha - I like how both sides of the signboard were tagged...

Lifta, with which "eye"?

I spoke about Lifta in a previous post but I realize I didn't post any of the pictures I took myself...

I had with me two cameras, a digital one (Canon G9) and a film one (Leica M6). It is therefore a good occasion to compare the quality, usability and philosophy of both cameras. Should I start with the pictures or the discussion?

I actually have only three pictures from the Leica for a reason I'll explain later. Three views of the same house:




This last picture can be compared with a very similar one taken with the G9:


But the G9 let me bring you many more pictures, showing more versatility:

The setting, the colors

Early in the morning.
Through the window of an other house.
Looking up the hill, we see already the city and its new developments.

Details...
Detail of a window.
What's left of the tiling at a doorstep.

Interiors


Graffiti
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"
"We want the Messiah now"
Suggestive?
Same room, opposite wall.
Please help me with the Russian...

Why do I have only three pictures from the M6? Because I lost the first film. Truth is also that I took much fewer with the Leica than with the G9.

What is the conclusion? The Leica is heavier, has fixed-focus lenses and is less convenient to use in general. The G9 is very versatile with its zoom, its sensibility, the preview and the adjustable white balance (including b&w of course). On the other hand, I always think about twenty years from now: who knows where the digital pictures will be, even prints get lost not to mention the digital files, but negatives stay. Also taking less pictures means each one is "worth" more: twenty years from now, who will need dozens of pictures of Lifta? The three b&w negatives of "A house in Lifta, 2007" will be something more special than that!

For me that's the main characteristic of the film camera today: each picture is more of a deliberate decision to set down on permanent media something which is worth it. The price is the use of a less convenient equipment.

With a digital camera, one has a tendency to shoot many more pictures, taking into account that they're free and that some of them will turn out to be good and interesting. There is no need to go through the lab to have the pictures developed and one can share them immediately online. But something is missing of the magic: pictures are not "worth" as much, I feel; the photographer "invested" less in each one.

So for important subjects, in circumstances when time can be allowed to "invest" in each picture, I would definitely vote for film camera, optionally with a digital one by the side to experiment!

Speaking of "investment", I like to visit a place and think about it before I go in with the Leica, so that I know beforehand what I want to capture.

Lately I have photographed a lot of architecture and urban landscapes. Maybe I should think of something new now, it's getting boring...

P.S.: I highly recommend the B&W film I used in the camera. It is the same I used in Cambodia which I came to like a lot. It's Kodak BW400CN, marketed here under the name Profoto 400BW. As a C-41 B&W film, it is developed like any color film in cheap labs but comes out in B&W. It is very smooth, and tolerant to under- and over-exposure. Enjoy!