SUITE FRANÇAISE

The New York Times calls it a tour de force!
by Charlie Leck

Suite Français is a very good book and certainly worth reading, especially if you are (1) a history buff who is interested in the Second World War occupation of Paris and France, or (2) one who is interested in serious literature. This novel is more an event than a literary achievement. The work was sprung unexpectedly upon the literary community nearly 70 years after its author’s death. Irène Némirovsky was known to serious readers of literature for her novels from the 30s and 40s: David Golder; The Ball, The Flies of Autumn; Dogs and Wolves; and The Courilof Affair. I read the last two of those mentioned here and they were terribly good and riveting stories beautifully written. Little did anyone know that one of Némirovsky’s daughters was carrying around, in a suitcase, two more complete novels that her mother gave her in 1942.

The discovery of these two works is a huge story and one you might enjoy pursuing.For now, though, let me tell you that Suite Français is not a great novel. It is a very good book. The Nation Magazine compared it in importance to The Diary of Anne Frank and The First Man by Albert Camus. Non! The Sunday Times of London called it “a masterwork of literary accomplishment.” Mais non! Perhaps Newsweek Magazine came closest to getting it right: “The author of Suite Français is one of the most fascinating literary figures you’ve never heard of – and her own tragic story only deepens the impact of the book.” The book does have impact even though it gets tedious from time to time. Némirovsky does make one feel the pain, shame and fear of the people of France who had to live through the Nazi occupation of their country.

One friend of mine who is an awfully good reader pointed out that there are not a lot of really likeable characters in the book. Mais oui! Only Madame Lucile Angellier manages to work her way into the reader’s heart because of the extraordinary power of self control she possesses and her passion for her nation and its people. Némirovsky handles beautifully the gallant and proud love that Lucile discovers for the German officer who oversees the occupation of her small village. It’s a touching development even if it comes very late in the story.

Overall, the translation appears to be excellent; though Sandra Smith does make a couple of grammatical mistakes that are getting more and more common in American English. Both had to do with the use of the personal pronoun – “us” rather than “we” and “me” rather than “I.” I hear it all the time these days and even came upon the error in Richard Russo’s latest novel. Has it become acceptable to speak and now write that way? “He knows how to do it better than us.” The sound of the word grates on my mind and I want to scream at folks who misuse it: “He knows how to do it better than we.” It is a form of “we do” and not “us do.” Get it? 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10! Okay, I can handle it from some poor slob of a sports commentator on the air; but I can’t take it in a Némirovsky or a Russo novel. Come on!

I had the nagging feeling as I read through the novel that Némirovsky was not finished with this work. I believe she was going to return to it, to proof and edit it. The handwritten manuscript, which was turned over to the translator, had a large amount of margin notes and many strike-outs and insertion notes. If you want to feel the agony of the French at the opening of the Second Great War, go to your library and check out Suite Français. Patience will be required of you as you work your way through this story. Frankly, I don’t recommend you pay for it until you can find it on sale at your dollar bookshop. It’s already available from ABE Books (American Book Exchange) for $4. It’ll go down further pretty soon. [If I haven’t told you before about this wonderful way to buy books, I’m telling you now that it is just great!]

One final comment about the reviews. Oprah Magazine claimed that “Némirovsky’s scope is like that of Tolstoy.” The magazine then calls it a “lost masterpiece.” I think all these reviewers were caught up in the story about the survival of these manuscripts and about the way the daughter handled these works over the last 65 years. Indeed, it’s a great story and, perhaps, finer indeed than the book itself.

If you’d like to read a level-headed review of the book, go to this one in Britain’s Guardian. It says that the book “demands to be read” and that may well be true. The review also summarizes the entire story of how the book was saved from destruction and you’ll find that account fascinating.

THE ART OF THE DOCUMENTARY

They were called short-subjects when I was a kid!
by Charlie Leck

"War is mainly a catalogue of blunders." [Winston Churchill]

The magnificent documentaries that are rolling out these days are getting more attention from me than the traditional movies. We are in a period that has produced some truly fabulous documentary film makers. From Charles Berling's extraordinary March of the Penguins to the complete list of the documentaries of Ken Burns, this is really a great film making era.

Ken Burns has produced a dozen really good documentaries. Among that number are several that rate rave reviews; and none more so than his latest fantastic production, The War. The New Yorker Magazine gave it a less than 5-star review. I think they're just dead wrong. They say it's tedious. Dam right it's tedious! For those young men and women who fought in it, the whole freakin' war was tedious. Burns lets you taste the war as if you were there among the guys at the front or at home with the people spread across the nation, worrying about conquest by Germany and Japan and worrying about their sons in harm's way. The New York Times complains that it was looked at from too small a perspective – that of only one nation of the dozens that were deeply involved in this global fight. However, that was the point for Burns. He wanted people to see the war the way Americans saw it – Americans at home and Americans on the front. Our resources were stretched to the breaking point, spread completely over the Pacific Ocean and over most of the Atlantic. Our fighters were on little Pacific islands and across vast parts of Africa and Europe. No nation had the global involvement that we did.

If there's a thesis behind the film, it is that war is a vast catalogue of incredible disasters and tragic mistakes by its commanders. You've been to the glorious landing place at Normandy and you've seen plenty of the naval battle at Midway. Burns takes you to other places and allows you to understand that thousands and thousands of our soldiers and sailors died in locations that were as difficult and horrendous as the more prominent and famous settings.

This is 15 hours of war! That's too much for any one sitting, of course. Taken in bites, it is both a compelling story and a valuable history lesson. I'll agree that this documentary does not rank with the other triumphs of Ken Burns: The Civil War; Baseball; and Jazz. It's only a half-star back, however, and it is great viewing for history buffs, especially those devoted to American History. If you don't know the works of Ken Burns, you're missing something very special.

The most extraordinary documentary of the year has to be No End in Sight. I've referred you before to the New York Times review of this block-buster. The review prepares us for a film that will not be easy to watch. "It's a sober, revelatory and absolutely vital film." If you've not seen the work, you are in the company of the current occupant of the White House and his Vice President, his former Secretary of Defense and his Secretary of State. Too bad! They are the ones who should see it and understand it. Go to the official web site of the documentary and peek at a few of the trailers. It will draw you to the movie itself, which is now out on DVD.

The other big time documentary this year came from the biggest name in this genre of film making, Michael Moore. His offering in 2007 is everything you could ask for in a documentary. Sicko has the medical community sitting up and taking notice. Its arguments are irrefutable in nearly each case. A number of significant leaders in the "medical industry" are now calling a National Health Care System inevitable. Read the Mayo Clinic recommendation on a system of health insurance that would leave no one out. The conversation motivated by Sicko will go on now for some time. If the manner in which America delivers health care and the manner in which people can afford it improves, it will be the most triumphal documentary of all times. The DVD is now on public sale.

Here's my bet (and at pretty good odds): President Bush has seen none of the documentaries mentioned above. We know he doesn't like to read, but couldn't he just sit in front of a movie screen for a little while.

When I was a kid these kinds of films were called "Short Subjects" and I pretty much thought they were borrrrr-ing! They only delayed the Gene Autry movie for which I had really come. The art of the documentary has certainly changed from those days.

John Edwards Iowa Speech

Nancy Pelosi introduces Edwards
by Charlie Leck

I'm still trying to figure out which of the three Democratic candidates to back. The speech by Jon Edwards at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Iowa was a great speech and keeps him in the running with Hillary and Barack. This man seems very real to me.

I think you should be sure to listen to this terrific speech. Go to this page and scroll down a little ways to get to the U-Tube video. Take 20 minutes and listen from beginning to end.

MEETING A REALLY BIG CELEBRITY

This is huge, breaking news!
by Charlie Leck (Toronto, Ontario, Canada: 10 November 2007)

From lower New York State, a friend of more than fifty years wrote about Jesus. How does one describe him accurately – wresting him away from the sad possession of the Christian fundamentalists who have made him into something he is not?

Now I can say to her: Don’t bother! I met him yesterday and I know all about him now and I’ll describe him to you.

I was in Toronto, staying at the lovely, old York Hotel (now part of the Fairmont chain of international hotels). The blimeys wanted $14 per day for a hookup to the Internet. Well, blast them. That’s un-American! My trusty laptop and I took ourselves just around the corner to one of the Tim Horton express coffee shops. They provide free wireless connections. I found myself a nice comfortable spot, right up in the front of the shop, where I could look out at York Street and I turned on my computer and got connected to the miraculous wireless service. What a world!

Just then, I saw him. There he was, directly across from me – not twenty feet away. He sat on a little plastic box that he had wedged in between a couple of newspaper vending machines, giving himself some protection from the wind. He was pretty haggard looking and his clothes were extremely untidy. The soles of his heavy shoes were worn very thin. He had several days of stubble on his face.

It was Jesus all right. Those were his eyes. They were dark and set deep in his face. They sparkled with a remarkable radiance and they were filled with love and compassion. It was Jesus. There was no question about that.

Jesus sat there with his feet crossed. On his lap he held a large, old paper coffee cup. As each person walked by on the street he greeted them kindly, with a proper hello or a wish for a good day. Occasionally, some person, who had also clearly recognized who this remarkable man was, would slip a coin into his paper cup. Jesus would thank them kindly.

It seemed to me that Jesus was settled in for the long haul. I went about reading my email and sending back replies. I then took a quick peek at the New York Times and ran my eyes along the headlines. Suddenly I saw that Jesus was moving away. I panicked. I hadn’t had a chance to greet him, to touch him, nor to ask him for his autograph. I pushed back from my workspace so quickly and loudly that I startled some of the folks taking coffee behind me. I rushed to the door and out to the street. Jesus was down the block, looking into the small hole in the center of a manhole cover. Steam was rising from it.

”Hey, you,” I called to him. I got closer to him and had to repeat myself loudly. He was in the street and in danger of being struck by the Friday morning traffic. He looked away from the manhole cover and locked on to my eyes. He looked so filled with joy and peace. He made me feel so quieted and untroubled. I had a two dollar Canadian coin in my hand and I held it out, luring him out of the street. When he stepped on to the curb, I reached out and slipped it into his cup.

”Thank you,” he said so very softly. “I thought there was a fire. The smoke was rising from beneath the street and I smelled something burning. I was sure it was a fire and it frightened me. I thought perhaps the earth was on fire.”

Jesus tilted his head to one side and looked at me, wondering why I was so generous and had chased him down the street. Didn’t I realize that he could not have been harmed? I wanted to ask for his autograph, but the bit about the earth being on fire unnerved me.

”I’m going back to my station,” he said. “Excuse me.”

Back inside the warm, cozy sandwich shop, I slid back in front of my computer and looked outside at the fellow. He was again between the newspaper boxes. His collar was turned up and he was observing the Friday rush, streaming by him with little or no concern about whom he was or his particular needs.

A Sunday School teacher had once warned me, long, long ago, that this day would come. I had encountered Jesus in the flesh.

”You will meet him,” Mrs. Beiser had said, “and he will be in the least and most unexpected of people. He will be cold and hungry and in need. Give generously to him.”

No reason to look for descriptions anymore. I can tell you. He was about 5-10. He was slim and slightly hunched. His skin looked permanently dirty. His hair was dark and oily. His teeth were rotting. His eyes were dark – dark brown or green and there were worrisome dark lines beneath them. Those eyes seemed glazed over. His body carried a rich, unpleasant odor and his hands trembled slightly. In spite of all that, he was so filled with love and peace and certainty. He radiated happiness and contentment.

So, that’s the breaking news from Toronto. Jesus is well and happy and living in the streets. He’s hiding from the evangelicals and fundamentalists.

The Whole World’s a Photography Studio

And all the people in it merely models!
by Charlie Leck

We're almost all photographers today! The digital camera has been a revolutionary household and family device. Digital cameras range from the extreme to the extremely simple. They take very good to spectacular photographs. Instead of worrying about how much film we have, we can shoot photos by the hundreds and hundreds and delete the bad ones as we go along. With modestly priced computer software programs we can enhance, correct and improve our photos with ease. If we are willing to use a little patience and time, we can archive our photographs to last for many generations to come.

So why are we still getting so many very awful digital photographs?

I have lots of dear friends and members of my family who want to be better digital photographers, but they don't want to take the time to go to classes and learn some of the principles. I feel the same way. I have too many other wonderful things to do; yet I want my photographs to be something about which I can be proud.

Enter Rick Sammon!

Rick Sammon is an extraordinary photographer. One can find hundreds and hundreds – thousands and thousands – of these guys (and gals) on the World Wide Web. Their photographs will dazzle you and leave you in envious rapture. I have visited more of these web sites than I care to admit. I've found none more comfortable than the home of Rick Sammon and, if you want to improve your work with a digital camera, I recommend it to you without reservation. But, without going to the site, I can summarize for you four of Rick's rules of photography that will immediately make you a better digital photographer. These tips will improve your work whether you are shooting with a mighty SLR or a simple, compact beauty! Here they are.

(1) FILL THE FRAME! One of the biggest mistakes many amateur photographers make is that they allow too much of the background – often uninteresting and boring – into the photograph. They stand miles away from the subject and present us with an image of Aunt Mable that takes up about one-fifth of the photo frame and she is surrounded by cars in the Walmart parking lot. Instead, move in and fill the frame with Aunt Mable if she is your subject. Did you mean to include that that 1999 Lexus with the rusted front fender and the sign instructing us to return our carts to that particular spot? Come-on! Of course you didn't. It would take only a second to jog forward and FILL THE FRAME with Aunt Margaret (with perhaps only a glimpse of the big W on the Walmart sign). Remember, always FILL THE FRAME.

(2) SHOOT TIGHT! If you want maximum sharpness in your photo, shoot it up as tight as you can. If you're downtown in New York City and you want to shoot a photograph of the Statue of Liberty, get up as tight as you can on her. You are not photographing the harbor, right? You're photographing the famous lady? Get the lady in your photograph and, perhaps, the benches in Battery Park. If you do mean to photograph her and the entire harbor, pay attention to tip #4.

These are not complicated rules we're talking about here, but we are always violating them. My wonderful wife is always shooting photographs of horses that she wants me to process. The photographs are always of the out-buildings on the farm, the loyal assistant who is holding the horse and the trash cans behind the barn. By the time I've cropped out all the surrounding unwanted filler, we have very little resolution left in the photograph. It isn't so difficult, SHOOT TIGHT. You want a photograph of your first grandchild. Get up close and get a photograph of her. I'm not interested in the stop sign behind her.

(3) SEE EYE TO EYE! This one is pretty crucial. I love to get photographs of my grandkids. Don't take them from your position as a 6 foot 8 inch uncle. That little kid is barely 2 feet tall. Somehow, make the effort to get down to her level. Let me see a photograph of my little sweet heart as she really looks. Forget the bird's eye views. And please, it's the same for photographs of pets. Don't shoot pictures of your pets from 5 feet above them. Make an effort to get eye to eye. This is one of the primary rules of photography and makes a world of difference.

(4) DEAD CENTER IS DEADLY! You bet, Rick. Thanks for the reminder. If you are going to include some background in your shot, don't always make your subject the dead-center object in the picture. The photograph will turn out much more interestingly if the subject is slightly off center or even off to the side in the total presentation. Remember though to get your focus set on the subject and then move the camera so that subject is off to the side.

Oh, what difference does it make? Well, if you're sending me photographs of the ones I love, none whatsoever. I still enjoy seeing their beautiful, smiling faces. If you want to give them a little more lasting jazz, take the above tips from Rick Sammon to heart.

All the ideas presented above are completely and unabashedly stolen from the fabulous photographer, Rick Sammon.

ILL ON ELECTION DAY

More than one disease is at work on me today!
by Charlie Leck

I've voted. It's always a good feeling. Talk about freedom and how our Republic is supposed to work! This is it, isn't it? Cast your vote or keep your mouth shut. I've always believed that one forfeits one's real right to complain and bitch if one fails to vote.

There were only a few of us waiting for the starting gates to open this morning. We stood around in the hallway of our City Center, bantering and joking with each other even though we were people with big differences of opinion on that particular morning. If a fellow is expressing his political difference of opinion through the ballot box, I'll give him my respect.

I'm baffled, however, by small town elections like this one we just went through in My Town. The campaign is limited to only a couple of communications tools. (1) The local, weekly newspaper runs profiles on the candidates and allows them a certain amount of space to express their opinions on various issues. They also accept letters from residents expressing their opinions about the candidates. (2) The candidates and some residents send out letters trying to convince voters to go one way or the other. It's this second tool that bothers me and I'll rant about it here in just a paragraph or two.

First, however, I'd like to lament the disappearance of the public candidate debate. That's something we used to do out here. The state's League of Women Voters used to help us set them up. They were willing to do that this year, too, but most of the candidates weren't interested. I'll keep urging My Town to reinstate these debates in future years.

I do not lament the passing away of the lawn sign. There were only a handful in use this year around the community and most of those were not really placed on the private lawns of residents, but they were put on highway right-of-way areas where they are technically illegal. The tool is used only to increase name recognition and, of course, they have nothing to do with positions on issues or the qualifications to serve.

The problem with the letters that candidates send out relates mainly to the fact that they arrive on the last few days of the campaign. Sometimes these letters are crammed with half-truths, out and out untruths and, sometimes, with vicious, intentional lies designed to frighten residents into voting against someone rather than for someone. One of our candidates engaged in such distasteful tactics this year and, I am deeply afraid, he may get many, many votes as a result of the tactic. Let me give you some examples.

The candidate in question here wrote about expenditures on a small community park as a cause of increased taxes on our residents. In fact, parks and playground expenditures are separately funded through park dedication fees collected when individual parcels of property are subdivided or developed. This candidate wrote that a million dollar expenditure was planned by My Town on this community park, insinuating that this would unfairly add tax requirements on all of us. First of all, as I just explained, such expenditures would come from park dedication fees that have already been collected. Secondly, in fact, no such expenditure is expected and no such expenditure has been recommended by the Parks Commission or any other Commission or Council in My Town.

When this misstatement, misinformation or lie arrives in a person's mailbox two days before the election, however, how is another candidate or another citizen to respond in time to rebut the claim?

This same candidate slung a slew of other such misinformation in his letter. He was following the standard belief that some of this mud would stick to the wall. He claimed that a million dollar addition was planned for the city center and he asserted that the city planned to hire 5 new employees. It is patently unfair that such falsehoods can't be answered properly before the election takes place.

After we cast our ballot this morning, a few of us chatted about whether or not a charge of unfair campaign practices could stand up against such a candidate. I suppose all he has to do is act dumb and contend that he had "heard" these things. In fact, candidates should be held more accountable for such errors. I think stronger state laws should demand a higher standard from candidates for office and offer criminal penalties for violations.

Sadly, I must now wait through the day to see if these vinegary campaign tactics worked. If they do, it will be a sad day for My Town and for its future. If this guy is elected, I will dedicate the next several years to following every action and every public statement he makes and reporting accurately on them to the entire community.

I visited with the staff in a medical emergency room yesterday. I was completely sapped. It turned out that I've got a touch of pneumonia and they put me on some pretty strong antibiotics and told me to put down lots of liquids and get rest. I'm ill this morning, but I'm not sure it's the pneumonia that's got me down.

NOTE [6 November 2007]: The local election results are in. The mayoral candidate we wanted elected managed to win by a good-sized margin over the fellow we write about above. That's fortunate; however, the City Councilperson we so very much wanted elected was not, losing in a three person race for two seats. The balance on the current council does not look good and I think it spells a major change for this community we have worked so hard to preserve. Our days of living in a rural community will be over in the next few years.

All Politics is Local

Burning the candle at both ends
by Charlie Leck

This coming Tuesday, many local communities around the nation will be holding elections. The polling places will be open and waiting for you. For goodness sake, I hope you will be voting. If you don't, I think you sacrifice the right to complain about virtually anything involving government. And, I will personally be very disappointed in you.

For it is at this local level, as the extraordinary Congressman from Massachusetts used to like to say, that all politics begins. And the great Tip O'Neil had it absolutely right!

That's why you'll only be getting these very brief blogs until after Tuesday. I was up the last few nights, burning the candle at both ends. I'm worn down and out. There is a real battle in our little town and many of us consider it one in which good guys are pitted against bad guys. The beauty and peacefulness of our gloriously rural community is at stake. We'll have to keep battling until the very last moment.

I'll vote very early on Tuesday morning and then rest up. If it's nice on Tuesday, I'll play a round of golf. After that, you'll start getting some much more significant blogs from me.

Be sure to vote!