“The Man Who Was Not There ”:
the Importance of Being Able to Read Reality Correctly
The man who wasn’t there, the movie directed by Ethan and Joel Coen
which were awarded the Best Directors at Cannes 2001, and featuring a wonderful Billy Bob Thornton, is quite probably a witty metaphor of myopia (1) or of human mediocrity, or of both.
The film narrates the useless and harmful life of an ordinary man in his forties, the assistant-barber Ed Crane: “a man who wasn’t there”, in the sense that nobody ever noticed his presence. The peculiar nuance of the black and white used in the film (photography by Roger Deakins) decidedly veering to grey, highlights the very greyness of its protagonist. Ed Crane hardly ever speaks, he cuts the clients’ hair and when he doesn’t, he pensively stares at nothing in particular with a frown, framed by a perennial cloud of smoke: he looks like one of those intellectuals who bear on their shoulders the weight of the whole world, but he is just a “prick”.
Ed Crane lives in 1949 Santa Rosa, a small town North-East of San Francisco, as said by his offstage voice that sounds like the virtual ventriloquist of a dumb: he cuts hair from morning until night, he sometimes utters something like a grunt to signal his presence to Frank, his boss and brother in law, who suffers from acute and chronic logorrhoea. His life is plain and boring, and
Santa Rosa is the
barycentre of the whole world which seems to have only two inhabited offshoots:
Sacramento, from whence the best in the world
which is even another planet. San Francisco
The protagonist of this wonderful movie (2) by the Coen brothers has a wife, Doris (the excellent Frances McDormand, Oscar prize winner for Fargo, as well as Ethan Coen’s own wife), who loves alcohol very much, has an affair with her boss, Big Dave Brewster (James Gandolfini), and dreams of becoming the manager of a lingerie shop.
The protagonist’s life seems by now normalized along a well-defined and inescapable path, when he receives the visit of Uranus (who else?) and his life changes dramatically: an improbable businessman, a “pansy”, a gay (this term is purposefully discriminatory as to indicate the prejudices proliferating in that particular context in that particular time), who starts talking about some great investments in dry cleaning, a goldmine to be discovered, a train that shouldn’t be missed and that can turn anyone into a very rich man with a investment of only 10.000 dollars. Ed Crane believes he has sniffed out the business of his life and, in order to get the necessary money for the investment, he blackmails his friend Big Dave, warning him that his affair with Mrs Crane has been discovered and that if he doesn’t pay 10.000 dollars immediately, it will be publicly exposed. After this, the story becomes dramatic and grotesque at the same time: Ed Crane’s plan is revealed by his wife’s lover, who gets killed. His wife is accused of the murder and hangs herself in prison. Much later, Ed will be accused of the murder of the “pansy” who, on the contrary, has been killed by Ed’s victim. After having spent all his money for the legal expenses of a weird lawyer by
, and after having fallen in love
with a Lolita pianist, Ed will “fry” on the electric chair although – in his
last days – he will think he has become someone and will write his story for a
men’s only magazine, 5 cents a word. Sacramento
After having watched the film many times, I have read many on line reviews, also by very good film critics. I must say they convinced me very little on the supposed theme of the film: according to most critics the theme is destiny, because the Uranus-effect leaves astonished anyone who is not familiar with ephemeris. On the contrary, for those of us who have ephemeris impressed on our minds, it is obvious that Uranus may produce incredible coups de théâtre, with or without mournings and/or murders: even changing one’s job or desperately falling in love with a young woman can equally be a striking reflection of the Lord of Aquarius in the life of every human being. No,
I personally believe that, in the directors’ intention, the film’s tragic epilogue was not its topic, but only a story within the story to show, as if it were necessary, how much we can be mistaken when we observe (or when we think we observe) reality.
As I was saying, I think on the contrary that the film’s topics are myopia and human ordinariness, and I will try to prove it to you by claiming that, in this movie, nobody is saved: all the characters look without seeing, or are completely mistaken. If the authors were two demagogues they would have probably saved at least the female protagonist, in order to please an intellectual trend which requires that women are always victims of male brutality. No, no character is saved here. One might wonder whether Ethan and Joel Coen’s is only irony, a fierce irony, or a terrible condemnation, without reserves, of the entire human race.
I don’t think there can be any doubt about the “prick” which is Ed Crane. He is always pictured as a thinking man, a thoughtful philosopher constantly absorbed in thousands of existential theories, while he is a stupid who thinks he sees, he only takes big oversights. He only gets philosophical when he thinks of hair: “Frank, I am thinking of hair: it grows and grows, and keeps on growing. They are a part of ourselves and yet we cut it and throw it away in the garbage.”[…] “Hair, so I’ve heard, keeps on growing for a little while after death …”.
But the philosophy of the assistant-barber stops here.
Ed Crane thinks he can make a millionaire business with dry cleaning.
Ed Crane thinks he is able to blackmail people.
Ed Crane thinks he is able to kill.
Ed Crane thinks he can clear his wife of blame by accusing himself of murder.
Ed Crane thinks he has discovered the musical talent of a local girl.
Ed Crane does not get the general picture, “but now all the knots have untangled” and, shortly before being electrocuted, he writes the story of his life five cents a word for a men’s only magazine (this is Coen’s thrust to writers).
As regards Birdy, the Lolita who plays the piano. Ed is so struck when the girl plays Beethoven that he has no doubts: “The girl was talented, that was as clear as the sky… She is an angel … she is a simple, special girl….” He insists to get her interviewed by a famous
music teacher, prefiguring international
tours in which he will be the girl’s manager. Master Carcanov listens to the
girls and finally gives his opinion: “She is a very nice girl who plays the
piano like a very nice girl: she strums. She reads b flat and then plays b flat. But there’s no passion. Tic,
tac, tic, tac… Yes, she will be a good typist!”. On the way back home, in his
car Ed calls the maestro “a fool”, claiming that other more important musicians
will appreciate Birdy’s worth. However, she confesses to him that she does not
care at all about music; she wants to be a vet and she wishes to show him her
gratefulness. She tells him he is a passionate man (sic!) and she dives between
his legs while he is driving for a fellatio but, instead, she provokes an
incident. San Francisco
We have talked about his wife: all about alcohol and fantasies of power expressed though the desire of becoming the improbable head clerk of a lingerie shop. She had accepted her husband-to-be’s proposal going to the cinema with him with a flask of whisky, only because Ed did not talk much. She was (probably) entertained by listening to her lover’s stories about the massacres of “yellow faces” during the Pacific war (but, as it will turn out, all through the war he had hidden in an office in
). San Diego
As I have already stated, the woman will hang herself in prison the day before her trial, possibly due to withdrawal symptoms from alcohol.
There would be much to say about Ed’s brother in law and on his wife’s lover but, after all, they are minor characters in the story.
However, in my opinion Freddy Riedenschneider (Tony Shaloub) deserves special attention. He is the famous
lawyer who is in charge of the defence
of the barber’s wife first and then of the barber himself. Quite probably the Coen
brothers have belaboured him with excessive strength. It is true that in the
States lawyers are generally much hated. But in this case they are even
crucified. Freddy Riedenschneider is a “caricature”: his fees are crazy, he
stays in the Turandot suite of the Metropolitan, he gorges
himself on huge dishes of spaghetti at Da Vinci, he employs private eyes
and, above all, he gets ready for the “big show” when, rather than presenting a
line of defence based on facts, he will try and tell tall tales, hypnotizing
the jury and even convincing it of the impossibility to judge and, therefore,
putting in the minds of the members of the jury the reasonable doubt that will acquit the accused. Sacramento
His entire “castle” of defence will be based on an “odd theory” read somewhere: “the principle of indeterminacy of a German guy according to whom it is possible to watch reality without – involuntarily – altering it, precisely because we have observed it” (3). He is certain of the fact that, when the jury will listen to this scientific principle, it will be persuaded that it is not possible to judge the accused (the wife first and then her husband) and will thus be able to instil in them the “reasonable doubt”.
I would say then that, on this occasion, the Coen brothers have even overdone, depicting an improbable and ridiculous character.
During the first trial Freddy Riedenschneider will claim that it had been the most disappointing professional experience of his life (because he could not make his harangue). In the second trial he will obtain the cancellation of the trial but, in the meantime, Ed Crane gets broke and will have to fire the famous lawyer who in the meanwhile has already packed and left his Turandot suite.
I believe the film could as well have been titled A man of consequence or To get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Ed Crane had been sitting on the bench of the accused, but all the characters in the movie, as well as ourselves, have been sitting on the same bench, in the vision of the Coens. With what accusation? Indolence, myopia, stupidity and, above all, mediocrity!
The man who wasn’t there is undoubtedly a beautiful movie, a movie that any cinephile will place in the highest ranks of his own chart of the 100 movies of all times and places.
I have presented you with my own view of the film, a vision that – for what I have written so far – could be completely misrepresented, as well as Ethan and Joel
Coen’s vision, but they already know it and they warned us precisely through this extraordinary movie.
(1) In this light we can also highlight a note of the Authors: the wife of one of the characters (Big Dave) convincingly claims that the aliens have killed her husband and that she herself has seen them coming out of a flying saucer.
(2) To give you an example of the irony and the brilliant execution of this movie by the Coen brothers (the director is Joel) I wish to bring to your attention a particular scene in which Ed sits besides his drunk wife and his off-stage voice tells about the first time they met: the phone rings, Ed goes to his appointment, he kills his wife’s lover, goes back to his seat beside her and the voice resumes the story where it has been left.
(3) In my opinion this, as well, could be another distich or caption illustrating the main topic of the film: the incapacity of human beings to look at reality. As you might guess, the topic is astrological analysis.
Caro Ciro, sono nata a Palermo il 30/01/1987 alle 7:45, mi consigli di trascorrere il prossimo compleanno (2013) a Palermo? Mi farebbe piacere anche avere un piccolo aiutino al fine di capire la dominante del mio tema natale, io ho avuto un po' di difficoltà a individuarla; ci sono, tra le altre cose, vari pianeti vicini all'ascendente. Ho notato poi che venere e saturno hanno posizioni simili nel mio tema natale, come potrei interpretare la cosa? Nei suoi libri ho letto che questo non vuol dire che gli effetti dei due pianeti si annullino a vicenda Grazie e complimenti :)
Ti consiglio Cape Town, South Africa, abbastanza buona e con un promettente Urano in Casa X che potrebbe segnare un cambiamento di rilievo nella tua situazione sociale/professionale. Molti auguri.
sono affascinata dai suoi studi sulle rivoluzioni solari. Capisco poco però il sistema dell'indice di pericolosità dell'anno. Ad esempio, un indice 20/20 è pessimo,mediocre,discreto. Potrebbe spiegarmi meglio? La ringrazio molto.
Dal mio libro "Transiti e Rivoluzioni Solari", Armenia editore, Milano, Biblioteca di Astrologia, nell'edizione francese:
Qu’est l’Indice de dangerosité de l’année et comment le lit-on ? Disons tout de suite que cela n’est pas indispensable dans la lecture conjointe des transits et des Révolutions solaires pour définir combien une année peut être dangereuse pour une personne. Ce n’est pas indispensable, mais utile. Luigi Miele et moi-même avons mis au point un programme (Scanner), qui fait partie du groupe des programmes Astral, pour aider les chercheurs qui voudraient être confortés, dans le travail d’analyse que je propose dans ce livre et dans d’autres publications, par un facteur absolument objectif qui puisse être un point de référence sûr dans une évaluation qui se ressent d’éléments d’analyse subjectifs. En d’autres mots, nous avons mis à disposition de tous les chercheurs un nombre qui correspond à l’indice de dangerosité de l’année. Donc, je le répète, cela n’est pas indispensable mais cela complète les règles reportées dans ce texte pour favoriser un travail de déchiffrage des principaux événements de l’année. Ce chiffre tend à établir le degré de dangerosité de l’année et non sa valeur de positivité. Je tiens à souligner ce point pour faire remarquer que la valeur positive indiquée pour chaque année (dans les exemples qui suivent), immédiatement après celle négative, n’a qu’un but explicatif, de référence, et n’a pas la prétention de signifier quelque chose comme le score négatif qui, au contraire, avec un taux de vérifiabilité très élevé, a un sens. En d’autres termes, je veux dire que l’indice positif ne fonctionne pas (il serait trop long d’en expliquer les raisons, mais je peux affirmer que le but de ce livre, comme je l’ai déjà dit dans l’introduction, était et est toujours celui d’illustrer les éléments les plus dangereux et non les éléments positifs).
Cela étant dit, il faut ajouter que l’Indice de dangerosité de l’année, construit en englobant dans un algorithme toutes les règles exposées dans le premier chapitre, n’a pas la prétention d’être parole d’évangile mais se propose de représenter, avec une très grande précision, le paramètre d’avertissement quand une année est très dangereuse pour un sujet. Pour pouvoir le comprendre, il faut diviser ledit résultat en trois :
A) Entre 60 et 100 l’indice est très élevé et correspond, immanquablement, à des années dramatiques pour le sujet. Comme vous le verrez dans les exemples qui suivent, cela ne fait aucun doute et les personnes en possession dudit logiciel peuvent, sans trop y réfléchir, si elles le trouvent dans le thème des sujets étudiés, l’utiliser comme un compteur Geiger qui donne l’alarme dès que le chiffre est trop élevé. Dans la série d’exemples qui suivent vous pourrez lire et évaluer des faits dramatiques de tout type, faits qui ne devraient pas laisser le moindre doute sur la lecture des événements proposés dans ce livre selon ma méthode. Parmi ceux-là nous remarquons l’arrestation de Benito Mussolini (84), l’accusation de pédophilie de Woody Allen (74), la très mauvaise coupe du monde de Diego Armando Maradona (84), l’arrestation de Indira Gandhi (62), l’infarctus de Gianni Agnelli (70). Excusez du peu.
B) Entre 40 et 60 le résultat reste de toute façon élevé et reflète des années tout autant difficiles même si c’est à un octave plus bas. Par exemple la fracture de la jambe de Gianni Agnelli (50), l’attentat à Ronald Reagan (42), le deuil de Vittorio Emanuele (52), l’opération au cœur de Gianni Agnelli (52), l’arrestation de Vittorio Emanuele de Savoie (42).
C) Entre 20 et 40 il faut faire attention. L’indice de dangerosité de l’année signale quand même des faits importants et graves, mais à une seule condition et donc nous distinguons deux situations différentes. Si, à l’intérieur de ce résultat, les transits sont graves et la Révolution solaire ne présente pas d’éléments de danger (en fonction de tout ce qui a été dit dans ce livre), alors nous pouvons être sûrs à cent pour cent que le sujet ne vivra rien de dramatique. Au contraire, si les transits sont insignifiants ou peu “mauvais”, alors que la Révolution solaire présente ne serait-ce qu’un seul élément préoccupant (par exemple un Ascendant de Révolution en Maison I, VI ou XII radicale), alors la situation est de toute façon dangereuse. Pour preuve les exemples relatifs à l’enlèvement d’Aldo Moro (32), au divorce de Caroline de Monaco (36), à l’arrestation de Mario Moretti.
A tout cela je voudrais ajouter que si l’indice de dangerosité de l’année est compris dans les intervalles ci-dessus, il n’est pas dit que dans le courant de l’année anniversaire/anniversaire on vive obligatoirement un événement dramatique, mais il est sûr, j’ose dire à cent pour cent, que si un événement dramatique a lieu, nous trouvons certainement un indice de dangerosité élevé. Ici comme ailleurs, en astrologie nous ne sommes pas en mesure d’expliquer à cent pour cent le fonctionnement de cette “étrange machine”, mais avec les règles exposées dans le présent volume, il me semble que j’ai réussi à fournir des indicateurs plutôt dignes de foi des faits importants d’une année. Mon travail ainsi que celui de mes élèves ou de mes lecteurs durant plusieurs années m’a conforté dans cette idée et j’espère recevoir toujours de nouvelles confirmations. Ma plus grande ambition, comme je l’ai déclaré à plusieurs reprises, n’est pas celle de réussir à fournir des clés absolues de lecture de l’astrologie, mais d’établir les règles principales d’une lecture technique, en mesure d’orienter de manière suffisamment exhaustive le travail des astrologues.
Perla di Firenze
Le ripeto per comodità i dati
nata a bologna 8 giugno 1954 alle ore 2 25 am
passando il mouse sul grafico si legge il nome della località e la regione in cui essa si trova. Ora, dato che hai difficoltà, ti aggiungo anche l'output completo di Aladino dove puoi leggere due dei nomi internazionali della città, il codice OAG dell'aeroporto, il codice Icao dell'aeroporto, la nazione, la latitudine e la longitudine geografiche di tale luogo: usa questi dati in input e avrai un grafico identico al mio. Di nuovo molti auguri.
Penso di fare la mia prenotazione della camera domani mattina.Un abbraccio a tutti.
molto bene. Dovremmo essere già a 6 stanze prenotate per due notti. Ti rivedremo con piacere.
Per Tutti. Non è una notizia importante, ma vi invito a leggerla perché potrà spiegare, a qualcuno, il perché di un certo rumore di fondo che disturba, da qualche anno, l’Astrologia:
For Everybody. It is not an important news, but I invite you to read it because it can explain, to someone, the why of a certain noise leading that disturbs, from a few years, the astrology:
Buona Giornata a Tutti.
STATE MOLTO ATTENTI A DARE I VOSTRI RISPARMI ALLE POSTE ITALIANE SE NON VOLETE PERDERLI:
Notizie di servizio
Per postare una domanda o un commento, visualizzare la pagina con il blog di quel giorno e portarsi sotto a tutta la pagina. Quindi entrare nella scritta “Posta un Commento” oppure “Tot Commenti” e lasciare il pallino nero su Anonimo. Quindi scrivere il messaggio e, dopo averlo firmato con il proprio nome e cognome o con un nickname, spedirlo. Occorre sempre che aggiungiate luogo, giorno, mese, ora e anno di nascita. Solitamente rispondo nel blog del giorno dopo.
To post a Query or a Comment
To post a question or a comment, visualize the page with the blog of that day and go under to the whole page. Then enter the writing “Sets a Comment” or “Tot Commenti” and leave the black little ball on Anonymous. Then write the message and, after having signed it with your own name and last name or with a nickname, send this message. It always needs that you add place, day, month, time and year of birth. I answer usually in the blog of the day after.
Per vedere bene i grafici zodiacali e le foto, occorre cliccarci sopra: si ingrandiranno.
To see well a graph, click on it and it will enlarge itself.
Passando il puntatore del mouse su di un grafico, leggerete, in basso a destra dello schermo, il nome della località consigliata. Se ciò non dovesse avvenire, vi consiglio di usare come browser Chrome di Google che è gratuito e, a mio avviso, il migliore.
Where it will be my birthday?
Passing the mouse pointer on a graph, you will read, in low to the right of the screen, the name of the recommended place. If this didn't have to happen, I recommend you to use as browser Chrome of Google that is free and, in my opinion, the best.
A che ora sarà il mio compleanno? (At what time I will have my Solar Return?):
Qual è l’Indice di Pericolosità del Mio Anno?
CALCULATE, FREE, YOUR INDEX OF RISK FOR THE YEAR (as explained in the book Transits and Solar Returns, Ricerca ’90 Publisher, pages 397-399):
CALCULATE, FREE, YOUR INDEX OF RISK FOR THE YEAR (as explained in the book Transits and Solar Returns, Ricerca ’90 Publisher, pages 397-399):
Quanto Vale il Mio Rapporto di Coppia?
Test Your Couple Compatibility: